Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> People are routinely killed by falling bullets.

Do you have a citation for that? I can't find any numbers on people getting hit by falling bullets, let alone fatalities. Things let celebratory gunfire don't seem to be comparable since people tend to congregate outside for celebrations resulting in larger groups of potential unintentional targets.




Here you go:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201323

Celebratory gunfire incidents were included, but only make up 4.6% of the total.

In approximately one year:

>Altogether, 317 persons received stray bullet injuries;

>142 (44.8%) were female, and 176 (55.5%) were outside the age range 15 to 34 years.

>Most individuals (258, 81.4%) were unaware of the events leading to the gunfire that caused their injuries.

>Many (129, 40.7%) were at home; most of these persons (88, 68.2%) were indoors.

>Sixty-five persons (20.5%) died, 18 (27.7%) of them at the shooting site and 55 (84.6%) on the day they were shot.

>Fourteen persons received nonfatal injuries by secondary mechanisms.


I have not logged the citations, but I distinctly recall reading on the order of one-two news reports per year of people being killed by falling bullets in multiple different countries, including US, Brazil, and several middle eastern countries.

Also, injuries and one fatality were confirmed by Mythbusters in [0]. Read the account for Episode 50, which was the only myth to receive all three ratings (Busted, Plausible, and Confirmed) at the same time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)


Some data on stray bullet fatalities just in Rio:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1284427/stray-bullets-vi...


I'm not sure that's at all the same thing with the extremely high rate of violent crime involving guns in Brazil. Pointing a gun straight at a city background, missing your specific target, and still injuring/killing somebody is very different from pointing a gun at the sky and having the 170 ft/s bullet fall, manage to hit that same highly populated region, and cause problems.


The point is that all sky-pointed bullets are NOT going only 170ft/sec.

Yes, it is reasonably established that bullets fired straight up do not regain their initial velocity on the way back down.

But, at less-than-vertical firing angles, they can retain a lot of their initial 4-figure-fps velocity, and how much is very dependent on particular trajectory, wind, bullet composition, and initial angle. Dependent enough that it's specifically outlawed in many states.

So, don't go glibly firing off skyward celebratory shots (over)confident in your understanding of the physics (or implicitly advocating it). You might be willing to take the risk, but no one else is willingly undertaking the risk you are creating.


I honestly can't believe that people would argue that they should be allowed to fire guns up in the air, lmao. You & I both know people don't indicate while driving, so I'm sure we're not that surprised, though.


No, I agree. Brazil is likely leaning towards immediate contact and absorption of small arms in that localized region of conflict rather than horizon aimed rifle fire like you’d expect with people shooting at traditional aircraft they believe is as close as a drone would be, towards what I presume would be a residential, no-fly zone, military airspace, etc.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: