'Hundreds of young black people beating white people'...

[slim 1,514]

Totally agree. I think you got hung up of my use of the word parabola, as in a perfect symmetrical parabola. When factoring in the interaction between the shot bullet and gravity, you get the trajectory you get. The steeper the angle towards the perpendicular, the more kinetic energy is lost in the bullet. Would it still be sufficient to penetrate tissue if fired at the perpendicular? I do not know this answer. Would caliber matter at the perpendicular? Mathematically, no. Would target area matter? Perhaps.

We're getting closer.

Let's try this on for size.... say it's fired at 89 degrees. Would that be enough "slowing down because it's close enough to perpendicular" to be less than lethal?

[Zero Sum 305]

Here is somebody that actually thought it through.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1199/can-a-bullet-fired-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down

Interesting information. This is assuming the bullets go (and it must be mentioned)- STRAIGHT up, and STRAIGHT down. No other scenario is physically possible for the laws of physics to define the bullet at terminal velocity only.

This does not fit with the definition of a stray bullet- which obviously conforms to any angle of firing that is not at the perpendicular, and therefore continues to contain some of the kinetic energy from the gun.

[Danno 1,228]

So is it liberty when a smoker makes everyone have to endure the stench and unpleasantness of their smoke so he or she can be happy?

Funny you mention that because every time I go in one of those shops which have the stench of burning incense, it never occurs to me to demand they put them out.

Why is it some feel they have the right too?

[slim 1,514]

Interesting information. This is assuming the bullets go (and it must be mentioned)- STRAIGHT up, and STRAIGHT down. No other scenario is physically possible for the laws of physics to define the bullet at terminal velocity only.

This does not fit with the definition of a stray bullet- which obviously conforms to any angle of firing that is not at the perpendicular, and therefore continues to contain some of the kinetic energy from the gun.

Really? Even at 89 degrees there's still enough for it to be fatal?

[Zero Sum 305]

We're getting closer.

Let's try this on for size.... say it's fired at 89 degrees. Would that be enough "slowing down because it's close enough to perpendicular" to be less than lethal?

I would say it would be more a function of weapon caliber. At 89 degrees you're probably still talking about the bullet falling somewhere very close to the firing site. Think a little further from there, as are the 'unknown' sources of bullets when some victims show up at the ER- which implies the bullets were fired from further away. Of course, we could argue about a possible lie from the victim... but since we're talking theory here, you have to give them the theoretical benefit of the doubt.

Really? Even at 89 degrees there's still enough for it to be fatal?

A gun expert such as yourself should understand I did not make that claim.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You have zero understanding of the concept of liberty. Zero.

Liberty does not mean you make everyone do what you want them to do so you can be happy.

Pulling words out of the air does not equal truth, I'm afraid. Quite simply you're not getting what I'm saying.

In the UK, where I live, there was no such thing as a smoke free pub or a smoke free restaurant - they might have had a section of the bar or the dining area set aside for smokers, but air being what it is - it's meaningless since everyone is exposed to the smoke whether they want to be or not. With smokers now being in the minority that they are these days - it seems only fair that the habit which causes inconvenience to people who don't want to partake in it should be deferent to the will of the majority. The fact that smoking represents a public health issue means that it is quite right for the government to introduce legislation to address it. It means that there is not confusion - non-smokers and smokers can go where they like and everyone knows where they stand.

[Fandango 1,439]

As a smoker, I didn't smell the absolute stench of second hand smoke.

As a non-smoker, it reeks so bad I wanna hurl.

'stay home then' is not an appropriate response to non smokers wanting to go to a bar without needing a lung transplant afterwards. Your 'right' to smoke shouldn't supersede my right to breathe fresh air. Smoke outside!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Have you ever thought that grasping wasn't the problem?

I've long told you it's not an inability to grasp... it's a disagreement! The fact that you can't allow people to disagree with you means EVERYONE should own a gun because you're the type of person that would (pay someone to) ship people off to a penal colony for disagreeing with you. That's frightening!

Slim, if it were a mere disagreement, you would have actually grasped the facts and surrounding context while intelligently discussing a topic. Remember Slim, Reading Is Fundamental!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Pulling words out of the air does not equal truth, I'm afraid. Quite simply you're not getting what I'm saying.

In the UK, where I live, there was no such thing as a smoke free pub or a smoke free restaurant - they might have had a section of the bar or the dining area set aside for smokers, but air being what it is - it's meaningless since everyone is exposed to the smoke whether they want to be or not. With smokers now being in the minority that they are these days - it seems only fair that the habit which causes inconvenience to people who don't want to partake in it should be deferent to the will of the majority. The fact that smoking represents a public health issue means that it is quite right for the government to introduce legislation to address it. It means that there is not confusion - non-smokers and smokers can go where they like and everyone knows where they stand.

That's the UK

Here in parts of the US the bar owner still has the choice to have his/her bar smoking or non smoking. And the adult customer still has the choice of entering a smoking bar, or non smoking bar.

It's all about "choices".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's the UK

Here in parts of the US the bar owner still has the choice to have his/her bar smoking or non smoking. And the adult customer still has the choice of entering a smoking bar, or non smoking bar.

It's all about "choices".

And some people make... (gasp!) different choices.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

As a smoker, I didn't smell the absolute stench of second hand smoke.

As a non-smoker, it reeks so bad I wanna hurl.

'stay home then' is not an appropriate response to non smokers wanting to go to a bar without needing a lung transplant afterwards. Your 'right' to smoke shouldn't supersede my right to breathe fresh air. Smoke outside!

Did someone hold a loaded gun to your head and force you into a smoking bar? I have never heard of anywhere in the US (before the commie libs took over) that the bar owner didn't have the choice to make his/her bar smoking or non smoking.

So unless someone forced you into a smoking bar, you had the choice to enter or not to enter. Did you own the bar? I'm guessing not.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Yes, Duncan, didn't you know that in the US, the air doesn't circulate within an enclosed space like it does in the UK? In the US it can choose not to move from the smoking section.

Silly Limey.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

And some people make... (gasp!) different choices.

####### does that have to do with city councils banning smoking in bars? Seriously #######

Yes, Duncan, didn't you know that in the US, the air doesn't circulate within an enclosed space like it does in the UK? In the US it can choose not to move from the smoking section.

Silly Limey.

In the US...in most places, the bar owner has the choice to make his/her bar completely smoking or completely non smoking. Is there something here your not getting ?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Did someone hold a loaded gun to your head and force you into a smoking bar? I have never heard of anywhere in the US (before the commie libs took over) that the bar owner didn't have the choice to make his/her bar smoking or non smoking.

So unless someone forced you into a smoking bar, you had the choice to enter or not to enter. Did you own the bar? I'm guessing not.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Rob & Mel

[웃 910]

I'd like to open a cocaine bar.

Probably go through a quarter key (9 ounces) a week. Maybe I'll write my congressmen