5 ms·

I have not logged the citations, but I distinctly recall reading on the order of one-two news reports per year of people being killed by falling bullets in mul

by toss1 2y ago

I have not logged the citations, but I distinctly recall reading on the order of one-two news reports per year of people being killed by falling bullets in multiple different countries, including US, Brazil, and several middle eastern countries. Also, injuries and one fatality were confirmed by Mythbusters in [0]. Read the account for Episode 50, which was the only myth to receive all three ratings (Busted, Plausible, and Confirmed) at the same time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)

alphan0n 2y ago
Some data on stray bullet fatalities just in Rio: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1284427/stray-bullets-victims-rio-de-janeiro/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1284427/stray-bullets-vi...
- hansvm 2y ago
  I'm not sure that's at all the same thing with the extremely high rate of violent crime involving guns in Brazil. Pointing a gun straight at a city background, missing your specific target, and still injuring/killing somebody is very different from pointing a gun at the sky and having the 170 ft/s bullet fall, manage to hit that same highly populated region, and cause problems.
  - toss1 2y ago
    The point is that all sky-pointed bullets are NOT going only 170ft/sec. Yes, it is reasonably established that bullets fired straight up do not regain their initial velocity on the way back down. But, at less-than-vertical firing angles, they can retain a lot of their initial 4-figure-fps velocity, and how much is very dependent on particular trajectory, wind, bullet composition, and initial angle. Dependent enough that it's specifically outlawed in many states. So, don't go glibly firing off skyward celebratory shots (over)confident in your understanding of the physics (or implicitly advocating it). You might be willing to take the risk, but no one else is willingly undertaking the risk you are creating.
    - fennecfoxy 2y ago
      I honestly can't believe that people would argue that they should be allowed to fire guns up in the air, lmao. You & I both know people don't indicate while driving, so I'm sure we're not that surprised, though.
  - alphan0n 2y ago
    No, I agree. Brazil is likely leaning towards immediate contact and absorption of small arms in that localized region of conflict rather than horizon aimed rifle fire like you’d expect with people shooting at traditional aircraft they believe is as close as a drone would be, towards what I presume would be a residential, no-fly zone, military airspace, etc.

by toss1 2y ago

alphan0n 2y ago

Some data on stray bullet fatalities just in Rio: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1284427/stray-bullets-victims-rio-de-janeiro/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1284427/stray-bullets-vi...

hansvm 2y ago
I'm not sure that's at all the same thing with the extremely high rate of violent crime involving guns in Brazil. Pointing a gun straight at a city background, missing your specific target, and still injuring/killing somebody is very different from pointing a gun at the sky and having the 170 ft/s bullet fall, manage to hit that same highly populated region, and cause problems.
- toss1 2y ago
  The point is that all sky-pointed bullets are NOT going only 170ft/sec. Yes, it is reasonably established that bullets fired straight up do not regain their initial velocity on the way back down. But, at less-than-vertical firing angles, they can retain a lot of their initial 4-figure-fps velocity, and how much is very dependent on particular trajectory, wind, bullet composition, and initial angle. Dependent enough that it's specifically outlawed in many states. So, don't go glibly firing off skyward celebratory shots (over)confident in your understanding of the physics (or implicitly advocating it). You might be willing to take the risk, but no one else is willingly undertaking the risk you are creating.
  - fennecfoxy 2y ago
    I honestly can't believe that people would argue that they should be allowed to fire guns up in the air, lmao. You & I both know people don't indicate while driving, so I'm sure we're not that surprised, though.
- alphan0n 2y ago
  No, I agree. Brazil is likely leaning towards immediate contact and absorption of small arms in that localized region of conflict rather than horizon aimed rifle fire like you’d expect with people shooting at traditional aircraft they believe is as close as a drone would be, towards what I presume would be a residential, no-fly zone, military airspace, etc.