A bullet made the front page of today's Inquirer, and I guess that's progress. At least the headline didn't say that the gun did it.

However, there's something unsettling about the tone of the headline -- which is "One stray bullet forever changed 2 lives." It's as if they're blaming the bullet -- and not just for the irreparable damage done to the shooting victim. The clear implication of the statement that it "forever changed two lives" is that the shooter was also the victim -- of the bullet that he fired. Oh, but it was an accident, because (so the shooter claims) he did it to impress his friends:

In the video played in court yesterday, Yahnajeah Kirkland pulls herself along in a tiny wheelchair, clutching a doll in the rehabilitation center that has been her home since being shot more than two years ago.

Her mouth hangs open and she has difficulty forming words, thanks to the stray bullet that damaged her jaw muscles. A tube can be seen attached to her throat to help her breathe.

Once a spunky 2-year-old, Yahnajeah celebrated her fifth birthday in December. She has endured brain and spinal surgeries, and now suffers from a seizure disorder.

While the 10-minute video played in Superior Court in Camden, the man who fired the bullet that changed Yahnajeah's life watched from a few feet away, clad in a red prison jumpsuit, awaiting his sentencing.

Taleaf Gunther fired from a corner in Camden's Centerville section on Oct. 28, 2004, merely "to impress his friends," said Assistant Camden County Prosecutor Mary Ellen Murphy.

While Yahnajeah's fate remains uncertain, the 20-year-old Camden man now knows his future: He will spend the better part of the next decade in prison.

In my view, blaming the instrumentality of crime -- whether a gun or bullet -- minimizes the outrageous nature of the criminal act. Thanks in no small part to the anti-gun mentality though, this happens more with guns than with other instrumentalities of crime, and thus, perpetrators of gun crimes are more likely to be seen as victims of their own criminal conduct.

To illustrate, let's accept the shooter's story on its face, and assume that when he fired the gun to impress his friends, he meant no harm to anyone else. Is that any different than tossing a rock from an overpass? So many rocks are thrown from highway overpasses that most of them now have tall wire cages on each side of the walkway along with security cameras, but that does not stop the thugs from throwing rocks to impress their friends while meaning absolutely no harm.

But when this happens, the headlines usually don't characterize the rocks as "life changing" objects. They tend to stick to the facts, as in this typical news item, titled "Man Injured By Rocks Thrown Off Worcester Overpass --
May Lose Vision In Right Eye":

(CBS4) WORCESTER A 55-year-old Ludlow man was critically injured Thursday morning when he was struck by a large rock in the head, thrown from the Laurel Street overpass, while he riding on Interstate 290 east in Worcester.

State police said it happened shortly before 5 a.m. near Exit 17.

The rock went through the windshield of the Volvo and struck Michael Porra in the face. The car then swerved and hit a guardrail.

Porra is listed in critical condition at UMass Medical Center. It's possible that he may lose vision in one eye.

"Both his eyes are swollen shut," said his wife, Anna Porra. "His right eye, he might have a problem with; he might not be able to see out of it. His eye just shifted totally."

Two other vehicles, a Nissan XTerra and a Chevrolet Silverado, were also struck by rocks but the drivers were not injured. State Police said the rocks were thrown off the Laurel Street overpass.

"The consequences were awful," said State Trooper, Thomas Ryan. "We have a 55-year-old man who sustained very serious injuries as a result of the actions of one or more persons."

Recently, Dr. Helen discussed a local report in Knoxville, Tennessee about a man who used a rock to kill, and who received a life sentence despite the fact that he "never intended to hurt anyone":

I find this statement from the defendant interesting:

"Morgan testified that what he did was stupid but he never intended to hurt anyone."

Uhhh..you didn't? I wonder what this guy can cook up when he does mean to hurt someone? What do you think--is a life sentence too long for this guy or not?

It's probably also worth asking why a bullet that kills someone is called "stray" but it would be laughable to refer to someone being killed by a "stray rock." I suppose the latter could occur -- especially if it fell from a truck. But when there is human responsible agency, I'm not sure "stray" is the right word. It would be one thing if a gun went off by accident, but if it is fired by an adult human being intentionally pulling the trigger, I don't think it is "stray" unless it was aimed at something and missed. In today's example, the man fired from an urban street corner to impress his friends, and I see no functional difference between that and, say, my throwing a rock from the top of the Empire State Building.

Anyway, I thought I should close with a picture of the Worcester, Massachusetts suspects. The caption is "Two of the rocks Worcester Police say were thrown from the overpass":

The victim may permanently lose some of his eyesight, and the rock thrower hasn't been caught. But if he is ever convicted and sentenced, will the headline be "One stray rock forever changed 2 lives"?

I don't think so.

MORE: Speaking of rock throwing, here's a famous picture of distinguished Columbia professor Edward Said ("founding figure in post-colonial theory") throwing a rock he aimed at people less than 30 yards away:

In Said's case, maybe it was just a "stray" rock.

After all, the rock didn't hit anyone, and he mainly threw it only because he was trying to be a good role model for the oppressed kids or something.