Shooting at the courthouse

[AquaMan]

ZYX, that raises some interesting ironies. We pass legislation to make concealed carry and open carry to supposedly give us more protection from crazies and criminals. And, we are so afraid of gun rights being curtailed by unknown sinister elements that a mentally deranged man is able to obtain a gun and openly carry it into a public plaza. Then, with your rationale that anyone who discharges said gun in public needs to be immediately shot, we close the circle. Does this seem weird to anyone else?

Why even bother with non lethal weapons then? This crazy never even pointed the gun at anyone yet he must be shot. I don't for a minute criticize the officers involved. They responded with force in a critical situation with high tension and with current training and protocol. But, the guy was sitting down and obviously less of a threat by the time they shot him. The only injuries sustained were likely from the officers guns.

Those of you who think that drivers should be retested/recertified regularly, like aircraft pilots, to protect public safety, how do you feel about recertifying gun owners?

[custosnox]

Those of you who think that drivers should be retested/recertified regularly, like aircraft pilots, to protect public safety, how do you feel about recertifying gun owners?

That depends on a number of things.  One of which is what do you mean by recertifying gun owners?  You don't have to be certified to own a gun, only to conceal carry.  Second, who is going to pay for it?  If you place a tax on gun ownership then your restricting their rights.  Third, are you speaking about the current level of certifying for CC?  If so, then there is no point, that class, as far as I have seen, has no criteria to pass, you just pay and attend, and the information is so basic that there isn't a lot of point to it, primarily just to tell you that instructors take on the law.

[AquaMan]

That depends on a number of things.  One of which is what do you mean by recertifying gun owners?  You don't have to be certified to own a gun, only to conceal carry.  Second, who is going to pay for it?  If you place a tax on gun ownership then your restricting their rights.  Third, are you speaking about the current level of certifying for CC?  If so, then there is no point, that class, as far as I have seen, has no criteria to pass, you just pay and attend, and the information is so basic that there isn't a lot of point to it, primarily just to tell you that instructors take on the law.

Great answer. Yes, conceal, carry.

Second, who usually pays. The licensee.

Third, are we restricting drivers and pilots by requiring them to be capable and knowledgeable? Is the right to vote restricted by requiring registration and a form of identification?

Fourth, whatever the law allows. I have to occasionally attend mandatory recertification classes for my CDL but that is a requirement of my employer and only consists of reminders and updates of current law and safe practices. I also am subject to losing that license by exhibiting unlawful behavior like public drunk, dwi, excessive vehicle accidents, felonies etc. Would that be too much to ask of conceal/carry gun owners?

What makes gun owners feel that their rights exceed the publics right to safety from them? Seriously, this is just crazy how gun people use the constitution to give them rights at the expense of everyone else.

[custosnox]

Great answer. Yes, conceal, carry.

Second, who usually pays. The licensee.

Third, are we restricting drivers and pilots by requiring them to be capable and knowledgeable? Is the right to vote restricted by requiring registration and a form of identification?

Fourth, whatever the law allows. I have to occasionally attend mandatory recertification classes for my CDL but that is a requirement of my employer and only consists of reminders and updates of current law and safe practices. I also am subject to losing that license by exhibiting unlawful behavior like public drunk, dwi, excessive vehicle accidents, felonies etc. Would that be too much to ask of conceal/carry gun owners?

What makes gun owners feel that their rights exceed the publics right to safety from them? Seriously, this is just crazy how gun people use the constitution to give them rights at the expense of everyone else.

Conceal carry isn't a right (or hasn't been argued successfully as such), it's a privilege, like driving a car.  However, I would expect the costs of such recertification to reflect the cost of issuance, not as an additional revenue to the state (I know, I'm dreaming).  But unless there is really a benefit to such certification, is there a point to requiring it?  Beyond telling the licensees what they can and can't get away with legally, there really isn't much to this class.  If it was to teach proper handling and safe practices, then I could agree to it, but until then it's just adding another layer to a defective system.  Still, this won't keep those who shouldn't be carrying from doing so, only the complete removal of firearms from our society would do that, and good luck with that.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What makes gun owners feel that their rights exceed the publics right to safety from them? Seriously, this is just crazy how gun people use the constitution to give them rights at the expense of everyone else.

You are safe from me.  I only have the license for another 9 years.  

Constitution only says you cannot infringe on the right to own firearms.  There are plenty of regulations concerning the exercise of that right.  Like the hoops I would have to jump through to own a machine gun (that's why I don't) and the total loss of privacy entailed by that ownership.  (Feds can come visit any time, day or night.  Regardless of what is convenient for you.)

[shadows]

In much of the ME the civilians in their protesting have a tendency to fire guns into the air.   In the humanitarian side which we flaunt it is noted that the law enforcement has the right if a citizen is protesting, by the firing of a gun in the air in protest, to act a judge, jury and executor and shoot the protester.  In view of the out of state grand jury investigations doesn't this practice need to be looked into and clarified?

[BKDotCom]

In much of the ME the civilians in their protesting have a tendency to fire guns into the air.   In the humanitarian side which we flaunt it is noted that the law enforcement has the right if a citizen is protesting, by the firing of a gun in the air in protest, to act a judge, jury and executor and shoot the protester.  In view of the out of state grand jury investigations doesn't this practice need to be looked into and clarified?

I agree,  firing guns in the air should be protected as free speech.   

[custosnox]

I agree,  firing guns in the air should be protected as free speech.   

Your right, because firing a live round into the air offers no public safety issues what-so-ever. Those rounds dissipate in the atmosphere or something.

[Red Arrow]

Your right, because firing a live round into the air offers no public safety issues what-so-ever. Those rounds dissipate in the atmosphere or something.

I remember that Myth Busters did a show on that.  They had a difficult time getting the round to come back on their target.  I forget the final results as I have no plan to fire live rounds into the air.

[BKDotCom]

I remember that Myth Busters did a show on that.  They had a difficult time getting the round to come back on their target.  I forget the final results as I have no plan to fire live rounds into the air.

They came back down.. just not on the person that fired the gun

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

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. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.

I would have to assume that the two people were as of the airing of the show and does not include the girl that died this last new years eve.

[TheArtist]

  I don't know if its the case for all weapons or types of bullets, but I definitely remember the night firing range in the army and watching the tracer bullets.  Every so often a tracer would change direction in mid air, more often than you would think actually.  It was as if a bullet would hit some invisible object and shoot off in a completely different direction, sometimes even going backwards at a 45degree angle from the direction it was shot from and you would hear the guys go "Holy sh!t did you see that!" lol.  Some bullets would have a corkscrew path through the air.  I was just amazed watching things that seemed to defy physics.  Though I know all it might take is the slightest nick or scratch on a bullet to help create those trajectories.  Needless to say it added a bit extra adrenaline as we low crawled under the barbed wire underneath all that live fire.  Aaaah memories, good times.

  Anyway, shooting a bullet straigh up in the air in no way means it's going to go straight up in the air.   

[Gaspar]

If fired vertically, they come down at the terminal velocity dictated by the weight, mass and drag coefficient of the object.  Take an AK-47 for instance, once the bullet reaches the apex of it's climb, the energy from the 2329 ft/s muzzle velocity has been depleted.  The fall of the projectile is totally dependent on simple laws of physics.  Because there is no more energy being created, the fall is dependent on only the kinetic energy provided by gravity and altitude.  Since you can't break the second law of thermodynamics, the bullet cannot reach anything near muzzle speed on the way down, but it can hurt.

d=distance fallen (enough to reach terminal velocity)
g=32.15/f^2
m=mass of bullet
Cd=drag coefficient
p=density of air
v=velocity while falling
A=frontal area (from which Cd is generated)

The bullet will gain energy +E=d*g*m, and lose energy -E=d*Cd*p*v^2*A/2.

Setting -E=+E, and solving for v, we find that v=((2*g*m)/(Cd*A*p))^1/2.

V=269.293


Bullet on the way up=2329 ft/s
Bullet on the way down=269 ft/s

It would hurt.  Wear a helmet.

If the bullet was not fired straight up, gravity would not exercise as much force on depleting the energy of the projectile, and it could travel much faster.

Now, if you want to talk about what would happen if a swallow were to drop a coconut on your head, that's another matter.

[swake]

If fired vertically, they come down at the terminal velocity dictated by the weight, mass and drag coefficient of the object.  Take an AK-47 for instance, once the bullet reaches the apex of it's climb, the energy from the 2329 ft/s muzzle velocity has been depleted.  The fall of the projectile is totally dependent on simple laws of physics.  Because there is no more energy being created, the fall is dependent on only the kinetic energy provided by gravity and altitude.  Since you can't break the second law of thermodynamics, the bullet cannot reach anything near muzzle speed on the way down, but it can hurt.

d=distance fallen (enough to reach terminal velocity)
g=32.15/f^2
m=mass of bullet
Cd=drag coefficient
p=density of air
v=velocity while falling
A=frontal area (from which Cd is generated)

The bullet will gain energy +E=d*g*m, and lose energy -E=d*Cd*p*v^2*A/2.

Setting -E=+E, and solving for v, we find that v=((2*g*m)/(Cd*A*p))^1/2.

V=269.293


Bullet on the way up=2329 ft/s
Bullet on the way down=269 ft/s

It would hurt.  Wear a helmet.

If the bullet was not fired straight up, gravity would not exercise as much force on depleting the energy of the projectile, and it could travel much faster.

Now, if you want to talk about what would happen if a swallow were to drop a coconut on your head, that's another matter.

An African or European swallow?

[Townsend]

An African or European swallow?

A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

[Gaspar]

It could be carried by an African Swallow. But then of course, African swallows are non-migratory.