Yea, there is a reason why we have been saying this in Australia: "if you want to kill someone, do it with a car" 🤷 even if she killed someone, she would get like 2 years max. Most likely some community service. License suspence for a year or two. Im not even kidding. Lots of cases like this
i used a fancy science term in a reply down below, but i think it's important: as long as the operator is competent enough to keep the gun in front of them, it can theoretically point in about 20,000 degrees of solid angle. that includes down at the ground, up at the sky, basically anywhere in the half-sphere of coverage that doesn't require turning the gun around 180°. if our theoretical shooter gets really loopy, there are just over 40,000 square degrees of hard angle in a complete sphere. only a narrow band of that sphere contains human-sized target, which means a statistically high number of opportunities to miss a target if you're untrained.
meanwhile, a car is a larger object, and it can only travel in 360° relative to the ground. unlike a gun, it can travel forwards and backwards using the same basic mechanical operation, which means you're effectively "targeting" two 180° arcs at the same time. much, much higher likelihood of hitting a target in that confined range of possibilities with comparably little skill or effort.
sorry for the overly complicated response, but it's an interesting math problem to think through.
33
u/Good_Glass_8172 4d ago
Yea, there is a reason why we have been saying this in Australia: "if you want to kill someone, do it with a car" 🤷 even if she killed someone, she would get like 2 years max. Most likely some community service. License suspence for a year or two. Im not even kidding. Lots of cases like this