Skip to main content

Firing Bullets into the air

I always wondered about this issue. What goes up normally comes down (unless it reaches terminal velocity).

The link is to an interesting BBC story.

Who, What, Why: How dangerous is firing a gun into the air?

The rebel advance into Tripoli has been celebrated with gunfire

Libyan rebels have celebrated their advance into Tripoli by firing guns in the air. How hazardous is this?

It is, unarguably, an emphatic way to display one's jubilation.

Shooting an automatic weapon into the sky to signal an occasion one welcomes is a popular practice in much of the world, as the footage of Libyan anti-Gaddafi forces seizing the main square of the capital city has demonstrated.

Comments

Jerry said…
There was a scientific test carried out about just this same issue by the discovery channel, in theory if the bullet is shot directly upwards you would expect it to fall back to earth somewhere near the gun, with the test that was carried out it showed that the bullet would "Arc" with the wind resistance plus others, the bullet lost pretty mush all of its momentum and if it did hit anyone it would be nothing more that a bump on the noggin

"In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time."

Mythbusters on Discovery
Jake Maverick said…
so bizaree what is aand isn't censored on this blog...you not a bit schizo or soemthing John?
Jake Maverick said…
???? so you respect my freedom of speech when you're in the mood, just statements of fact that you have a problem with?

you have the same problem with the BBC broadcasting that death of the redcaps do as wellt hen? if the beeb broadcast it must be true right...?
Jake Maverick said…
you are hilarious! just keep allowing to dig my own grave then....not that any of you will ever be kind enough to give me the option B option.....

Popular posts from this blog

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.