An Adult Should Really Know This - Silly Things You've Had to Tell People

[TootsNYC]

Lot more deaths from shooting a bullet into the air (do they not *realize* that it comes down at high velocity?  seriously) than from waving around sparklers, in my opinion.

Who are doing this, and on what occasion? I had not heard of this, it sounds scary!! 

It's big in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Middle East...very rural areas in many places, but I think they do it in more populated areas of those countries as well.

[Sharnita]

Yes, cities, even more common in the inner city.

[kckgirl]

Lot more deaths from shooting a bullet into the air (do they not *realize* that it comes down at high velocity?  seriously) than from waving around sparklers, in my opinion.

We had a death in our county (elementary aged girl) from a stray bullet shot into the sky in celebration at midnight on New Year's Eve.

[Jocelyn]

You can ski in Australia and Tasmania.

And you have the Snowy Mountains and the Snowy River.

The latter of which produces men. 

[kherbert05]

One of the first things my Dad taught me about guns was the bullet has to land somewhere - be sure you know where before you pull the trigger. Shortly after we went to a track meet - so he had to explain about starter's pistols.

[katycoo]

You can ski in Australia and Tasmania.

I'm sorry, I couldn't leave it.  Tasmania is part of Australia.  Perhaps you meant you can ski in Tasmania and parts of mainland Australia. Which is correct.

My point still stands that most of Australia's population does not live in areas where they get the winters much of the US does that would make hot water heaters being outside severely impractical. I would guess a good third to a quarter of the population lives in this area. The Midwest,  Plains States, New England and the mountain States: that's a big chunk of the population. As an example Syracuse, NY (population 662,000 or so) gets an average of 128 inches of snow (330 cm) of snow a year. That's cumulative,  not snow,  then melt,  then more snow. Minneapolis Minnesota (population 3.4 million or so) has an average temperature in January of 13.1 F. (-11 C).

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.  Comparing anything between Australia and the USA based on population is ludicrous considering our national population is about 10% the size of yours.

Decent numbers of people live in these areas.  Tens of thousands, if not hundreds.  I imagine that if outdoor hot water systems were an issue in these areas, it would be severely impractical for those living there, no matter how many of them there were.  I've no idea if they take alternative measures (I'm going to Tassie soon, I'll try to notice) but I'm sure if it was a problem, they would.

[gramma dishes]

Yes, cities, even more common in the inner city.

In Chicago they even have PSAs on some of the news shows about it before New Year's Eve and sometimes Fourth of July.  They are NOT firecrackers, People!!  Those bullets do come back down!!  They can and have killed people.

[MommyPenguin]

I think that people also have the tendency to think that bullets can penetrate, well, people, but not things.  Think of how many cop shows you see in which a cop hides behind an open car door while a ton of bullets slam into the door, magically stopped by the (reinforced concrete?) door, leaving the cop in safety to shoot around the sides.  In real life?  Most of the bullets would go right through the door and kill him.  You see all sorts of articles about people shooting a bullet in the streets and it going through brick or siding to kill a kid sitting inside the house watching TV or doing homework.  People just don't realize that bullets penetrate stuff like brick, siding, wood, cars, etc. and that they travel for a *long* distance without stopping.

[Julian]

You can ski in Australia and Tasmania.

I'm sorry, I couldn't leave it.  Tasmania is part of Australia.  Perhaps you meant you can ski in Tasmania and parts of mainland Australia. Which is correct.

My point still stands that most of Australia's population does not live in areas where they get the winters much of the US does that would make hot water heaters being outside severely impractical. I would guess a good third to a quarter of the population lives in this area. The Midwest,  Plains States, New England and the mountain States: that's a big chunk of the population. As an example Syracuse, NY (population 662,000 or so) gets an average of 128 inches of snow (330 cm) of snow a year. That's cumulative,  not snow,  then melt,  then more snow. Minneapolis Minnesota (population 3.4 million or so) has an average temperature in January of 13.1 F. (-11 C).

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.  Comparing anything between Australia and the USA based on population is ludicrous considering our national population is about 10% the size of yours.

Decent numbers of people live in these areas.  Tens of thousands, if not hundreds.  I imagine that if outdoor hot water systems were an issue in these areas, it would be severely impractical for those living there, no matter how many of them there were.  I've no idea if they take alternative measures (I'm going to Tassie soon, I'll try to notice) but I'm sure if it was a problem, they would.

I am in Tasmania.  The rental house I lived in had an external electric hot water system, the house I bought had an internal electric system.  I've since changed it to a gas-fueled external system, one of those 'heat as you go' ones that has no storage cylinder.

I do live in a colder area, but not quite to the extent of the central plateau region.  I'll have to have a closer look around next time I'm up that way. 

Many of the tiny towns there have a very seasonal population - lots of fishing shacks, few permanent residents.  I would imagine there's a variety of water heating options available - there's no piped gas outside of the major cities, so it's gas cylinders only, and many folk use wood heating.  Wood heaters can be used to heat water via optional fittings, but it's not very practical in summer (when we do get the occasional hot day, honestly!)  Some of these houses don't even have electricity except via generator.

[PastryGoddess]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.  Comparing anything between Australia and the USA based on population is ludicrous considering our national population is about 10% the size of yours.

Decent numbers of people live in these areas.  Tens of thousands, if not hundreds.  I imagine that if outdoor hot water systems were an issue in these areas, it would be severely impractical for those living there, no matter how many of them there were.  I've no idea if they take alternative measures (I'm going to Tassie soon, I'll try to notice) but I'm sure if it was a problem, they would.

The point was that in Australia only a small fraction of the population lives in areas where having an outdoor water heater means it's going to be exposed to extended cold periods.  Or that having to service it in the winter would be a hassle due to the cold.  For the most part, it absolutely makes sense to have it outside because of the climate patterns or whatever.

So say Australia has 20 million people, lets use a round number and say 10% of the population live in areas where having an outdoor water heater means it will be exposed to constant below freezing temperatures.  That's 2 million people...maybe.  for the other 18 million its no big deal.

On the other hand the United States has about 300 million people and if you use the 33% estimate from above, that's about 90 million people who live in areas where it can and does get below freezing for months at a time. 

Also the US was mostly populated from New England >south and then > West.  So the people in New England learned to put their mechanicals or important stuff inside the house or barn.  As people migrated, they simply kept doing things the same way as they had done before.  I'm sure in place like Florida or Texas, it would make sense to keep it outside, but it's been so ingrained that you keep your mechanicals inside, that it's just not done.

[MariaE]

Lot more deaths from shooting a bullet into the air (do they not *realize* that it comes down at high velocity?  seriously) than from waving around sparklers, in my opinion.

Who are doing this, and on what occasion? I had not heard of this, it sounds scary!! 

People with no sense, and on pretty much any occasion they can come up with    I've known two people to get injured from this, both while I was a college, both times from an idiot shooting off a gun a quarter-mile away and not realizing the whole "I shot a bullet into the air / It fell to earth, I knew not where" thing.  (With apologies to Longfellow - I'm sure he'd be against this too, if his arrow had hit a person instead of an oak . . .)

I used to believe bullets just lose momentum when they come down, so eventually they would pose no more danger than a thrown rock.

Apparently it takes a lot of time and distance before they lose momentum - they are much more likely to hit things first.

Mythbusters did an episode on this and mostly busted it. If a bullet is shot straight up into the air, it's no more dangerous than a falling rock of the same size. The problem occurs if it's shot at an angle and gets to hit something before gravity takes over.

[katycoo]

I'm afraid I don't understand your point.  Comparing anything between Australia and the USA based on population is ludicrous considering our national population is about 10% the size of yours.

Decent numbers of people live in these areas.  Tens of thousands, if not hundreds.  I imagine that if outdoor hot water systems were an issue in these areas, it would be severely impractical for those living there, no matter how many of them there were.  I've no idea if they take alternative measures (I'm going to Tassie soon, I'll try to notice) but I'm sure if it was a problem, they would.

The point was that in Australia only a small fraction of the population lives in areas where having an outdoor water heater means it's going to be exposed to extended cold periods.  Or that having to service it in the winter would be a hassle due to the cold.  For the most part, it absolutely makes sense to have it outside because of the climate patterns or whatever.

So say Australia has 20 million people, lets use a round number and say 10% of the population live in areas where having an outdoor water heater means it will be exposed to constant below freezing temperatures.  That's 2 million people...maybe.  for the other 18 million its no big deal.

On the other hand the United States has about 300 million people and if you use the 33% estimate from above, that's about 90 million people who live in areas where it can and does get below freezing for months at a time. 

Also the US was mostly populated from New England >south and then > West.  So the people in New England learned to put their mechanicals or important stuff inside the house or barn.  As people migrated, they simply kept doing things the same way as they had done before.  I'm sure in place like Florida or Texas, it would make sense to keep it outside, but it's been so ingrained that you keep your mechanicals inside, that it's just not done.

But surely that only works in the direction where it is effected?

IE.  In freezing climate, your car must be stored in a garage so the engine doesn't freeze.  In a warmer climate, this is not an issue.  But there's no harm or inconvenience caused by storing your car in a garage in a warm climate, even if its less 'necessary'.

My point being that its either not harmful or inconvenient for whatever heating system they use in our freezing areas in its being stored outside, or they use another method.  If it was problematic to do so they simply woudn't do it.  People does cuase these problems for themselves just because that's how people up north do it.

[Onyx_TKD]

Lot more deaths from shooting a bullet into the air (do they not *realize* that it comes down at high velocity?  seriously) than from waving around sparklers, in my opinion.

Who are doing this, and on what occasion? I had not heard of this, it sounds scary!! 

People with no sense, and on pretty much any occasion they can come up with    I've known two people to get injured from this, both while I was a college, both times from an idiot shooting off a gun a quarter-mile away and not realizing the whole "I shot a bullet into the air / It fell to earth, I knew not where" thing.  (With apologies to Longfellow - I'm sure he'd be against this too, if his arrow had hit a person instead of an oak . . .)

I used to believe bullets just lose momentum when they come down, so eventually they would pose no more danger than a thrown rock.

Apparently it takes a lot of time and distance before they lose momentum - they are much more likely to hit things first.

Mythbusters did an episode on this and mostly busted it. If a bullet is shot straight up into the air, it's no more dangerous than a falling rock of the same size. The problem occurs if it's shot at an angle and gets to hit something before gravity takes over.

I actually just watched that episode. While they did conclude that a bullet shot straight up would not be lethal on the way down, they also had difficulty actually making sure the shot was straight up. Even with the gun fastened into a frame standing on the ground and a special triggering mechanism to allow it to be fired in that orientation, they still had bullets landing over 300 feet away from the gun. So it's pretty unlikely that people holding a gun and firing into the air will actually fire straight up rather than at some angle from the vertical. Also, the non-lethal terminal velocity they observed was based on the bullets tumbling in the air, so that they fell and landed on their sides (not tip first). This was observed when the bullets were fired straight up from their specially-rigged gun. However, they also spoke to an expert with documented cases of people dying from bullets fired into the air and hit the victims tip-first. The Mythbusters speculated (but did not test) that bullets fired at an angle from the vertical could maintain their spin, stabilizing their flight so that they would travel tip-first. This would present a smaller cross-section and most likely a higher (and potentially lethal) terminal velocity.

[MariaE]

Lot more deaths from shooting a bullet into the air (do they not *realize* that it comes down at high velocity?  seriously) than from waving around sparklers, in my opinion.

Who are doing this, and on what occasion? I had not heard of this, it sounds scary!! 

People with no sense, and on pretty much any occasion they can come up with    I've known two people to get injured from this, both while I was a college, both times from an idiot shooting off a gun a quarter-mile away and not realizing the whole "I shot a bullet into the air / It fell to earth, I knew not where" thing.  (With apologies to Longfellow - I'm sure he'd be against this too, if his arrow had hit a person instead of an oak . . .)

I used to believe bullets just lose momentum when they come down, so eventually they would pose no more danger than a thrown rock.

Apparently it takes a lot of time and distance before they lose momentum - they are much more likely to hit things first.

Mythbusters did an episode on this and mostly busted it. If a bullet is shot straight up into the air, it's no more dangerous than a falling rock of the same size. The problem occurs if it's shot at an angle and gets to hit something before gravity takes over.

I actually just watched that episode. While they did conclude that a bullet shot straight up would not be lethal on the way down, they also had difficulty actually making sure the shot was straight up. Even with the gun fastened into a frame standing on the ground and a special triggering mechanism to allow it to be fired in that orientation, they still had bullets landing over 300 feet away from the gun. So it's pretty unlikely that people holding a gun and firing into the air will actually fire straight up rather than at some angle from the vertical. Also, the non-lethal terminal velocity they observed was based on the bullets tumbling in the air, so that they fell and landed on their sides (not tip first). This was observed when the bullets were fired straight up from their specially-rigged gun. However, they also spoke to an expert with documented cases of people dying from bullets fired into the air and hit the victims tip-first. The Mythbusters speculated (but did not test) that bullets fired at an angle from the vertical could maintain their spin, stabilizing their flight so that they would travel tip-first. This would present a smaller cross-section and most likely a higher (and potentially lethal) terminal velocity.

Yes, exactly

I didn't mean to insinuate that shooting guns up into the air wasn't dangerous, but rather that it isn't the falling bullets, but the ones still on a trajectory that are deadly. And as you can't be certain whether one is one or the other just from the angle in which you shoot the gun - it's better to just not do it.

[Free Range Hippy Chick]

Why, no, I'm not in the least offended that Relative with whom I am on terms of mutual uninterested civility, rather than closeness, did not ask me to be godmother to her child. After all, given that not only am I not a member of her church, but that I am a staunch, long term, and indeed proselytising atheist, it would be a little unusual if she had asked me, don't you think?