Maid of Honor takes a bullet...

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed May 03, 2006 3:09 pm

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/9152403/detai ... w&psp=news

I love all the assumptions made in this story...

I'm glad she'll be ok though...

HighVelocity · Post by **HighVelocity** » Wed May 03, 2006 3:32 pm

"Apparently, some man was upset and just fired his gun into the air about a mile away from where we were. The bullet just came through the roof and into my arm," said Campbell. "It's just a freak event."

Freak event my eye! It's the result of some idiots negligence. I sure hoe this guy gets the max penalty.

flintknapper · Post by **flintknapper** » Wed May 03, 2006 7:09 pm

Reminds me of several places in the Middle East where celebratory gun fire is common. Seems like a patently bad idea to me, those bullets have to come down somewhere.

Can't believe no one told her "you could have had your eye put out"!

Glad she wasn't more seriously injured, and I hope the authorities deal with the nitwit who fired the bullet.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Wed May 03, 2006 7:40 pm

did anyone see the mythbusters and their recent test on this? odd results.

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:10 pm

HighVelocity wrote:
"Apparently, some man was upset and just fired his gun into the air about a mile away from where we were. The bullet just came through the roof and into my arm," said Campbell. "It's just a freak event."
Freak event my eye! It's the result of some idiots negligence. I sure hoe this guy gets the max penalty.

How do they know the origin of the bullet? I think that is one of the assumptions the poster was talking about it.

wrt45 · Post by **wrt45** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:26 pm

Chris wrote:did anyone see the mythbusters and their recent test on this? odd results.

No, I didn't see it, and I really enjoy Mythbusters. What did they have to say about it?

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:32 pm

wrt45 wrote:
Chris wrote:did anyone see the mythbusters and their recent test on this? odd results.
No, I didn't see it, and I really enjoy Mythbusters. What did they have to say about it?

They had to eat some crow. They started out with the theory bullets fired into the air could not kill, but gave up after the dead bodies started to mount. They then concluded bullets shot at a perfect 90 degrees straight up could not kill.

barres · Post by **barres** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:09 am

After talking with a doctor who has treated (and prononced dead) several victims of guns fired into the air, and after failing to get any wounding velocity on bullets fired absolutely vertcally, their conclusion was basically it was the horizontal component of the bullet's velocity that did the damage (in part by allowing the bullet to maintain a ballistic trajectory and keeping the bullet from tumbling).

gigag04 · Post by **gigag04** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:14 am

Hmm...I may be crazy, but I believe with no wind and negligble air resistance, that a bullet fired perfectly perpendicular to the pull of gravity will pass the point of origin going the same speed (velocity is a vector) but downward as when it was fired.

Thus..keeping its lethality no?

flintknapper · Post by **flintknapper** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:53 am

gigag04 wrote:Hmm...I may be crazy, but I believe with no wind and negligble air resistance, that a bullet fired perfectly perpendicular to the pull of gravity will pass the point of origin going the same speed (velocity is a vector) but downward as when it was fired.

Thus..keeping its lethality no?

No.

"Perpendicular to the pull of gravity" is another way of saying "horizontal" in relation to the small "plane" of earth you're standing on. Clearly, the bullet will never pass it's "point of origin" like this.

I think you were trying to say 'parallel" with the pull of gravity in which case the answer would still be no.

Go to bed my friend, and re-read this in the morning, you've been studying too hard.

Diode · Post by **Diode** » Thu May 04, 2006 6:04 am

The Mythbusters episode was very interesting. I guess the idiot shooter didn't watch it. If it would have been an outdoor wedding it could have killed her.

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:03 am

gigag04 wrote:Hmm...I may be crazy, but I believe with no wind and negligble air resistance, that a bullet fired perfectly perpendicular to the pull of gravity will pass the point of origin going the same speed (velocity is a vector) but downward as when it was fired.

Thus..keeping its lethality no?

In a true vacume, yes. But there is this thing called wind resistance that stops that from happening. And you meant parallel.

switch · Post by **switch** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:01 am

gigag04 wrote:Hmm...I may be crazy, but I believe with no wind and negligble air resistance, that a bullet fired perfectly perpendicular to the pull of gravity will pass the point of origin going the same speed (velocity is a vector) but downward as when it was fired.

Thus..keeping its lethality no?

However, air resistance in NOT negligble.

I did not see the Mythbuster show but I am not surprised at their conclusions. A bullet fired at even 60 degrees elevation would have a substantial horizontal velocity when it returned to ground level.

This would be similar to the 'claim' that a penny dropped from the top of the Empire State building would be lethal at ground level. I think they de-bunked that in one show.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:18 am

I saw it and they did some terminal velocity testing and found that both a 9mm bullet and a 30 cal. (didnâ€™t give bullet weights) had a T. V. of about 150 fps. They did various tests including shooting in the desert and came to the non-lethal conclusion.

The "falling bullet expert" was a joke. He knew of two cases, but didn't know anything about the angle at which the shot was fired. Iâ€™m not saying he was lying about those two cases, but two cases donâ€™t make him an â€œexpert.â€? It was also interesting that none of the falling bullets hit nose first.

Chas.

WNallG30 · Post by **WNallG30** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:57 am

Speaking of Mythbusters. I saw it the other night when that episode came on. They were having a short marathon. They also did a piece on firing guns underwater. They mentioned there were a couple of guns, including the Glock 17 that can be fired underwater. They failed to mention that yes, a Glock 17 can be fired underwater, but it's a specially modified from the factory gun and should never ever be done. They also didn't mention that if you were underwater and tried to fire a gun, it would probably blow out your eardrums because of the pressure. I know they put the disclaimer at the beginning of the show, but I was pretty disappointed that they didn't remind viewers how dangerous that particular experiment was.