The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:13 AM on j-body.org
I move that anyone who fires a gun (or an arrow!) randomly into the air should be sentenced to having their own weapon fired non-randomly at their own head. Do I have a second?






Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:20 PM on j-body.org
How many people in an everyday "I wanna waste bullets" situation are actually even capable of shooting straight up?
Why is there so much argument over specifics that have many variables from different situations?
Why is it being argued that a bullet fired up can't kill anyone when there are definitely cases where it actually happened?
Why have people physics teachers not told their students that the conditions went over in a general Physics class are under ideal conditions in order to give a general idea of how to derive information?




just curious...



Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:05 PM on j-body.org
you're trying to obfuscate common sense with high school physics.

falling bullets kill as many people as hail of the same weight...you know...none...hail of the same mass, weight, size, or density is not even enough to dent aircraft aluminum...something that is weaker than your skull bones.

in order for hail to even become close to fatal; it has to be around softball sized--larger, more dense, more heavy, and more massive than even aircraft projectiles.

hail also falls further--has more time to potentially reach terminal velocity--than bullets do, because it's not everyday we see .223 punching holes through clouds...

use your god damn brains.

as for those reported deaths--i dunno--a KKK member; a kid in New Orleans, a bunch of gangbangers in LA--just being skeptical...




Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:46 PM on j-body.org
Truth,,,from consequences wrote:

I move that anyone who fires a gun (or an arrow!) randomly into the air should be sentenced to having their own weapon fired non-randomly at their own head. Do I have a second?

So, who's with me...how about a Second for my motion of using the weapons of those who fire randomly...on them?





Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, February 12, 2010 9:59 AM on j-body.org
twiztidhybrid wrote:

Why is there so much argument over specifics that have many variables from different situations?
Wow, the phrase "the answer is in the question" sure fits this one perfectly...
twiztidhybrid wrote:

Why is it being argued that a bullet fired up can't kill anyone when there are definitely cases where it actually happened?
Welcome to the JBO war forum(R). Home of the brightest minds in the universe(TM). However, I might suggest you read the first few posts of the thread at least.
twiztidhybrid wrote:

Why have people physics teachers not told their students that the conditions went over in a general Physics class are under ideal conditions in order to give a general idea of how to derive information?
They were probably too busy bitching your English teachers out after trying to translate your papers
It's been mentioned a few times so far how those situations can not be applied directly to these. If someone would like to have a more detailed discussion, I'd certainly oblige. However, judging by the responses I've received so far, that's certainly not going to happen...
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

you're trying to obfuscate common sense with high school physics.
You appear to frequent at least these online message boards, so you should be familiar with how sensible "common sense" actually is. I'm trying to present information at a basic level for those who can't comprehend anything more detailed. Judging by your arguments thus far, even this has been too much.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

falling bullets kill as many people as hail of the same weight...you know...none...hail of the same mass, weight, size, or density is not even enough to dent aircraft aluminum...something that is weaker than your skull bones.
SO MUCH FACEPALM ACTION HERE, that I don't know where to start. I guess I should first point out that the density of a bullet is more than 10x that of a piece of hail.
So, to your first statement I point out that the hail would have to be more than 10x the size of the bullet to be of the same weight. This leads to complications regarding it's terminal velocity AND localized impact force because of its size disadvantage. Let's not forget about the large disparity in molecular bonding forces between metallic elements and, well--ice.
To the second (kind of, hard to tell) statement:
To be of the same mass, well, we've covered that just now.
To be of the same weight, well, I'm afraid to point this out for fear of the recently prevalent "BASIC PHYSICS PRINCIPLES AAARRGGHHH!!!!" argumet, but in this case weight = mass * gravity, soooo... hopefully certain people here can figure that one out on their own?
To be of the same size, well, we just covered that indirectly with the density situation.
To be of the same density, well, you'd have to have a slug of ice, or hail of lead. Let's just go with "that's impossible, please stop talking out of your ass"...
As far as comparing skull bones to aircraft aluminum:
1) Aircraft are made from numerous different aluminum alloys, covering a wide spectrum of physical properties. As such, your generalization makes this hard to refute, but at the same time hard to prove.
2) Using the terms "dent" and "weaker" interchangeably is, in itself, a flawed argument. Strength and hardness of a material are not directly correlated when analyzing material properties. For instance, a plastic grocery bag is VERY "strong", but certainly not "hard". An object could very easily dent a typical aluminum sheet, but not dent a bone. However, an object could potentially penetrate a bone without penetrating a sheet of aluminum.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

in order for hail to even become close to fatal; it has to be around softball sized--larger, more dense, more heavy, and more massive than even aircraft projectiles.
See above.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

hail also falls further--has more time to potentially reach terminal velocity--than bullets do, because it's not everyday we see .223 punching holes through clouds...
Ai yai yai How long do you think it takes either to reach terminal velocity? Seriously...
Might as well point out that hail, because of its low density, is severely affected by up-drafts which are pretty much constant in stormy conditions.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:

use your god damn brains.
Ah, satire. It all makes sense now. 9.5/10 Stephen Colbert meets Bill Nye.

Oh yeah, you didn't answer any of my questions or requests for clarification. It's like talking to a wall... A very stubborn, somewhat coherent, and possibly mentally disadvantaged wall.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, February 12, 2010 11:31 AM on j-body.org
I actually looked up the TV for the bullet I didnt bother doing the math.

I have very little physics training, ill be honest, most the stuff I do know is self taught, so I'll admit I might be leaving some things out.. But I do have a grasp on these things, I just dont have the time atm to actully study a physics book (although I have)

But I do know from common sense that dropping a penny off the roof of the empire state building wont kill anyone.

Just like I knew if you put a plane on a tread mill that it would take off just fine... although Im an aeronautics nerd.

But com on, you have to at least admit that if a round is fired in the air even at a slight angle and gravity completely absorbs all its forward (upward) motion and starts pulling it basically streight down towards earth, other then the hight at wich it happens (although it doesnt take a whole lot of distance to a bullet to reach its TV) the fact it was fired from a gun doesnt even come into play anymore..


I am very skeptical when it comes to this, and even having a basic grasp of physics, and understanding the math involved should proove the lead from a .22lr shell isnt fatal falling from the sky.






Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, February 12, 2010 12:06 PM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

I actually looked up the TV for the bullet I didnt bother doing the math.
Well, duh. Even different rounds of the same caliber would have different TV's. And determining these values based upon aerodynamic qualities alone would be foolhardy because of the nature (and randomness) of the tumbling motion. Experimental determination of the TV would be the only sufficient method.
Weebel wrote:

I have very little physics training, ill be honest, most the stuff I do know is self taught, so I'll admit I might be leaving some things out.. But I do have a grasp on these things, I just dont have the time atm to actully study a physics book (although I have)
As has been pointed out, we're well beyond basic physics with this discussion, although even the basic concepts seem to be eluding most...
Weebel wrote:

But I do know from common sense that dropping a penny off the roof of the empire state building wont kill anyone.
You missed a perfect chance there. C'mon, puns are fun!
Does the fact that it probably won't kill someone mean that you should do it? I hope that is what anyone reading through this will take away. Even if your 22 won't kill someone, pain is real.
I actually brought this up with my coworker this morning, and apparently her daughter's friend was killed one New Year's by a randomly fired bullet.
Just use blanks, you'll get the same effect.
Weebel wrote:

Just like I knew if you put a plane on a tread mill that it would take off just fine... although Im an aeronautics nerd.
Ah, the classic aero vs mech debate. I heard this one has been plaguing the pilots' forums lately. While you're correct for the most part, I highly doubt you know why.
Weebel wrote:

But com on, you have to at least admit that if a round is fired in the air even at a slight angle and gravity completely absorbs all its forward (upward) motion and starts pulling it basically streight down towards earth, other then the hight at wich it happens (although it doesnt take a whole lot of distance to a bullet to reach its TV) the fact it was fired from a gun doesnt even come into play anymore..
Agreed. A tumbling bullet may as well have been launched from a slingshot into the air.
Weebel wrote:

I am very skeptical when it comes to this, and even having a basic grasp of physics, and understanding the math involved should proove the lead from a .22lr shell isnt fatal falling from the sky.
Broad (and rash) generalization, but for the most part, true (Once again, if you use the term "falling" to infer "tumbling near vertically"").




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, February 12, 2010 12:59 PM on j-body.org
WE should change the title to "someone killed by a bullet on the return portion of its arc."

Or atleast determine a standard for "falling"



Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, February 12, 2010 1:34 PM on j-body.org
TheSundownFire (JBO Chat) wrote:

WE should change the title to "someone killed by a bullet on the return portion of its arc."

Or atleast determine a standard for "falling"
A) Weebel & Co: falling = tumbling
B) Me: falling = result of being fired into the air with no land-based target

Voting enabled, lol.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, February 12, 2010 10:06 PM on j-body.org
Yes Im using falling as a broad term but you should know wtf I mean regardless just by the way im using it.

And I actually know exactly why the plane would take off, I did a science report on how different air foils caused planes to fly differently when taking into consideration, drag, thrust, lift, and gravity, and the shape and locations of the airfoils when I was 8 years old, the damn science teachers had do get a book out to see if I was right or not LOL, wich I was, I even used actual flying scale models.

Your gunna eat this up but im one of those people that would throw a penny off that damn tower just to prove a point.... why? because im that sure I am right.

For some reason I've always been able to see and understand how really complicated things work in my mind, even with ought knowing much about the science, wich I probably why I graduated 2nd in my class (by one damn point) when I was in advanced training in the service (mechanics), I graduated with a 99.8% while the other guy graduated with a 99.9% accumulative test score, And neither of us where really trying, officials actually had to come in and make sure we wherent cheating because they havnt seen scores like that in 30 years, there was actually an investigation. We where actually afraid to give it 100% towards the end and stopped studying because we would have tied with perfect scores and they wouldnt have believed we wherent cheating.

For not taking classes on any of this crap, I have a pretty good grasp on it.

I might not know as many specifics as you do, well because I really dont have a background in the area, but if I wanted I could pick up a book and catch right up with you in probably a weekend or so if I really wanted to (154 IQ)..... so dont get to snraky mmmkay

Elitists or bad.


By all means give your input, but dont act like your smarter, maybee more knowledgeable in this particular subject, but not smarter.







Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Sunday, February 14, 2010 9:10 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

And I actually know exactly why the plane would take off, I did a science report on how different air foils caused planes to fly differently when taking into consideration, drag, thrust, lift, and gravity, and the shape and locations of the airfoils when I was 8 years old, the damn science teachers had do get a book out to see if I was right or not LOL, wich I was, I even used actual flying scale models.
Uh, yeah, it has nothing to do with any of that. The notion that the plane is designed to provide sufficient list is naturally inferred, since it's not designed to be a "gotcha" question. It's meant to stimulate critical thinking.
Weebel wrote:

For some reason I've always been able to see and understand how really complicated things work in my mind, even with ought knowing much about the science, wich I probably why I graduated 2nd in my class (by one damn point) when I was in advanced training in the service (mechanics), I graduated with a 99.8% while the other guy graduated with a 99.9% accumulative test score, And neither of us where really trying, officials actually had to come in and make sure we wherent cheating because they havnt seen scores like that in 30 years, there was actually an investigation. We where actually afraid to give it 100% towards the end and stopped studying because we would have tied with perfect scores and they wouldnt have believed we wherent cheating.

For not taking classes on any of this crap, I have a pretty good grasp on it.

I might not know as many specifics as you do, well because I really dont have a background in the area, but if I wanted I could pick up a book and catch right up with you in probably a weekend or so if I really wanted to (154 IQ)..... so dont get to snraky mmmkay

Elitists or bad.

By all means give your input, but dont act like your smarter, maybee more knowledgeable in this particular subject, but not smarter.
I'm going to let this go because I think you simply misconstrued my comment.

However...
Weebel wrote:

Your gunna eat this up but im one of those people that would throw a penny off that damn tower just to prove a point.... why? because im that sure I am right.
Of course I'm going to eat that up. Would you punch a random stranger in the face if I argued that it could kill them? You sound like you could be a horrible human being.






fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:39 AM on j-body.org
Yes Im a awful human being LOL

Fine, if you weren't trying to come off the way I took it, forget I said anything.

And for the plane, I know theres more involved then the example I made... but trust me when I say I actually understand why. In my opinion it should be common sense...

Sure with the engine running at idle (prop plane) if the plane where sitting on a running treadmill big enough to actually hold the thing, the friction caused by the bearings in the wheels would cause the plane to move backwards, but as soon as the engine was throttled it would move forwards just fine, and since we arnt dealing with staic friction anymore (the wheels are turning) the the effect of the treadmill would be negligible.

Now if you added one hell of a head wind that might cause a problem, but technically, the plane could still lift off the ground but just not move forward in a 80mph headwind.

A plane gets its forward momentum from the propeller slicing through the air wich is not related to the ground at all. And the thrust created is much more then needed to over power the kinetic friction in the wheel bearings. The plane would take off, the tires would just be spinning faster then if the plane was on stationary ground.

Basically, the thrust is created my acting against the atmosphere not the surface of the earth, and the drag caused by the surface moving backwards under it is no where near enough to counteract the thrust acting against the atmosphere.













Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:12 PM on j-body.org
I know if you fire them straight up in a vaccumn they would kill you on the way down



Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:38 PM on j-body.org
^^^ LOL best answer in the thread yet.





Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:46 PM on j-body.org
dunno if this was posted or not but there was a thing on spike's 1000 Ways to Die that a guy died on New Years Eve from a falling bullet.
Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:56 PM on j-body.org
ya but saying something happened and proving it are 2 different things.

Falling = gravity propelled...... if a bullet really killed him if was probably fired at low enough of an arch that the bullet still retained a fair amount of its kinetic energy from being fired from the gun,







Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, March 05, 2010 9:58 AM on j-body.org
please refer to the plane post for the reason you are wrong about the plane taking off on a convoyer belt.

if you dropped a penny from a tower high enough for it to reach it TV, it wouldn't matter if it got its TV, the wind trying to go around the tower would push the penny aginst the tower, bouncing down the tower untill it hit the ground.

size/shape of the bullet would have to much to factor into people getting killed by a falling bullet. just like the guy who "died" by pissing on the downed wire, to many factors to just say yes or no.





Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, March 05, 2010 10:36 PM on j-body.org
I still say the penny couldnt kill anyone.... just piss them off..... but its just the common sense part of my brain telling me that.... and Im right about the plane thing btw (posted in there again)





Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, March 05, 2010 10:43 PM on j-body.org
no your not.

physics > weebel's .02



Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, March 05, 2010 10:44 PM on j-body.org
Noooooooooo........ DUDE JUST HAVE A BEER AND TRY TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND IT

LOL





Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, March 05, 2010 10:52 PM on j-body.org
Who fcuking CARES?






Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Friday, March 05, 2010 10:52 PM on j-body.org
i've had lots of beer and my ill argue this with you untill i die! lol!

go read my response!



Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Sunday, March 07, 2010 12:45 AM on j-body.org
Truth,,,from consequences wrote:

Who fcuking CARES?



^^^seriously, what he said.



Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:08 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

And for the plane, I know theres more involved then the example I made... but trust me when I say I actually understand why. In my opinion it should be common sense...

Sure with the engine running at idle (prop plane) if the plane where sitting on a running treadmill big enough to actually hold the thing, the friction caused by the bearings in the wheels would cause the plane to move backwards, but as soon as the engine was throttled it would move forwards just fine, and since we arnt dealing with staic friction anymore (the wheels are turning) the the effect of the treadmill would be negligible.

Now if you added one hell of a head wind that might cause a problem, but technically, the plane could still lift off the ground but just not move forward in a 80mph headwind.

A plane gets its forward momentum from the propeller slicing through the air wich is not related to the ground at all. And the thrust created is much more then needed to over power the kinetic friction in the wheel bearings. The plane would take off, the tires would just be spinning faster then if the plane was on stationary ground.

Basically, the thrust is created my acting against the atmosphere not the surface of the earth, and the drag caused by the surface moving backwards under it is no where near enough to counteract the thrust acting against the atmosphere.


im going to tell you exactly where you're wrong, and why a plane won't achieve liftoff on a treadmill.

in order to achieve liftoff, the air moving over/under the foil has to create enough high pressure under the foil to be able to lift the plane off the ground. that is simply the way it works.

an airplane rolling on a treadmill is not physically moving forward, it is stationary. by not moving forward, it is not moving through the air. by not moving through the air, the air is not traveling over/under the foil causing the high/low pressure needed for liftoff. without that high pressure under the foil, there is no liftoff.

a plane travels along the ground until it reaches a speed at which the air traveling over/under the foil is high enough to create lift, regardless of the speed of the wind. so yes, the ground does nothing other than support the weight of the plane until the air pressure under the foil can support the weight instead. simply having the ground beneath the plane (the treadmill) moving does not mean air is moving over the foil.

you can't simply say "just add in a 80 mph headwind" for giggles, cause outside of a pretty major storm, that's simply not going to happen. it's also not a part of the myth. the myth is a plane sitting on a treadmill on a calm day. the plane is moving along the threadmill, but is not moving forward through the air, ergo it will not achieve liftoff.

Truth,,,from consequences wrote:

OK. Sounds fair enough...the density of air near the earth's surface would cause significant enough drag to prevent the bullet from attaining a lethal speed, if shot straight up to the degree that gravity arrests its upward travel, and it then begins to fall downward.

That being said, I do agree with earlier posts which note that the real problem with potential injury is that most such bullets are fired at a trajectory that is less than straight up, to the extent that they do not lose all of their forward speed before they achieve apogee and then come back to earth in a downward path. These are the potentially lethal ones.


this.

IMO it's basically up to individual interpretation as to what constitutes "falling" versus "fired" when referring to a bullet traveling through the air from high altitude.

a bullet fired directly into the air, stopping due to the loss of forward momentum and regaining momentum by gravity alone does not achieve speeds fast enough to be lethal. this i consider to be "falling". some might consider it "fired".

a bullet traveling in an arced path, having not stopped upon reaching apogee and still maintaining the forward momentum is very much lethal. this i consider "fired". some might consider is "falling". again, it's really up to the individual as to which is which.

yes, people have died from a bullet "falling"... but those people were actually killed by a bullet "fired" along an arc by an idiot who should not be allowed to access to a gun.




Re: The whole "someone got killed my a falling bullet" myth
Sunday, March 07, 2010 10:52 AM on j-body.org
I do think that's the biggest factor in this... whether or not there is a horizontal component. If it's fired straight up, there will only be a vertical component and the bullet would reach a speed of zero at the very top of it's "arc". Whereas if there is a horizontal component the bullet will never reach a speed of zero. Although it's been a while since my last physics class and I for some reason think what I just said doesn't matter. The bullet should still reach the same speed before it hits the ground assuming it reaches the same height.. lol I just confused myself

Cannon- read my response on the airplane thing.. it's not being argued that the plane can take of without air over the wing, it will move and there will be just as much airflow as if the treadmill weren't there.



Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search