Free Router

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 19:10:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
>For the obvious reason - besides complete idiots, shooters know that what
>goes up must come down. It's sorta like not pointing a gun where you don't
>want it to fire. If you're in the middle of a desert, then maybe the risk
>is low, but if not, the risk is kind of obvious. BTW - we don't shoot into
>the ground either. Think downrange.

Sorry Mike, I think you're reaching with this argument and can't agree
with at all. Shooting into the ground warrants a richochet, quite
possibly into me. If I was going to fire off a gun somewhere just for
the hell of it, I'd fire it off into the air. The only place I've ever
shot was into targets at the side of a hill a good hundred yards
distant at the gun range. And even then, I didn't really consider it
as shooting into the ground.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 19:10:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>
>
>For the obvious reason - besides complete idiots, shooters know that what
>goes up must come down. It's sorta like not pointing a gun where you don't
>want it to fire. If you're in the middle of a desert, then maybe the risk
>is low, but if not, the risk is kind of obvious. BTW - we don't shoot into
>the ground either. Think downrange.

Yeah, but some of these morons live in places with no downrange. I've
seen people do it in the city. I also know a fellow that shot what he
thought was downrange on his 26 acres with quite a few trees. He
whizzed them through a yard over on the next road.

I have no idea of the ratio of guns to morons is, but certainly not
zero.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:58:19 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
>>> night.
>>
>> And you are certain these were shots- why?
>>
>>> Idiots.
>>
>> Why - because you don't fire guns?
>>
>>> A friend gave me a handful of teensy firecrackers and
>>> whistling bottle rockets (with report), so I was out in the dark at
>>> 6pm making noise for five minutes, too. Much safer noise, plus that
>>> wonderful smell.
>>
>> Much safer noise? Or just your overly proud estimation that what you do is
>> so much more right than what others do?

Thanks for quoting this. I _KNEW_ I had Mike filtered for good reason.
<snicker> He thinks that shooting into the air is safe?


>I was looking for a story about a girl that recently got killed by a
>muzzle-loading round that fell from the sky and hit her in the head, but
>I found this story instead:
>
>http://www.kmph-kfre.com/story/15030663/bullet-falls-from-sky-and-hits-girl-watching-fireworks

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> Thanks for quoting this. I _KNEW_ I had Mike filtered for good reason.
> <snicker> He thinks that shooting into the air is safe?
>

Larry - you display your typical lack of reading comprehension. But - twist
things in the usual manner, to satisfy your desires.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:58:19 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, I forgot to address the jerk's comments, Bill.


>Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
>>> night.
>>
>> And you are certain these were shots- why?

First, for 50+ years, I've seen morons shoot guns on the 4th or NYE.
They were, to a person, all shooting up into the sky.

The reason I'm certain is the speed of the six- and fifteen-shot
patterns. Next question, jerk? (Oops, I won't see them since you're
twit filtered, for even more obvious reasons today.)


>>> Idiots.
>>
>> Why - because you don't fire guns?

I fire my weapons at the range. I most certainly don't fire them into
the air. (That's a felony in many states, you idiot. Now bug off.)

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 06:22:27 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:



>
>I don't excuse that sort of thing. I don't condone firing up into the air
>for this very reason. But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
>shots he heard were being fired up in the air. Back in the day, we use to
>fire off lots of rounds along with fireworks. Seemed fun back then, though
>I don't find the same pleasure in it these days. We never fired up into the
>air though. Firing off lots of rounds does not imply shooting up into the
>air.

Unfortunately, it does. Ever watch the news when they show the people
doing just that? In the middle east, it is quite common as a means of
celebration.

Goggle "shooting guns in the air" and you get 76 million hits, many
are arrests for doing such. It happens, very often.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:43:46 -0500, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>IF Dougy had any ethics he'd sweeten the pot with a few extra bucks or
>let it go to the one that was wanting it more.

If *you* had any ethics, you wouldn't post here with your regular
bullshit.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:59:42 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Josepi wrote:
>> Good point and sounds valid for my little knowledge of law.
>>
>> Canuck law differs from US somewhat in that respect. Province of Quebec
>> law is another matter again. They disregard our federal laws,
>> completely, and make their own . Loophole in our Constitution. Lawyers
>> love it only being qualified in small geographic areas.
>>
>> Me thinks somebody is injecting a troll, here, but an interesting one.
>> At least it isn't about gas prices....LOL

Talk about irony...


(Damn, there go another few people firing full clips into the air. The
6 and 15 fast bangs in a row are a dead giveaway. Duckin' and Coverin'
here, Boss.)

--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:59:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Josepi wrote:
>>> Good point and sounds valid for my little knowledge of law.
>>>
>>> Canuck law differs from US somewhat in that respect. Province of Quebec
>>> law is another matter again. They disregard our federal laws,
>>> completely, and make their own . Loophole in our Constitution. Lawyers
>>> love it only being qualified in small geographic areas.
>>>
>>> Me thinks somebody is injecting a troll, here, but an interesting one.
>>> At least it isn't about gas prices....LOL
>
> Talk about irony...
>
>
> (Damn, there go another few people firing full clips into the air. The
> 6 and 15 fast bangs in a row are a dead giveaway. Duckin' and Coverin'
> here, Boss.)

Happy New Year's to ya'll!

Bill

>
> --
> Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
> -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
> night.

And you are certain these were shots- why?

> Idiots.

Why - because you don't fire guns?

> A friend gave me a handful of teensy firecrackers and
> whistling bottle rockets (with report), so I was out in the dark at
> 6pm making noise for five minutes, too. Much safer noise, plus that
> wonderful smell.

Much safer noise? Or just your overly proud estimation that what you do is
so much more right than what others do?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:36:11 -0500, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:59:42 -0500, Bill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Josepi wrote:
>>>> Good point and sounds valid for my little knowledge of law.
>>>>
>>>> Canuck law differs from US somewhat in that respect. Province of Quebec
>>>> law is another matter again. They disregard our federal laws,
>>>> completely, and make their own . Loophole in our Constitution. Lawyers
>>>> love it only being qualified in small geographic areas.
>>>>
>>>> Me thinks somebody is injecting a troll, here, but an interesting one.
>>>> At least it isn't about gas prices....LOL
>>
>> Talk about irony...
>>
>>
>> (Damn, there go another few people firing full clips into the air. The
>> 6 and 15 fast bangs in a row are a dead giveaway. Duckin' and Coverin'
>> here, Boss.)
>
>Happy New Year's to ya'll!

Happy New Year!

Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
night. Idiots. A friend gave me a handful of teensy firecrackers and
whistling bottle rockets (with report), so I was out in the dark at
6pm making noise for five minutes, too. Much safer noise, plus that
wonderful smell.

--
Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air…
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
>> night.
>
> And you are certain these were shots- why?
>
>> Idiots.
>
> Why - because you don't fire guns?
>
>> A friend gave me a handful of teensy firecrackers and
>> whistling bottle rockets (with report), so I was out in the dark at
>> 6pm making noise for five minutes, too. Much safer noise, plus that
>> wonderful smell.
>
> Much safer noise? Or just your overly proud estimation that what you do is
> so much more right than what others do?
>
I was looking for a story about a girl that recently got killed by a
muzzle-loading round that fell from the sky and hit her in the head, but
I found this story instead:

http://www.kmph-kfre.com/story/15030663/bullet-falls-from-sky-and-hits-girl-watching-fireworks

Here comes another stupid US brainwashing right to bear arms argument!

Certainly establishes mental prowess early in the year.

Thanx Bill

------------
"Bill" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

I was looking for a story about a girl that recently got killed by a
muzzle-loading round that fell from the sky and hit her in the head,
but
I found this story instead:

http://www.kmph-kfre.com/story/15030663/bullet-falls-from-sky-and-hits-girl-watching-fireworks

---------------
Mike Marlow wrote:

Much safer noise? Or just your overly proud estimation that what you
do is
so much more right than what others do?

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:55:19 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/2/2012 8:49 PM, Steve B wrote:
>
>>You can't fix
>> stupid, and stupid people are usually very fertile.
>
>Your clowngressmen have been betting the farm upon that bit of truism
>for about 40 years now.

Unfortunately, Idiocracy is in full bloom at this very moment in our
country, and especially in Europe. Watch the stupid movie. I
gare-on-TEE it'll scare the bejesus outta ya.

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

-MIKE- wrote the following:
> On 1/2/12 10:20 PM, m II wrote:
>> A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
>> air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
>> vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
>> vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
>> velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of
>> flight.
>>
>
> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
> scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>
> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
> will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
> velocity which isn't lethal.
>
> However, they determined that it is not all that easy to fire a gun
> straight up into the air for most people, especially under the influence
> of alcohol which is how this practice usually occurs.

I have never fired a gun up in the air, but if I did, and even if I were
drunk, I'd fire off angle rather than straight up.
Why? I don't want the bullet to come on me or the people around me.
I would think that those idiots that did fire the gun up in the air
didn't want the same to happen to them.

>
> They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far off
> of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they through
> its arc and back to the ground.
>
> In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
> doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their neighborhood.
>
> In my opinion, anyone firing a gun (aside from at firing range at a
> designated target) who isn't pointing it at something they intend to
> kill, is one or both of the following. A. taking the risk of killing
> something. B. a complete idiot.
>
>


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

Points
I agree with you that MythBusters is not a reputable source of
scientific method.
I disagree that a bullet fired into an arc maintains it's velocity.
That is impossible (did I read that right?)
I agree that with certain arcs the bullet velocity would quite likely
still injure or kill somebody. Almost straight up it would still stop
vertical ascension (Is that politically correct to use?) at the apex of
the arc.

As an observation most people would not shoot anything straight up in
the air. It's too much strain on the back and neck.

---------------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
velocity which isn't lethal.

However, they determined that it is not all that easy to fire a gun
straight up into the air for most people, especially under the
influence
of alcohol which is how this practice usually occurs.

They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far off
of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
through
its arc and back to the ground.

In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
neighborhood.

In my opinion, anyone firing a gun (aside from at firing range at a
designated target) who isn't pointing it at something they intend to
kill, is one or both of the following. A. taking the risk of killing
something. B. a complete idiot.

Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I
>> do, it would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were
>> fired into the air.
>
> Gosh, if one was going to celebrate by shooting a rifle, would she
> really be likely to fire it into the ground? Why bother?
>

For the obvious reason - besides complete idiots, shooters know that what
goes up must come down. It's sorta like not pointing a gun where you don't
want it to fire. If you're in the middle of a desert, then maybe the risk
is low, but if not, the risk is kind of obvious. BTW - we don't shoot into
the ground either. Think downrange.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Doug Miller wrote:

>
> Actually, an awful lot of people *don't* think about that. People who
> have been instructed in the safe use of firearms certainly do -- but
> you're fooling yourself if you think that category encompasses most of
> the general population.

Must be a reflection of regional awareness. I've been shooting and hunting
for over 40 years and this has never had to be taught to people - it was
simple common sense. The general shooting population around here is indeed
very aware of this.


>
> Obvious to people who have been instructed in the safe use of
> firearms. *Not* obvious to the average yahoo.
>

What exactly, is "the average yahoo"? Around here that would be defined as
the guy nextdoor, and he's in fact very aware of this kind of thing. Inner
city thugs? Well, maybe not so much, but they don't care about anything
even if they are aware of it.


>> BTW - we don't shoot into
>> the ground either. Think downrange.
>
> Mike, there is no safe "downrange" in the middle of a city of a
> million people.

I have been pretty careful to qualify my surroundings which are rural. I
never said anything about the middle of a city of a million people. You
raise a completely different issue with that statement Doug.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Bow do you know this?
>>
>> And check your spelchekr.
>>
>
> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>
> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>
>
> --
>
> -MIKE-

The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.

Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

On 1/1/2012 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:11:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
>>> night.
>>
>> And you are certain these were shots- why?
>>
>>> Idiots.
>>
>> Why - because you don't fire guns?
>>
>
> Perhaps you should ask the 12 year old boy in Florida that was hit by
> a bullet last night. If he ever gains consciousness.
>
>
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/ruskin-boy-in-coma-after-being-struck-by-celebratory-new-years-gunfire/1208726
>
> No one knows where the bullet came from, but authorities believe it
> was fired from miles away in a new year's celebration.
>
> "Here we have a 12-year-old kid fighting for his life because he
> happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time," said
> Hillsborough County sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon.
>
> Detectives spoke with Diego's family and neighbors Sunday morning and
> determined that no one in the immediate vicinity of the home had been
> firing a gun at the time, around 1 a.m. Sunday, according to
> officials.
>
> "The bullet was quite a large one," said family friend Dee Sims. "They
> said it could have come from 2 or 3 miles away."
Happened a few years ago in Phoenix, AZ, killed a teenager named Shannon
(hit her in the head; she was outside, as I recall, talking on a cell
phone). AZ has since passed a law making shooting firearms into the air
a felony - law is named for the girl, and is known as Shannon's Law.

"Swingman" wrote
>
> Comment, either for or again, grammatical and speeling usuage and ur bount
> to make a misteak yourslef.
>
Old english teacher karma??

I had a friend who wrote a number of small books and every time he published
one of them, he would get inundated with letters pointing out grammar and
spelling errors in the book. They were far more interested in this that
what he wrote about.

So on the very first page of each book written after that he had a huge
print disclaimer concerning errors. He made it clear that a large number of
people are obsessed with errors. They only read books to find the errors.
So he purposely included the errors in his books to meet these folk's needs.
So don't write him and tell him about the errors. He knew they were there.
He put them in the book just for them. If they wanted to write and talk
about the book subject matter, fine. But no error letters.

It worked. And he got a number of letter complimenting him on his Error
Memorandum.

Justin Time wrote:


>>
> LMAO! Mike, have you been out in the world much?

No - I lead a very secluded life.

> No offense but in
> the past decade I've seen more idiots and fools who lack that common
> sense than many have seen in a lifetime. I work around professors and
> scholars with PhDs who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag.

Ok - but what does that have to do with people shooting guns?

> I
> see college students who have no understanding of the "major" they
> choose for their career and this is in their senior year. Hell, you
> can watch most TV programs, You Tube and other video sources and view
> the idiocy within our society. Being a carefree man, I casually start
> conversations to strangers for shits and giggles, only to realize the
> idiocy doesn't end with most of them. If you can't see it, then
> you're wearing the wrong colored glasses.

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. My only point was that
it's easy to claim people are doing something stupid like shooting in the
air, but what is the proof of this? So far - only anecdotal (or less...)
claims.


> Bottom line, Mike, a responsible person doesn't shoot a firearm
> randomly in the city, in the ground and/or in the air. They shoot at
> a range, a skills competition, hunting or to defend themselves.
> Otherwise, they are idiots.

D'oh! And what exactly has been stated in this thread that causes you to
make that obvious statement? Oh yeah - you forgot at least one additional
environment - on their own property. How about plinking at can out in the
wilderness? Idiots? I don't think so.

It's when these comments are made with such generalities that I raise up and
object. Otherwise they are idiots? What about those that are outside of
what you just prescribed, but are still perfectly safe in what they are
doing?

Do you see my point? My point is not about defending fools who do things
like shooting up in the air - I made that very clear. Too bad you elected
to ignore that. My point is about generalizations that are either
incomplete (such as yours above), or that assume things because it sounds
good to the author. My point is not a defense of genuinely stupid things.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Doug Miller wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 6:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>
>> [...] But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
>> shots he heard were being fired up in the air.
>
> Do you honestly believe that *none* of the people firing guns on New
> Year's Eve were shooting them into the air, or are you just being
> intentionally argumentative?

I wouldn't go so far as to say intentionally argumentative. More like
suggesting against assuming as if it were fact, something that isn't known.
Certainly you know that such is a common thing. I didn't say that *none* of
the shots went into the air. I didn't say anything about quantity. On the
other hand, I didn't say that they did, even though I didn't really know...

>
> If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
> 8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
> still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.

I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I do, it
would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were fired into the
air. Even more reasonable to assume that 10% is an unlikely number. And...
you hear a lot of gun shots around here on holidays like this. So - you
heard 1,000 rounds on New Year's Eve? Damn Doug - that would be a ton of
shooting, even around here...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

We get gun shots from time to time - and heavy rifle fire from time
to time as well. The latter is likely the ignorant shooting at deer
close to town. My property is split - 1/3 in town and 2/3 in the county.

As far as the shots in the air - often there are deaths and sometimes
in a house. The bullet hits the ground at the same velocity as being
fired.

Some of the people of southern North America - e.g. not in America
and those in central America - shoot into the air at a drop of a hat.
It is dangerous.

Martin

On 1/2/2012 4:02 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 12:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
> [...]
>>> If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
>>> 8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
>>> still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.
>>
>> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I do, it
>> would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were fired into the
>> air. Even more reasonable to assume that 10% is an unlikely number.
>> And...
>> you hear a lot of gun shots around here on holidays like this. So - you
>> heard 1,000 rounds on New Year's Eve? Damn Doug - that would be a ton of
>> shooting, even around here...
>>
> I live in the city of Indianapolis, about halfway between the center of
> town and the beltway highway. We've lived here since the middle of '99.
> Before that, we lived for about the same length of time in a rural area
> some fifteen miles *outside* the beltway. We hear far, FAR more shooting
> now -- at *all* times of the year -- than when we lived in the country.
> I was never once awakened by gunfire during that time; in the city, it
> happens every month or two.
>
> I'm sure that the number of shots we hear *each year* on New Year's Eve
> in the city exceeds the total number of shots we heard in the entire 12+
> years we spent in the country. But, yes, although I didn't actually
> count, we definitely heard at least a thousand shots on New Year's Eve.
> Sporadic gunfire started around 8:15 or 8:30, and increased in intensity
> as the time grew closer to midnight. From about 11:55 to 12:10, it was
> nearly continuous, with the shots being too closely spaced to count.
> Even at only one round per second, that would be nine hundred rounds. We
> were still hearing occasional shots at 1:30.

m II wrote:

> Your boat really moves quickly!
>

You really need to stay out of the bottle if you want your meaningless
babble to even resemble coherant speach.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

-MIKE- wrote the following:
> On 1/2/12 4:50 PM, willshak wrote:
>
>> "It's raining lead, Hallelujah. It's raining lead, Amen"
>> (apologies to the Pointer Sisters)
>>
>
>
> Weather Girls (and Paul Shaffer)

Correction noted.
Thx



--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

Doug Miller wrote the following:
> On 1/2/2012 12:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
> [...]
>>> If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
>>> 8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
>>> still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.
>>
>> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I do, it
>> would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were fired into the
>> air. Even more reasonable to assume that 10% is an unlikely number.
>> And...
>> you hear a lot of gun shots around here on holidays like this. So - you
>> heard 1,000 rounds on New Year's Eve? Damn Doug - that would be a ton of
>> shooting, even around here...
>>
> I live in the city of Indianapolis, about halfway between the center of
> town and the beltway highway. We've lived here since the middle of '99.
> Before that, we lived for about the same length of time in a rural area
> some fifteen miles *outside* the beltway. We hear far, FAR more shooting
> now -- at *all* times of the year -- than when we lived in the country.
> I was never once awakened by gunfire during that time; in the city, it
> happens every month or two.
>
> I'm sure that the number of shots we hear *each year* on New Year's Eve
> in the city exceeds the total number of shots we heard in the entire 12+
> years we spent in the country. But, yes, although I didn't actually
> count, we definitely heard at least a thousand shots on New Year's Eve.
> Sporadic gunfire started around 8:15 or 8:30, and increased in intensity
> as the time grew closer to midnight. From about 11:55 to 12:10, it was
> nearly continuous, with the shots being too closely spaced to count.
> Even at only one round per second, that would be nine hundred rounds. We
> were still hearing occasional shots at 1:30.

"It's raining lead, Hallelujah. It's raining lead, Amen"
(apologies to the Pointer Sisters)


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

Justin Time wrote the following:
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 1/2/2012 6:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> [...] But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
>>> shots he heard were being fired up in the air.
>> Do you honestly believe that *none* of the people firing guns on New
>> Year's Eve were shooting them into the air, or are you just being
>> intentionally argumentative?
>>
>> If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
>> 8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
>> still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TROLL FIGHT!
>
> Remind me not to give anything away for free in the newsgroup again.

Next time you want to give anything away, put it on Craigs List under
Free stuff for your local area. No shipping, no taxes, no fees.
Responses within minutes.


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On 1/5/2012 11:45 AM, Steve B wrote:

> Just wanted you (plural) to know that I'm not one of those
> netnannying nitpicking English majors.I weld, and the best
> weldor ...

^^^^^^

Comment, either for or again, grammatical and speeling usuage and ur
bount to make a misteak yourslef.

LOL


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of
flight.

------------
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
As far as the shots in the air - often there are deaths and sometimes
in a house. The bullet hits the ground at the same velocity as being
fired.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 1/2/2012 7:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I
>>> do, it would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were
>>> fired into the air.
>>
>> Gosh, if one was going to celebrate by shooting a rifle, would she
>> really be likely to fire it into the ground? Why bother?
>>
>
> For the obvious reason - besides complete idiots, shooters know that what
> goes up must come down.

Actually, an awful lot of people *don't* think about that. People who
have been instructed in the safe use of firearms certainly do -- but
you're fooling yourself if you think that category encompasses most of
the general population.

> It's sorta like not pointing a gun where you don't
> want it to fire. If you're in the middle of a desert, then maybe the risk
> is low, but if not, the risk is kind of obvious.

Obvious to people who have been instructed in the safe use of firearms.
*Not* obvious to the average yahoo.

> BTW - we don't shoot into
> the ground either. Think downrange.

Mike, there is no safe "downrange" in the middle of a city of a million
people.
============================================================================
Tell that to the Seattle cops. Standard practice is to point the gun in the
general direction and keep pulling the trigger until you're out of ammo.
Some years ago, when they were still using revolvers, the chief of police
cited a recent shootout as evidence that they needed high capacity autos.
The cop had to reload her revolver twice before the thug ran out of bullets.
No one was hit. What he should have done is given the officer some time off
without pay. Tell her she could come back when she learned how to shoot.
"Spray and pray" is completely irresponsible in the middle of a city.

Steve Turner wrote the following:
> On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>
>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>
>>
>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>
>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>
> I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.
>


Hell, you would hate to read my posts if I didn't use the 'spell check
as I type' feature and actually read the message a couple of times
before I post it. :-)
I used to be able to type and write with no problems, but with dementia,
left arm nerve damage, and dyslectic typing coming on in the last few
years, it's impossible to type legibly. 74 YO.
For those reasons, I don't critique anyone else's typing unless in humor.

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

Backpeddle faster. The creek is ris'n.

----------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

m II wrote:

> Your boat really moves quickly!
>

You really need to stay out of the bottle if you want your meaningless
babble to even resemble coherant speach.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Backpeddle faster!

Your inconsiderate attitude is showing badly, moron!
Maybe you learned something, today?

--------

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Matt wrote:

> Happened a few years ago in Phoenix, AZ, killed a teenager named
> Shannon (hit her in the head; she was outside, as I recall, talking
> on a cell phone). AZ has since passed a law making shooting firearms
> into the air a felony - law is named for the girl, and is known as
> Shannon's Law.

It's just too bad that a law has to be written to prevent something
that is
just a stupid behavior. From the early days of gunpowder it has been
known
that what goes up must come down.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 1/5/2012 12:42 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:

> I had a friend who wrote a number of small books and every time he
> published one of them, he would get inundated with letters pointing out
> grammar and spelling errors in the book. They were far more interested
> in this that what he wrote about.
>
> So on the very first page of each book written after that he had a huge
> print disclaimer concerning errors. He made it clear that a large number
> of people are obsessed with errors. They only read books to find the
> errors. So he purposely included the errors in his books to meet these
> folk's needs. So don't write him and tell him about the errors. He knew
> they were there. He put them in the book just for them. If they wanted
> to write and talk about the book subject matter, fine. But no error
> letters.
>
> It worked. And he got a number of letter complimenting him on his Error
> Memorandum.

Clever!

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote

>> "The bullet was quite a large one," said family friend Dee Sims. "They
>> said it could have come from 2 or 3 miles away."
> Happened a few years ago in Phoenix, AZ, killed a teenager named Shannon
> (hit her in the head; she was outside, as I recall, talking on a cell
> phone). AZ has since passed a law making shooting firearms into the air a
> felony - law is named for the girl, and is known as Shannon's Law.

This discussion has come up in other groups. There are some people who
claim that someone being struck and dying from a falling bullet are
impossible.

I was in New Orleans many years ago, near the riverfront in the Quarter. A
tourist walking along was struck on top the head by a falling bullet, and
died.

There is no intelligence test to getting on the Internet. You can't fix
stupid, and stupid people are usually very fertile.

Steve

On 1/2/2012 10:44 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


> In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
> doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their neighborhood.


None of which applies to an armed, Islamic fundamentalist ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Apparently, according to Wikipedia reporting the Mythbusters the
bullets shot straight up tumble and lose terminal velocity to the point
of non-fatal velocities.

More on this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire


------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 1/3/12 4:26 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
>> scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>>
>> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the
>> ground, will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching
>> terminal velocity which isn't lethal.
>
> Have to differ on this point Mike. If I recall correctly, terminal
> velocity
> of a bullet is somewhere around 100mph (150fps). Enough to be
> lethal.
> Besides, there a too many documented cases of death from falling
> bullets to
> suggest that terminal velocity is non-lethal. The Myth Busters
> conclusion
> that straight up is non-lethal was based on bullets bouncing off a
> pig's
> head, or only slightly penetrating the skin and then bouncing off
> when fired
> at 160fps. Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world
> evidence
> by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's
> head
> compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a
> place
> here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did
> not
> consider.
>
>>
>> They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far
>> off of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
>> through its arc and back to the ground.
>
> I do not recall this conclusion and it did not appear in the web site
> I
> viewed on this broadcast. Maybe I missed something?
>
>>
>> In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
>> doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
>> neighborhood.
>
> Not at all. There is this thing called muzzle velocity which is much
> higher
> than terminal velocity. Firing straight out into the neighborhood is
> much
> more dangerous.
>

The points you did apparently miss in the episode is that...
A. most bullets are not fired directly perpendicular to the earth,
which
make the terminal velocity thing an almost moot point. Most are fired
at acute angles.
B. bullets fired at acute angles maintain most of their velocity, or a
velocity many, many times greater than terminal velocity, when
returning
back to earth, making them very deadly.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

But it was a lot of fun trolling over NY celebrating USanians for their
moral differences!!


---------------
"Justin Time" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
People in a woodworking newsgroup would put it to use more so than
people on
Craigslist who may turn around and sell it.

The transaction from here was smooth and easy, in spite of what some
whined
about.

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

The bullet hits the ground at the same velocity as being
fired.
=================================================================

No, it doesn't. Your old science teacher would slap you.

m II wrote:

> Bullshit! (sounds just like you, huh?)
>

No - it sounds just like you.


> You thought the statement was attacking gun owners and lost your cool,
> prematurely, before you realized what was being discussed.
>

No - I didn't think it was attacking gun owners. Too bad you can't just
lump my thoughts into your own private agenda as you have already tried to
do by bringing up the 2nd ammendment previously. Unfortunately for you,
this discussion does not cause me to loose my cool, because it's just not
that religeous of a topic for me.

Sorry - you lose again. Keep playing though...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:11:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
>>> night.
>>
>> And you are certain these were shots- why?
>>
>>> Idiots.
>>
>> Why - because you don't fire guns?
>>
>
> Perhaps you should ask the 12 year old boy in Florida that was hit by
> a bullet last night. If he ever gains consciousness.
>
>
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/ruskin-boy-in-coma-after-being-struck-by-celebratory-new-years-gunfire/1208726
>
> No one knows where the bullet came from, but authorities believe it
> was fired from miles away in a new year's celebration.
>
> "Here we have a 12-year-old kid fighting for his life because he
> happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time," said
> Hillsborough County sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon.
>
> Detectives spoke with Diego's family and neighbors Sunday morning and
> determined that no one in the immediate vicinity of the home had been
> firing a gun at the time, around 1 a.m. Sunday, according to
> officials.
>
> "The bullet was quite a large one," said family friend Dee Sims. "They
> said it could have come from 2 or 3 miles away."

I don't excuse that sort of thing. I don't condone firing up into the air
for this very reason. But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
shots he heard were being fired up in the air. Back in the day, we use to
fire off lots of rounds along with fireworks. Seemed fun back then, though
I don't find the same pleasure in it these days. We never fired up into the
air though. Firing off lots of rounds does not imply shooting up into the
air.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

-MIKE- wrote:

>
> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
> scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>
> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the
> ground, will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching
> terminal velocity which isn't lethal.

Have to differ on this point Mike. If I recall correctly, terminal velocity
of a bullet is somewhere around 100mph (150fps). Enough to be lethal.
Besides, there a too many documented cases of death from falling bullets to
suggest that terminal velocity is non-lethal. The Myth Busters conclusion
that straight up is non-lethal was based on bullets bouncing off a pig's
head, or only slightly penetrating the skin and then bouncing off when fired
at 160fps. Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world evidence
by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's head
compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a place
here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did not
consider.

>
> They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far
> off of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
> through its arc and back to the ground.

I do not recall this conclusion and it did not appear in the web site I
viewed on this broadcast. Maybe I missed something?

>
> In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
> doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
> neighborhood.

Not at all. There is this thing called muzzle velocity which is much higher
than terminal velocity. Firing straight out into the neighborhood is much
more dangerous.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Matt wrote:

> Happened a few years ago in Phoenix, AZ, killed a teenager named
> Shannon (hit her in the head; she was outside, as I recall, talking
> on a cell phone). AZ has since passed a law making shooting firearms
> into the air a felony - law is named for the girl, and is known as
> Shannon's Law.

It's just too bad that a law has to be written to prevent something that is
just a stupid behavior. From the early days of gunpowder it has been known
that what goes up must come down.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>
>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>
>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -MIKE-
>>
>> The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.
>>
>> Steve sorry you missed the ;-)
>
> I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
> his chain. :-)
>

Just wanted you (plural) to know that I'm not one of those netnannying
nitpicking English majors. I weld, and the best weldor I ever saw could not
read or write. But he could take two pieces of 40' long pipe, a sheet of
paper, and a match book, and cut any angle to make the two pieces intersect
with minimal fitting. I am amused sometimes by common words that the
spelchekr lets pass because they are common, just out of context. I know
there are some grammar programs, such as in Word, that will let you know if
something's not stated right, or that might catch it, but I guess they
haven't got to Usenet posters yet. I find it far better to talk about doing
things rather than picking apart someone's writing. I know a lot of very
smart people who are confused about which end of a screwdriver goes in your
hand.

Steve

Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world evidence
> by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's head
> compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a place
> here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did not
> consider.

I am not a doctor, but did attend college when I thought I wanted to be one.
The major human skull bones form from the outside inward, in a circle,
meeting at the apex or crown. There is the frontal bone (forehead),
occipital bone (back of the skull), and two parietal bones, which are two
halves if you will, the line running front to back. At birth, there is a
"soft spot" on infants, some very pronounced where you can see the heartbeat
through the thin skin where there is very little or no bone. It takes a
time for the two parietal bones to grow together and meet in the middle. I
do not know the ending thickness of the top of the skull with regard to the
thicknesses in other areas of the skull, but I would imagine that since it
has to grow together, the ending thickness would not be that thick. I have
seen post mortem skulls with fatal head wounds, and the skull in that area
is in some cases 1/8" thick or so, oddly, depending upon the race of the
person. A falling piece of lead would easily penetrate. It is also
interesting that a lot of head wounds by bullets through these areas have
both an entrance and exit wound, which would indicate not much bone mass. I
have dissected fetal pigs, but we did not do cranials on them. AND, oddly
enough, I have never ever ever read of a pig being killed by a falling
bullet. Makes one a little paranoid, eh? ;-)

Steve

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 1/2/2012 6:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> [...] But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
> shots he heard were being fired up in the air.

Do you honestly believe that *none* of the people firing guns on New
Year's Eve were shooting them into the air, or are you just being
intentionally argumentative?

If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TROLL FIGHT!

On 1/2/2012 6:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> [...] But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
> shots he heard were being fired up in the air.

Do you honestly believe that *none* of the people firing guns on New
Year's Eve were shooting them into the air, or are you just being
intentionally argumentative?

If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> On 1/2/2012 6:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>
>> [...] But - neither you, nor I, nor Larry know that the
>> shots he heard were being fired up in the air.
>
> Do you honestly believe that *none* of the people firing guns on New
> Year's Eve were shooting them into the air, or are you just being
> intentionally argumentative?
>
> If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
> 8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
> still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TROLL FIGHT!

Remind me not to give anything away for free in the newsgroup again.

"willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Remind me not to give anything away for free in the newsgroup again.
>
> Next time you want to give anything away, put it on Craigs List under Free
> stuff for your local area. No shipping, no taxes, no fees.
> Responses within minutes.

People in a woodworking newsgroup would put it to use more so than people on
Craigslist who may turn around and sell it.

The transaction from here was smooth and easy, in spite of what some whined
about.

On 1/2/2012 12:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
[...]
>> If only one-tenth of the gunshots that I heard between approximately
>> 8:30 pm on 31 Dec and 1:30 am on 1 Jan were fired into the air, that
>> still represents over a hundred rounds launched into the sky.
>
> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I do, it
> would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were fired into the
> air. Even more reasonable to assume that 10% is an unlikely number. And...
> you hear a lot of gun shots around here on holidays like this. So - you
> heard 1,000 rounds on New Year's Eve? Damn Doug - that would be a ton of
> shooting, even around here...
>
I live in the city of Indianapolis, about halfway between the center of
town and the beltway highway. We've lived here since the middle of '99.
Before that, we lived for about the same length of time in a rural area
some fifteen miles *outside* the beltway. We hear far, FAR more shooting
now -- at *all* times of the year -- than when we lived in the country.
I was never once awakened by gunfire during that time; in the city, it
happens every month or two.

I'm sure that the number of shots we hear *each year* on New Year's Eve
in the city exceeds the total number of shots we heard in the entire 12+
years we spent in the country. But, yes, although I didn't actually
count, we definitely heard at least a thousand shots on New Year's Eve.
Sporadic gunfire started around 8:15 or 8:30, and increased in intensity
as the time grew closer to midnight. From about 11:55 to 12:10, it was
nearly continuous, with the shots being too closely spaced to count.
Even at only one round per second, that would be nine hundred rounds. We
were still hearing occasional shots at 1:30.

On 1/2/12 4:50 PM, willshak wrote:

> "It's raining lead, Hallelujah. It's raining lead, Amen"
> (apologies to the Pointer Sisters)
>


Weather Girls (and Paul Shaffer)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike Marlow wrote:

> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I do, it
> would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were fired into the
> air.

Gosh, if one was going to celebrate by shooting a rifle, would she
really be likely to fire it into the ground? Why bother?



Even more reasonable to assume that 10% is an unlikely number. And...
> you hear a lot of gun shots around here on holidays like this. So - you
> heard 1,000 rounds on New Year's Eve? Damn Doug - that would be a ton of
> shooting, even around here...
>

On 1/2/2012 7:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know where you live but if you live in a rural area like I
>>> do, it would be reasonably safe to assume that none of them were
>>> fired into the air.
>>
>> Gosh, if one was going to celebrate by shooting a rifle, would she
>> really be likely to fire it into the ground? Why bother?
>>
>
> For the obvious reason - besides complete idiots, shooters know that what
> goes up must come down.

Actually, an awful lot of people *don't* think about that. People who
have been instructed in the safe use of firearms certainly do -- but
you're fooling yourself if you think that category encompasses most of
the general population.

> It's sorta like not pointing a gun where you don't
> want it to fire. If you're in the middle of a desert, then maybe the risk
> is low, but if not, the risk is kind of obvious.

Obvious to people who have been instructed in the safe use of firearms.
*Not* obvious to the average yahoo.

> BTW - we don't shoot into
> the ground either. Think downrange.

Mike, there is no safe "downrange" in the middle of a city of a million
people.

On 1/2/2012 7:33 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, an awful lot of people *don't* think about that. People who
>> have been instructed in the safe use of firearms certainly do -- but
>> you're fooling yourself if you think that category encompasses most of
>> the general population.
>
> Must be a reflection of regional awareness. I've been shooting and hunting
> for over 40 years and this has never had to be taught to people - it was
> simple common sense. The general shooting population around here is indeed
> very aware of this.
>
>
>>
>> Obvious to people who have been instructed in the safe use of
>> firearms. *Not* obvious to the average yahoo.
>>
>
> What exactly, is "the average yahoo"? Around here that would be defined as
> the guy nextdoor, and he's in fact very aware of this kind of thing. Inner
> city thugs? Well, maybe not so much, but they don't care about anything
> even if they are aware of it.
>
>
>>> BTW - we don't shoot into
>>> the ground either. Think downrange.
>>
>> Mike, there is no safe "downrange" in the middle of a city of a
>> million people.
>
> I have been pretty careful to qualify my surroundings which are rural. I
> never said anything about the middle of a city of a million people. You
> raise a completely different issue with that statement Doug.
>
No, actually, I've been talking *all along* about this happening in the
city. *You* raised the completely different issue by describing what
happens in rural areas.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, an awful lot of people *don't* think about that. People who
>> have been instructed in the safe use of firearms certainly do -- but
>> you're fooling yourself if you think that category encompasses most of
>> the general population.
>
> Must be a reflection of regional awareness. I've been shooting and
> hunting for over 40 years and this has never had to be taught to people -
> it was simple common sense. The general shooting population around here
> is indeed very aware of this.
>
>
>>
>> Obvious to people who have been instructed in the safe use of
>> firearms. *Not* obvious to the average yahoo.
>>
>
> What exactly, is "the average yahoo"? Around here that would be defined
> as the guy nextdoor, and he's in fact very aware of this kind of thing.
> Inner city thugs? Well, maybe not so much, but they don't care about
> anything even if they are aware of it.
>
>
>>> BTW - we don't shoot into
>>> the ground either. Think downrange.
>>
>> Mike, there is no safe "downrange" in the middle of a city of a
>> million people.
>
> I have been pretty careful to qualify my surroundings which are rural. I
> never said anything about the middle of a city of a million people. You
> raise a completely different issue with that statement Doug.
>
LMAO! Mike, have you been out in the world much? No offense but in the past
decade I've seen more idiots and fools who lack that common sense than many
have seen in a lifetime. I work around professors and scholars with PhDs who
couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. I see college students who have
no understanding of the "major" they choose for their career and this is in
their senior year. Hell, you can watch most TV programs, You Tube and other
video sources and view the idiocy within our society. Being a carefree man,
I casually start conversations to strangers for shits and giggles, only to
realize the idiocy doesn't end with most of them. If you can't see it, then
you're wearing the wrong colored glasses.

Bottom line, Mike, a responsible person doesn't shoot a firearm randomly in
the city, in the ground and/or in the air. They shoot at a range, a skills
competition, hunting or to defend themselves. Otherwise, they are idiots.

On 1/2/12 10:20 PM, m II wrote:
> A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
> air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
> vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
> vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
> velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of flight.
>

Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.

Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
velocity which isn't lethal.

However, they determined that it is not all that easy to fire a gun
straight up into the air for most people, especially under the influence
of alcohol which is how this practice usually occurs.

They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far off
of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they through
its arc and back to the ground.

In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their neighborhood.

In my opinion, anyone firing a gun (aside from at firing range at a
designated target) who isn't pointing it at something they intend to
kill, is one or both of the following. A. taking the risk of killing
something. B. a complete idiot.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/2/12 10:20 PM, m II wrote:
>> A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
>> air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
>> vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
>> vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
>> velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of
>> flight.
>>
>
> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of scientific
> method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>
> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
> will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
> velocity which isn't lethal.
>
> However, they determined that it is not all that easy to fire a gun
> straight up into the air for most people, especially under the influence
> of alcohol which is how this practice usually occurs.
>
> They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far off
> of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they through
> its arc and back to the ground.
>
> In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
> doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their neighborhood.

That's not true of course. Shooting people in top of the head out of
a helicopter would be a lot tougher than shooting them from the ground.
The square footage of the target is alot different. : )

>
> In my opinion, anyone firing a gun (aside from at firing range at a
> designated target) who isn't pointing it at something they intend to
> kill, is one or both of the following. A. taking the risk of killing
> something. B. a complete idiot.
>
>

On 1/2/2012 11:44 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/2/12 10:20 PM, m II wrote:
>> A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
>> air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
>> vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
>> vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
>> velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of
>> flight.
>>
>
> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of scientific
> method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>
> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
> will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
> velocity which isn't lethal.

Tell that to the next-of-kin of people who have been killed by bullets
falling from the sky.

On 1/3/12 7:02 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 11:44 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/2/12 10:20 PM, m II wrote:
>>> A falling object will max out at it's terminal velocity based on it's
>>> air resistance and weight. For a bullet it should be close to the
>>> vertical component of the muzzle velocity. It will always be less than
>>> vertical muzzle velocity, though, in an atmosphere. The horizontal
>>> velocity component will also be less depending totally on length of
>>> flight.
>>>
>>
>> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of scientific
>> method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>>
>> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the ground,
>> will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching terminal
>> velocity which isn't lethal.
>
> Tell that to the next-of-kin of people who have been killed by bullets
> falling from the sky.

Maybe you should've read the rest of my post, Doug.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>As far as the shots in the air - often there are deaths and sometimes
>in a house. The bullet hits the ground at the same velocity as being
>fired.
<...snipped...>

There is no question that a falling bullet can be dangerous, but it
does not reach the ground at muzzle velocity. The terminal velocity of
a bullet in the atmosphere varies with shape, caliber, and weight and
is in the neighborhood of a few hundred feet per second. A magnum
pistol muzzle velocity might be around 1500 fps and rifles can be upwards
of 3000fps.



--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 1/3/12 4:26 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>
>> Mythbusters tacked this. I realize they aren't the bastion of
>> scientific method, but they did a pretty good job in this instance.
>>
>> Yes, a bullet fired straight into the air, perpendicular to the
>> ground, will slow down, reach an apex, fall down to earth reaching
>> terminal velocity which isn't lethal.
>
> Have to differ on this point Mike. If I recall correctly, terminal velocity
> of a bullet is somewhere around 100mph (150fps). Enough to be lethal.
> Besides, there a too many documented cases of death from falling bullets to
> suggest that terminal velocity is non-lethal. The Myth Busters conclusion
> that straight up is non-lethal was based on bullets bouncing off a pig's
> head, or only slightly penetrating the skin and then bouncing off when fired
> at 160fps. Valid in its own right, but contradicted by real world evidence
> by a medical professional. I don't know how the density of a pig's head
> compares to that of a human (though the term pig headed might have a place
> here...) but it seems there are too many other factors that they did not
> consider.
>
>>
>> They further determined that a bullet fired at an angle not too far
>> off of 90 degrees maintains most of its velocity in flight, all they
>> through its arc and back to the ground.
>
> I do not recall this conclusion and it did not appear in the web site I
> viewed on this broadcast. Maybe I missed something?
>
>>
>> In other words, most people firing guns into the air are essentially
>> doing the same thing as firing them straight out into their
>> neighborhood.
>
> Not at all. There is this thing called muzzle velocity which is much higher
> than terminal velocity. Firing straight out into the neighborhood is much
> more dangerous.
>

The points you did apparently miss in the episode is that...
A. most bullets are not fired directly perpendicular to the earth, which
make the terminal velocity thing an almost moot point. Most are fired
at acute angles.
B. bullets fired at acute angles maintain most of their velocity, or a
velocity many, many times greater than terminal velocity, when returning
back to earth, making them very deadly.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/3/12 10:54 PM, Steve B wrote:
> A falling piece of lead would easily penetrate.

Bow do you know this?

I've seen other experiments testing the urban myth of pennies being
thrown off the empire state building killing people below. The tests
showed that the penny barely broke the skin. More tests were done on
heavier and more aerodynamic objects, including bullets and they did
little more that cause some bleeding.

I think in an ideal situation, with the bullet hitting point down on the
perfect part of the human skull, it could crack the skull, but not
penetrate. Of course, as has been pointed out, this in not the situation
in which people are being killed by "celebratory gun fire."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Bow do you know this?
>
> And check your spelchekr.
>

I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.

Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> Bow do you know this?
>>
>> And check your spelchekr.
>>
>
> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>
> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p

I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.

--
My momma taught me two things about life:
1. Never tell them everything you know;

To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/4/12 11:39 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>
>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>
>>
>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>
>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>
> I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.
>

The older I get, the less I care about what douche-bags in some
newsgroup think about me.

Google+ on the other hand.... :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 12:41 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/4/12 11:39 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
>> On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>
>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>
>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>
>> I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.
>>
>
> The older I get, the less I care about what douche-bags in some newsgroup think
> about me.
>
> Google+ on the other hand.... :-)

I hope you're not calling me a douche-bag. Don't forget, I'm not afraid to use
the other "D" word on you! :-)

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/4/12 1:22 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 12:41 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/4/12 11:39 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2012 11:23 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>>
>>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>>
>>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>>
>>> I've noticed that the older Mike gets, the more typos he makes.
>>>
>>
>> The older I get, the less I care about what douche-bags in some
>> newsgroup think
>> about me.
>>
>> Google+ on the other hand.... :-)
>
> I hope you're not calling me a douche-bag. Don't forget, I'm not afraid
> to use the other "D" word on you! :-)
>

I would expect no less!


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>
>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>
>>
>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>
>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -MIKE-
>
> The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.
>
> Steve sorry you missed the ;-)

I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking his
chain. :-)

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/4/12 11:15 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>
>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>
>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -MIKE-
>>
>> The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.
>>
>> Steve sorry you missed the ;-)
>
> I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
> his chain. :-)
>

Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.

--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/4/2012 11:22 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 1/4/12 11:15 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
>> On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>>
>>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>>
>>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -MIKE-
>>>
>>> The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.
>>>
>>> Steve sorry you missed the ;-)
>>
>> I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
>> his chain. :-)
>>
>
> Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.

He also knows how to get my goat. I don't think I'll ever get the damn thing back.

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/5/12 9:42 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 11:22 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 1/4/12 11:15 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE-
>>>>
>>>> The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.
>>>>
>>>> Steve sorry you missed the ;-)
>>>
>>> I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
>>> his chain. :-)
>>>
>>
>> Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.
>
> He also knows how to get my goat. I don't think I'll ever get the damn
> thing back.
>

I'm sure you are just passive aggressive enough to have something
brewing up on the back burner for me at a some later date. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/5/12 11:45 AM, Steve B wrote:
> "Steve Turner"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 1/4/2012 7:26 PM, Steve B wrote:
>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 1/4/12 10:50 AM, Steve B wrote:
>>>>> "-MIKE-"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Bow do you know this?
>>>>>
>>>>> And check your spelchekr.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I checked it and found nothing wrong. Bow is indeed a word.
>>>>
>>>> Google "typo" and "anal retentive." :-p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -MIKE-
>>>
>>> The human brain is amazing. I saw Bow, and knew it meant How.
>>>
>>> Steve sorry you missed the ;-)
>>
>> I didn't miss it. Mike and I go way back, and he knows when I'm yanking
>> his chain. :-)
>>
>
> Just wanted you (plural) to know that I'm not one of those netnannying
> nitpicking English majors. I weld, and the best weldor I ever saw could not
> read or write. But he could take two pieces of 40' long pipe, a sheet of
> paper, and a match book, and cut any angle to make the two pieces intersect
> with minimal fitting. I am amused sometimes by common words that the
> spelchekr lets pass because they are common, just out of context. I know
> there are some grammar programs, such as in Word, that will let you know if
> something's not stated right, or that might catch it, but I guess they
> haven't got to Usenet posters yet. I find it far better to talk about doing
> things rather than picking apart someone's writing. I know a lot of very
> smart people who are confused about which end of a screwdriver goes in your
> hand.
>
> Steve
>

I'm pretty certain we're all just joking around.
...and I just can resist....

"haven't got"
should be "haven't gotten" :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/3/12 10:54 PM, Steve B wrote:
>> A falling piece of lead would easily penetrate.
>
> Bow do you know this?

Google "falling bullet fatalities". You are right to question me and not
believe anything I say.

And check your spelchekr.

The human skull is only 2mm thick in places on an adult human. That's
0.0787". Google human skull thickness to find those figures, but the terms
and words may be a little difficult to navigate. Just look for the numbers.

Steve ;-)

Your boat really moves quickly!


------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Must be a reflection of regional awareness. I've been shooting and
hunting
for over 40 years and this has never had to be taught to people - it
was
simple common sense. The general shooting population around here is
indeed
very aware of this.


>
> Obvious to people who have been instructed in the safe use of
> firearms. *Not* obvious to the average yahoo.
>

What exactly, is "the average yahoo"? Around here that would be
defined as
the guy nextdoor, and he's in fact very aware of this kind of thing.
Inner
city thugs? Well, maybe not so much, but they don't care about
anything
even if they are aware of it.


>> BTW - we don't shoot into
>> the ground either. Think downrange.
>
> Mike, there is no safe "downrange" in the middle of a city of a
> million people.

I have been pretty careful to qualify my surroundings which are rural.
I
never said anything about the middle of a city of a million people.
You
raise a completely different issue with that statement Doug.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:11:38 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Man, I must have heard several hundred rounds go into the air last
>> night.
>
>And you are certain these were shots- why?
>
>> Idiots.
>
>Why - because you don't fire guns?
>

Perhaps you should ask the 12 year old boy in Florida that was hit by
a bullet last night. If he ever gains consciousness.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/ruskin-boy-in-coma-after-being-struck-by-celebratory-new-years-gunfire/1208726

No one knows where the bullet came from, but authorities believe it
was fired from miles away in a new year's celebration.

"Here we have a 12-year-old kid fighting for his life because he
happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time," said
Hillsborough County sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon.

Detectives spoke with Diego's family and neighbors Sunday morning and
determined that no one in the immediate vicinity of the home had been
firing a gun at the time, around 1 a.m. Sunday, according to
officials.

"The bullet was quite a large one," said family friend Dee Sims. "They
said it could have come from 2 or 3 miles away."

Bullshit! (sounds just like you, huh?)

You thought the statement was attacking gun owners and lost your cool,
prematurely, before you realized what was being discussed.

-----------

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. My only point was
that
it's easy to claim people are doing something stupid like shooting in
the
air, but what is the proof of this? So far - only anecdotal (or
less...)
claims.


> Bottom line, Mike, a responsible person doesn't shoot a firearm
> randomly in the city, in the ground and/or in the air. They shoot at
> a range, a skills competition, hunting or to defend themselves.
> Otherwise, they are idiots.

D'oh! And what exactly has been stated in this thread that causes you
to
make that obvious statement? Oh yeah - you forgot at least one
additional
environment - on their own property. How about plinking at can out in
the
wilderness? Idiots? I don't think so.

It's when these comments are made with such generalities that I raise
up and
object. Otherwise they are idiots? What about those that are outside
of
what you just prescribed, but are still perfectly safe in what they are
doing?

Do you see my point? My point is not about defending fools who do
things
like shooting up in the air - I made that very clear. Too bad you
elected
to ignore that. My point is about generalizations that are either
incomplete (such as yours above), or that assume things because it
sounds
good to the author. My point is not a defense of genuinely stupid
things.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 1/2/2012 8:49 PM, Steve B wrote:

>You can't fix
> stupid, and stupid people are usually very fertile.

Your clowngressmen have been betting the farm upon that bit of truism
for about 40 years now.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1/2/2012 8:49 PM, Steve B wrote:
>
>>You can't fix
>> stupid, and stupid people are usually very fertile.
>
> Your clowngressmen have been betting the farm upon that bit of truism for
> about 40 years now.

There are farms left?

Steve

"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote

> Steve has always loved to yank things of mine.
>
> --
>
> -MIKE-

Put it out here. I got a new cable puller I'm dying to try
out............... not to worry, it's a small one ....................

Steve