Gun Shot IN The Air Kills 7 Year Old July 4th

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am probably repeating others here, but these “guns fired in the air are deadly" articles show up now and then and they are all anti-gun BS!

You see as we all (should) have learned in 2nd grade, all things fall at the same speed or less, not faster.

Larger objects fall at the same speed as small objects as long as there is no "sail area" to be affected by the air itself. That's why a man under a parachute falls slowly and one without a parachute falls fast.

If a bullet is fired straight up it comes to a complete stop and then falls to earth BASE FIRST. If however it’s fired at a low angle it can have forward momentum from its initial velocity, but that is not a "falling bullet" in the same way a bullet falls if it’s fired at a 65 degree or steeper angle.

An average bullet weighs less then a 1” hail stone.

I have been through about 10 hail storms in my life with hail of about 1", and 1” hail hurts a bit, but doesn’t even leave a welt for more then about 30 minutes.

Let’s use the brains God gave us and put a stop to this old lie.
 
In vietnam we dropped what we called lawn darts.
Click to expand...


They were called "lazy dogs". "Lazy dogs" were first used during WWII over Germany. The first "lazy dogs" were .50 caliber machinegun bullets with glued on plastic fins. They cost too much.

The newer "lazy dogs" are about 1/2" in diameter and 1 1/2" long with an aerodynamic body and fins on the rear. Aircraft dispensers contained tens of thousands of the things. Dropped from altitudes of 10,000 feet or more they would penetrate a military helmet.

http://texastradingpost.com/militaria/lazydog.html
 
Wyo - did you read this part of JohnSKa's post:

Scenario 1. The bullet is fired upwards but at some angle from vertical--it doesn't really take much of an angle off true vertical for this scenario to work. In this case the bullet will come down nose first with some retained muzzle velocity as well as velocity imparted by gravity. The total velocity is significant and bullets that fall into this scenario definitely have lethal potential.
Click to expand...

Thus your statement:

I am probably repeating others here, but these “guns fired in the air are deadly" articles show up now and then and they are all anti-gun BS!
Click to expand...

is irrelevant as you cannot guarantee that all shots will be straight up.
 
Wyosmith

In response to your statement concerning the anti gun "BS" of falling bullets I copied these occurrences of deadly injuries from Wikipedia. The last referenced incident occurred in New Orleans - where I live - and it is not the only time a falling bullet killed or injured someone in the New Orleans area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

July 4, 2013: A 7-year old boy, Brendon Mackey, was struck in the top of his head while walking with his father shortly before 9 p.m. amid a large crowd prior to the fireworks display over the Swift Creek Reservoir. [21]
July 4, 2012: A 34-year woman, Michelle Packard, was struck in the head while watching the fireworks with her family. The police believe the shot could have come from a mile away.[22]
January 1, 2010: A four-year-old boy, Marquel Peters, was struck by a bullet inside his church The Church of God of Prophecy in Decatur, GA. It is presumed the bullet may have penetrated the roof of the church around 12:20AM, fatally wounding the boy.[23]
December 28, 2005: A 23-year-old U.S. Army private on leave after basic training fired a 9mm pistol into the air in celebration with friends, according to police, and one of the bullets came through a fifth-floor apartment window in the New York City borough of Queens, striking a 28-year-old mother of two in the eye. Her husband found her lifeless body moments later. The shooter had been drinking the night before and turned himself in to police the next morning when he heard the news. He was charged with second-degree manslaughter and weapons-related crimes,[24][25] and was later found guilty and sentenced to four to 12 years in prison.[26]
June 14, 1999: Arizona, A fourteen year-old girl, Shannon Smith, was struck on the top of her head by a bullet while in the backyard of her home, and was declared deceased a short time later. [27] This incident resulted in Arizona enacting "Shannon's Law" in 2000, that made the discharge of a firearm into the air illegal[28]
December 31, 1994: Amy Silberman, a tourist from Boston, was killed by a falling bullet from celebratory firing while walking on the Riverwalk in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana. The Police Department there has been striving to educate the public on the danger since then, frequently making arrests for firing into the air.

Comparing falling bullets to likewise, but innocently, falling hailstones, boulders, meteors, aircraft, and angels is not a fair comparison; they all have the potential to hurt, injure, or kill. Falling bullets are not the fodder of anti-gun advocates. They are the results of unthinking, uncaring, and reckless actions.
 
The latest news on the boys death.

It was a .40 caliber and yesterday police detectives were going door to door in the area asking residents questions.
 
It's a sad thing it happened, but it can happen, as it did to my 1st cousin's husband, when she was living in Baltimore. It was also on July, 4th, while they were sitting on their patio, that someone nearby shot into the air, and they saw them do it, and not but a small time later, her husband was struck, and died. The coroner, and BPD ruled it the same. That has been some time back, probably 20 years ago.

One would think that they would lose enough power to not do damage, but in this case, it didn't. However, if you've ever heard about dropping a penny off a skyscraper, and what damage it can do when it hits, as the farther it is up, the more velocity it gains as it falls. This happens at 32.2 feet per second, squared, in a vacuum. In this case, you still have friction from air, but if the object is designed to resist this friction, then it will move closer to falling in a vacuum. Plus, it has to do with just how high a certain round can be fired, before it slows and drops back to earth, and or if it tumbles.
 
One would think that they would lose enough power to not do damage, but in this case, it didn't. However, if you've ever heard about dropping a penny off a skyscraper, and what damage it can do when it hits, as the farther it is up, the more velocity it gains as it falls. This happens at 32.2 feet per second, squared, in a vacuum. In this case, you still have friction from air, but if the object is designed to resist this friction, then it will move closer to falling in a vacuum. Plus, it has to do with just how high a certain round can be fired, before it slows and drops back to earth, and or if it tumbles.
Click to expand...

I don't know of anywhere on earth that a bullet fired into the air from the ground that gains any sort of velocity on the way back to the earth. The object doesn't move closer to falling in a vacuum.

Your penny drop from a skyscraper is something of an urban myth. The penny does not gain more and more velocity with elevation after the point that it reaches terminal velocity. Terminal velocity for a penny is about 25-64 mph. 64 mph doesn't do much in the way of damage. Even at 100 mph, it doesn't have enough energy to really do much harm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHxvMLoKRWg
http://science.howstuffworks.com/sc...threw-penny-off-the-empire-state-building.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=could-a-penny-dropped-off
 
So you're saying that an object doesn't gain in velocity when falling, at 32.2 feet per second, squared? In other words, it doubles the speed every second, and that a bullet high in the air, would not hurt you?

I beg to differ, quote:

"Near the surface of the Earth, use g = 9.8 m/s² (meters per second squared; which might be thought of as "meters per second, per second", or 32 ft/s² as "feet per second per second"), approximately. For other planets, multiply g by the appropriate scaling factor. It is essential to use a coherent set of units for g, d, t and v. Assuming SI units, g is measured in meters per second squared, so d must be measured in meters, t in seconds and v in meters per second.

"In all cases, the body is assumed to start from rest, and air resistance is neglected. Generally, in Earth's atmosphere, this means all results below will be quite inaccurate after only 5 seconds of fall (at which time an object's velocity will be a little less than the vacuum value of 49 m/s (9.8 m/s² × 5 s), due to air resistance). When a body is traveling through any atmosphere other than a perfect vacuum it will encounter a drag force induced by air resistance, this drag force increases with velocity. The object will reach a state where the drag force equals the gravitational force at this point the acceleration of the object becomes 0, the object now falls at a constant velocity. This state is called the terminal velocity.

"The drag force is dependent on the density of the atmosphere, the coefficient of drag for the object, the velocity of the object (instantaneous) and the area presented to the airflow."

End quote.

Now, if a penny was dropped off the Sears tower, at 1729 feet tall, that is "526.9992 meters. It would take it 10.3671561044 seconds to fall, and would be traveling at 101.667071411 meters per second, after 10.3671561044 seconds on Earth. This is 366.00145708 kilometers per hour, and 227.422761747 miles per hour, or 333.5533838956001 FPS".


Now, you think an object traveling at 333.5 feet per second, small, where its mass is concentrated into striking a small area, will not hurt anyone, nor penetrate a skull? Plus, I would think a small cal. round from anything of any power would reach a height of maybe twice this, easily. At this, lets say 3000 feet, or 1000 yards, easily obtainable. That would be, 914.4 meters, so, 13.6559767512 seconds to fall, and at 482.109783866 kilometers per hour, and 299.56913119 miles per hour, or 439.36 FPS.

However, a 30-06 can travel to 10,000 feet, or 3048 meters. It would take it 24.9 seconds to fall, and be traveling at 546.2 MPH, or 801 FPS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body

and

http://www.gravitycalc.com/

Footnotes:
"It is assumed that the falling object in question has negligible mass.
It is assumed that the object started freefall on the surface of the body (i.e., the initial distance from the body's center of gravity was the radius of the body)
Mass and mean radius data from the NASA factsheet."
 
Last edited:
An average bullet weighs less then a 1” hail stone.
Click to expand...
Terminal velocity is a function of drag which means that density figures heavily into the equation. A 1" hail stone has a much lower density than a bullet and therefore has a much lower terminal velocity.

By the way, the figures I provided in my post (velocities and energy levels) were from actual testing (bullets fired in the air) done by the U.S. army many years ago, not from simulations or calculations.
So you're saying that an object doesn't gain in velocity when falling, at 32.2 feet per second, squared? In other words, it doubles the speed every second, and that a bullet high in the air, would not hurt you?
Click to expand...
A falling object accelerates until the force of gravity equals the frictional drag of the object as it moves through the atmosphere. Then it will stop accelerating since the forces are balanced. The resulting velocity is called the terminal velocity and the object won't fall any faster than its terminal velocity no matter how much farther it falls. In fact, as it gets closer to the ground, the air density increases so it the terminal velocity will actually drop slightly as the object approaches impact.

A heavy, aerodynamic object will accelerate to a much higher terminal velocity than a light object that has poor aerodynamics. That's why a rock or a dart falls much faster than a leaf or a ball of paper.

From your quote, this is the critical piece of information you need to focus on:

"...all results below will be quite inaccurate after only 5 seconds of fall..."​
However, a 30-06 can travel to 10,000 feet, or 3048 meters. It would take it 24.9 seconds to fall, and be traveling at 546.2 MPH, or 801 FPS.
Click to expand...
This is a good example. Since the object is falling much longer than 5 seconds, using the freefall velocity figures (freefall figures assume no atmospheric drag) are very inaccurate. Experimentation has shown that the terminal velocity of a .30-06 bullet is around 300-400fps if it remains spin stabilized and falls back to earth base first or is much lower--about 150fps--if it does not remain stabilized and falls back to earth tumbling.
 
Lawrence of Arabia

T. E. Lawrence, author of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, mentions the Arab practice of celebratory discharging of guns in the air. There were casualties as a result.
 
The US Military did a study on this, though not a very good one by far, and here is a quote from those results:

"As a comparison, the .30 caliber bullet fired in a vacuum at 2,700 f.p.s. would rise nearly 21.5 miles and require 84 seconds to make the ascent and another 84 seconds to make its descent. It would return with the same velocity that it left the gun. This gives you some idea of what air resistance or drag does to a bullet in flight.

"Wind can have a dramatic effect on where a vertically fired bullet lands. A 5 mile per hour wind will displace the 150 gr. bullet about 365 ft based on the time it takes the bullet to make the round trip to earth. In addition the wind at ground level may be blowing in an entirely different direction than it is at 9,000 feet. It is no wonder that it is so difficult to determine where a falling bullet will land.

"Out of the more than 500 shots fired from the test platform only 4 falling bullets struck the platform and one fell in the boat near the platform. One of the bullets striking the platform left a 1/16 inch deep mark in the soft pine board. The bullet struck base first.

"Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Earlier the Army had determined that, on the average, it required 60 foot pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound. Based on this information, a falling 150 gr. service bullet would not be lethal, although it could produce a serious wound."

As one can see, the so-called test wasn't that scientific, as they had no way of measuring the actual speed, they were firing in the air, hoping to obtain the hits, and only obtained five, that could have had problems.

Though the calculator gets it off, a good bit, and I knew it would, it admits it does after five seconds, we still have the above average of 300 FPS, as flawed as the test was. I do not think that they can really say that they couldn't produce a disabling wound. They don't even know how those five bullets fell, nor how much the air resistance was over it. Plus, who's to say how dense, or thick, someones skull is? A kids is smaller for that matter.

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm
 
"As a comparison, the .30 caliber bullet fired in a vacuum at 2,700 f.p.s. would rise nearly 21.5 miles and require 84 seconds to make the ascent and another 84 seconds to make its descent.
Click to expand...
Please note the emphasized portion of the quote. Guns are not fired in a vacuum in the real world, and atmospheric drag has a very significant effect on the velocity of falling objects. It absolutely can not be neglected in the case of falling bullets if an accurate answer is desired.
"Based on the results of these tests it was concluded that the bullet return velocity was about 300 f.p.s. For the 150 gr. bullet this corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds.
Click to expand...
This are the results that Hatcher obtained with his testing. Since the Army had decided that anything under 60ft/lbs was not likely to be lethal, he concluded that the 30ft/lb impacts were not important. Perhaps this had to do with the protection offered helmets worn by soldiers of the time.

In practice, falling bullets can be and have been documented to be lethal.
I do not think that they can really say that they couldn't produce a disabling wound. They don't even know how those five bullets fell, nor how much the air resistance was over it. Plus, who's to say how dense, or thick, someones skull is? A kids is smaller for that matter.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. Especially since we have real-world evidence that falling bullets cause fatalities on a regular basis.
T. E. Lawrence, author of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, mentions the Arab practice of celebratory discharging of guns in the air. There were casualties as a result.
Click to expand...
There were also a number of documented deaths and injuries from celebratory gunfire after Kuwait was liberated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14616491

"Celebratory gunfire in Kuwait after the end of the Gulf War in 1991 was blamed for 20 deaths."​
 
Yes John, but they say 300 FPS, not 150 FPS. Also, the test was flawed, as they didn't really measure anything, I guess they were timing after a shot was off, and it was guessed from five recoverable bullets, and the one which made the dent, was falling with the most wind resistance, traveling bottom down. My guess is that they were some traveling faster, but who knows how much? 400-500 FPS?

Plus, the US military has a reason to not want to show them being lethal, liability wise.

I'm like you, I know they can kill, and so did my cousin who saw it happen.
 
The 150fps figure was from Mythbuster testing and needs to be heavily caveated. Mythbusters assumed that the bullet would ALWAYS tumble since they were unable to recover any rifle bullets in their vertical firing tests and the pistol bullets they recovered showed evidence of tumbling. So they did their "injury simulation" testing based exclusively on the 150fps figure which they determined to be the terminal velocity of a tumbling bullet.

Hatcher's testing proved that falling bullets don't always tumble. His tests results are very valuable since Mythbuster's testing created an apparent paradox by proving that a a tumbling bullet has a very low potential to cause serious injury or death and thus contradicting real-world experience.

Understanding the difference between the three scenarios I explained in my earlier post helps make sense of the apparent paradox created by Mythbuster's assumptions and incomplete testing when compared to documented fatalities from falling bullets.
 
John,

Yes, I understand about Mythbusters. I think their test was just as flawed too.

If we look at the calculator, it shows a theoretical speed of 800 FPS in air (NASA does not describe the mass nor size used, just that it was small, for the calc), and I'm guessing it might at least be half that, and that is a guess, as we don't know what the air pressure nor wind was like that day. The value in vacuum they gave was 2700 FPS, the same as it left the muzzle, and a great height, but they don't quote the actual.

Like the penny falling, it would be according to how it fell. Was it flat, tumbling, or was it slicing down vertically, with the least resistance? I know I wouldn't want to be hit by one, even if it didn't kill me, I'm sure it would do damage.

Also, I don't think I read what the supposed round was supposed to be that hit the child, if it was a 9mm handgun, or something else. It was a handgun bullet that killed my cousins husband, they determined. I think they were probably within 200 feet of the ones firing in the air, sitting on the patio, and she was lucky it wasn't her. Anyhow, I would think it would have been traveling at less speed than a 30-06. I don't know the amount of damage it did, just that he was struck on the top of the head. This kind of stuff kind of makes the military test or Hatcher's moot, especially Mythbusters.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying that an object doesn't gain in velocity when falling, at 32.2 feet per second, squared? In other words, it doubles the speed every second, and that a bullet high in the air, would not hurt you?
Click to expand...

You are confused. No bullets fired outside, from the Earth's surface, are fired in a vacuum and so no bullet has the opportunity to fall at 32.3 feet per second, squared. Atmosphere has a significant impact on flight ballistics.

I never suggested a bullet high in the air would not hurt you. Try rereading again. I simply pointed out that your vacuum example was unrealistic to the current problem and that your penny example is nothing but myth.
 
The calculator is not for a vacuum, it is for air, just as John and I have been discussing. If it had been for a vacuum, it would have been much higher, as the military test explains.
 
I want to be sure I understand.

It's ok to fire a gun into the air as long as it's straight up. Right?

A bullet, falling back to earth doesn't really hurt that much. It only leaves a welt for a while. But it won't kill me, that's just anti gun propaganda. Right?

I feel safer now.

...:eek:


Sgt Lumpy
 
Well, if you fire it straight up - you must stand there till it comes down on you. :D

Or you can like the Flash, run and get someone else to stand there.

Since most shots aren't straight up - I guess it isn't a plot by the antigun forces.

When I was a kid we played a fun game, we stood in a tight group and the middle guy shot an arrow straight up and then we ran. :eek:

The game ceased when we tripped over each other and became a ball on the ground. We watch the arc of the arrow and it landed about 4 feet from the pack. Even eleven year olds thought that the time was out for that game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top