oh man !!
that memory will just shit on you for the rest of your life !!!!
feel real sorry for that bloke !!
Turkish groom accidentally sprays wedding guests with bullets
A bridegroom in Turkey, seeking to enliven his nuptial celebrations by the traditional local practice of firing an automatic weapon into the air, has accidentally gunned down 11 of his wedding guests in a freak tragedy bloodbath firearms discharge mishap. The BBC reports that the unfortunate groom, intending only to let off a …
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:55 GMT Squirrel
blank ammo
blank ammo will still injure at close range. There's no bullet but the wadding and packing in a blank can still cause significant damage. Then there's people thinking it's blank ammo, thus safe and it's not or is loaded with live rounds.
Have they not heard of party poppers? (not to be aimed at people... )
grenade... coz it's the nearest I could find.
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 07:22 GMT Charles Manning
Blank ammo won't work
There is definitely a symbolic down-side to firing blank ammo at a wedding. Firing blanks == infertility.
Blank ammo also does not cycle an automatic/semi-auto weapon since it does not generate pressure against the bullet to feed the gas chamber.
You could of course use one of those red muzzle plugs but that would make you look like a bit of a wuss. and line you up for innuendo about your dick being blocked.
Nope. It has to be live ammo, fully auto.
-
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:08 GMT koncordski
Still generally hit with lethal force?
Didn't mythbusters do an entire episode to prove that bullets fired vertically or close to it actually tumble back to earth and with nowhere close to lethal force? The only way to maintain lethality was to have the gun fire at a shallow angle so that a ballistic arc maintained the spin of the bullet. Stupid certainly but lethal rarely, losing control of the gun certainly a fail here.
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:50 GMT Guido Esperanto
yup they did
but the myth obtained a busted/plausible/confirmed rating.
If bullet goes totally vertical (nigh on impossible really), it will be none lethal due to terminal velocity
If bullet goes off on arcing trajectory (more common) bullet can retain lethal force, but chances of being hit are quite slim.
they had two cases of injury sustained from airbound bullets (those not targeted) one fatally I believe.
you gotta be some unlucky sonofabeyotch to be killed by ammo returning to earth.
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Speaking for experience...
I got a bullet hole in the boot of my car about 3 months after I got it thanks to someone firing a pistol into the air during the September 15th celebrations in Mexico.
While it didn't penetrate the metal completely the bullet hit with enough force to deform it. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to have tested the theory that bullets fired in the air aren't lethal when they come down with, say, my head.
-
Monday 9th August 2010 23:40 GMT Frumious Bandersnatch
rough calculation from terminal velocity
A bullet fired straight up won't come down at as fast as it left the gun barrel, due to air resistance. But it will generally reach terminal velocity, and that, multiplied by the mass of the bullet can easily be enough to break through someone's skull. If the gun is fired at a shallower angle, the speed of the projectile at impact is going to depend on a number of things including the angle it was fired at, the total distance and time traveled in horizontal and vertical planes (fairly complex integration, but easy enough to simplify to get a rough answer) and the drag coefficient of the bullet (which can be estimated). And not to forget that the final force is equal to speed times mass, so the mass of the bullet also has a big effect on the amount of damage on impact.
A quick web search should turn up plenty of good sites dealing with this particular "myth" (which it isn't) in general and the physics of it in particular (with terminal velocity in a viscous fluid being the most important).
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 09:05 GMT Charles Manning
Mythbusters busted
Mythbusters make too many assumptions to be considered science. They "busted" the story about using mirrors to burn a ship because they could not reproduce it (yet MIT did manage to do it).
IIRC, the Mythbusters on shooting vertically used pistol ammo which has a high surface area and poor aerodynamics. A rifle bullet, OTOH, has a nice boat hull shape and bloody good aerodynamics - nothing like a pistol bullet .
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 17:15 GMT Nightkiller
Quite Possible
I was a a fireworks display on July 1, 2001 or 2002 where the crowd was allowed to be within 50 metres of the firing area. There were bits of plastic from the assemblies and slag from the burned metal that were raining down on the spectators as the wind had changed direction. Got some very small specks in my eye and saw some pieces land close to me. Frightened those with small children. Rightfully so.
-
Monday 9th August 2010 20:28 GMT mike 32
Not quite returning to earth, but...
I was supposed to be providing wildfire suppression control one Guy Fawkes night, with the assembled masses of the Cape Flats (it turned into a first-aid evening for us).
After watching people holding roman candles, standing in and amongst exploding fireworks (including small kids), holding catherine wheels (the spinning ones?) in their hands, etc, the evening reached it's climax when some dude shot his cousin in the chest from a few feet with a rocket. No major penetration/death, but serious burns and one very shaky person eventually carted off to hospital.
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Such a nightmare!
Unbelievable...
And we do that in some parts of Greece as well. The peasants are thick-headed enough not to get the risks involved (what do you city people know etc.)
Unfortunately it destroyed somebody's life for ever. I mean, to kill your own father... Really the stuff of nightmares...
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 07:21 GMT TimeMaster T
Actually ...
As I understand it was a combination of a blank and a slug that killed Brandon Lee.
In an earlier scene they had used dummy cartridges (no powder but still had a live primer) to show the gun being loaded, then someone pulled the trigger. The primer in the "blank" dummies still had enough power to push the slug out of the drum and into the barrel of the revolver. When the same prop gun was used with true black powder blanks for the "Bang, Bang" there was enough pressure to shoot the slug in the barrel with enough force to kill.
for full details; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee#Death
-
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Shouldn't laugh, but...
"in a freak tragedy bloodbath firearms discharge mishap"
Shouldn't you be working for the readtops with prose like that. Cheered me up no end.
However, regarading your later comments, shirley bullets fired straight up would come down with no more force than a hailstone of similar mass, gravity and air resistance being what they are.
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:55 GMT tom 24
I have a Great Big...gun!
"...and will still generally hit with lethal force when they do." Really? I've heard that bullets falling at terminal velocity might knock you unconscious, but that's about it. Assuming, of course, you fire them upwards in the first place.
This is why you train in the use of a weapon before you go around shooting it. Sounds like an AK was outside this guy's range of experience. Overcompensating, perhaps?
-
Monday 9th August 2010 20:34 GMT David Eddleman
Precisely!
"This is why you train in the use of a weapon before you go around shooting it."
When I've taught people how to shoot, I show them all the features on the firearm and shoot a few rounds off first to show them what it's like, plus teach posture, form, etc. If you start firing any round on automatic, even the low-recoil .22LR, you might get spooked and drop the weapon which could cause a slam fire.
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 09:05 GMT Trevor_Pott
@David Eddleman
Why in the name of $deity would anyone fire a weapon on automatic unless they were trying to kill someone, or training to do exactly that?
There’s no possible reason except killing another person to even own an automatic weapon. (Semi-autos I actually don’t have much of a problem with.)
-
-
Wednesday 11th August 2010 00:40 GMT Trevor_Pott
@David Eddleman
I would never be firing on automatic. There's no possible reason for me to do so, except to kill someone.
All of my guns are semi-auto or manual, and I am a reasonably good shot with them. I keep them locked up at all times, with the ammo locked up separately in another room. I only take them out for practice at a licensed facility, or for hunting. Should the revolution come, I will be more than able to defend me and mine with a semi-automatic weapon that I can use surgically instead of a bullet hose designed to mow down whatever is in my way.
Fully automatic weapons have zero purpose other than to kill another person.
-
Wednesday 11th August 2010 12:58 GMT jake
@Trevor_Pott
"Fully automatic weapons have zero purpose other than to kill another person."
Oh, I dunno ... My legally acquired & licensed Thompson M1928A1 serves nicely to remind the local government that THEY serve ME, and not the other way around ...
I wouldn't use it in your "revolution", mind ... waste of ammo.
-
Wednesday 11th August 2010 23:22 GMT Trevor_Pott
@jake
Seems to me you don't need a fully auto weapon to remind your government that the people hold the power. At least two of my guns pretty much exist only for that purpose (useless for hunting) but again: semi-auto. One shot at one target, shoot to wound first, kill if only absolutely necessary. By the gods I hope I never have cause to use them for their intended purpose (removing an illegal government.)
The only legitimate reasons (other than people who collect guns simply because they admire the craftsmanship) that I can see for owning a gun are a) hunting b) removal of illegal government/the revolution/zombie apocalypse. One is a sport, the other is an event that we all should be hoping never, ever occurs.
A full auto weapon is pretty much the antithesis of a hunting weapon. Too much bullet in your meat, and fills the hide full of holes. Deposing an illegal government/the revolution would seem like an activity that one would want to engage in with the minimal possible causalities, as you would be fighting your own countrymen in that war.
As for the zombie apocalypse, well...I would prefer a single shot with a GREAT scope. Take them out from a distance and keep moving. I wouldn’t want to be wasting ammo, because I never know how many zombies are between me and the next place where there are appropriately sized bullets.
-
Thursday 12th August 2010 09:16 GMT jake
@Trevor_Pott
I have several full-auto rifles. All legal. Most aren't fired more than once or twice a year (and then only when my brothers or old college friends stay up late, handloading ammo). Like all obsolete equipment, they are museum pieces, curiosities, training aids, and educational tools ... when used properly, of course. Usually, when my brothers & friends are about it's more testosterone & stupidity, but my range is a safe place for such high jinx.
I let the local cops know a couple days in advance when we are going to go full-auto. Most of the time, the flunky on the phone tells me "that's illegal". My neighbor, the Chief of Police, usually hauls the flunky out to empty a few clips/drums/belts & receive an education on the reality of the law when it comes to full-auto weapons here in the US.
No, I don't hunt with full-auto. In fact, I don't hunt at all anymore. No real point. But I know how, and will, if I need to feed me & mine. Probably using my bolt action Remington 30-06 and/or Browning 12 gauge pump. (My deep-freeze is full of miscellaneous bits of turkey & venison & wild boar road-kill ... why hunt, when there are suicidal critters about?)
Shooting to wound isn't an option. That's just cruel. Shoot to kill, or don't shoot. Predators don't wound on a whim or for sport (except cats, and that's a whole 'nuther stable of worms), they kill to eat. Humans are predators, and top of the food chain. If you shoot at it, expect to kill it and eat it. To do otherwise is to mock tens of millions of years of mammalian history.
Humans are a slightly different issue, having (hopefully!) the concept of rational thought. If you present yourself to me & mine in such a way that I feel a need to pull a gun, you will die. Not because I take delight in it, but rather because if the option is you or me, it'll be me. Fortunately, this has only happened twice in my 50ish years ... and both times, the other party has backed off and waited quietly until the cops arrived. Hopefully I'll never need to kill a human ... It's really, really, really low on my list of priorities.
Overthrowing the government is even lower ... With any luck, that particular card will never need to be played here in the lower 48 ... at least not during my lifetime.
There is no such thing as zombies. Bringing them up in a conversation such as this pollutes your argument, to the point of giving one cause to wonder why one should listen to you on this subject.
-
Thursday 12th August 2010 15:02 GMT Trevor_Pott
@Jake
You shoot to wound during the revolution or when it is necessary to remove an illegal government. This is because the /human being/ on the other end would probably like the chance to recover from their wounds and continue living, if given the chance. I hope never to have to use my weapons in this manner, but that's part of the reason I'd own them.
When hunting you shoot to kill, but generally I do that with a long gun anyways. There's still much point up here. A single Moose is nearly a year's worth of meat for a family. (Yay deep freezers.)
You keep saying "it's legal to have a full auto weapon." I never questioned the legality of it. (Though it is illegal here.) I talked about the POINT of the weapon. Other than "the gun as a toy" (which is plain stupid) the only use for a full auto gun is death. Something you haven't spoken to by saying that it is legal. Just because it is legal doesn’t mean it serves a purpose other than death.
As for "there's no such thing as Zombies," grow a sense of humour man! It was a funny reference to insert into a heavily laden conversation that has becomes far drawn out than the original statement and subject matter required.
That said, I’m going back to work on rocket powered chainsaw JUST IN CASE. (Never can be too careful about zombies.)
-
Thursday 12th August 2010 23:19 GMT jake
@Trevor_Pott
I grew up partially in the backwoods of Northern California. Guns were tools that we used to get food, and to protect the crops. Later on, I was a competitive shooter for many years (various variations of skeet & trap, long distance & handgun). To me, guns are always a serious subject.
You don't shoot to wound in war so the "enemy" eventually recovers ... you shoot to wound in war so the enemy has to use manpower and other resources to deal with the wounded. And again, I hope I am never in that situation.
We'll have to agree to disagree about educational uses for full auto stuff.
Yes, I have a sense of humor. Speaking of jet engined powered things, have you ever heard of the jet engine powered beer cooler? See:
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/beer/
-
Friday 13th August 2010 00:40 GMT Trevor_Pott
@jake
When fighting to remove an illegal government, I wouldn't call it a "war." At least, I would hope it wouldn't become a full-on war. Civil wars are nasty; personally, were I fighting to reclaim my country, I’d be very mindful that the folks I am fighting are my own countrymen.
I draw a real distinction between that sort of combat and all-out war. To me, war is an aggressive battle: one country invading another. It is fought by governments against other governments. When the people rise up against a government (or against eachother) it is a different game altogether. Largely because there is little to no support behind the regular citizens if they are not fighting on behalf of their government, so their cause is all the more precariously affected by things like public perception. If the guy you are fighting beside mows down a few dozen of your countrymen defending the legislature with a full-auto weapon you might ask a few questions about whose side you really should be on.
Conversely, if you fight alongside people who take the time and care to disable is possible, kill only as a last resort, well...those are the kinds of people I personally would prefer to be fighting alongside.
I agree there could be educational uses for full auto stuff, but I disagree entirely with personal ownership. If a gun club has some for educational purposes, or a trained military has them for the purposes of war that’s one thing. Personal ownership, well…aside from being one of those folks who collect weapons because they really dig the craftsmanship, I just can’t get behind it.
Mind you, I’ve been told more than once I’m far too much of a peacenik to live in the southern US. I’ll stick to my redneck province here in the frozen north, thanks. And yes, I’ve seen that one. Good fun, but I am still working on trying to realise this grand notion:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Rocket-Propelled-Chainsaw-RPC.jpg
The zombies…are coming…
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 16:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Full-Auto
That's why you should *never* fire such a weapon in "full auto" mode for this kind of jackassery show. If you're already decided on doing something stupid like this, you should at least set the thing in "semi-auto" (3-round bursts) or single shot. That way, if your AK-47 loses control, it will be less likely for you to hit someone.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 12th August 2010 19:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
AK Engineers?
I love that. AK engineers.
The AK47 was designed by one man Mikhail Kalashnikov who was a tank commander. He was assigned a team of engineers to refine the design, but it was essentially his design. He started the design in 1944 while on recuperation leave. You speak of AK as if they were a company, in fact AK stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova and the 47 for the year it was introduced. It is in fact a startlingly simple and elegant bit of engineering which makes it effective, reliable, cheap to manufacture and easy to repair. All of which is what has made it so successful over the last sixty odd years.
Adding something like three shot burst probably never crossed Kalashnikov's mind and would only have made the weapon more complex, less reliable and more costly to manufacture and repair. I'm not sure anything else around at the time had such a feature anyway.
It is an essential product of the way it works that the safety has single shot at one end, automatic at the other and safe in the middle. Some consider this to be a design flaw since the catch is so noisy that switching from full auto to single shot or vice versa would give away your position, however to make it work any other way would have made the mechanism more complex. To add another mode would have made it much, much more complicated.
OK I'll shut up with the gun nerd talk now. But if you want to see engineering simplicity at it's best take an AK apart or at least take a look at some exploded diagrams. You'll be amazed how simple it is in there.
-
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 20:34 GMT David Eddleman
Wrong!
"you should at least set the thing in "semi-auto" (3-round bursts) or single shot"
Semiautomatic is NOT burst-fire. Burst fire is fully automatic, but with a reset after a certain number of shots have been fired. Semiautomatic is one cartridge expended per trigger pull. Single shot would likely encompass any weapon that requires manual reloading between shots, like a pump/lever/bolt action firearm or a single-shot firearm (like a breech-loaded shotgun).
-
-
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 07:22 GMT Christopher W
It's all in the wrist
You just have to do very tight circles as you fire. Have you never played CS:S?
Either that or he was singleshot headshotting but didn't take into account the updated hitboxes...
Now some remote trig C4 on the main doors as the remaining guests ran out? That'd be a classy finish.
This guy is my hot tip for the Decade's Finest round of the Darwin Awards.
-
-
Monday 9th August 2010 20:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Dangerous?
@ The practice is a dangerous one even where celebratory shooters succeed in getting their weapons' muzzles above head height before opening fire. Bullets - to say nothing of rocket-grenades - fired into the sky have to come down somewhere, and will still generally hit with lethal force when they do.
Did myth busters not "bust the myth" of landing bullets killing people? Rocket propelled grenades however, kabooom...
-
Monday 9th August 2010 20:34 GMT jake
That's the trouble with AK47s ...
No accuracy at all. He was probably aiming at his new MIL ...
(Yes, I have fired an AK47. Can't hit squat with one, even in single shot mode. As a rifle, they are mostly a "make lots of noise and scare the enemy" weapon. At 75 yards, I'm more accurate with my Kimber .45 than I am with an AK47 ... and .45s aren't supposed to be accurate at 75 yards!)
-
Monday 9th August 2010 23:42 GMT Svantevid
Really?
"I have fired an AK47. Can't hit squat with one, even in single shot mode"
--------
No offense, but either I'm one of greatest shots ever or you're a crappy shooter. Alternatively, nobody set your AK's sights.
I know I've managed to hit head-and-chest targets at 100 metres (110 yards) with no problem. 150 metres was a bit tricky, but I've managed to get all seven designated rounds in target. I'm talking about the first and second time I've used Kalash, not as an experienced shooter.
And, for the guy who suggested three bullets mode... AK-47 doesn't have it. It has locked/burst/single shot selector.
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 09:11 GMT tim 4
says who?!
they certainly are! says the man who gunsmithed for sig sauer for several years , specifically fitting slides and frames for accuracy....
also , whilst bored , and using a spotter , we fired an hk.45 at a target at 100 yards, at a standard target and hit it in the scored areas 7 out of 10. three times around the bullseye, and once in. none of us were snipers. if three guys messing about can do it with a stock firearm , an accurized one can do better. the .45 is still underappreciated i guess...
-
Monday 9th August 2010 20:50 GMT Seamless
Might knock you dead or worse
Re: tom 24 (" '...and will still generally hit with lethal force when they do.' Really? I've heard that bullets falling at terminal velocity might knock you unconscious, but that's about it. Assuming, of course, you fire them upwards in the first place")--
But that's not about it. A bullet falling to earth can strike with force sufficient to put a hole in body plates of automobiles, so it probably can do worse to soft human bodies. Somebody dim enough to shoot up is probably not smart enough (nor skilled enough) to calculate and fire with the least-dangerous reentry angle and velocity.
My Acura roof was penetrated by a bullet (fired skyward on US Independence Day), creating a hole in the roof surrounded by a blistered crater. It sounded like a bowling ball had dropped from a great height as I waited for the light to change at an intersection. Arkasha (above) reported a similar personal experience in Mexico.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Monday 9th August 2010 23:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
sensless tragedy...
But, have the following questions:
1) What idiot takes an AK (SKS, Uzi or M-16) to a wedding?
2) RPG's fired into the air, in celebration? Excuse me, but when munitions go up they tend to come back down, courtesy of that harsh mistress, gravity. Bullets are one thing but rocket propelled shaped charges?
3) How much you want to bet he SO didn't get any on the 'honeymoon'/body ID/wake/funeral?
4) How long is his wife going to hold this little stunt over his head?
5) I thought the tradition was rice at the wedding; not small arms fire?
Comments:
Once again, not to make lite of such a senseless tragedy and as an American who happens to own an AK, they're nice weapons, about as accurate as the standard issue M-16, but hardly advisable for celebratory events like: WEDDINGS, birthday parties, baby showers, Bris's, national holidays, a pilgrimage of any kind, religious holidays (regardless of deity worshiped), practical jokes or after consuming any amount of alcohol.
Since reading of this on el Reg, I thought the following quote should be shared : "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other human invention in history... ...with the possible exception of handguns and tequila"
-Mitch Ratcliffe
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 09:05 GMT jake
@Svantevid
Re-read what I wrote.
With the AK at 75 yards, if you aim at center of mass and squeeze off 4 shots they'll probably hit somewhere within an 6 or 7 inch circle. With my Kimber, it's more like right nipple, left nipple, solar plexus, bellybutton.
I've owned AK47s, even full auto versions (mostly to irritate the government ... yes, I had (have) all the required licenses & permits), but I sold 'em. Not accurate enough for my needs. The Kimber is a much modified variation, she was my competition handgun for many years.
-
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 17:57 GMT David Eddleman
And...
Even if it doesn't, it's designed to kill tanks, not people. Shaped-charge + copper disc means a precise hit. Despite what you see in movies and video games, the standard AT warhead on an RPG-7 has a very limited blast range. Now, the OG-7V warhead, which is a long tube designed to fragment and spray shrapnel on the other hand...
-
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 09:21 GMT Cody
Health and Safety in the EU
This is one of many cultural and religious practices that the EU Health and Safety organizations, not to mention the Human Rights organizations, might have a little trouble with. Do we all get to shoot automatic weapons into the air at our small celebrations? Or do none of us? Do we all get to carry weapons? Or none of us? And what about the question of honour? Do we all get to kill our female relatives if they engage in unseemly and immodest behaviour? Or do none of us? Shall we see stoning for adultery in English town squares on a Saturday afternoon? Or is the practice going to be banned throughout Turkey?
The curious are looking forward eagerly to Turkey's entrance into the EU, because we really want to see how its going to go.
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 09:41 GMT RichardB
What a coincidence...
Just this morning reading Wellington - Pillar of State, on the way to Waterloo, I came across the following: (describing events on the march to France following the battle for which the station was named)
"One Netherlands colonel ordered a feu de joie. The shots astonished even Wellington who foresaw trouble rather than joy on the march and thought his army had fallen into an ambush"
-
Tuesday 10th August 2010 12:30 GMT Graham Bartlett
"Freak tragedy"
Not sure it's a "freak tragedy" in the sense of "happens rarely and unexpectedly". The same article says it happens reasonably often.
Perhaps a "freak tragedy" in the sense of "happened to a freak". Given the mental abilities of those who spray bullets into the air as a way of celebrating, this is probably a lot closer to the target. Unlike the groom. (Sorry.)
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
