paranoid ?
in [ASM]
|
From: Evenbit on 19 Jan 2008 13:28 On Jan 18, 9:25 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > I agree. Why does everyone seem to think I mentioned a .45? Because it is the absolute minimum one needs for effective self- defense. Anything less is useless... you might as well be carrying a beebee gun, paint gun, or water pistol. Nathan.
From: Rod Pemberton on 19 Jan 2008 16:10 "Evenbit" <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:e9c9170c-3c33-4a55-bdff-0c710d285930(a)v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 18, 9:25 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > > > I agree. Why does everyone seem to think I mentioned a .45? > > Because it is the absolute minimum one needs for effective self- > defense. Anything less is useless... you might as well be carrying a > beebee gun, paint gun, or water pistol. > I agree that .45 is the best available pistol round for self-defense, but I beg to differ with it being the "absolute minimum." I personally believe ..308 Winchester is the rough minimum required for _effective_ self-defense. I have a fairly large family. I haven't met most of them, but, due just to size, one can assume that there are both cops and crooks. If one or the other from my own family shows up on my doorstep, it's likely they'll be wearing a vest since I don't view them as poor, stupid, etc. That means, without taking into account non-family elements of society, I need to be able to "pop" a vest for realistic home or personal defense. Now, given that a .45 ACP will usually penetrate 2/3 to 3/4 of the kevlar in pistol vest, i.e, vest without ceramic plates, a round with twice the kinetic energy for the given area, or twice the power generated upon deceleration of the bullet is required. Now, a 45-70 gov't with normal CUP (copper units of pressure) has three times the kinetic energy. So, it'll pop a vest. A "bear" load 45-70 gov't will have four times the kinetic energy. But, the round isn't a semi-auto - needed for reliable self-defense in a panic situation. Also needed to outgun someone with a semi-auto or automatic, i.e., lever-action fires slower. A 12 Ga 3" magnum has three times the kinetic energy, but has 3 to 4 four times the area also. It's equivalent to 3 to 4 .45 ACP's, but it won't "pop" a vest. Now, a 12 Ga Sabot round has 25%-50% more energy than a 3" magnum, some have the same rough area as a .45 ACP, so some should punch a vest. As a general rule other rifle rounds smaller than or the same size as a .308, have insufficient kinetic energy per unit area, except maybe 30-30, 30-06, or 7.62x51mm NATO. And, as a general rule, all other rifle rounds larger than a .308, aren't semi-auto. That leaves .308 Win, or 12 Ga Sabot's in a semi-auto shotgun, 7.62x51... That is unless you can find a modern semi-auto rifle that uses Mannlicher-Carcano rounds. Rod Pemberton
From: Robert Redelmeier on 20 Jan 2008 12:30 Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > I think you've lost interest... [snip] > > When I say: "What's the need for frangibles? `To protect > the electronics? To protect the property, i.e., airplane?" > You say, "Why, yes! Frangibles are needed because" > A) B) C) D) E) F) and even more silly G) [snipped strawmen] > See? You've lost interest... :-) If making silly arguments is your definition of "interest", then I have never possessed any interest to lose! -- Robert > > >
From: Rod Pemberton on 20 Jan 2008 15:37 "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message news:OyLkj.36822$JD.20164(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > > I think you've lost interest... [snip] > > > > When I say: "What's the need for frangibles? `To protect > > the electronics? To protect the property, i.e., airplane?" > > > You say, "Why, yes! Frangibles are needed because" > > > A) B) C) D) E) F) and even more silly G) [snipped strawmen] > > > See? You've lost interest... :-) > > > If making silly arguments is your definition of "interest", > then I have never possessed any interest to lose! > "A","B","D","E", are all documented to occur. So, they aren't "strawmen" by any means. Being from an engineering background, I see no reason why "C" wouldn't be considered highly plausible. They have to route huge numbers of wires to a cockpit packed with electronics. These conduits can't realistically be protected in their entirety. And, It's a realistic assumption that many are routed parallel to the planes length, i.e., direct line into cockpit. I guess you could snip G, but what happens to the heart attack patient, if a real bullet goes through the case with defibrillator? (It's not really a strawman, is it?) Anyway, since you took _serious_ factual counter arguments (which I provided as a courtesy) as arbitrary _fiction_, here's a clue. For "A" and "D,1", a.k.a. CWT explosions triggered by high voltage electrical faults to the low voltage fuel guage resulting from wiring insulation failure due to fatigue, occurred to flights: Flight 800 TWA, Flight 143 PAL (EI-BZG, Manila), Flight 114 THA (HS-TDC, Bangkock). Did you intend to offend? I took offense. If you hadn't used the word "silly," I'd have seen your point. With those words, I'll just take it as proof you lost interest, otherwise I'd have no choice but to take it as proof of ignorance... Your choice. Can you honestly tell me you know enough about airplanes that you knew that both the high and low voltage lines run together? I _highly_ doubt that. Rod Pemberton
From: Robert Redelmeier on 20 Jan 2008 23:19
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > "A","B","D","E", are all documented to occur. So, they > aren't "strawmen" by any means. Please look up what a strawman is. I was arguing against firearms, or at least for requiring frangibles and mentioned hoop failure. Instead of addressing this, you then accused me of losing interest and proffered your strawman agruments. > Did you intend to offend? I took offense. .... do you think putting words into someone else's mouth is not cause for at least some caustic remarks? > Can you honestly tell me you know enough about airplanes > that you knew that both the high and low voltage lines > run together? I _highly_ doubt that. Yes, actually I can. I've been consulted by colleagues who were seconded to FAA investigations. You do not want to know about aircraft wiring practices. But notice -- I never claimed bullets striking wire as a major hazard. It most certainly is a hazard, but it's probability (steradians of vulnerability) is much lower than hull strike. -- Robert |