Jump to content

Talk:Celebratory gunfire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Citations Need Help"

[edit]

Many of the citations in this article are of no use, and are inappropriate here. For example, the LAPD citation for 200 ft/sec being sufficient to penetrate a human skull is completely unsupported and the source uncited, on the actual website. 174.52.47.145 (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I just tried to access seven links in a row; six of them were dead links.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "Lebanese unload"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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, TewfikTalk 05:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blanks more dangerous than live bullets?

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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][reply]

Arizona case

[edit]

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)[reply]

culturally accepted

[edit]

What in the world does "Culturally accepted" mean? Is that even a statement to be used in Wikipedia? It is absolutely ambiguous and inappropriate. So, in a country in which a crime as robing a bank, stealing, raping, domestic violence and such is an every day thing due to people being scared or not having a choice to report; I'm going to say it is culturally accepted?

  • So robbing a bank is culturally accepted in some countries
  • Raping is culturally accepted in some countries
  • Stealing is culturally accepted in some countries
  • Domestic violence is culturally accepted in some countries

What the heck is all of that? Is it a crime or not?! This statement is highly racist. Just because criminals get away with this due to lax laws in certain countries doesn't make it right for everyone. I am sure that if the people were to chose, they would move to a safer environment. But most of them are too poor to do anything. Most of them are scared to do anything. In some places the police themselves are too scared to do anything due to small numbers, lack of work, poverty, etc. all the above may have something to do with it.

My point is, you're using a statement that perhaps criminals of those countries may agree with, but working class and educated citizens want nothing to do with it. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being an American, I can't speak for anywhere else, but suggesting that celebratory gunfire is "culturally accepted" in the USA is ridiculous. The article should either change the wording to instead list places where celebratory gunfire is present, or people should stop assuming that the presence of something in a culture automatically means said culture deems it acceptable. Oktayey (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't write this, but it seems to me that it is correct. News footage frequently shows this action. It does not appear to be 'criminals'. 'Culturally acceptable' seems to be exactly what it is. It does not seem to be defined by race but by culture, so not a racist comment. Just my opinion though. PeterM88 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Celebratory gunfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Celebratory gunfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Celebratory gunfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celebratory gunfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"argument about bullet travel"

[edit]
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celebratory_gunfire&oldid=1200725105"