Talk:Celebratory gunfire

Etymology of "Lebanese unload"

Who coined this phrase, and when? It's odd that the only example of its use is not one from Lebanon but from Albania. JackofOz 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (btw, thanks to StuRat for making me aware of this expression)

As I said in the creation edit summary, I found evidence for this name in a newspaper article. Google has been very unhelpful in trying to establish the etymology. If there is a better name for the phenomenon, by all means it should be moved. Have you heard of any other names for firing guns into the air as a form of celebration? JFW | T@lk 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Until I was made aware of this term, it never occurred to me there even was a term other than "shooting guns into the air". I'll check with Michael Quinion, he knows everything about the origin of expressions, but he's going away for 6 weeks so we may have to wait a while. JackofOz 11:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An NPOV and encyclopaedic term like "celebratory gunfire" seems in order. The "Lebanese unload" term seems like some kind of N. American neologism, which might merit mention, but certainly isn't the best way to describe the act. I guess I'll be WP:Bold. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

One article covers an incidental aspect of the other and should not be merged in my opinion (would be like merging Sesame Street with Television program). --Username132 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a good example, since Sesame Street and Television program are both suitable topics for encyclopedia articles in their own right. As you noted, space bullet trauma, as described, is merely an incidental consequence of celebratory gunfire. It's not necessarily a big enough topic to merit its own article, and might be better handled by inclusion in this one. Since there haven't been any other responses, I'm going to go ahead and try a merge.--Srleffler 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You get three years, not one, in prison for firing a gun into the air in California

Someone noted that you can get one year in prison for negligently shooting a firearm in California. That's not true. You can get up to 3 years. The penal code statute states you can get one year in county jail "or state prison". California Penal Code section 18 tells you what "or state prison" means. It means you can get either 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. You can also get probation. But, just reading the statute regarding negligently firing a weapon, one can think that you may only get one year. You essentially have to read every statute in context with every other statute.

This is not correct, please change this

You cannot say that "a bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second" can penetrate skin. It depends on the ENERGY of the bullet, not the speed. A bullet weighing five grains cannot penetrate skin at 150 FPS but a 200 grain bullet might. There is also another thing, a .50 lead bullet will not fall faster than a 0.30 lead bullet as it does not depend on the weight but on the density. A .50 BMG may fall faster because it can contain other materials than lead, tungsten for instance. Please do not fall into the trap of exaggerating dangers as the media often does. 87.59.76.10 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are probably correct that the weight of the bullet is a factor, as is its shape and projected area, but the cited reference does not make these distinctions (perhaps they were just generalizing for typical cases). "Correcting" this as you suggest would constitute original research. The larger caliber bullet falls faster because it's terminal velocity is higher. It is not necessarily related to density, as both bullets could be pure lead with the same density. The larger calliber bullet has a greater mass relative to projected area (not volume as in density). Therefore a higher terminal velocity is needed for drag to be equal to the force of gravity on the bullet. Dhaluza (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, and certainly no mathematician. Online calculators applying Stokes law, yield a terminal velocity for a .22 caliber sphere of lead which is nearly 11 km/s. They indicate that doubling the dimensions quadruples the terminal velocity, which means the terminal energy is 128 times greater. Evidently, this is not a matter of laminar flow. After numerous attempts, I think I finally found the right formula in the wiki article "Drag_(physics)". It gives a formula for which doubling the dimensions increases terminal velocity by √2, and that increases the terminal energy by 16. In other words, a .44 caliber bullet will fall back to Earth with 16 times the energy of a .22 of the same shape and density.

There are too many unknown variables to say exactly how likely a given bullet is to cause injury or death. Bullets are not all the same shape and density, and they don't all strike the same part of the body at the same angle. The hospital records cited in the article don't mention caliber or type of bullet. However, I believe it is safe to say that a bullet that strikes with 16 units of energy is more likely to cause death than 16 bullets with one unit of energy.

All skyward gunfire is dangerous, especially in densly populated areas, but perhaps lawmakers might take caliber into consideration when specifying penalties. The rest of us should prepare for the worst by staying indoors or wearing helmets on New Years Eve and Independence Day. 24.22.144.176 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blanks more dangerous than live bullets?

"However, it is generally not as dangerous if one uses blank rounds"

What the &#*%? How can that be logical? The citation source doesn't seem to actually explain this quote. Please change that (if I am right, of course) and explain it. Thanks--79.182.162.204 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? The sentence states blanks are not as dangerous as using live rounds. In English, when you begins a new sentence, any use of a third person pronoun refers to the subject of the new sentence, not the previous sentence; regardless of how much that happens. -Eaglescout1984 13:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talk • contribs)

Risks

Randomn gunfire is not safe and is also against the law.A lot of people get killed because of this. When people shoot guns in the air the bullit comes straight down and a 14 year old girl got killed because of this. So make sure that if you know someone who does this please suggest that they dont do this.--72.208.30.244 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)a person from Arizona--72.208.30.244 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) [[Media:[Example.ogg]

Arizona case

It's not real clear to me whether a fatality in Arizona would fit into this category, but it's documented. Police never caught the shooter, and it wasn't fired on a holiday that I'm aware of, but it was a fatality and it was fired straight into the air. (Could have been a birthday, or school graduation, or just randomness): http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special14/articles/1015coldcase15.html ... Consider adding if appropriate. --Thatnewguy (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)