[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33832929]hundreds of people a year != 118 over the course of 7[/QUOTE]
From [b]one hospital[/b]. Over 5 deaths per year from such incidents.
There are nearly 6000 hospitals in the USA. Plus I wasn't even talking about the USA when I made that claim.
[QUOTE=Tolyzor;33829954]Well, the diameter of a human head is 0.2 m
At a distance of 2000 m that is an angle of ...
2 * tan(theta) = 0.1 / 2000
theta = 0.01146°
Therefore the chance of the rifle pointing in the right left-right direction is
0.01146 / 360 = 0.0000318
The chance of the rifle pointing in the correct up/down direction is (parabolic trajectory has 2 valid angular solutions, we will assume for simplicity elevation tolerance = windage tolerance)
0.01146 / 360 * 2 = 0.0000637
Therefore chance of the rifle pointing in the correct direction is 0.000000000202
In other words, there is a [B]1 : 494 million[/B] chance that a rifle fired in a random direction 2 km from a persons head will score a headshot if the two possible flight paths of the bullet are unobstructed.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget she was on a horse drawn carriage.
[QUOTE=Tolyzor;33829954]Well, the diameter of a human head is 0.2 m
At a distance of 2000 m that is an angle of ...
2 * tan(theta) = 0.1 / 2000
theta = 0.01146°
Therefore the chance of the rifle pointing in the right left-right direction is
0.01146 / 360 = 0.0000318
The chance of the rifle pointing in the correct up/down direction is (parabolic trajectory has 2 valid angular solutions, we will assume for simplicity elevation tolerance = windage tolerance)
0.01146 / 360 * 2 = 0.0000637
Therefore chance of the rifle pointing in the correct direction is 0.000000000202
In other words, there is a [B]1 : 494 million[/B] chance that a rifle fired in a random direction 2 km from a persons head will score a headshot if the two possible flight paths of the bullet are unobstructed.[/QUOTE]
you forgot to take into account population density of the area
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
then again you were assuming the person being there in that position was a constant
[QUOTE=Maximo13;33834223]Don't forget she was on a horse drawn carriage.[/QUOTE]
The fact she was moving doesn't make her any less likely to be hit by a [B]randomly[/B] fired bullet.
'Merica!
[QUOTE=CAPSMAN!;33828662]Excuse me? Modern rifles have a deadly range of several kilometers. There's no doubt a bullet can go that far, but hitting her would be impossible, considering this is a muzzle loader, and not some engineering miracle chambered in eargesplitten loudenboomer and equipped with optics worth several thousand dollars.
It requires the best training and equipment aviable to intentionally hit someone at such a range, but it has been done.
Besides, if he fires a gun in the air in a random direction and not near 90 degrees up, ofcourse it's not going to hit somewhere nearby, it's gonna go [B]far[/B].
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
Forgetting that your muzzle loader is loaded is quite a weird thing too, considering it's a somewhat long process you don't accidentally forget you did right before you leave the range.[/QUOTE]
Hence why I said its pretty weird...
Most rifles that can go that far aren't sold even to normal gun enthusiasts. It must have been REALLY bad luck for the guy to shoot in the air and hit someone randomly 2km away with that thing.
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tolyzor;33829954]Well, the diameter of a human head is 0.2 m
At a distance of 2000 m that is an angle of ...
2 * tan(theta) = 0.1 / 2000
theta = 0.01146°
Therefore the chance of the rifle pointing in the right left-right direction is
0.01146 / 360 = 0.0000318
The chance of the rifle pointing in the correct up/down direction is (parabolic trajectory has 2 valid angular solutions, we will assume for simplicity elevation tolerance = windage tolerance)
0.01146 / 360 * 2 = 0.0000637
Therefore chance of the rifle pointing in the correct direction is 0.000000000202
In other words, there is a [B]1 : 494 million[/B] chance that a rifle fired in a random direction 2 km from a persons head will score a headshot if the two possible flight paths of the bullet are unobstructed.[/QUOTE]
Why can't I do fancy math like that :smith:
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;33823785]Reminds me of all the people you see on TV shooting their weapons into the air in celebration. And then they wonder why people just drop dead to random bullets.[/QUOTE]
intermediate cartridges, like 7.62x39 or 5.45 aren't going to kill people on the way back down. It has to be a pretty high caliber round to actually kill you if the round is fired up. So when you see people shooting assault rifles into the air, it is unlikely that they will kill people on their way down. This isn't to say they won't hurt though.
Now, shoot a proper battle rifle into the air and you have a different story. Those can actually be high enough in caliber to cause trouble.
In this case, it was a muzzle loader. Muzzle loaders field bullets that are often much larger than those found in cartridge rifles. This makes shooting them into the air extremely dangerous.
[editline]21st December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33826802]Remember when GunFox said that bullets shot into the air can't seriously harm you, even though hundreds of people are killed every year by it.
That was a funny thread.[/QUOTE]
You really insist on being antagonistic, don't you?
Not only that, but you apparently didn't actually read that post (where I pointed out that many rifles can indeed kill people when fired straight up) or have sufficient understanding of firearms to understand THIS situation and how muzzle loaders differ significantly in terms of projectiles fired.
I understand that you have a deep seated fear of firearms, but I would prefer it if you would stop needlessly being a dick about it. You are a smart guy, but you really don't understand firearms.
Why do you think I have a deep-seated fear of firearms?
I've spent years regularly shooting at a range.
At one point I nearly tried out for our county team.
I don't see how recognising shooting any calibre into the air is dangerous = complete lack of understanding of firearms.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33836611]Why do you think I have a deep-seated fear of firearms?
I've spent years regularly shooting at a range.
At one point I nearly tried out for our county team.
I don't see how recognising shooting any calibre into the air is dangerous = complete lack of understanding of firearms.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you never shoot any caliber into the air. If someone decides to look up, just about any can take an eye out, and even if you don't, many will still sting if they hit you.
Realistically though, only high calibers are likely going to flat out kill someone.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33836708]Realistically though, only high calibers are likely going to flat out kill someone.[/QUOTE]
Funny how a medical journal states:
[i]"Bullets fired into the air during celebrations return at a speed fast enough to penetrate the skin and cause internal damage to other organs in the path of the migrating bullet. The bullet’s velocity required for skin penetration is between 148 and 197 feet per second. A velocity of less than 200 feet per second, which is easily obtained by a celebratory gunfire, is capable of fracturing bone and even causing intracranial penetration [4]. Spent bullets have the capability of reaching up to 600 feet per second during their downfall, and thus they have the ability to inflict damage to multiple body cavities."[/i]
I pointed this out to you last time.
There is a 32% mortality rate with injuries of this nature. Which is higher than the mortality rate for general gunshot wounds, mostly since 77% of all injuries of this nature are to the head and skull.
You could say that this kind of gunshot is [b]more[/b] dangerous statistically.
You know. This wouldn't happen if you didn't arm civillians with tools for warfare. It's civil safety 101 not to pass guns around like lollipops. But i digress... It IS 'Merica we're talking about. All about civil liber- Oh wait. That changed last week.
Oh she died :(
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33836744]Funny how a medical journal states:
[i]"Bullets fired into the air during celebrations return at a speed fast enough to penetrate the skin and cause internal damage to other organs in the path of the migrating bullet. The bullet’s velocity required for skin penetration is between 148 and 197 feet per second. A velocity of less than 200 feet per second, which is easily obtained by a celebratory gunfire, is capable of fracturing bone and even causing intracranial penetration [4]. Spent bullets have the capability of reaching up to 600 feet per second during their downfall, and thus they have the ability to inflict damage to multiple body cavities."[/i]
I pointed this out to you last time.
There is a 32% mortality rate with injuries of this nature. Which is higher than the mortality rate for general gunshot wounds, mostly since 77% of all injuries of this nature are to the head and skull.
You could say that this kind of gunshot is [b]more[/b] dangerous statistically.[/QUOTE]
Yes because the velocity for skin penetration is constant and has nothing to do with the shape of the projectile, its weight, or what part of the body it hits. It specifically states that bullets have the capability of reaching up to 600 feet per second. It fails to state the average speed falling bullets reach and fails to break it down by caliber and bullet design. Meanwhile terminal velocity of many cartridges fails to exceed 200fps, which would make a velocity of 600 fps impossible unless fired at a relatively shallow parabolic arc.
Not to mention if you fire a bullet up at an angle nearing 90 degrees, certain bullets won't turn around and come back front down. It often comes back with the rear of the bullet facing downward due to it being the heavier portion of the round and the general aerodynamics of the projectile. It can also tumble, which helps cause damage at extremely high velocities (it allows a small caliber to tumble through tissue, tearing up more tissue), but causes LESS damage at lower velocities because the force is distributed over a wider area.
Any way you slice it, bullets aren't magic. They are slave to the laws of physics. The misconceptions come from how we determine these kinds of wounds. Anything less than about 75 degrees up (and I'm really ballparking here, a thousand and one variables play into this) and you are just arcing the bullet, not actually shooting it into the air so much as adjusting for bullet drop at extreme range. THIS kills folks with ease at extreme ranges because it allows the bullet to easily exceed terminal velocity. Some hospitals automatically identify any bullet wound that appears to have come from the sky and has no identified shooter as being a result of someone shooting bullets into the air, this obviously has a tendency to misidentify these wounds on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33837578]Yes because the velocity for skin penetration is constant and has nothing to do with the shape of the projectile, its weight, or what part of the body it hits. It specifically states that bullets have the capability of reaching up to 600 feet per second. It fails to state the average speed falling bullets reach and fails to break it down by caliber and bullet design. Meanwhile terminal velocity of many cartridges fails to exceed 200fps, which would make a velocity of 600 fps impossible unless fired at a relatively shallow parabolic arc.
Not to mention if you fire a bullet up at an angle nearing 90 degrees, certain bullets won't turn around and come back front down. It often comes back with the rear of the bullet facing downward due to it being the heavier portion of the round and the general aerodynamics of the projectile. It can also tumble, which helps cause damage at extremely high velocities (it allows a small caliber to tumble through tissue, tearing up more tissue), but causes LESS damage at lower velocities because the force is distributed over a wider area.
Any way you slice it, bullets aren't magic. They are slave to the laws of physics. The misconceptions come from how we determine these kinds of wounds. Anything less than about 75 degrees up (and I'm really ballparking here, a thousand and one variables play into this) and you are just arcing the bullet, not actually shooting it into the air so much as adjusting for bullet drop at extreme range. THIS kills folks with ease at extreme ranges because it allows the bullet to easily exceed terminal velocity. Some hospitals automatically identify any bullet wound that appears to have come from the sky and has no identified shooter as being a result of someone shooting bullets into the air, this obviously has a tendency to misidentify these wounds on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]
Medical journals > GunFox's assumptions.
Every. Fucking. Time.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33837619]Medical journals > GunFox's assumptions.
Every. Fucking. Time.[/QUOTE]
A doctor isn't the person to make this determination. This is primarily about ballistics calculations, rather than medical science. A doctor would be handy, but they are not who you need.
Speed, weight, bullet shape, drag coefficient, angle of the shot, horizontal wind velocity, barometric pressure, updrafts, etc etc, all of these play a part and a medical doctor is not likely to be versed in them. That journal provided absolutes when anyone who is familiar with firearms can instantly tell you that bullets vary to a ridiculous degree, even within the same caliber.
I don't even know why you are arguing with me. Do you really disagree with the notion that many bullets falling to earth at terminal velocity lack sufficient force to kill a human?
[QUOTE=GunFox;33837752]A doctor isn't the person to make this determination. This is primarily about ballistics calculations, rather than medical science. A doctor would be handy, but they are not who you need.
Speed, weight, bullet shape, drag coefficient, angle of the shot, horizontal wind velocity, barometric pressure, updrafts, etc etc, all of these play a part and a medical doctor is not likely to be versed in them. That journal provided absolutes when anyone who is familiar with firearms can instantly tell you that bullets vary to a ridiculous degree, even within the same caliber.
I don't even know why you are arguing with me. Do you really disagree with the notion that many bullets falling to earth at terminal velocity lack sufficient force to kill a human?[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree with.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33836708]Realistically though, only high calibers are likely going to flat out kill someone.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=GunFox;33836708]intermediate cartridges, like 7.62x39 or 5.45 aren't going to kill people on the way back down.[/qUOTE]
[QUOTE=GunFox:33836708]So when you see people shooting assault rifles into the air, it is unlikely that they will kill people on their way down.[/quote]
When it has actually been recorded otherwise. And quite frankly, you're talking nonsense.
Gunfox obviously knows what he is talking about, and [URL="http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50"]mythbusters agree[/URL].
The reason people get killed by guns fired into the air is because bullets are never fired at exactly 90°, so the speed they hit you is generally higher than their terminal velocity would be.
this person should not be allowed to own firearms anymore
pretty huge injustice in america where a non-violent felon is barred from ever owning a gun yet this fuckwit can continue shooting at clouds all he wants
[QUOTE=Tolyzor;33838105]Gunfox obviously knows what he is talking about, and [URL="http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50"]mythbusters agree[/URL].
The reason people get killed by guns fired into the air is because bullets are never fired at exactly 90°, so the speed they hit you is generally higher than their terminal velocity would be.[/QUOTE]
What I know about the mythbusters thing, and it agrees with me.
It said rounds are lethal unless fired fired directly up. Which is completely unlikely in celebratory gunfire, and GunFox was not talking about that hypothetical scenario nor about terminal velocity.
GunFox's entire argument is that anything that isn't a large round is only going to hurt, not injure you.
When I disagreed. The medical journal disagreed. And Myth Busters disagreed.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33837752]
I don't even know why you are arguing with me. Do you really disagree with the notion that many bullets falling to earth at terminal velocity lack sufficient force to kill a human?[/QUOTE]
Are you arguing that bullets can never kill, or just that it's pretty bloody unlikely?
I agree with the latter, not with the former.
[QUOTE=Tolyzor;33829954]Well, the diameter of a human head is 0.2 m
At a distance of 2000 m that is an angle of ...
2 * tan(theta) = 0.1 / 2000
theta = 0.01146°
Therefore the chance of the rifle pointing in the right left-right direction is
0.01146 / 360 = 0.0000318
The chance of the rifle pointing in the correct up/down direction is (parabolic trajectory has 2 valid angular solutions, we will assume for simplicity elevation tolerance = windage tolerance)
0.01146 / 360 * 2 = 0.0000637
Therefore chance of the rifle pointing in the correct direction is 0.000000000202
In other words, there is a [B]1 : 494 million[/B] chance that a rifle fired in a random direction 2 km from a persons head will score a headshot if the two possible flight paths of the bullet are unobstructed.[/QUOTE]
Have my babies
[QUOTE=eddy-tt-;33830084]Aw shit someone [I]had[/I] to get the math out.[/QUOTE]
Already halfway through reading his post, my brain went into "fuck this shit, Let's drink" mode.
Long story short I'm now sitting with a glass of vodka and 7-up in front of me.
Math is gonna turn me into a alcoholic :suicide:
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33824358]it was a muzzle loader, the only way to unload it is to shoot it[/QUOTE]
He killed a girl 2km away with a muzzle loaded gun? Why do we even have modern firearms.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33837578]Yes because the velocity for skin penetration is constant and has nothing to do with the shape of the projectile, its weight, or what part of the body it hits.
Any way you slice it, bullets aren't magic. They are slave to the laws of physics. [/QUOTE]
uh contradictory
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;33843169]He killed a girl 2km away with a muzzle loaded gun? Why do we even have modern firearms.[/QUOTE]
Well modern firearms are much safer than old guns.
More safety mechanisms, besides you can easily unload the gun without firing it.
And they're also smaller and more powerful.
[QUOTE=dass;33836258]Hence why I said its pretty weird...Most rifles that can go that far aren't sold even to normal gun enthusiasts. It must have been REALLY bad luck for the guy to shoot in the air and hit someone randomly 2km away with that thing.[/QUOTE] "All" rifles are capable of such a range. 2km isn't too far for a regular rifle. The round can go that far, the weapon is just not designed to have any accuracy at such a range.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;33843169]He killed a girl 2km away with a muzzle loaded gun? Why do we even have modern firearms.[/QUOTE]
It's all well and good till you have to clean them.
[Img]http://i.imgur.com/RlyG2.jpg[/Img]
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;33843479]It's all well and good till you have to clean them.
[Img]http://i.imgur.com/RlyG2.jpg[/Img][/QUOTE]
Because heavily used modern firearms are so much more fun :suicide:
[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/74447_450782586393_528846393_6042269_2769926_n.jpg[/img]
From a friends facebook profile.
Imagine a killcam of that.
[QUOTE=CAPSMAN!;33843607]Because heavily used modern firearms are so much more fun :suicide:
[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/74447_450782586393_528846393_6042269_2769926_n.jpg[/img]
From a friends facebook profile.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that picture I posted is just the first rinse without running a patch through. That picture you posted is what I'd call 'clean'.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.