America - Guns & Mass Shootings

[Shabu]

Every NYE in Oakland, someone ends up taking a round to the top of their head when the bullets return to earth.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

Every NYE in Oakland, someone ends up taking a round to the top of their head when the bullets return to earth.

Never thought about that until one year working with a bloke who had lived in Turkey.

He said the same, every NYE they get out their AK47's shoot off whole magazines into the air, and some miles away there will be a rain of lead falling down. Best to stay indoors he told me, by far the safest.

[Hampshire Hammer]

Every NYE in Oakland, someone ends up taking a round to the top of their head when the bullets return to earth.

Many years ago the ranges at Bisley were closed for several weeks for the banks to be raised due to stray rounds passing over the top of the bank behind the targets and landing in a local town. They were spent and did no damage.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

They were spent and did no damage.

If shot on a horizontal axis, that may be the case. But fire them into the air, then they will still have gravity helping them come back down, at terminal velocity. That will do damage.

[Hampshire Hammer]

If shot on a horizontal axis, that may be the case. But fire them into the air, then they will still have gravity helping them come back down, at terminal velocity. That will do damage.

I agree, I was talking about the specific case described - I read the official reports at the time.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

Mythbusters: Firing bullets into the air

Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.

busted / plausible / confirmed

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.

(This is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.)

Always remember though this is Mythbusters.

[Shabu]

Over 150 people shot to death on our weekend of celebrating freedom

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wlfi.com ... =574770022

[WCpete]

83 in Chicago. It's the American way.

[Shabu]

83 in Chicago. It's the American way.

Slow weekend for them :lol:

[Plashet Grove Pete]

Love this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... and-desist

Only in America ....

[Shabu]

Love this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... and-desist

Only in America ....

Meanwhile, a few miles away from me a 12 year old shot himself last week when playing with a gun his mate brought to a sleepover at his house. Now a family is mourning the loss of a son but gun makers still want to make guns that look like toys. Incredible.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... -sleepover

[Shabu]

Remember Sandy Hook back in 2012?

Well the families of the 5 year olds are suing the gun maker, Remington, who in return have subpoenaed the school to get the attendance and disciplinary records of the dead little children.

I'm not certain whether they did this to throw shade on the kids character or to prove they didn't exist - as many in America think school shootings are staged to implement strong gun control.

Either way it's a crappy move. But expected...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/6 ... 3famp=true

[delbert]

Tit for tat lawfare, I agree it is a shitty move but then again on the face of it so is suing the gunmaker IMO. Can the victims of the Westminster Bridge attack (for example) sue Hyundai because that's the make of car used......?
By going after the manufacturer isn't there a danger of exonerating the perpetrator?

[Shabu]

Tit for tat lawfare, I agree it is a shitty move but then again on the face of it so is suing the gunmaker IMO. Can the victims of the Westminster Bridge attack (for example) sue Hyundai because that's the make of car used......?
By going after the manufacturer isn't there a danger of exonerating the perpetrator?

Delbert

Nothing personal mate, but that's a terrible & weak argument.

If Hyundai marketed their car as being good for running over people on a bridge then maybe it would carry some weight but there's absolutely no other use to these guns except to kill multiple people in a short space of time. They are designed to kill people. Quickly.

[sendô]

Well the families of the 5 year olds are suing the gun maker, Remington, who in return have subpoenaed the school to get the attendance and disciplinary records of the dead little children.

Holy f***.

I hope noone ever makes public the names and addresses of the people who think it acceptable to do a character assassination on a dead 5 year old.

[alf git]

Delbert

Nothing personal mate, but that's a terrible & weak argument.

If Hyundai marketed their car as being good for running over people on a bridge then maybe it would carry some weight but there's absolutely no other use to these guns except to kill multiple people in a short space of time. They are designed to kill people. Quickly.

So what you're saying is that the gun did exactly what it was designed for.
What are they suing for? What do they hope to achieve?

[Shabu]

So what you're saying is that the gun did exactly what it was designed for.
What are they suing for? What do they hope to achieve?

I am not sure, mate. But if they get millions out of gun manufacturers then that would open the door to other victims of gun violence suing gun manufacturers so maybe things would change???

I don't know. Just guess work on my part.

The bigger problem is that the gun makers can keep appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court which is almost certainly going to come down on their side. So nothing will change in the end. Except lawyers getting richer.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

USAians successfully sued the makers of addictive drugs for their addiction. Are gun makers that different? Both sell products that can do great harm if misused.

[delbert]

Delbert

Nothing personal mate, but that's a terrible & weak argument.

If Hyundai marketed their car as being good for running over people on a bridge then maybe it would carry some weight but there's absolutely no other use to these guns except to kill multiple people in a short space of time. They are designed to kill people. Quickly.

Serious question but how have Remington marketed the weapon concerned? The AR15 in civilian form is a different beast to the military one in so far as the military version is capable of fully automatic fire.
Irrespective of them being designed and capable of killing the intent of the user and reason for purchasing is the pertinent point, in the military they're sold to kill, in civilian hands they're sold to hit a target.
Being as the weapon was legally allowed, plus the shooter stole the weapon from his mum in the first place and didn't buy it directly from Remington I can't see how the gunmaker has a case to answer* (unless the marketing was so bent it actually stated it's a great rifle to steal from your mum and shoot kids with*)......

* This is 'Merica though mate, and as you know full well, anything is possible.

[Shabu]

Serious question but how have Remington marketed the weapon concerned? The AR15 in civilian form is a different beast to the military one in so far as the military version is capable of fully automatic fire.
Irrespective of them being designed and capable of killing the intent of the user and reason for purchasing is the pertinent point, in the military they're sold to kill, in civilian hands they're sold to hit a target.
Being as the weapon was legally allowed, plus the shooter stole the weapon from his mum in the first place and didn't buy it directly from Remington I can't see how the gunmaker has a case to answer* (unless the marketing was so bent it actually stated it's a great rifle to steal from your mum and shoot kids with*)......

* This is 'Merica though mate, and as you know full well, anything is possible.

I can't speak for Remington themselves as I don't watch US TV or look at the hundreds of gun magazines in the bookshops but I know that the "but cars' argument isn't a good one.

And the "powerful guns for target practice only" argument is one that the courts will have to decide & I suppose America will be split down the middle on it - although the pro gun crowd are more rabid & vocal than the anti gun crowd.

Lastly, the kid stealing the gun from his mum is a great argument why there shouldn't be any guns in a house with kids. Especially one who so obviously had issues. Apparently she thought they could bond together over these killing machines.