Did a Stray Bullet on New Year's Eve Kill a Child at Church in Atlanta?

[turbo]

I guy I work with doing ironwork dropped a 3/4-inch nut. It some poor guy about 120 ft or so below us and shattered his wrist. If a large caliber bullet fell from several hundred feet, it could do a fair amount of damage.

And if you shoot a bullet straight up, it could easily be returning from 1/2 mile altitude or more. Not good.

 

[leroyjenkens]

But, seeing as nobody was hanging onto a steeple and shooting up into the air from the top of the church, it is obvious that the gun was not pointed straight up, but at an angle.

when a bullet is pointed at even a tiny angle from vertical, there will be a small amount of the initial velocity vector going into the horizontal, and the horizontal velocity vector is for the most part, conserved. therefore it is not gravity that kills people when bullets fall, but the actual horizontal component of the intitial velocity vector.

Eventually the bullet will lose all the energy provided by the gun and on the way down will start falling straight down, therefore all the energy will be provided by gravity. Like if you throw a penny off a tall building, it doesn't just keep traveling further and further out from the building, it will quickly start dropping straight down.

 

[Evo]

This has really gone off topic. The OP was about the tradgedy of the negligent use of guns.

Lets return to the topic or I will lock the thread.

 

[Chi Meson]

<<<<<<<<<<<<I have a four-year-old.

I will be keeping him away from all churches after this!

 

[rootX]

This has really gone off topic. The OP was about the tradgedy of the negligent use of guns.

I disagree. I do not the share the same interpretation of the OP. This case is unique from all other gun accidents.

 

[Evo]

I disagree. I do not the share the same interpretation of the OP. This case is unique from all other gun accidents.

This happens every year. It's not unique, unfortunately. And it's not just bullets falling, it's people randomly firing. Idiots!

To quote Moonbear.

You don't fire a weapon ANYWHERE when you don't know where you're aiming the bullet.

Irresponsible use of a deadly weapon is inexcusable, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[leroyjenkens]

This happens every year. It's not unique, unfortunately. And it's not just bullets falling, it's people randomly firing. Idiots!

A falling bullet killing someone happens every year? It has to be a little unique if it's a subject on Mythbusters.

 

[DaveC426913]

A falling bullet killing someone happens every year? It has to be a little unique if it's a subject on Mythbusters.

I think Evo was pretty clear in saying that people firing off guns randomly is what happens every year.

 

[turbo]

A falling bullet killing someone happens every year? It has to be a little unique if it's a subject on Mythbusters.

Not really. The whole point of getting into the physics and ballistics was to convince the unbelievers that firing bullets into the air is NOT harmless fun. It's a whole lot more common in some middle-eastern societies in which firing guns in celebration of holidays, weddings, and other ceremonies is more common. People die every year from such recklessness. Failure to acknowledge that or to attribute the "accident" to sheer chance misses the point entirely.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think Evo was pretty clear in saying that people firing off guns randomly is what happens every year.

rootX said this case was unique from all other gun accidents, which is the case of a kid being killed from a falling bullet. Evo said it's not unique. The kid being killed from a falling bullet is what the accident is that rootX was referring to.

Not really. The whole point of getting into the physics and ballistics was to convince the unbelievers that firing bullets into the air is NOT harmless fun. It's a whole lot more common in some middle-eastern societies in which firing guns in celebration of holidays, weddings, and other ceremonies is more common. People die every year from such recklessness. Failure to acknowledge that or to attribute the "accident" to sheer chance misses the point entirely.

You're saying the reason Mythbusters had the falling bullets as a subject on Mythbusters was to prove that it's not harmless fun? Well they sort of failed on that point, since their experiments indicated that it wouldn't kill a person.

What point am I missing?

 

[turbo]

You're saying the reason Mythbusters had the falling bullets as a subject on Mythbusters was to prove that it's not harmless fun? Well they sort of failed on that point, since their experiments indicated that it wouldn't kill a person.

What point am I missing?

The point is that firing guns into the air can result in bullets returning to Earth with sufficient velocity to kill people. This is not a urban legend. It is real, and it is provable by classical physics. There is no reason to haul in a TV show to "prove" your point. Physics trumps entertainment.

 

[DaveC426913]

rootX said this case was unique from all other gun accidents, which is the case of a kid being killed from a falling bullet. Evo said it's not unique. The kid being killed from a falling bullet is what the accident is that rootX was referring to.

Regardless, Evo qualified her claim.

While the specific instance RootX is referring to doesn't happen all the time, one can deduce that Evo finds that too specious a point to be useful. What's important is not simply that exact kind (which would be a purely academic discussion) but the kind where people are getting hurt becasue of stupidity (which is a practical and actionable discussion).

You're saying the reason Mythbusters had the falling bullets as a subject on Mythbusters was to prove that it's not harmless fun? Well they sort of failed on that point, since their experiments indicated that it wouldn't kill a person.

What point am I missing?

They are bringing awareness to the issue. It is doubtful that viewers watching the ep will think to themselves "You know, it's not lethal, so I guess it's OK...". More likely they will say "Gee, I hadn't really thought about what happens to those bullets once I fire them..."

 

[leroyjenkens]

The point is that firing guns into the air can result in bullets returning to Earth with sufficient velocity to kill people. This is not a urban legend. It is real, and it is provable by classical physics. There is no reason to haul in a TV show to "prove" your point. Physics trumps entertainment.

You're being disingenuous by trying to invalidate Mythbusters by calling it a TV show and entertainment. They invoke physics to address myths. Why are physics and entertainment mutually exclusive?

Regardless, Evo qualified her claim.

While the specific instance RootX is referring to doesn't happen all the time, one can deduce that Evo finds that too specious a point to be useful. What's important is not simply that exact kind (which would be a purely academic discussion) but the kind where people are getting hurt becasue of stupidity (which is a practical and actionable discussion).

What's wrong with academic discussion? On a physics forum that seems perfectly reasonable.

They are bringing awareness to the issue. It is doubtful that viewers watching the ep will think to themselves "You know, it's not lethal, so I guess it's OK...". More likely they will say "Gee, I hadn't really thought about what happens to those bullets once I fire them..."

The main purpose of the show is to address "myths", not to provide a public service. It's your assumption that that is the point of the show.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're being disingenuous by trying to invalidate Mythbusters by calling it a TV show and entertainment. They invoke physics to address myths. Why are physics and entertainment mutually exclusive?

They aren't mutually exclusive, the point is that confirmed cases trump a TV show.

What's wrong with academic discussion? On a physics forum that seems perfectly reasonable.

Nothing, but it ignores an issue of real-world suffering. I am going to put words in Evo's mouth and suggest that she's trying to say there's a real problem here, not just an interesting physics experiment.

The main purpose of the show is to address "myths", not to provide a public service. It's your assumption that that is the point of the show.

No one thinks that is the point of the show is to provide a public service. The point of the show is to entertain. That is not to say they are not addressing relevant issues and enlightening people about the scientific method,

but that still doesn't mean their experiments invalidate a read-world event.


I'll return to something you said previously:

No experiment can "prove" I didn't just get visited by a dragon.

This is correct. This shows the limitations of experimentation; it is not a magic bullet. Why is why Mythbusters cannot invalidate a real-world event.

 

[rootX]

They aren't mutually exclusive, the point is that confirmed cases trump a TV show.

Nothing, but it ignores an issue of real-world suffering. I am going to put words in Evo's mouth and suggest that she's trying to say there's a real problem here, not just an interesting physics experiment.No one thinks that is the point of the show is to provide a public service. The point of the show is to entertain. That is not to say they are not addressing relevant issues and enlightening people about the scientific method,

but that still doesn't mean their experiments invalidate a read-world event.I'll return to something you said previously:

This is correct. This shows the limitations of experimentation; it is not a magic bullet. Why is why Mythbusters cannot invalidate a real-world event.

You argued for Evo yet continued contributing towards derailing this thread, so I am confused Better alternative would have been letting other speak and get exhausted IMHO.

 

[diazona]

The only point of my bringing up the Mythbusters episode was to mention that they had tracked down several confirmed cases of this happening. It is a regular occurrence. But somehow, no matter how much it happens, some people don't seem to get the message...

I wonder what it would take to make people realize that shooting off guns randomly into the air is a problem?

 

[DaveC426913]

You argued for Evo yet continued contributing towards derailing this thread, so I am confused Better alternative would have been letting other speak and get exhausted IMHO.

I'm not stopping anyone from pursuing whatver they wish.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down
Straight Dope on falling bullets.

And from the CDC

In Puerto Rico, where such celebratory actions are common, news media reports have indicated that approximately two persons die and an estimated 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm
That's just in Puerto Rico. Falling bullets have long been known to be a danger and this sort of accident is not uncommon or unique. In fact, according to the CDC article, in Puerto Rico women and children are statistically more likely to be victims of "celebratory gunfire" than than any other sort of gunfire mishap.

Just so we are all on the same page and realize that this is a real problem and not some off chance occurrence.

 

[Danger]

This might sound a bit weird coming from a Canuk (although a well-armed one), considering that the Yanks are the gun-toting crowd...
Do not ever point a firearm, even if you think that it's unloaded, toward anything that you don't intend to inflict deadly force upon.
In fact, there have been people that I wished to inflict deadly harm upon, and I didn't draw. Over 90% of my enemies are dead, and I didn't have any direct input toward that. Patience pays off.

Again, though... don't ever fire a weapon unless you know exactly what is down-range.

 

[leroyjenkens]

They aren't mutually exclusive, the point is that confirmed cases trump a TV show.

How accurate are the confirmed cases? More accurate than a TV show? How do you know?

Nothing, but it ignores an issue of real-world suffering. I am going to put words in Evo's mouth and suggest that she's trying to say there's a real problem here, not just an interesting physics experiment.

A problem of falling bullets or a problem of people shooting guns on New Years?

No one thinks that is the point of the show is to provide a public service. The point of the show is to entertain. That is not to say they are not addressing relevant issues and enlightening people about the scientific method,

but that still doesn't mean their experiments invalidate a read-world event.

It doesn't invalidate it as far as proving that no one got shot. It can invalidate how they got shot.
You're taking the "real-world" event as if every detail of it is perfect and saying that if the experiments don't comply with that, then there's something wrong with the experiments.
I'll give you an example. Say my house blows up one day. I tell the police I was doing chemistry experiments by mixing different liquids together. I mixed water and milk and suddenly it exploded and I survived. So in this case the "real world event" is water and milk being mixed into an explosive mixture.
If a group of scientists get together and try to recreate the circumstances exactly with water and milk and find that it's impossible for my house to have exploded from that, whose side do you take? You could just say "Well his house exploded from the mixture of milk and water, so therefore it had to have happened, regardless of scientists proving it's impossible".
Or do you say "Well the scientists proved it's impossible, so there must have been something different about what Leroy was doing that he didn't reveal."

Why is the "real-world event" automatically infallible?

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm
That's just in Puerto Rico. Falling bullets have long been known to be a danger and this sort of accident is not uncommon or unique. In fact, according to the CDC article, in Puerto Rico women and children are statistically more likely to be victims of "celebratory gunfire" than than any other sort of gunfire mishap.

Just so we are all on the same page and realize that this is a real problem and not some off chance occurrence.

The question is, how do they determine it's a falling bullet? Here's a quote from the article you posted:

First, no standards exist for defining cases of celebratory gunfire injuries. For example, the "lost bullet" classification used by Puerto Rico law enforcement does not differentiate between falling bullets and stray bullets.

 

[rootX]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down
Straight Dope on falling bullets.

And from the CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm
That's just in Puerto Rico. Falling bullets have long been known to be a danger and this sort of accident is not uncommon or unique. In fact, according to the CDC article, in Puerto Rico women and children are statistically more likely to be victims of "celebratory gunfire" than than any other sort of gunfire mishap.

Just so we are all on the same page and realize that this is a real problem and not some off chance occurrence.

celebratory gunfires are common in many other countries not just Puerto Rico. But, I wasn't aware of the danger.

 

[mgb_phys]

Again, though... don't ever fire a weapon unless you know exactly what is down-range.

A Fathers Advice

If a sportsman true you'd be
Listen carefully to me. . .

Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
Matters not the least to me.

When a hedge or fence you cross
Though of time it cause a loss
From your gun the cartridge take
For the greater safety's sake.

If twixt you and neighbouring gun
Bird shall fly or beast may run
Let this maxim ere be thine
"Follow not across the line."

Stops and beaters oft unseen
Lurk behind some leafy screen.
Calm and steady always be
"Never shoot where you can't see."


You may kill or you may miss
But at all times think this:
"All the pheasants ever bred
Won't repay for one man dead."

Mark Beaufoy - 1902

 

[Danger]

Cool poem, Mgb. That's a good way to get the point across in an entertaining manner.

 

[ideasrule]

I don't see how Mythbusters contradicts the confirmed cases in any way. Adam and Jamie specifically said that their experiments proved only that bullets fired STRAIGHT up are not lethal because they tumble, and that bullets fired at an angle are spin-stabilized, don't tumble, and are lethal.

 

[rolerbe]

I don't see how Mythbusters contradicts the confirmed cases in any way. Adam and Jamie specifically said that their experiments proved only that bullets fired STRAIGHT up are not lethal because they tumble, and that bullets fired at an angle are spin-stabilized, don't tumble, and are lethal.

Bullets fired at an angle also can retain much of their horizontal velocity when they again intersect the Earth (basic ballistics). They can be moving much faster (and so have much more energy) than simple terminal velocity from a vertical shot.

Even if the MythBusters result is completely true, it in no way says that people can't be killed by random shots fired into the air at a variety of angles.

 

[ideasrule]

Bullets fired at an angle also can retain much of their horizontal velocity when they again intersect the Earth (basic ballistics). They can be moving much faster (and so have much more energy) than simple terminal velocity from a vertical shot.

Do you have a source? Air resistance affects horizontal velocity too, and I would have thought that if you fire at 60 degrees, for example, horizontal velocity would be nearly 0 upon impact.

Even if the MythBusters result is completely true, it in no way says that people can't be killed by random shots fired into the air at a variety of angles.

The MythBusters result (I assume you mean conclusion) is that you CAN be killed by a bullet aimed at any angle that isn't 90.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how Mythbusters contradicts the confirmed cases in any way. Adam and Jamie specifically said that their experiments proved only that bullets fired STRAIGHT up are not lethal because they tumble, and that bullets fired at an angle are spin-stabilized, don't tumble, and are lethal.

Right - so after four pages, the point here is that this case has nothing to do with the "falling bullet myth". A bullet doesn't fall straight down and hit a church unless it is fired from the roof of the church. It is much more likely the bullet traveled in a normal, spin-stabilized ballistic trajectory with a range in the hundreds or thousands of meters, retaining a sizeable fraction of its muzzle velocity.

All of this 'could a falling bullet kill someone' talk is irrelevant.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you have a source? Air resistance affects horizontal velocity too, and I would have thought that if you fire at 60 degrees, for example, horizontal velocity would be nearly 0 upon impact.

That's a slightly different question, but even if it has zero horizontal velocity, it is probably still traveling substantially faster than the terminal velocity of a dropped bullet due to the spin stabilization. Not to mention, it has a better chance of punching a hole in something when it hits pointy-end first.

 

[russ_watters]

BTW, there is, of course, a wiki on this, with some interesting stats:

The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds.[5] The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets.

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

They don't really define how "falling bullets" are different from other bullets, though.

Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach terminal velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a terminal velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s).[8]

Unfortunately, there is no web link to that reference, but I suspect that the terminal velocity she is measuring is the pointy-end-down terminal velocity, as it is much higher than the terminal velocity measured on Mythbusters.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The question is, how do they determine it's a falling bullet? Here's a quote from the article you posted:

As in any sort of phenomenon where you are primarily relying on nonexpert witnesses and evidence after the fact there is room for error. Unless you want to argue for unaccounted for gunmen shooting at people in all of these cases it does not change much.

Are you arguing this based on the technical difference between a "falling bullet" and a bullet coming down from an angle? Because if you are your protests are really rather irrelevant. Either way idiots firing bullets into the sky are creating a danger and we have a news story here about a dead child. Are you seriously going to nit pick proper terminology? "Falling Bullet" works well enough for any layman.