Netizens cry foul after woman filmed firing indiscriminately out of window to celebrate New Year

[webfact]

Netizens cry foul after woman filmed firing indiscriminately out of window to celebrate New Year

 

Picture: Sanook

 

BANGKOK: -- Netizens in Thailand have commented adversely after a woman was videoed firing a gun to celebrate New Year from a window.

 

After a group of men were heard doing the countdown the young woman got out the gun and fired four shots from the window.

 

The video was posted on Facebook, said sanook.com. It was not reported who she was or where the incident took place.

 

But online Thais were adamant that this was highly inappropriate behavior even though no one was hurt. People commented that the woman was breaking the law and didn't appear to be able to handle a gun anyway.

 

Source: Sanook

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2017-01-02

[trogers]

Some brains just grow up much slower than their bodies...

[daveAustin]

She clasps the butt of a pistol like she's swinging through trees.

[Borzandy]

The land of smile.

[whatproblem]

Land of guns

[wakeupplease]

L.O.S = Land Of Stupidity

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, trogers said:

Some brains just grow up much slower than their bodies...

Playing Ketchup?

[The Deerhunter]

20 minutes ago, wakeupplease said:

L.O.S = Land Of Stupidity

 

At that angle the projectile would land real hard, person-killing-hard, not like a vertical shot that went straight up and came straight down. Anywhere from 500m up to a kilo or more, depending on pistol caliber/calibre, would be the danger area here for these shots.  Stupid (probably drunk, female dog) person.

[paulbj2]

Several hundred people are killed by people firing indiscriminately into the air in places like Pakistan, India and the middle east. These stupid morons seem to forget that the bullet has to fall to ground somewhere. For example, a round from an AK47 attains significant altitude before it starts to fall back to earth and as it is a pointy, dense metal object, it attains considerable velocity in freefall; enough to kill or injure anyone it hits. As the trajectory looks to be low in this case, it may be more or less dangerous; it's difficult to tell without knowing what was outside the window but firing guns at anything that you are not trying to hit is crass stupidity!

[lostinisaan]

Wasn't there a helicopter crash nearby? 

[lostinisaan]

53 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

Playing Ketchup?

 

 Playing "Hello Kitty"....

[DM07]

a) it was not said who she was or where it took place....hmmmm...could this smell of BS?

b ) not the most intelligent thing to do, but...puuuuuuleaze....calm down! No one was hurt and there are worse things to be upset about!

Which brings me to 

c) I hear an aweful lot about those netizens lately, who get their knickers in a twist about EV-RY-THING! How about getting a life or get upset about stuff that matters....f.e. the current government and their internet- madness.

Netizens might not be able to cry foul much longer!

[lostinisaan]

54 minutes ago, paulbj2 said:

Several hundred people are killed by people firing indiscriminately into the air in places like Pakistan, India and the middle east. These stupid morons seem to forget that the bullet has to fall to ground somewhere. For example, a round from an AK47 attains significant altitude before it starts to fall back to earth and as it is a pointy, dense metal object, it attains considerable velocity in freefall; enough to kill or injure anyone it hits. As the trajectory looks to be low in this case, it may be more or less dangerous; it's difficult to tell without knowing what was outside the window but firing guns at anything that you are not trying to hit is crass stupidity!

 

 

 Not too many TVF members have a AK 47. 

[George Graham]

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

At that angle the projectile would land real hard, person-killing-hard, not like a vertical shot that went straight up and came straight down. Anywhere from 500m up to a kilo or more, depending on pistol caliber/calibre, would be the danger area here for these shots.  Stupid (probably drunk, female dog) person.

Absolutely not correct. You score zero on you grade 7physics exam.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, The Deerhunter said:

At that angle the projectile would land real hard, person-killing-hard, not like a vertical shot that went straight up and came straight down. Anywhere from 500m up to a kilo or more, depending on pistol caliber/calibre, would be the danger area here for these shots.  Stupid (probably drunk, female dog) person.

 

Wouldnt a bullet fired directly upward, generate a downward speed of 200 plus kph?

 

a small projectile, hitting you at that speed, would enter your head and exit your ass, without much effort.

[George Graham]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

 

Wouldnt a bullet fired directly upward, generate a downward speed of 200 plus kph?

 

a small projectile, hitting you at that speed, would enter your head and exit your ass, without much effort.

No. Terminal Velocity is not just the title of a <deleted> film ( movie).

Edited January 2, 2017 by George Graham

[farcanell]

Just now, George Graham said:

No.

 

Really?

 

ive seen free style skydivers accelerate to near 500kph in competition... I would think a bullet would go faster.

 

your last posts suggest you agree that a vertical shot, when coming downwards, is still lethal, which I am agreeing with.... I just haven't bothered doing any calculations, which would have to factor in caliber /bullet weight... muzzle velocity to determine height achieved going upwards, before calculating downward speed etc etc

 

perhaps you might give that a go.... in the meantime, I will maintain that a bullet discharged upwards, will land at a very fast speed.... certainly enough to kill

[Pigdog747]

34 minutes ago, farcanell said:

 

Really?

 

ive seen free style skydivers accelerate to near 500kph in competition... I would think a bullet would go faster.

 

your last posts suggest you agree that a vertical shot, when coming downwards, is still lethal, which I am agreeing with.... I just haven't bothered doing any calculations, which would have to factor in caliber /bullet weight... muzzle velocity to determine height achieved going upwards, before calculating downward speed etc etc

 

perhaps you might give that a go.... in the meantime, I will maintain that a bullet discharged upwards, will land at a very fast speed.... certainly enough to kill

Could be your stretching the truth here a bit, as the PEREGRINE FALCON can only reach a maximum speed of 389 kph. maybe you can get your free style skydivers give the birds lesson so they can also reach this speed.  AS for the speed of a falling bullet will depend on 3 things...how high it went and how dense the air is on the return flight ( air friction), height above sea level. The speed of the returning bullet without air friction, at sea level will increase at a constant velocity of 32 ft/s/s  or for those using the metric system 9.8 m/s/s . Under normal circumstance the bullet once fired straight up will slow down at the same rate as it would increase so one would expect the bullet will reach muzzle velocity upon its returns to earth ( of course this is under perfect conditions)

[farcanell]

27 minutes ago, Pigdog747 said:

Could be your stretching the truth here a bit, as the PEREGRINE FALCON can only reach a maximum speed of 389 kph. maybe you can get your free style skydivers give the birds lesson so they can also reach this speed.  AS for the speed of a falling bullet will depend on 3 things...how high it went and how dense the air is on the return flight ( air friction), height above sea level. The speed of the returning bullet without air friction, at sea level will increase at a constant velocity of 32 ft/s/s  or for those using the metric system 9.8 m/s/s . Under normal circumstance the bullet once fired straight up will slow down at the same rate as it would increase so one would expect the bullet will reach muzzle velocity upon its returns to earth ( of course this is under perfect conditions)

 

The skydive in question, which I witnessed, was done by the world freestyle champion, wearing a tight plastic suit, with a speedometer strapped to his ankle.

 

you don't have to believe it, as it matters not, as I was simply illustrating that a falling body can attain significant speed... but, for your information, which you can pass onto the falcons... the fastest officially recorded skydive is 614 miles per hour, much faster than the one I witnessed at about 300 miles per hour

 

So... that dealt with, the rest of your post is basically wrong... (apart from the comment about height above sea level)... . the returning bullet will generally tumble whilst returning to earth, preventing its continual speed increase... and certainly never reaching muzzle velocity, which sees a bullet exiting a barrel in a stable flight configuration

Edited January 2, 2017 by farcanell

[Wilsonandson]

Looks like she was dared to do it by drunk friends.

 

[George Graham]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

 

Really?

 

ive seen free style skydivers accelerate to near 500kph in competition... I would think a bullet would go faster.

 

your last posts suggest you agree that a vertical shot, when coming downwards, is still lethal, which I am agreeing with.... I just haven't bothered doing any calculations, which would have to factor in caliber /bullet weight... muzzle velocity to determine height achieved going upwards, before calculating downward speed etc etc

 

perhaps you might give that a go.... in the meantime, I will maintain that a bullet discharged upwards, will land at a very fast speed.... certainly enough to kill

I've been to high school.

[George Graham]

47 minutes ago, Pigdog747 said:

Could be your stretching the truth here a bit, as the PEREGRINE FALCON can only reach a maximum speed of 389 kph. maybe you can get your free style skydivers give the birds lesson so they can also reach this speed.  AS for the speed of a falling bullet will depend on 3 things...how high it went and how dense the air is on the return flight ( air friction), height above sea level. The speed of the returning bullet without air friction, at sea level will increase at a constant velocity of 32 ft/s/s  or for those using the metric system 9.8 m/s/s . Under normal circumstance the bullet once fired straight up will slow down at the same rate as it would increase so one would expect the bullet will reach muzzle velocity upon its returns to earth ( of course this is under perfect conditions)

Nice try, but not quite.

[smedly]

25 minutes ago, George Graham said:

the bullet will reach muzzle velocity upon its returns to earth

no it won't

 

Based on wind resistance, for example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a belly-to-earth (i.e., face down) free-fall position is about 195 km/h (122 mph or 54 m/s).^[2] This velocity is the asymptotic limiting value of the velocity, and the forces acting on the body balance each other more and more closely as the terminal velocity is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on.

Higher speeds can be attained if the skydiver pulls in his or her limbs (see also freeflying). In this case, the terminal velocity increases to about 320 km/h (200 mph or 90 m/s),^[2] which is almost the terminal velocity of the peregrine falcon diving down on its prey.^[3] The same terminal velocity is reached for a typical .30-06 bullet dropping downwards—when it is returning to the ground having been fired upwards, or dropped from a tower—according to a 1920 U.S. Army Ordnance study.^[4]

Competition speed skydivers fly in a head-down position and can reach speeds of 530 km/h (330 mph); the current record is held by Felix Baumgartner who jumped from a height of 128,100 feet (39,000 m) and reached 1,342 km/h (834 mph), though he achieved this velocity at high altitude, where extremely thin air presents less drag force.

[Myran]

A bullet fired directly upwards will not kill you if it hits you; Mythbusters already tested it. Shot at an angle, however, and you're in for a bad day if it hits you.

[3NUMBAS]

But did she buy some blanks just for the occasion ??starting guns use blanks and the starter gets off every time from alleged stupidity

[Basil B]

3 hours ago, lostinisaan said:

 

 Not too many TVF members have a AK 47. 

 

Thank God... 

[farcanell]

35 minutes ago, Myran said:

A bullet fired directly upwards will not kill you if it hits you; Mythbusters already tested it. Shot at an angle, however, and you're in for a bad day if it hits you.

 

No... they did not.

a falling bullet can kill.... read a little further... and maybe include some non tv entertainment stuff...

but if you must quote myth busters... here's the real conclusion

 

 

 

 

[Basil B]

What Goes Up Must Come Down

 

Bullets fired from a gun do not travel in a straight line,  they will eventually fall to earth, "Velocity V Gravity", as a bullet does not have any propellant once it leaves the gun so it will slow down, so a bullet fired at anything less than a perfect vertical will follow a parabolic path and even fired upwards of an angle of 45 degrees or greater can still be deadly.

[The Deerhunter]

5 hours ago, George Graham said:

Absolutely not correct. You score zero on you grade 7physics exam.

No idea what you are trying to say.  I stand by what I posted.  Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I have considerable experience in these matters.  A bullet going vertically up till it stops and then falling back down, reaches a maximum falling velocity according to physics.  If that bullet was say a 125gr 9mm projectile, it would perhaps hurt even if you wore a hat, but be unlikely to kill except in freak circumstances.  This is because by falling, it could never reach the 1,200 to 1,300 fps muzzle velocity of a fired 9mm Parabellum bullet.  A fired bullet would have a widely varying range and termibal velocity, based on starting velocity, weight, shape, diameter, (calibre) and degree of angle above the horizontal, (as in the photo).  Except perhaps at extreme range, when it may have become unstable and be tumbling, it would always carry more velocity and therefore energy than a vertically fired bullet returning tp earth which is only the same as a bullet dropped from a plane.

Edited January 2, 2017 by The Deerhunter
punctuation & spelling.

[The Deerhunter]

5 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

Wouldnt a bullet fired directly upward, generate a downward speed of 200 plus kph?

 

a small projectile, hitting you at that speed, would enter your head and exit your ass, without much effort.

1200 fps is 1317kph.  Smomewhat different.  I cannot remember or be bothered looking up how to calculate falling object terminal speed but this falling bullet thing has been done to death in gun magazines for over 100 years.  I know which one I would rather not be hit by.