this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
398 points (97.2% liked)

Not The Onion

18157 readers
2237 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

My point is not that heavy volume is required for this to happen, and it's strange how you could jump to that conclusion.

Instead, a higher rate of fire gives more opportunities to witness anomolies between shots, within a given time. Combine this with tracers, and now you can easily follow these paths, before and after each bullet hits it's initial target.

With a 6000 round-per-minute minigun, even if you only see one tracer bounce away every second, that demonstrates a 1% chance for every round to deflect and hit somewhere unintended.

Considering that the tracers are normally spaced out on a belt, with other rounds between them; the sample size can be reduced further, and this chance becomes multiple times higher.

When yearly machine-gun shoots were still hosted in Knob Creek, Kentucky, the range staffed people left and right of the firing line with fire extinguishers. After the 'finale' occurred and weapons were cleared, they would run out onto the hills beside the range.

With multiple miniguns firing alongside other automatics, and the insane number of rounds fired downrange, it was inevitable to have more than enough hot tracers land in the brush of these hills to start multiple small fires.

The possibility of ricochet injury is simply matter of probability. Sure, I would never claim this is the most probable explanation, but it's silly to claim there's absolutely no chance this could happen.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cool write up. Ricochet bullets can't travel that far, and it's the wrong direction.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I've already posted a video of a complete trajectory reversal. Maybe you didn't watch it, but otherwise you're being stubbornly ignorant choosing to completely ignore video evidence. Also, a 1/2 mile really isn't far for something moving over 3000 ft/s. It's clear you're not speaking from an educated position on this topic.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 15 hours ago

Firstly, it's reported that the shots weren't from the gun range. Second; have you seen the overhead view of the range? What exactly do you think the bullets could be bouncing off of at that range? Your thought process is just silly.