HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:43:00 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

OK. So there's TWO people needed hanging. One death is sufficient,
yes?

I think Michael was referring to the Civil War.

Yes, I know. My point was that killing ONE person is sufficient to
attract the death penalty.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:26:11 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:


The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with
techinology.
Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who
pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an
airliner cabin.


Ever heard of frangible ammunition? It's issued to sky marshals.

Part of the conversation is about allowing ordinary passengers to
carry.

--
The Coney Island Polar Bear
Club hosted its annual New
Year's Day swim in the frigid
waters off New York City Monday.
It wasn't completely successful.
Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
came out of the water just as
drunk as when they went in.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:12:24 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

wrote:
wrote:

Not a Wankel, a diesel....

Oops. My bad. You were talking about diesels. Reading comprehension
not at its highest level this evening. Carry on....


Could you build a Wankel diesel?

Not with current tip seal technology.

--
The Coney Island Polar Bear
Club hosted its annual New
Year's Day swim in the frigid
waters off New York City Monday.
It wasn't completely successful.
Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
came out of the water just as
drunk as when they went in.

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:55:59 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

The pressure differential at 30K feet would only be 8 psi at the most.
A hole 50 square inches would be a total pressure of 400 pounds. Even
that much pressure would force a body through a hole 7 inches square.
And no hand-held firearm would punch a hole that size into an airliner
cabin. I can't see any non-explosive method of doing that without
drawing a lot of attention to the effort.


You sure about that math? Or did you mean "wouldn't"?

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:45:57 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

If you read what I wrote, I think you'll agree with me, no matter how
often you actually fly with a firearm.
I did not say anything about not being able to fly with a firearm.
I said flying with a firearm is not an essential liberty.
Well, when the Constitution was drafted, flying anywhere was
inconceivable,
so of course, it wasn't an "essential liberty". but the Constitution
has
a,
"spirit" that is evident throughout the text, and to me, were it
being
drafted today, the second amendment would not offer any exceptions to
being
at 30,000 feet altitude. IOW, if it is one's right to carry a handgun
to
protect oneself at sea level, it should be also ones right to carry
one
while in the air. Of course, there are many who disagree that it is
even
one's right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere, and, although I
disagree
with these people, I have to accept their existence as a political
force
to
be reckoned with.

The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with
techinology.
Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who
pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an
airliner cabin.
Actually, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the rest of the
"discussion", I doubt that you do, either. It's been shown by testing
that a bullet is incapable of creating explosive decompression in an
airliner at altitude, and even a window being taken out by one is not
sufficient to "suck" (blow, actually) a person out of it. The "being
sucked out of a window" thing is a myth. There's a danger due to
decreased oxygen at high altitude, but that's what the oxygen masks are
for that drop down automatically when decreased cabin pressure happens.

There have cases of people being blown out of openings smaller than one
would believe in the case of explosive decompression.
Name one, and specify the parameters for what "one would believe". We
are discussing bullet holes and airline windows. This isn't
Goldfinger. People do NOT get sucked (blown, technically) *out*
through openings as small as an airliner window.

Somewhat smaller than 1ft on a side. Larger than a window, but smaller
than one would go through without considerable damage to the body. But
the person would have to be VERY close to the hole initially.


Uh, no. Sorry. The human pelvis is wider than that, even crushed.
Just because an octopus can squeeze itself out though a hole no bigger
than its beak, doesn't mean a human will squirt out a window similarly.

I see you still don't have an example. Cite ONE case where a human
being was blown out through an airliner window sized hole. Note the
parameters here, which are in line with the original discussion of
fireams in an airliner cabin.


Generally, the
hole made by a small caliber weapon wouldn't even cause decompression as
the compressors on commercial aircraft are quite able to compensate.
This is true. Or even a large caliber weapon.

Well, up to a reasonable size, but probably not a 50mm round. Or maybe
so for larger aircraft.

All a hole from a 50 cal round would do would be make a loud whistling
as the air rushed out.

However, hitting a window could make a much larger hole than intended,
Intended? :^)


By the shooter, or expected.


and explosives could make a large enough hole to lose someone close to
the hole, and unsecured.
Strawman. The discussion was about firearms, not explosives. Yes, an
explosive could. But that's not what the post was talking about. It
was talking about firearms onboard an airliner. Unless, of course, you
happen to have an M-16 with a grenade launcher [or equivalent] and
consider that a "firearm" in the conext of the discussion.

I avoided mention of RPG rounds, which are another story.
Several rounds from an M16 could result in a much larger hole should
they fall close enough together.

Oh, so now we're up to "several rounds" and shooting out a hole by
making a doughnut of the imact points, eh? BTW, rounds from a M-16 are
SMALLER than your average handgun. .223 vs (usually) 9mm/.38/10mm/.45,
etc., and at the higher speed, are more likely to go through clean
without tearing a larger hole.

Stick to the parameters of the original discussion, and quit escalating
the parameters to try to meet your original, flawed assertions.


Air Marshals are trained, and equipped
correctly to make this less of a problem.
This is also true, but firearms are still unable to accomplish
explosive decompression. Even a window going out is not "explosive
decompression". It may be fairly rapid, but it is NOT "explosive".
"Explosive" decompression is generally defined as occurring in less
than 1/10 second. The Hawaiian Airlines incident was "explosive", and
it only took one flight attendant that was in the immediate vicinity
and unsecured, despite the loss of a *major* portion (18 feet) of the
cabin at 20,000 feet (IIRC).

I promise, that you DON'T want to be in an airliner when a gunfight
erupts, or near a hole in the wall, either.
I agree that I don't want to be in an airliner when a gunfight breaks
out, but it's not due to worry about explosive decompression, believe
me. :^)

I was thinking more about the noise of the guns going off in a closed,
and rather small area, and the resulting noises caused by loss of air,
and loss of streamlining of the aircraft due to the nature of how a
bullet penetrates the aluminum skin. The noise would be rather
unpleasant on both scores.

No argument there, but it would still be nothing compared to the
screaming. Noise subsides and you survive it, though. Noise? I'd be
far more worried about a stray round hitting me directly or after a
through-and-through of something else.

As for being near a hole in the wall when a gunfight breaks out, not
sure that that's going to be very relevant :^).

I recall the case of a pilot who was pulled partly out of the aircraft
by decompression when a cockpit window gave way. I am sure this is not
something he would want to experience again, or even think about now.

"Cockpit window" and "gave way" are not equivalent to shooting a hole
in the fuselage or blowing out an outside passenger window. A cockpit
window is many, many many times the area of a passenger window. And
before you even try the argument of "a hijacker could shoot out the
cockpit window"... no, they couldn't. They might put a hole in it, but
they could NOT shoot it out so that it would entirely blow away. Those
things are meant to withstand high impacts from birds and other objects
while in flight, and are secured into the frame in such a way that they
don't just "give way" under a weapons-fire situation.

Well, unless some idiot used the wrong bolts as in the case discussed in
other messages...
And the size round was 50 mm, not .50 caliber! BIG difference.


Right - mea culpa, I misread that. Well aware of the difference, just
a misteak in reading.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote:

I wish there was a law that says, "One is not allowed to mention the
600,000 deaths unless one mentions the 2,000,000 deaths that Saddam
Hussein managed to accomplish during his 30 year reign as Iraqi
dictator." - How convenient it is to only harp on the one figure, and
never give the other a passing thought........

You're wishing for still another law which would violate the First
Amendment? How ironic. John Adams would be proud.

While your 2 million figure is certainly subject to debate, suffice
it to say that other tyrants have even more blood on their hands.
So why single out Saddam?

Good question.....We shouldn't single out anyone.....A killer is a killer.
But that wasn't the question. the question was why just talk about the cost
of a police effort, and not mention the cost of just letting the criminals
do whatever they please.

The "official" estimate, by the way, is 1-1/2 million.

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:


Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.


To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the
balance
between freedom and security.

We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.

One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.

Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally
depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued
upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)].

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy
interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such
intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'
[Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]'

'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has
stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement
for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v.
Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].'

'[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our
society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as
mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in
human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid
any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be
obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].'

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in
the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v.
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket
patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was
probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that
the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police
discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the
unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of
baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message

"To a great extent," so long as you ignore that little spot of
unpleasantness that caused 600,000+ deaths less than 80 years
later.

I wish there was a law that says, "One is not allowed to mention the
600,000 deaths unless one mentions the 2,000,000 deaths that Saddam
Hussein managed to accomplish during his 30 year reign as Iraqi
dictator." - How convenient it is to only harp on the one figure, and
never give the other a passing thought........
I also question just what makes up the 600,000 figure. If it includes the
deaths of civilians killed by 'insurgents', then I don't buy into that at
all.

Oh, you can be sure that every Iraqi citizen, as well as every human being
that was even near the Iraqi border, who died from the inception of the war,
from any cause, can be laid directly on the shoulders of George W.
bush.....That's the, "presidential responsibility rule", isn't it?

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron
Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:45:57 -0800, "William Graham"

wrote:


irrelevant junk snipped

Stick to the parameters of the original discussion, and quit escalating


Pentax?

further irrelevant junk snipped

Deep.

In "William Graham"
wrote:

Oh, you can be sure that every Iraqi citizen, as well as every human
being that was even near the Iraqi border, who died from the inception
of the war, from any cause, can be laid directly on the shoulders of
George W. bush.....That's the, "presidential responsibility rule",
isn't it?


Really?

The Americans were actually responsible for the NAZI holocaust in WW-II?

I had no idea.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN