Does Star Trek cannon explain why really advance civilizations are plan

[Henry Cate]

I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
the first season. It has been years since I watched
them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
but they always planet bound.

Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
confined to a single planet?




--
---------- Henry Cate ca...@panix.com
"Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what
little chance you have in trying to change others." -- Jacob M. Braude
Our blog: http://whyhomeschool.blogspot.com/

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 6/11/2016 9:15 PM, Henry Cate wrote:
> I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
> Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
> the first season. It has been years since I watched
> them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
> Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
> but they always planet bound.
>
> Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
> hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
> confined to a single planet?
>

For some, no. For others they weren't confined to one planet. For
still others they weren't interested in leaving their planet. And for
still others they were the "last outpost" of prior civilizations. For
the rest the answer is "shnaz*b't".


--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for Summer 2016

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <njinkq$2v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Henry Cate <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
>Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
>the first season. It has been years since I watched
>them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
>Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
>but they always planet bound.

The Romulans and Klingons were space travelers; there are several
other space-faring races on the episode, I forget its name now,
where we met Spock's parents.

>
>Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
>hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
>confined to a single planet?

You really wanna know?

Because keeping those races planet-bound was easier on Desilu's
(later Paramount's) budget.

Something I learned in my first year of Star Trek fandom, which
was the first year of Star Trek, is that every television studio
has a Research Department whose only task is to answer the
question, "Is there anything in this script that could get us
sued?"

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[Don Bruder]

In article <o8n66...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> In article <njinkq$2v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Henry Cate <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
> >I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
> >Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
> >the first season. It has been years since I watched
> >them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
> >Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
> >but they always planet bound.
>
> The Romulans and Klingons were space travelers; there are several
> other space-faring races on the episode, I forget its name now,
> where we met Spock's parents.

I believe you're groping around for _A Passage to Babel_ non?

--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:o8n66...@kithrup.com:

> In article <njinkq$2v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Henry Cate <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
>>Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
>>the first season. It has been years since I watched
>>them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
>>Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
>>but they always planet bound.
>
> The Romulans and Klingons were space travelers; there are several
> other space-faring races on the episode, I forget its name now,
> where we met Spock's parents.

Those are not "much more advanced," though.

>>
>>Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
>>hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
>>confined to a single planet?
>
> You really wanna know?
>
> Because keeping those races planet-bound was easier on Desilu's
> (later Paramount's) budget.

As was the transporter vs. the shuttlecraft, even though it led to
having to come up with reasons why they couldn't use it (lest the
entire episode is over before the first commercial break).

>
> Something I learned in my first year of Star Trek fandom, which
> was the first year of Star Trek, is that every television studio
> has a Research Department whose only task is to answer the
> question, "Is there anything in this script that could get us
> sued?"
>

The network wide version of that is Standards & Practices, but
yeah, studios and individual shows have people who do that, too.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <njiqcq$7ko$2...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>In article <o8n66...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <njinkq$2v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Henry Cate <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
>> >Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
>> >the first season. It has been years since I watched
>> >them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
>> >Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
>> >but they always planet bound.
>>
>> The Romulans and Klingons were space travelers; there are several
>> other space-faring races on the episode, I forget its name now,
>> where we met Spock's parents.
>
>I believe you're groping around for _A Passage to Babel_ non?

Sounds right.

Or was it _Journey to Babel_? Anyway....

Mind you, I did all the compilation for the Star Trek
Concordance, including all the episode names, some fifty years
ago. (N.B. Bjo tells me it's going to get republished. Will
wonders never cease.) I used to know all this stuff. But it's
been fifty years.

[David Johnston]

On 6/11/2016 10:15 PM, Henry Cate wrote:
> I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
> Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
> the first season. It has been years since I watched
> them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
> Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
> but they always planet bound.

Well, that's just wrong. For example the mysterious creators of the
planet in "Shore Leave" are clearly not restricted to a single planet.
After all, they turned a whole planet into their version of Coney Island
so they must have others.

>
> Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
> hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
> confined to a single planet?

One of the basic assumptions of the Star Trek Universe is that
technological species have a limited shelf life. They are destroyed by
war or catastrophe, or they fall into decadence and lose interest in the
universe around them as they slowly decline into extinction, or they
"evolve beyond the physical plane" and become invisible to people on the
Federation's level unless they choose to manifest themselves.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <o8n8n...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <njiqcq$7ko$2...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>In article <o8n66...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> there are several
>>> other space-faring races on the episode, I forget its name now,
>>> where we met Spock's parents.
>>
>>I believe you're groping around for _A Passage to Babel_ non?
>
>Sounds right.
>
>Or was it _Journey to Babel_? Anyway....

It was _Journey_, yes.

--
David Goldfarb |"The number of times I have been declared
goldf...@gmail.com |dead is statistically insignificant,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |although admittedly non-zero." -- James Nicoll

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 6/12/16 12:15 AM, Henry Cate wrote:
> I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
> Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
> the first season. It has been years since I watched
> them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
> Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
> but they always planet bound.
>
> Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
> hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
> confined to a single planet?

First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an official body of
work, the other is a weapon.

Second, no. In the original ST, unlike many modern shows, there was no
real attempt to maintain consistency. It's an episodic show with
virtually no inter-episode connections. Aside from the facts outlined in
the series "bible" (a summary of the key elements of the show -- IIRC it
was about 25 pages long) there were no rules that controlled the events
or background of the show. That's why a new super-gadget or approach to
solving a problem could show up in one episode and never be mentioned
again, even when said gadget or approach would be really, really useful.


Star Trek and old Doctor Who had about the same level of consistency,
which is to say, only whatever was convenient for the writer at the time.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <njk2gp$ack$1...@dont-email.me>,

I caught a few early episodes recently, and the Enterprise was an "Earth ship".
Apparently the Federation was an afterthought..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[David Johnston]

The original concept for the Federation seems to have a slightly more
integrated NATO, or for that matter something like the European Union.
The members of the Federation had their own ships which is why it was a
big deal that Earth gave Vulcan a Constitution-class cruiser to use. It
was like the United States giving Britain an aircraft carrier.

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>In article <njinkq$2v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Henry Cate <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
>>Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
>>the first season. It has been years since I watched
>>them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
>>Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
>>but they always planet bound.
>
>The Romulans and Klingons were space travelers; there are several
>other space-faring races on the episode, I forget its name now,
>where we met Spock's parents.
>>
>>Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
>>hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
>>confined to a single planet?
>
>You really wanna know?

He's talking about "much more advanced". The Vulcans are
significantly more advanced - have been spacefarers long enough for
their colony of Romulans to miss out on the conversion of the home
planet to the new culture, but they're not in the class of
superscience that the question was intending. Endorians and Tellurians
and Orions are all about the same level as us.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an official body of
>work, the other is a weapon.

In the "Enterprise" era, they introduced "phase pistols", "phase
rifles", and for the ship itself, "phase cannons". By the successor /
predecessor series, these had all devolved to "phasers"

So yeah, we saw StarTrek cannon.

[Greg Goss]

I don't remember the Endorian or Tellurian ships from Enterprise.
Were they visually distinctive from the Vulcan or Earth ships?

[David Johnston]

The Andorian battlecruiser had two "wings" extending out of its mid
section with pods at the end of the wings and drive units on a vertical
tail. It looked rather like a giant space "plane". The Tellarite
cruiser had a rather lumpy saucer section and a narrower "neck" leading
back to a cluster of engine units on another vertical tail. The whole
thing was rather curvy and slightly organic-looking. So...yeah.

[David Johnston]

On 6/12/2016 2:50 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an official body of
>> work, the other is a weapon.
>
> In the "Enterprise" era, they introduced "phase pistols", "phase
> rifles", and for the ship itself, "phase cannons". By the successor /
> predecessor series, these had all devolved to "phasers"
>
> So yeah, we saw StarTrek cannon.
>

That only means that cannon are canon.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> On 6/12/2016 11:44 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <njk2gp$ack$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/12/16 12:15 AM, Henry Cate wrote:
> >>> I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
> >>> Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
> >>> the first season. It has been years since I watched
> >>> them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
> >>> Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
> >>> but they always planet bound.
> >>>
> >>> Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
> >>> hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
> >>> confined to a single planet?

As others have said, there were plenty of other starfaring races to keep things interesting, but the single-planet peoples usually stayed home because they wanted to. Also, the intro explicitly mentions seeking out new peoples which means seeking out those not already known to the starfarers, which kinda narrows it down to single-planet races.

> >> First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an official body of
> >> work, the other is a weapon.
> >>
> >> Second, no. In the original ST, unlike many modern shows, there was no
> >> real attempt to maintain consistency. It's an episodic show with
> >> virtually no inter-episode connections. Aside from the facts outlined in
> >> the series "bible" (a summary of the key elements of the show -- IIRC it
> >> was about 25 pages long) there were no rules that controlled the events
> >> or background of the show. That's why a new super-gadget or approach to
> >> solving a problem could show up in one episode and never be mentioned
> >> again, even when said gadget or approach would be really, really useful.
> >>
> >>
> >> Star Trek and old Doctor Who had about the same level of consistency,
> >> which is to say, only whatever was convenient for the writer at the time.
> >>
> >
> > I caught a few early episodes recently, and the Enterprise was an "Earth
> > ship". Apparently the Federation was an afterthought..
> >
>
> The original concept for the Federation seems to have a slightly more
> integrated NATO, or for that matter something like the European Union.

Yeah, more or less dominated by the U. S.

> The members of the Federation had their own ships which is why it was a
> big deal that Earth gave Vulcan a Constitution-class cruiser to use. It
> was like the United States giving Britain an aircraft carrier.

And the Chinese/Russians trading in hardware and resources, represented as the Romulans and Klingons.

TOS was very Cold War. Enterprise tried to go deeper into that.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:27:04 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:njk2gp$ack$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an
> official body of work, the other is a weapon.

In the hands of some literature teachers they’re both
weapons!

[...]

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 12 June 2016 23:04:33 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 6/12/2016 11:44 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > > In article <njk2gp$ack$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > >> On 6/12/16 12:15 AM, Henry Cate wrote:
> > >>> I have started rewatching the episodes of the original
> > >>> Stsr Trek series with my son. We're almost done with
> > >>> the first season. It has been years since I watched
> > >>> them. One thing has struck me, how many times the
> > >>> Enterprise encounters civilizations much more advanced,
> > >>> but they always planet bound.
> > >>>
> > >>> Was it ever explained why civilizations which were
> > >>> hundreds and thousands of years more advanced were
> > >>> confined to a single planet?
>
> As others have said, there were plenty of other starfaring races to keep things interesting, but the single-planet peoples usually stayed home because they wanted to. Also, the intro explicitly mentions seeking out new peoples which means seeking out those not already known to the starfarers, which kinda narrows it down to single-planet races.

So if you don't want to encounter new life and new civilisations
(and if you have some idea what they are like, that makes sense)
or if you don't have five years to spare in your life cycle -
then you may as well stay home.

I was going to say that if the Enterprise slips into orbit
around a world that has its own star fleet then they're
going to find themselves outgunned, but often enough they
encountered a single alien spaceship, in space. Or,
attacking the outposts that the Enterprise was about to
visit.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <njk95e$3rh$1...@dont-email.me>,

Sort of like Lend-Lease?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ds6097...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an official body of
>>work, the other is a weapon.
>
>In the "Enterprise" era, they introduced "phase pistols", "phase
>rifles", and for the ship itself, "phase cannons". By the successor /
>predecessor series, these had all devolved to "phasers"
>
>So yeah, we saw StarTrek cannon.

Um ... if my memory serves me, TOS used "laser" for its first one
or two episodes, then switched directly to "phaser." Does anyone
have DVDs of the very early episodes?

[David Johnston]

On 6/12/2016 6:06 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

>>> I caught a few early episodes recently, and the Enterprise was an
>> "Earth ship".
>>> Apparently the Federation was an afterthought..
>>>
>>
>> The original concept for the Federation seems to have a slightly more
>> integrated NATO, or for that matter something like the European Union.
>> The members of the Federation had their own ships which is why it was a
>> big deal that Earth gave Vulcan a Constitution-class cruiser to use. It
>> was like the United States giving Britain an aircraft carrier.
>
> Sort of like Lend-Lease?
>

A bit.

[David Johnston]

On 6/12/2016 6:09 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <ds6097...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an official body of
>>> work, the other is a weapon.
>>
>> In the "Enterprise" era, they introduced "phase pistols", "phase
>> rifles", and for the ship itself, "phase cannons". By the successor /
>> predecessor series, these had all devolved to "phasers"
>>
>> So yeah, we saw StarTrek cannon.
>
> Um ... if my memory serves me, TOS used "laser" for its first one
> or two episodes,

Not as such. They only used "laser" in the first pilot, which was later
chopped up and used to make the two parter "The Menagerie". By doing
so, they indicated that in Captain Pike's era, Earth had still been
using lasers. However it was official in Enterprise that tampering time
travellers had screwed with history to introduce anachronistic
technologies, to cover the fact that they hadn't had the guts to
actually do something different from the Star Trek we already knew.

[Richard Hershberger]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 6:14:34 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:27:04 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:njk2gp$ack$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > First, that's "canon", not "cannon". The one is an
> > official body of work, the other is a weapon.
>
> In the hands of some literature teachers they’re both
> weapons!

Similarly in religious disputes.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Kevrob]

Then you might have canons manning the cannons, in a fight
over what is canonical!

Kevin R

[Wayne Brown]

I recall one of the creators of "Enterprise" saying before the
show premiered that they had a lot of difficulty figuring out how
to design the technology. He used the example of communicators.
How could they give Captain Archer a communicator that looked less
advanced than Kirk's when many viewers already had cell phones that
made Kirk's communicator look clunky and primitive?

>
> then switched directly to "phaser." Does anyone
>> have DVDs of the very early episodes?
>>
>

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

[David Johnston]

Yeah that was stupid. It confused cosmetic issues with actual
advancement. Kirk's communicator was a hand-held model that could
communicate thousands of miles into space at faster than light speeds.
Cell phones can't do that. In fact getting distracted by the cosmetic
and ignoring the actual was a big problem there. Renaming phasers to
"phase cannon", shields to "hull polarization" and photon torpedoes to
"photonic torpedoes" just sent the the message that the only thing that
had evolved was terminology. I've actually got a whole list of
alterations that I'd impose if someone asked me to do a show set in that
era:

Damage reports would not consist of announcing that some percentage is
declining toward zero. It would consist of saying where the latest hole
in the hull is and how many people died. After you have a fight, you go
home for repairs.

The missiles would be "impulse torpedoes" that are tricky to use because
if the target was very close, they wouldn't have time to accelerate
(only doing damage through hitting things fast), while if the target was
far away they'd have time to shoot down the torpedo or just go to warp
and "nuclear torpedoes", that have atomic warheads that usually detonate
a fair distance away.

The hand weapons would be lethal.

The ship's computer would be able to translate a new language...if you
gave it a few days and means to gather information. Translation would
consist of your communicator repeating what you said in their language
and then what they said in your language.

No transporter. The transporter only existed to save some money on
shuttle landing sequences. We don't need to do that now. The
transporter lends itself to no end of narrative abuse. Any transporters
are going to be in hands of super-advanced aliens or an experimental
prototype gone horribly wrong.

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:

> The hand weapons would be lethal.

Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[David Johnston]

On 6/13/2016 8:45 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> The hand weapons would be lethal.
>
> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
>

I wouldn't have the exterior hull be THAT breakable. It's supposed to
be able to take a bit of damage from ship's weapons after all.

[Greg Goss]

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/2016 4:15 PM, Wayne Brown wrote:

>> I recall one of the creators of "Enterprise" saying before the
>> show premiered that they had a lot of difficulty figuring out how
>> to design the technology. He used the example of communicators.
>> How could they give Captain Archer a communicator that looked less
>> advanced than Kirk's when many viewers already had cell phones that
>> made Kirk's communicator look clunky and primitive?
>
>Yeah that was stupid. It confused cosmetic issues with actual
>advancement. Kirk's communicator was a hand-held model that could
>communicate thousands of miles into space at faster than light speeds.
>Cell phones can't do that. In fact getting distracted by the cosmetic
>and ignoring the actual was a big problem there. Renaming phasers to
>"phase cannon", shields to "hull polarization" and photon torpedoes to
>"photonic torpedoes" just sent the the message that the only thing that
>had evolved was terminology. I've actually got a whole list of
>alterations that I'd impose if someone asked me to do a show set in that
>era:

Hull polarization seems like a totally different technology than
shields. Shields protect you in a stand-off mode. You don't get
damage till you actually burn through the shield. But polarization
sounds like an artificially strengthened hull itself.

>Damage reports would not consist of announcing that some percentage is
>declining toward zero. It would consist of saying where the latest hole
>in the hull is and how many people died. After you have a fight, you go
>home for repairs.

Going home for repairs isn't compatible with the missions. But
curling up somewhere for a month while the engineers fix crap is
plausible.

>The missiles would be "impulse torpedoes" that are tricky to use because
>if the target was very close, they wouldn't have time to accelerate
>(only doing damage through hitting things fast), while if the target was
>far away they'd have time to shoot down the torpedo or just go to warp
>and "nuclear torpedoes", that have atomic warheads that usually detonate
>a fair distance away.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 6/13/2016 7:45 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> The hand weapons would be lethal.
>
> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
>

Some of them even get paid to!

--
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey for Summer 2016

[David Johnston]

On 6/13/2016 10:38 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/13/2016 4:15 PM, Wayne Brown wrote:
>
>>> I recall one of the creators of "Enterprise" saying before the
>>> show premiered that they had a lot of difficulty figuring out how
>>> to design the technology. He used the example of communicators.
>>> How could they give Captain Archer a communicator that looked less
>>> advanced than Kirk's when many viewers already had cell phones that
>>> made Kirk's communicator look clunky and primitive?
>>
>> Yeah that was stupid. It confused cosmetic issues with actual
>> advancement. Kirk's communicator was a hand-held model that could
>> communicate thousands of miles into space at faster than light speeds.
>> Cell phones can't do that. In fact getting distracted by the cosmetic
>> and ignoring the actual was a big problem there. Renaming phasers to
>> "phase cannon", shields to "hull polarization" and photon torpedoes to
>> "photonic torpedoes" just sent the the message that the only thing that
>> had evolved was terminology. I've actually got a whole list of
>> alterations that I'd impose if someone asked me to do a show set in that
>> era:
>
> Hull polarization seems like a totally different technology than
> shields.

Undeniably it _sounds_ like a different technology.

Shields protect you in a stand-off mode. You don't get
> damage till you actually burn through the shield. But polarization
> sounds like an artificially strengthened hull itself.

Except that it didn't work like that. Instead they went with the same
old "counting down the percentage points and you don't take any damage
until you hit zero". I kind of liked "hull polarization" as
technobabble, but the execution was same-old same-old.

>
>> Damage reports would not consist of announcing that some percentage is
>> declining toward zero. It would consist of saying where the latest hole
>> in the hull is and how many people died. After you have a fight, you go
>> home for repairs.
>
> Going home for repairs isn't compatible with the missions. But
> curling up somewhere for a month while the engineers fix crap is
> plausible.

Well it's not like they'd be getting banged up all that often. I was
thinking in terms of the first season or two being dominated by
Enterprise making the rounds of all the colonies and trying to convince
them they'd be better off strengthen their ties with the homeworld
instead of going their own way. (They being pretty autonomous due to
years long travel times before the new kind of ship was built) The
default storyline would be "arrive at a new colony, find out what
horrible mess it is in, help solve the mess, and convince them to sign
on with the new arrangement in return for promises of continuing
protection." With a bit of "why did this colony die out?' and "Is this
planet worth colonizing for the first time?" and "look at this space
wedgie we just ran into!"

[J. Clarke]

In article <ds99ek...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

>
> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>
> > The hand weapons would be lethal.
>
> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.

If you count Sky Marshals as "lunatics".

[Robert Carnegie]

The _Enterprise_ show did do a number of those things.
They had a Transporter but they didn't like to use it.

We have non-lethal hand weapons now, including "taser"
and "shoot a non-vital part of the body". I think
I heard that a non-lethal gunshot is often an effective
"stun" setting, although not exactly intended as such.
Also I recently heard about new thinking about blast
injury (damages lungs etc.); being shot probably counts
as that, too.

[Peter Trei]

There is special 'low penetration' ammo for this kind of situation. Google
'frangible ammunition' or 'Glaser Safety Slug'. They are designed break up if
they hit something hard.

I don't can't find a definitive statement whether sky marshalls use these,
but I suspect so. In the crowded confines of a plane cabin, you would also
want to use lightly loaded rounds - the ranges are low, and you want to avoid
having a round go through a bad guy, then injure a good guy behind them.

ObSF: In an early L. Neil Smith novel, when the protag boards a plane, he and
all the other passengers are subject to a gun check - not to take them away,
but to ensure that they are using frangible ammo.

FWIW, it takes a *big* hole in an airliner to lose enough air to cause
depressurization issues. The problem would be more overpenetration - hitting an
innocent person, or a piece of equipment you didn't want to damage.

pt

[Don Bruder]

In article <MPG.31c992aee...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Do try to keep in mind that for some folks, "Someone who isn't a cop but
owns a gun that isn't *always* left inside a locked box inside a locked
safe inside a locked vault inside a locked room inside a locked house
surrounded by a moat, tall fence, wall, patrolling attack dogs, and
optionally, a minefield" means the same thing as "lunatic".

Which makes me a lunatic... <sigh> Yet another burden to bear in my
travels through life. Whatever shall I do?

--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Don't forget bean bag rounds for shotguns.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:22:46 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 5:04:45 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <ds99ek...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> > says...
> > >
> > > On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > > > The hand weapons would be lethal.
> > >
> > > Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> > > It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> > > weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> > > often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> > > admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> > > lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
> >
> > If you count Sky Marshals as "lunatics".
>
> There is special 'low penetration' ammo for this kind of situation. Google
> 'frangible ammunition' or 'Glaser Safety Slug'. They are designed break up if
> they hit something hard.
>
> I don't can't find a definitive statement whether sky marshalls use these,
> but I suspect so. In the crowded confines of a plane cabin, you would also
> want to use lightly loaded rounds - the ranges are low, and you want to avoid
> having a round go through a bad guy, then injure a good guy behind them.
>
> ObSF: In an early L. Neil Smith novel, when the protag boards a plane, he and
> all the other passengers are subject to a gun check - not to take them away,
> but to ensure that they are using frangible ammo.
>

Weren't they on a Zeppelin ride? Probability Broach, trip from alt-Fort Collins to the capital city?

> FWIW, it takes a *big* hole in an airliner to lose enough air to cause
> depressurization issues. The problem would be more overpenetration - hitting an
> innocent person, or a piece of equipment you didn't want to damage.
>
> pt

Kevin R

[David Johnston]

No, it didn't.

> They had a Transporter but they didn't like to use it.

<snort> They did use it though. Quite a lot actually.

>
> We have non-lethal hand weapons now, including "taser"
> and "shoot a non-vital part of the body".

A gun is a lethal weapon even when you use it to shoot an extremity.
But yes I'd let them have "sonic stunners" as an alternative. What I
meant was, I wouldn't give their default weapons "stun settings".

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Those are not in any way "non-lethal". Tasers and shooting non-vital
parts of the body and beanbag rounds have ALL killed people. They are
called "less-lethal" approaches for a very good reason; they'll still
kill, just not as frequently as shooting someone in the head with a
standard bullet.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Robert Carnegie]

Well. "Not intentionally" lethal, then. "Plausible denial" lethal.

What I mean is I don't think it improves any version
of Star Trek if the Captain's only combat options are
"deadly force" and "let's everybody wrestle".

I think Enterprise NX-01 returned to Earth for repairs
at least once, but not fast. I think another time,
they discussed that they could do that, but it would suck.
And one time they found a weird alien universal repair
station.... so maybe one of those things didn't in fact
happen in the show.

They also at least one time got a hole blown in the saucer
section big enough for lots of asphyxiating crew members
to be blown out into space. Permanently.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 6/14/2016 11:30 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 17:49:15 UTC+1, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 6/14/16 10:45 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2016 3:48 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

<snipping lots of things wrong with all the incarnations of Star Trek>

Are you thinking of the Abrams Star Dreck movies? Abrams seems to love
doing that. Given the casualty rate in the Abrams Star Dreck universe
its amazing anyone volunteers for Star Fleet.

[J. Clarke]

In article <njp59n$a5e$1...@dont-email.me>, dtr...@sonic.net says...

The trouble with tazers is that they aren't reliable stoppers. And
shooting a non-vital part of the body is something that even expert
snipers don't usually try.

[William December Starr]

In article <njndqm$1kh$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Davidjo...@yahoo.com> said:

> Yeah that was stupid. It confused cosmetic issues with actual
> advancement. Kirk's communicator was a hand-held model that could
> communicate thousands of miles into space at faster than light
> speeds. Cell phones can't do that.

The Federation in Kirk's time certainly had the capability for FTL
communications ("subspace radio," I believe), but are you sure the
hand-held communicators could do it?

-- wds

[David Johnston]

Well there was never any time lag. And they do seem to regard any
communication with radio as quaint.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <njqag6$j00$1...@dont-email.me>,

Round trip time lag to geosync orbit is about a quarter second, so it
wouldn't really be noticable. (Assuming a: the planet being orbited
has about the same Clarke orbit parameters as earth and b: that you want
to be in a Clarke orbit to keep the Captain in view when he's with
the away team)
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Dimensional Traveler]

Even slow poke light speed communication to orbital space doesn't have
any noticeable time lag.

[Robert Bannister]

I thought they had some sort of force shield that had to be turned on
and which only repelled forces from outside.

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/06/2016 12:56 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/13/2016 7:45 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> The hand weapons would be lethal.
>>
>> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
>> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
>> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
>> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
>> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
>> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
>>
> Some of them even get paid to!
>

As I wrote: lunatics.

[Robert Bannister]

Not so much them as the people who dreamt up such a stupid idea. Guns
are not the answer to everything and, in fact, are rarely the answer to
anything.

[Robert Bannister]

I'm sure I've read one SF book where because of the difficulty in using
any long-range weapon in the confines of spaceship, when boarding enemy
vessels (or being boarded) they used swords and axes. A neat idea for
converting a space odyssey into a sword-fighting story.

[Greg Goss]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>> >>>>>>> In the "Enterprise" era,

>I think Enterprise NX-01 returned to Earth for repairs
>at least once, but not fast. I think another time,
>they discussed that they could do that, but it would suck.
>And one time they found a weird alien universal repair
>station.... so maybe one of those things didn't in fact
>happen in the show.
>
>They also at least one time got a hole blown in the saucer
>section big enough for lots of asphyxiating crew members
>to be blown out into space. Permanently.

Wasn't that a blast by a booby-trapped alien already inside the ship?

[Greg Goss]

t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:

>Round trip time lag to geosync orbit is about a quarter second, so it
>wouldn't really be noticable. (Assuming a: the planet being orbited
>has about the same Clarke orbit parameters as earth and b: that you want
>to be in a Clarke orbit to keep the Captain in view when he's with
>the away team)

They could well have been in a powered "orbit" at a much lower
altitude. Their impulse drives didn't seem to have significant limits
such as our reaction drives.

And anytime something went wrong, their orbits went screwey. That
sounds like a powered orbit, though I'd expect a powered orbit.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <dsc447...@mid.individual.net>,

Well, yeah, but then the round-trip lag would be even less than 0.25 sec,
so that says nothing about whether communicators are FTL.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Why don't you just move out of the war zone (your protests imply) you
live in. That way you wouldn't need to carry a weapon, and you could
stop worrying about people pointing at you and calling you names.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

[Mart van de Wege]

Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> writes:

> In article <MPG.31c992aee...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <ds99ek...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
>> says...
>> >
>> > On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> >
>> > > The hand weapons would be lethal.
>> >
>> > Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
>> > It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
>> > weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
>> > often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
>> > admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
>> > lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
>>
>> If you count Sky Marshals as "lunatics".
>
> Do try to keep in mind that for some folks, "Someone who isn't a cop but
> owns a gun that isn't *always* left inside a locked box inside a locked
> safe inside a locked vault inside a locked room inside a locked house
> surrounded by a moat, tall fence, wall, patrolling attack dogs, and
> optionally, a minefield" means the same thing as "lunatic".

Two replies, two gun-control rants. Can you please use those guns to
shoot that hobby-horse, thank you very much? Given the news, there are
plenty of other venues where this might be more welcome.

Mart

--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[Robert Carnegie]

Not that I recall. I'm thinking of a battle in season
three that went very badly - while Captain Archer was
being interrogated, trying to persuade the aliens that
humans weren't the enemy. I'm fairly sure that "To Be
Continued" included an exterior view of Enterprise
visibly venting tiny bodies. I'm just assuming they
were not in space suits against this eventuality -
and, as I say, that they weren't being Transported
back onto the ship before they died.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Quite a common thing, actually, going all the way back at least to Doc
Smith's _Lensman_ series and the Valerian Space Marines with their
space-axes.

[Peter Trei]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:00:09 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:22:46 AM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:

[...]

> > There is special 'low penetration' ammo for this kind of situation. Google
> > 'frangible ammunition' or 'Glaser Safety Slug'. They are designed break up if
> > they hit something hard.
> >
> > I don't can't find a definitive statement whether sky marshalls use these,
> > but I suspect so. In the crowded confines of a plane cabin, you would also
> > want to use lightly loaded rounds - the ranges are low, and you want to avoid
> > having a round go through a bad guy, then injure a good guy behind them.
> >
> > ObSF: In an early L. Neil Smith novel, when the protag boards a plane, he and
> > all the other passengers are subject to a gun check - not to take them away,
> > but to ensure that they are using frangible ammo.
> >
>
> Weren't they on a Zeppelin ride? Probability Broach, trip from alt-Fort Collins to the capital city?

[...]
I'm sure you're right. It's been a long time since I read any LN Smith.

pt

[David Johnston]

On 6/15/2016 7:03 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 05:25:33 UTC+1, Greg Goss wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the "Enterprise" era,
>>
>>> I think Enterprise NX-01 returned to Earth for repairs
>>> at least once, but not fast. I think another time,
>>> they discussed that they could do that, but it would suck.
>>> And one time they found a weird alien universal repair
>>> station.... so maybe one of those things didn't in fact
>>> happen in the show.
>>>
>>> They also at least one time got a hole blown in the saucer
>>> section big enough for lots of asphyxiating crew members
>>> to be blown out into space. Permanently.
>>
>> Wasn't that a blast by a booby-trapped alien already inside the ship?
>
> Not that I recall. I'm thinking of a battle in season
> three that went very badly - while Captain Archer was
> being interrogated, trying to persuade the aliens that
> humans weren't the enemy.

Yeah after the first two seasons they tried to go in a different
direction. But hull polarization was still shields. And of course in
my dream Enterprise Captain Archer's every tactical plan wouldn't start
with "OK, first I get myself captured..."

[Robert Carnegie]

Archer's mission was to encounter new life and
new civilisations. Sometimes the new life wanted
to imprison him. Sometimes he sent a landing
party to be captured instead.

Testudo is shields but is not the same technology.
Classic Trek had "deflectors" described vaguely,
but this seemed to be an electrically generated
invisible force field of protection around the ship.
The "hull plating" evidently is /on/ the ship.
Not as good.

[David Johnston]

> new civilisations.Sometimes the new life wanted
> to imprison him.Sometimes he sent a landing

> party to be captured instead.

No he didn't. And I'm not talking about making first contact with
unknown aliens who turned out to be hostile. He would deliberately go
off alone into hostile territory so he could get captured. He was
really into it.

>
> Testudo is shields but is not the same technology.
> Classic Trek had "deflectors" described vaguely,
> but this seemed to be an electrically generated
> invisible force field of protection around the ship.
> The "hull plating" evidently is /on/ the ship.
> Not as good.

So we are told (but not shown).


>

[Magewolf]

Hull plating was an early form of the structural integrity fields that
helped hold ships together in the shows later on the timeline. Not
shields. The weapons were less powerful so it was more successful so in
story it functioned more like shields but they are totally different things.

[David Johnston]

When the shields went down nobody started counting down the structural
integrity fields.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 12:27:08 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> Second, no. In the original ST, unlike many modern shows, there was no
> real attempt to maintain consistency.


Indeed. It was a rather loose canon.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dsbv6q...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
says...

But they're never in that kind of orbit, it's always so low that they
burn up in hours if anything goes rung.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dsc0bl...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com

says...
>
> On 14/06/2016 5:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <ds99ek...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> >>
> >>> The hand weapons would be lethal.
> >>
> >> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> >> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> >> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> >> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> >> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> >> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
> >
> > If you count Sky Marshals as "lunatics".
> >
> >
> Not so much them as the people who dreamt up such a stupid idea. Guns
> are not the answer to everything and, in fact, are rarely the answer to
> anything.

So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
family?

[David Johnston]

I'm pretty sure they've never asked him that question.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I can feel the breeze from your hand-waving all the way over here. :)

[Robert Bannister]

Where does this happen? Are there no police there? And anyway, if it
were to happen, the chances of your having your firearm handy or being
able to use it are remote.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <MPG.31cbbf784...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yes, but Clarke orbit is a worst case for delay, and is too short
to provide evidence of FTL. Lower orbits provide even less evidence
for FTL communicators.

[Titus G]

> On 16/06/2016 8:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

>> So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
>> family?

1. Get out the freezer bags, labels and vacumm sealer.

2. Start preparing the vegetables.

3. (a) Ring family solicitor re inheritance.
and/or
(b) Ring Insurance office re life policies.

[Don Bruder]

In article <dsel9r...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

> On 16/06/2016 8:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <dsc0bl...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 14/06/2016 5:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <ds99ek...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The hand weapons would be lethal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> >>>> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> >>>> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> >>>> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> >>>> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> >>>> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
> >>>
> >>> If you count Sky Marshals as "lunatics".
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Not so much them as the people who dreamt up such a stupid idea. Guns
> >> are not the answer to everything and, in fact, are rarely the answer to
> >> anything.
> >
> > So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> > family?
> >
>
> Where does this happen?

It *MIGHT* happen just about anywhere, at just about any time. That's
part of the problem - The "bad guys" generally don't make appointments.
Can't you just see it? <ring ring> "Yeah, hey, I was thinkin' that next
Tuesday around 1:30AM I'd come over and break into your house and start
raising unholy hell - Maybe rape your wife, stab one of your kids and
run off with your silverware and jewelry - izzat good for you, or would
you rather I wait until Wednesday at 4AM? Or if you like, I can pencil
you in for Monday evening around 9-ish?" Hmmm... *MAYBE* A Canadian
criminal... :) :) (Sorry, Canadians, but it was laying there, and I
couldnt' resist the low-hanging fruit :) )

> Are there no police there?

If/when the bad guys strike, the police are where they always are: Only
minutes away when seconds make the difference between living and dying.

> And anyway, if it were to happen, the chances of your having your
> firearm handy or being able to use it are remote.

For some of us, the chances of having a firearm handy and/or being able
to use it approach 100%. Ferinstance, as I sit here typing this, it
would take reaching - <eyeballs the distance> for the sake of round
numbers, let's call it three feet to the right and up a foot - for me to
have mine in hand and ready to use. I wouldn't even need to lift my butt
out of the chair. 15 minutes ago, just before I changed into my PJs, it
was even closer: holstered on my belt.

Some of us take the responsibility for protecting ourselves, and take it
seriously, rather than relying on the (many, Many, MANY times
demonstrated) vagaries of police response times. That's part of the
difference between a citizen and a subject. And let's not forget the
ugly (at least by some opinions) fact that on this side of the pond, the
highest court in the land has repeatedly (No less than three times that
I can recall offhand, quite possibly more than that, but I'd have to go
digging to find the exact number) and consistently ruled that THE COPS
HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PROPERTY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR
PREVENT ANY CRIME - In essence, according to the US Supreme Court, they
exist to arrest the perpetrator(s) and/or investigate after the fact. If
they CAN protect or prevent, hooray! Bonus points! I have no doubt
whatsoever that, regardless of legal obligation - or lack of same -
there are cops out there who at least TRY to protect and/or prevent when
the opportunity arises. But legally, none of them are required to even
make an attempt.

I haven't heard anything concrete said on the topic yet from any source,
media, police, or otherwise - probably at least partly because I've not
been paying close attention to the circus its turning into - was the bar
in Orlando a "no guns allowed" zone? I'm betting it probably was - most
are, if not by law, at least by custom. I'm also betting that the body
count would have been significantly lower had there been one or more
armed patrons (or at least a bouncer or bartender with a gun) present.
Then there would have been at least a chance - note that I didn't say
anything about a guarantee, just a chance - to stop the shooter before
he racked up anywhere near the body count he did. As it was, no matter
how fast the police responded, none of the victims had a snowball's
chance in hell of doing anything but laying there and bleeding - or in
the case of the survivors, perhaps shitting themselves with worry over
whether they were going to be the next to catch a round. Not very
constructive, either way.

(But in fairness, the idea of a bar full of folks getting sloppo while
packing iron makes even this unabashedly pro-gun person more than
slightly nervous. On a public safety level, booze and guns mix just
about as well as booze and driving. There's no truly good answer either
way in this particular case, I'm afraid.)

--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <njtifu$5k1$1...@dont-email.me>, dak...@sonic.net says...

>
> In article <dsel9r...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16/06/2016 8:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > In article <dsc0bl...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> > > says...

> > >> Not so much them as the people who dreamt up such a stupid idea. Guns
> > >> are not the answer to everything and, in fact, are rarely the answer to
> > >> anything.
> > >
> > > So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> > > family?
> > >
> >
> > Where does this happen?
>
> It *MIGHT* happen just about anywhere, at just about any time. That's
> part of the problem - The "bad guys" generally don't make appointments.

Yes. That is definitely a thing that could happen to anymone, at any
moment, and is definitely much more likely than one of your family
being accidentally killed by a firearm.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Robert Carnegie]

I think the technology wasn't documented beyond
decreasing percentages and occasionally involving
the port or starboard deflector (i.e. one side of
the ship is more vulnerable than the other),
but, with the acceleration that they use to
manoeuvre, I think "structural integrity" is
either 100% or irrelevant.

[Jack_Bohn]

Ted Nolan wrote:

> >> >> The Federation in Kirk's time certainly had the capability for FTL
> >> >> communications ("subspace radio," I believe), but are you sure the
> >> >> hand-held communicators could do it?

> Yes, but Clarke orbit is a worst case for delay, and is too short
> to provide evidence of FTL. Lower orbits provide even less evidence
> for FTL communicators.

"A Taste of Armegeddon," "Patterns of Force," and "Elaan of Troius" involve systems with two habitable planets, but, alas, the plots don't put the ship at one and the landing party on the other. i can't recall any story hanging on points of celestial mechanics involving moons, from which we might begin to guess distances.

--
-Jack

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-06-16, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:


>> Where does this happen?
>
> It *MIGHT* happen just about anywhere, at just about any time.

... a great MANY things might. Up to and including spontaneous combustion
and/or decapitation via meteorite (well, it's a meteor when it hits YOU but
it'll change status in a jiffy).

Does that mean significant amounts of time should be spent preparing for each
and every variation on every single one, or even just on the generic Platonic
template of each different one? Does it mean significant amounts of time should
be spent WORRYING about all of them? Because either of those very very quickly
take over your life and squeeze out any chance of doing anything USEFUL with
it. Like work. Or sleep.

Risk assessment is somethung pu-ny hu-mons are notoriously bad at, as is
instinctual estimation of probabilities, in multiple ways. My spam email gives
me things I should be panicking about, wanting, or investing in every day (not
always -different- things, of course); should I be putting serious effort into
evaluation of every one before saying "That's spam, I'll delete it"? No, I just
read the subject header and maybe glance at the sender, and bam off it goes.

"Several people with knives have gotten into a position where they are carving
up your family" happens. ...But it happens SO rarely that I'm better off making
plans for what to do after being struck by lightning on two successive days.
Sorry. Not gonna panic, run in circles, scream and shout, and scurry out to
buy one or more guns and some ammo and reserve practice time at a gun club,
dude.

(You can if you want, of course. I'm just saying that that particular motive
for doing so is a spectacularly unlikely one and you have better things to
worry about and prepare for. Like power failures more than 36 hours long. Or
your car's right front tire going BAM and blowing out while you're going over
50 mph in it.)

> That's part of the problem - The "bad guys" generally don't make appointments.

But to compensate, they exist in far smaller numbers than most of the people
whose worldview revolves around "they're coming for ME. _soon_. better git
ready" ever want to believe.

> For some of us, the chances of having a firearm handy and/or being able
> to use it approach 100%. Ferinstance, as I sit here typing this, it
> would take reaching - <eyeballs the distance> for the sake of round
> numbers, let's call it three feet to the right and up a foot - for me to
> have mine in hand and ready to use. I wouldn't even need to lift my butt
> out of the chair. 15 minutes ago, just before I changed into my PJs, it
> was even closer: holstered on my belt.

Cool!

Now what have you done to prepare for, say, your central air deciding that it's
gonna flood the basement, or one of your cats refusing to eat anything for
a week, or the grocery store deciding it doesn't want to carry your favorite
brand of beer any more? Or your brakes suddenly failing?

> That's part of the
> difference between a citizen and a subject.

Mmm, no. "Citizen" does NOT imply ANYTHING about 'must be prepared to take up
arms in their own defense at any time'. You may be thinking of knights, who
DID have to be prepared to take up arms in defense of their -feudal lord- at
any time? Or samurai? American citizens are not knights, or samurai. They are
not required in any way to join the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast
Guard, National Guard, Army Reserve, ROTC, local militias, the FBI, or the
local police force at any time in their lives. (Men of certain ages are to
register for the draft. Still. We haven't had a draft in decades though.)

Please do not confuse ideals you may be holding about what words SHOULD mean
according to how you view the coming apocalypsae, with what words are actually
USED to mean by mainstream society.

> And let's not forget the
> ugly (at least by some opinions) fact that on this side of the pond, the
> highest court in the land has repeatedly (No less than three times that
> I can recall offhand, quite possibly more than that, but I'd have to go
> digging to find the exact number) and consistently ruled that THE COPS
> HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PROPERTY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR
> PREVENT ANY CRIME

Right. This is to prevent them having the hell sued out of them when they do
NOT in fact do so, including because they had no fucking idea they NEEDED to
beforehand, or because the individual involved was strenuously resisting
acquiring their protection, or any number of other reasons.

It's their JOB. It's not their LEGAL DUTY. There's a vast difference, usually.

It's the armed forces where there's legal duty to follow (correct) orders
from superiors, protect the Constitution, and whatever else their oath
requires. Cops are NOT armed-forces members, no matter how much some of them
want to think or act otherwise.

> I have no doubt
> whatsoever that, regardless of legal obligation - or lack of same -
> there are cops out there who at least TRY to protect and/or prevent when
> the opportunity arises.

Oh sure. No argument there. I hope it's the vast majority of them, even.

> But legally, none of them are required to even make an attempt.

Right. Are _you_ legally required to perform the duties _your_ boss requires
of you, even in a government job? No, you're not. Company code may say a lot
of things, but it doesn't have the force of law. (And yes, the police are not
a private enforcement agency; they're an arm of the government. But that still
doesn't mean their duties as assigned by superiors are _written down in local
or federal law_ with penalties for not complying. There's laws about what the
police can or cannot do - but ones about what they MUST do? good luck with
that.)

> I haven't heard anything concrete said on the topic yet from any source,
> media, police, or otherwise - probably at least partly because I've not
> been paying close attention to the circus its turning into - was the bar
> in Orlando a "no guns allowed" zone?

And if it was? Are you SERIOUSLY going to trot out the tired old chestnut "if
someone else there had been armed they'd've shot him before he got going,
tragedy averted, we need MOAR GUNZ EVERYWHARE"? Cuz that dog not only don't
hunt, it's been disproved time and again. The army has to invest serious effort
into getting folks to be able to kill on a dime; it's NOT something ordinary
people can usually do, no matter how much they've psyched themselves up
beforehand with Rambo-style fantasies. It's not something YOU'D be easily able
to do.

> Then there would have been at least a chance - note that I didn't say
> anything about a guarantee, just a chance - to stop the shooter before
> he racked up anywhere near the body count he did.

... okay, you are. But no blaming the victims for "if they had all rushed him
at once he'd've only been able to get a dozen or so before they tore him
apart"? Only blaming them for not having guns? That's still BLAMING THE VICTIMS
dude. Stop before you look more misanthropic.

> perhaps shitting themselves with worry over
> whether they were going to be the next to catch a round.

But if they'd had a gun in their hand, this worry and fear would magically
never have appeared in the first place, and they'd be able to take careful aim
and fire, with a 100% target hit accuracy. I -see-.

This explains some things. (Not things you want to hear about, I fear.)

> (But in fairness, the idea of a bar full of folks getting sloppo while
> packing iron makes even this unabashedly pro-gun person more than
> slightly nervous.

DING DING DING DONG WHICH WITCH IS DEAD DING DING?

> On a public safety level, booze and guns mix just
> about as well as booze and driving.

Not to mention dancing and loaded guns secured lightly enough that there'd be
time to get them out and use them before boom headshot.

Not to mention a room full of folks with loaded guns - or even a room full of
folks, some of whom have loaded guns - with gunfire starting from SOMEWHERE
else in the crowd... and once anyone else starts shooting, what distinguishes
them from 'accomplice of the terrorist'? People are saying there were others
involved who weren't even shooting (specifically 'holding the door shut' -
conspiracy websites had this up the next day, CNN has a piece about it as of
yesterday).

Dave, of course, the firing of guns at someone's feet and chanting DANCE has
a long memetic history, so maybe

PS: Terry will now tear into this either at length or with a pithy rebuttal
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[leif...@dimnakorr.com]

J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> family?

What's your answer to your family being charged by a deeply upset rhino?

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Peter Trei]

Guys, you're in the wrong room. The (anti)gun thread is over with the
mousquitos.

pt

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <1LGdneH5l8wWev_K...@giganews.com>,
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...

>
> J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> > family?
>
> What's your answer to your family being charged by a deeply upset rhino?

Oh, come on, that one's easy. TOS-era Phaser would probably take care
of it. They come in rifle size, too.

Although they only broke that one out to fight a god, so it's probably
overkill for a rhino.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 2:31:13 PM UTC-4, Juho Julkunen wrote:
> In article <1LGdneH5l8wWev_K...@giganews.com>,
> leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
> >
> > J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> > > family?
> >
> > What's your answer to your family being charged by a deeply upset rhino?
>

Wait - is he in my pajamas, or not?

> Oh, come on, that one's easy. TOS-era Phaser would probably take care
> of it. They come in rifle size, too.
>
> Although they only broke that one out to fight a god, so it's probably
> overkill for a rhino.

Kevin R

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 8:16:14 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-06-16, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >> Where does this happen?
> >
> > It *MIGHT* happen just about anywhere, at just about any time.

But the probability is different in different places.

> ... a great MANY things might. Up to and including spontaneous
> combustion and/or decapitation via meteorite (well, it's a meteor
> when it hits YOU but it'll change status in a jiffy).

The distribution of meteorites is pretty much random, which does not apply to humans doing Bad Things.

> Does that mean significant amounts of time should be spent
> preparing for each and every variation on every single one, or even
> just on the generic Platonic template of each different one? Does
> it mean significant amounts of time should be spent WORRYING about
> all of them? Because either of those very very quickly
> take over your life and squeeze out any chance of doing anything
> USEFUL with it. Like work. Or sleep.

The effort invested should naturally be proportional to the risk. But...

> Risk assessment is somethung pu-ny hu-mons are notoriously bad at,
> as is instinctual estimation of probabilities, in multiple ways.

That's why statistics were invented.

> "Several people with knives have gotten into a position where they
> are carving up your family" happens. ...But it happens SO rarely
> that I'm better off making plans for what to do after being struck
> by lightning on two successive days. Sorry. Not gonna panic, run in
> circles, scream and shout, and scurry out to buy one or more guns
> and some ammo and reserve practice time at a gun club, dude.

If one does purchase a deadly weapon for self/home defense, joining such a club is actually a good sanity check as well as a way to obtain and retain proficiency. Per a conversation in ARK, gun club members actively want newbies to be real good at gun use and will encourage and help teach safety, responsibility, etc.

Gun clubs aren't actually populated exclusively, or even largely, or even smallely by the baseball-capped camo-wearing rednecks that populate antigun editorial cartoons.

Want to meet a whole bunch of polite, reasonable people? Go to a gun show.

> (You can if you want, of course. I'm just saying that that
> particular motive for doing so is a spectacularly unlikely one and
> you have better things to worry about and prepare for. Like power
> failures more than 36 hours long. Or your car's right front tire
> going BAM and blowing out while you're going over 50 mph in it.)

Where do you live, and what sort of life do you live?

I've had my left front tire BLAM out at 60 mph on a crowded freeway. Fortunately I have a very weak startle reflex so all ended well. If one never drives, one need not "worry" about that.

I currently live in a small redneck town in the pacific Northwet where electricity often fails for three days or more at a time.

These risks are not randomly distributed in space or time.

> > That's part of the problem - The "bad guys" generally don't make
> appointments.
>
> But to compensate, they exist in far smaller numbers than most of
> the people whose worldview revolves around "they're coming for ME.
> _soon_. better git ready" ever want to believe.

Thing is, their distribution isn't random in space or time either. Nor, sadly, are their intended victims.

> > For some of us, the chances of having a firearm handy and/or
> > being able to use it approach 100%. Ferinstance, as I sit here
> > typing this, it would take reaching - <eyeballs the distance>
> > for the sake of round numbers, let's call it three feet to the
> > right and up a foot - for me to have mine in hand and ready to
> > use. I wouldn't even need to lift my butt out of the chair. 15
> > minutes ago, just before I changed into my PJs, it was even
> > closer: holstered on my belt.
>
> Cool!
>
> Now what have you done to prepare for, say, your central air
> deciding that it's gonna flood the basement, or one of your cats
> refusing to eat anything for a week, or the grocery store deciding
> it doesn't want to carry your favorite brand of beer any more? Or
> your brakes suddenly failing?

How are those examples relevant?

> > That's part of the difference between a citizen and a subject.
>
> Mmm, no. "Citizen" does NOT imply ANYTHING about 'must be prepared
> to take up arms in their own defense at any time'. You may be
> thinking of knights, who DID have to be prepared to take up arms in
> defense of their -feudal lord- at any time? Or samurai? American
> citizens are not knights, or samurai. They are not required in any
> way to join the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard,
> National Guard, Army Reserve,

Except when the Government decides that they ARE required to do so.

> ROTC, local militias, the FBI, or the local police force at any
> time in their lives. (Men of certain ages are to register for the
> draft. Still. We haven't had a draft in decades though.)

Again, non-random distribution.

> Please do not confuse ideals you may be holding about what words
> SHOULD mean according to how you view the coming apocalypsae, with
> what words are actually USED to mean by mainstream society.

Ever been caught in a riot you hadn't planned on participating in? Damn fine impersonation of an apocalypse.

> > And let's not forget the ugly (at least by some opinions) fact
> > that on this side of the pond, the highest court in the land has
> > repeatedly (No less than three times that I can recall offhand,
> > quite possibly more than that, but I'd have to go digging to find
> > the exact number) and consistently ruled that THE COPS HAVE NO
> > LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PROPERTY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR
> > PREVENT ANY CRIME
>
> Right. This is to prevent them having the hell sued out of them

> when they doNOT in fact do so, including because they had no

> fucking idea they NEEDED to beforehand, or because the individual
> involved was strenuously resisting acquiring their protection, or
> any number of other reasons.

It's mainly because there aren't anywhere near enough to do it.

> It's their JOB. It's not their LEGAL DUTY. There's a vast
> difference, usually.

The effect is that the onus of personal defense therefore falls on the individual.

Unless you're suggesting We The Persons have no right to self-defense?

> It's the armed forces where there's legal duty to follow (correct)
> orders from superiors, protect the Constitution, and whatever else
> their oath requires. Cops are NOT armed-forces members, no matter
> how much some of them want to think or act otherwise.

Well, that explains why so many LE agencies are acquiring outright weapons of war from the DOD which is happy to supply them...

> > I have no doubt whatsoever that, regardless of legal obligation -
> > or lack of same - there are cops out there who at least TRY to
> > protect and/or prevent when the opportunity arises.
>
> Oh sure. No argument there. I hope it's the vast majority of them,
> even.
>
> > But legally, none of them are required to even make an attempt.
>
> Right. Are _you_ legally required to perform the duties _your_ boss
> requires of you, even in a government job? No, you're not. Company
> code may say a lot of things, but it doesn't have the force of law.
> (And yes, the police are not a private enforcement agency; they're
> an arm of the government. But that still doesn't mean their duties
> as assigned by superiors are _written down in local or federal law_
> with penalties for not complying. There's laws about what the
> police can or cannot do - but ones about what they MUST do? good
> luck with that.)

In most jurisdictions what we blithely call "police" as if it were an independent governmental entity are actually Officers of the lo cal Court, with specific duties they MUST perform, and specific limitations they MUST not exceed, under literal penalty of law.

That's why it's so hard to get a court to prosecute or sentence a cop- the court is basically admitting it put a badge on someone it shouldn't have.

It's also why jailed cops tend to get worse sentences than non-cops for a given crime, and why they get more crap from prison guards- they have sullied the system they swore to uphold.

> > I haven't heard anything concrete said on the topic yet from any
> > source, media, police, or otherwise - probably at least partly
> > because I've not been paying close attention to the circus its
> > turning into - was the bar in Orlando a "no guns allowed" zone?
>
> And if it was? Are you SERIOUSLY going to trot out the tired old
> chestnut "if someone else there had been armed they'd've shot him
> before he got going, tragedy averted, we need MOAR GUNZ
> EVERYWHARE"? Cuz that dog not only don't hunt, it's been disproved
> time and again.

Has it? How many gun-toters failed to prevent robberies/murders etc. exactly, and how many of them had ANY training?

I will not counter-cite examples of gun-toters who *have* failed robbery/murder attempts even though there are plenty. I don't want confrontation, only justification of your claim.

> The army has to invest serious effort into getting folks to be able
> to kill on a dime; it's NOT something ordinary people can usually
> do, no matter how much they've psyched themselves up beforehand
> with Rambo-style fantasies. It's not something YOU'D be easily able
> to do.

Tired "Rambo fantasy" cliches are not the point. Knowing what to do in dangerous situations and being prepared is.

> > Then there would have been at least a chance - note that I didn't
> > say anything about a guarantee, just a chance - to stop the
> > shooter before he racked up anywhere near the body count he did.
>
> ... okay, you are. But no blaming the victims

He didn't do that. You're starting to sound like Hillary. You're better than that.

> > perhaps shitting themselves with worry over whether they were
> > going to be the next to catch a round.
>
> But if they'd had a gun in their hand, this worry and fear would
> magically never have appeared in the first place, and they'd be
> able to take careful aim and fire, with a 100% target hit accuracy.
> I -see-.

He specifically said the opposite. You're better than that.

> This explains some things. (Not things you want to hear about, I
> fear.)

Sigh. I REALLY hope you're better than that.

> > (But in fairness, the idea of a bar full of folks getting sloppo
> > while packing iron makes even this unabashedly pro-gun person
> > more than slightly nervous.
>
> DING DING DING DONG WHICH WITCH IS DEAD DING DING?

Wait, are you now mocking him for being reasonable?

> > On a public safety level, booze and guns mix just about as well
> > as booze and driving.
>
> Not to mention dancing and loaded guns secured lightly enough that
> there'd be time to get them out and use them before boom headshot.

I see you've never worn a properly holstered handgun.

> Not to mention a room full of folks with loaded guns - or even a
> room full of folks, some of whom have loaded guns - with gunfire
> starting from SOMEWHERE else in the crowd... and once anyone else
> starts shooting, what distinguishes them from 'accomplice of the
> terrorist'? People are saying there were others involved who
> weren't even shooting (specifically 'holding the door shut' -
> conspiracy websites had this up the next day, CNN has a piece about
> it as of yesterday).

He said that, in short.

> Dave, of course, the firing of guns at someone's feet and chanting
> DANCE has a long memetic history, so maybe

AFAIK Hollywood invented that, or maybe it was Sergio Leone.

> PS: Terry will now tear into this either at length or with a pithy
> rebuttal

I don't play Terry on the internet, but what I said about distribution of risk is the key point.

If you go where tigers be, you better be either prepared to kill at least one hungry tiger or be willing to feed it your flesh.

I wore a nickel-plated .45 on my hip while bicycling in PHX AZ to keep the gangstas (and other assholes) from trying to run me over because BRIGHT SHINY GUN gives even the most jaded, rage-prone drivers pause.

That was in Phoenix, a crowded, crazy Big City where you can EXPECT at least one attempt on your person or property per week, according to statistics gathered by the local cops and the FBI.

Other big cities, same same. Such crimes' probability rises in direct proportion to population density. This is not gun-nut myth, it's simple fact. It's true worldwide, though in strict gun-forbidding places killers tend to use knives, machetes, clubs, or whatever.

In my little redneck town the risk is so much smaller that I no longer feel a need to pack heat. What few meth users etc. exist here are easily handled, er, by hand. As I've mentioned, I favor Aikido.

My point is to examine YOUR point about risk assessment vs. effort expended in preparation for that risk. If I were a gay person in Orlando or any other big city I'd do what these gays are doing:

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/

Note this part:

"Mike Smith, a firearms instructor in Colorado Springs, is one of many closely tracking the sudden surge in gays and lesbians buying weapons... Dozens of new chapters [of The Pink Pistols, a national gun club for gays and lesbians] are springing up, including one Smith is creating in Colorado Springs. He said it’s something he feels compelled to do, even though he’s heterosexual."

It's really good to see that not all heteros side with the Westboro Baptist Church, you know?


Mark L. Fergerson

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 8:41:16 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> family?

Phasers on stun, of course.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

Happens all the time. Obama keeps it secret because he's behind it. It's the Muslim plot to destroy America.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dsel9r...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

>
> On 16/06/2016 8:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <dsc0bl...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 14/06/2016 5:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <ds99ek...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 14/06/2016 6:58 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The hand weapons would be lethal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very few space film/TV programmes seem to have thought hand weapons out.
> >>>> It seems blindingly obvious that nobody would be allowed to carry a
> >>>> weapon on a spaceship that go blow holes to the outside, and yet you
> >>>> often see chunks of bulkhead or pipes being blown to bits. I have to
> >>>> admit that Startrek is better than many in this matter. Then again,
> >>>> lunatics on this Earth have been known to take firearms onto planes.
> >>>
> >>> If you count Sky Marshals as "lunatics".
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Not so much them as the people who dreamt up such a stupid idea. Guns
> >> are not the answer to everything and, in fact, are rarely the answer to
> >> anything.
> >
> > So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> > family?
> >
>
> Where does this happen?

Wherever several people with knives think that there is something in a
house that they need more than the occupants.

> Are there no police there?

Are there police in your house right now? And what do you think the
police are going to use on them? Nerf bats?

> And anyway, if it
> were to happen, the chances of your having your firearm handy or being
> able to use it are remote.

Why would one suddenly lose the ability to use one's firearm? Are you
laboring under the misconception that all skill departs with the onset
of danger?

[J. Clarke]

In article <MPG.31cc924d7...@news.kolumbus.fi>,
giao...@hotmail.com says...

Please identify one incident in which a firearm just leaped off a table
and started shooting people all by itself. "Killed by a firearm"
implies that an inanimate object has volition and draws attention away
from the real issue, which is PEOPLE killing people.

[J. Clarke]

In article <1LGdneH5l8wWev_K...@giganews.com>,
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
>

> J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So what is your answer to several people with knives carving up your
> > family?
>
> What's your answer to your family being charged by a deeply upset rhino?

When there are as many rhinos in the US as there are criminals then I'll
worry about it.

[Cryptoengineer]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:20e786ef-5018-49b1...@googlegroups.com:

Since you asked:

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-
shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

pt

[Cryptoengineer]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.31cd0ba5...@news.eternal-september.org:

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

pt

[David Johnston]

There are at least as many rhinos in the US as there are gangs of
criminals murdering families (or anyone) with knives.

[Robert Bannister]

On 16/06/2016 2:54 PM, Don Bruder wrote:

> I haven't heard anything concrete said on the topic yet from any source,
> media, police, or otherwise - probably at least partly because I've not
> been paying close attention to the circus its turning into - was the bar
> in Orlando a "no guns allowed" zone? I'm betting it probably was - most
> are, if not by law, at least by custom. I'm also betting that the body
> count would have been significantly lower had there been one or more
> armed patrons (or at least a bouncer or bartender with a gun) present.
> Then there would have been at least a chance - note that I didn't say
> anything about a guarantee, just a chance - to stop the shooter before
> he racked up anywhere near the body count he did. As it was, no matter
> how fast the police responded, none of the victims had a snowball's
> chance in hell of doing anything but laying there and bleeding - or in
> the case of the survivors, perhaps shitting themselves with worry over
> whether they were going to be the next to catch a round. Not very
> constructive, either way.

I'm pretty sure you're right about this being a no-guns bar, but I also
think that had the patrons been armed, the body count would have been
just as high with all the misses, ricochets and bullets passing straight
through bodies into other people. Mass shootings have occurred in a few
other countries, but, apart from places with civil wars, nowhere else
has the sheer number of mass shootings like the USA.

>
> (But in fairness, the idea of a bar full of folks getting sloppo while
> packing iron makes even this unabashedly pro-gun person more than
> slightly nervous. On a public safety level, booze and guns mix just
> about as well as booze and driving. There's no truly good answer either
> way in this particular case, I'm afraid.)
>


--

[J. Clarke]

In article <njvikp$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>, Davidjo...@yahoo.com
says...

So there are 1567 free roaming agressive rhinos in the US?

[Don Bruder]

In article <2oGdnXjufN8rX__K...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 2016-06-16, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Where does this happen?
> >
> > It *MIGHT* happen just about anywhere, at just about any time.
>
> ... a great MANY things might. Up to and including spontaneous combustion
> and/or decapitation via meteorite (well, it's a meteor when it hits YOU but
> it'll change status in a jiffy).

Yep, and every single day of every single week (at least, in places
where the game gets played) *SOMEBODY* wins the lottery. Unfortunately,
it ain't been ME so far... <sigh>

Point being, a "slim chance" is not "no chance".

(And come on, Dave, I damn well know you're better than argumentum ad
absurdum tactics)

> Sorry. Not gonna panic, run in circles, scream and shout, and scurry out to
> buy one or more guns and some ammo and reserve practice time at a gun club,
> dude.

And I do none of those things, either - My first gun was a gift. Unless
old age has destroyed my memory, it was around the time I was 8 or 9. A
single-shot .22 rifle, given to me by my grandfather, along with the
obligatory lecture on the rules of gun safety, and the responsibility
involved in having and using a gun, and a solemn promise of an
ass-whoopin' to end all ass-whoopin's if I was ever caught violating
those rules. Others have been "Eh, I like that one, and can fit it into
my budget - SOLD!" pickups here and there through the years. Ammo?
That's no different from gas, oil, and tires for the car - just part of
owning and operating the equipment. Gun club? Yeah, I hold a membership
- 'cause a once-yearly membership renewal is *WAY* cheaper than paying
the "by the visit" lane fees. Why spend $20 a visit when I can re-up my
membership for $150, and effectively be making a profit after the 7th
trip of the year? Why do I go to the range? I *LIKE* to. It's one of my
hobbies. Kinda like golf, or building ships in bottles. Going shooting
has been a part of my life since... Well, I can't even say when. Even
before grandpa gave me my first "very own" gun. Sometimes that means I
go to an established range. Sometimes to the gravel pit. Sometimes
hunting. Sometimes plinking off the back porch. (though not much of that
mode in recent years, since that sort of thing ain't very bright in the
"in town" environments I've been inhabiting lately - the neighbors are
likely to get a tad grumpy about bullets zipping through their walls,
doncha know!) It's not like I "go out of my way" to do it - it's
something I'd be doing anyway simply for the enjoyment I get out of it.
If that constitutes "panic, run in circles, etc", then I guess it's fair
to say that's what I'm doing.

> (You can if you want, of course. I'm just saying that that particular motive
> for doing so is a spectacularly unlikely one and you have better things to
> worry about and prepare for. Like power failures more than 36 hours long. Or
> your car's right front tire going BAM and blowing out while you're going over
> 50 mph in it.)

Been there, done that, survived by preparing for the occurrence - when
the ice storm took out the power in the area for almost 3 weeks a couple
years back, the generator that normally sits in the garage doing nothing
but taking up space was suddenly worth its weight in gold - almost
literally. Was it worth buying a "useless machine that's just gonna sit
in the garage and take up space"? I'd say it was - I was warm, and had
at least partial lights, a working fridge, running water, hot food, and
at least part of the rest of the usual electrical amenities, while those
around me who didn't bother to prepare went without (and could be heard
bitching about it, some rather loudly, from a fairly long distance)

Learning how to handle a blowout kept me from piling into the ditch (or
somebody else) when it happened as I was tooling down I-5 at 60+ a few
years back. Was the effort of learning how to handle the situation worth
it? Yep, I'd say it was. A little grunting to jack up the car and change
the tire, and I was on my way again. I don't even want to consider how
ugly things might have been had I not been educated on the topic.

> > That's part of the problem - The "bad guys" generally don't make
> > appointments.
>
> But to compensate, they exist in far smaller numbers than most of the people
> whose worldview revolves around "they're coming for ME. _soon_. better git
> ready" ever want to believe.

If you really think that's how my mind operates, you need to reconsider.
On the other hand, having the knowledge and skill from many years of
shooting for fun (and table meat) has prepared me to cope with such a
situation, should I ever find myself in it.

>
> > For some of us, the chances of having a firearm handy and/or being able
> > to use it approach 100%. Ferinstance, as I sit here typing this, it
> > would take reaching - <eyeballs the distance> for the sake of round
> > numbers, let's call it three feet to the right and up a foot - for me to
> > have mine in hand and ready to use. I wouldn't even need to lift my butt
> > out of the chair. 15 minutes ago, just before I changed into my PJs, it
> > was even closer: holstered on my belt.
>
> Cool!
>
> Now what have you done to prepare for, say, your central air deciding that
> it's
> gonna flood the basement,

Nothing. There's no basement in my domicile, so that can never be an
issue. (Of course, it could also be said that I'm as prepared as it's
posisble to be, assuming you count living in a basement-free abode as
"preparing" - personally I count it as a fortunate side-effect)

> or one of your cats refusing to eat anything for a week,

Nothing - I don't own a cat. And if I did, bluntly, it would be easily
and cheaply replaced with a non-defective one. (So sorry if the concept
offends, but frankly, a cat is an easily replaced interchangeable part
so far as I'm concerned. I don't dislike 'em, but neither do I have much
interest in 'em except as self-maintaining rodent disposal mechanisms)
But to be fair, and actually address your question, for the horses,
which I do care about, I've got the numbers for several vets stuck to
the barn fridge in case they develop a problem that my literal lifetime
of experience dealing with their health issues can't cope with. As well
as a limited but useful supply of various horse drugs suitable for
handling the crises most likely to afflict them and not need the
intervention of a professional horse doctor.

> or the grocery store deciding it doesn't want to carry your favorite
> brand of beer any more?

Nothing - I drink approximately two bottles of beer a year, and wouldn't
particularly miss those if they became unavailable.

> Or your brakes suddenly failing?

Try the parking brake. If that's gone too, kill the engine, mash the
clutch, downshift hard, and use the clutch as a brake while looking for
space in an attempt to either avoid hitting anything, or if that isn't
possible, steer so as to minimize damage to myself when the impact
occurs. (Assuming I'm driving a manual transmission vehicle, of course -
which is the usual case, as I prefer a manuals to automatics)

Any further questions? :)

Yes, I see where you're going. And the reality is, I'm probably about as
prepared as any sane person CAN be for pretty much anything short of
all-out war, the second coming of christ (which is a whole other can of
imaginary hash that I won't bother opening here...) or being lifted away
by a blue-sky tornado.

>
> > That's part of the
> > difference between a citizen and a subject.
>
> Mmm, no. "Citizen" does NOT imply ANYTHING about 'must be prepared to take up
> arms in their own defense at any time'.

Sorry, Dave, but yes, it does. A citizen is both willing and able to do
so. A subject is usually neither. A citizen takes responsibility for his
own safety and well-being, and makes his own decisions within the
framework of his <political entity whatever name it goes by> and its
laws. A subject leaves the responsibility for his safety and well-being
to someone else, and leaves the decision making to somebody else.

Don't bother trotting out a dictionary. You're too intelligent (or at
least, you've given me that impression in the past - this post of yours
is making me wonder if I should be re-thinking that idea) not to
understand *EXACTLY* what I mean.

> > And let's not forget the
> > ugly (at least by some opinions) fact that on this side of the pond, the
> > highest court in the land has repeatedly (No less than three times that
> > I can recall offhand, quite possibly more than that, but I'd have to go
> > digging to find the exact number) and consistently ruled that THE COPS
> > HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT THE LIFE OR PROPERTY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR
> > PREVENT ANY CRIME
>
> Right. This is to prevent them having the hell sued out of them when they do
> NOT in fact do so, including because they had no fucking idea they NEEDED to
> beforehand, or because the individual involved was strenuously resisting
> acquiring their protection, or any number of other reasons.

True enough. And again, you're too intelligent not to understand the
point I'm making. Oh, I see - you overlooked (or deliberately snipped
out?) the part that would have indicated I was addressing Robert's "Are
there no police there?" query. Isn't that a Terry tactic?

> > I have no doubt
> > whatsoever that, regardless of legal obligation - or lack of same -
> > there are cops out there who at least TRY to protect and/or prevent when
> > the opportunity arises.
>
> Oh sure. No argument there. I hope it's the vast majority of them, even.

Well, we can agree on that much, at least...

> > I haven't heard anything concrete said on the topic yet from any source,
> > media, police, or otherwise - probably at least partly because I've not
> > been paying close attention to the circus its turning into - was the bar
> > in Orlando a "no guns allowed" zone?
>
> And if it was? Are you SERIOUSLY going to trot out the tired old chestnut "if
> someone else there had been armed they'd've shot him before he got going,
> tragedy averted, we need MOAR GUNZ EVERYWHARE"? Cuz that dog not only don't
> hunt, it's been disproved time and again. The army has to invest serious
> effort
> into getting folks to be able to kill on a dime; it's NOT something ordinary
> people can usually do, no matter how much they've psyched themselves up
> beforehand with Rambo-style fantasies. It's not something YOU'D be easily
> able
> to do.
>
>
> > Then there would have been at least a chance - note that I didn't say
> > anything about a guarantee, just a chance - to stop the shooter before
> > he racked up anywhere near the body count he did.
>
> ... okay, you are. But no blaming the victims for "if they had all rushed him
> at once he'd've only been able to get a dozen or so before they tore him
> apart"? Only blaming them for not having guns? That's still BLAMING THE
> VICTIMS
> dude. Stop before you look more misanthropic.

Frankly, I don't care how misanthropic I "look" - I've long since copped
to that charge, and feel no shame about it. Want me to put it right out
there for all to see? OK, here it is: I not only look misanthropic, I AM
a misanthropic bastard (never mind the detail that my mom and dad were
married) with little or no empathy for those not on the short list of
"dear to me" people.

I do, however, object to the idea that I'm "blaming the victims", when
my intent was to point out the stupidity of so-called "gun free zones".
Which, as has been demonstrated over and over and over again, the "bad
guys" read as "Come on in and shoot all you like! Nobody here is armed,
so you ain't got anything to worry about until the cops arrive sometime
long after you've had your fun!"

>
> > perhaps shitting themselves with worry over
> > whether they were going to be the next to catch a round.
>
> But if they'd had a gun in their hand, this worry and fear would magically
> never have appeared in the first place, and they'd be able to take careful
> aim
> and fire, with a 100% target hit accuracy. I -see-.

Off to the land of ad absurdum again, eh? <shakes head sadly> Honestly,
Dave, I really thought better of you.

Free hint: Contrary to MSM-dispensed propaganda, not everybody
automatically goes catatonic at the sound of a gunshot. Some are quite
capable of reacting in a sensible fashion, assuming they have the tools
at hand to do so. I'd like to think that I'd be one of them, though I
can't say that with certainty, not having actually been under live fire
before. I do know for certain that gunfire is not a paralytic agent for
me - After all, when I go to the range, I'm exposed to gunfire - albeit,
not aimed in my direction - and manage to continue functioning despite
the "magic" you apparently think is carried on the sound. Off the range,
a gunshot (or series of them) is likely to invoke a "WTF?!?!?", and
perhaps a startle reaction from me. Unless I'm hit, it's unlikely to
leave me unable to do the rational thing. Once the initial reaction
passes (assuming, of course, that I'm not killed or incapacitated in the
first seconds of the incident) my most likely course of action would be
to take cover if possible, assess the situation, and if armed, look for
an opportunity to either stop the shooter or get the hell outta Dodge,
whichever makes me safest soonest. Not out of "rambo-ism", as you
apparently think would be the case, or get my ugly mug on the 6-o'clock
news (Nobody in his right mind wants to look at it anyway) or even to
"be a hero", but to end the threat to myself. If the opportunity
presents and I can take out the shooter, and this saves <insert a number
you like here> others from getting shot, that's a nifty side-effect. But
I assure you, the primary motivation will be 100% pure, totally selfish,
rage-fueled "You stupid bastard! I'm downrange! Quit shooting *NOW*!".
Not some misplaced sense of heroism, not any particular interest in
"doing the right thing" - Just pure and simple self-centered "Stop
lobbing lead at me you stupid cocksucker!"

And I know, beyond any shadow of doubt, that I'm not the only such
person walking the earth. (although I grant that at least some will
likely have motivations other than mine)

>
> This explains some things. (Not things you want to hear about, I fear.)

I suspect I'd likely be amused, assuming you can elucidate in something
like a civilized manner.

> > (But in fairness, the idea of a bar full of folks getting sloppo while
> > packing iron makes even this unabashedly pro-gun person more than
> > slightly nervous.
>
> DING DING DING DONG WHICH WITCH IS DEAD DING DING?

If you've got some meaningful point there, you can score me as a
"<whoosh!>", 'cause whatever it was just went winging over my head so
fast my hair is still flapping in the breeze of its passage.

>
> > On a public safety level, booze and guns mix just
> > about as well as booze and driving.
>
> Not to mention dancing and loaded guns secured lightly enough that there'd be
> time to get them out and use them before boom headshot.

Dunno about anybody else, but my holster of choice is secure enough that
my gun will stay in it during the course of any style of dancing I'm
even remotely likely to attempt (and, although it's not exactly
"dancing", it HAS stayed put during a rather violent dispute with a
horse over whether or not I was worthy of staying on his back - a
dispute I lost, to the tune of some broken bones and a trip to the E.R.)
but can be released with, quite literally, the flick of my thumb as an
addition to the normal (Erm... maybe poor phrasing, since I've practiced
it enough that for me, the thumb flick is a part of normal) motion of
drawing it. You might google "thumb break holster" to find... oh,
probably no more than a few thousand or so... examples, available in
various price ranges, materials, and colors, custom-fit for (or easily
adjusted to fit) many, if not most, makes and models of handgun.

>
> Not to mention a room full of folks with loaded guns - or even a room full of
> folks, some of whom have loaded guns - with gunfire starting from SOMEWHERE
> else in the crowd... and once anyone else starts shooting, what distinguishes
> them from 'accomplice of the terrorist'? People are saying there were others
> involved who weren't even shooting (specifically 'holding the door shut' -
> conspiracy websites had this up the next day, CNN has a piece about it as of
> yesterday).

Which is where a rational response comes into play. Chances are high
that a "good guy" bystander trying to stop a "bad guy" shooter is going
to be using a handgun, rather than the long gun which is the most likely
weapon for a "bad guy". This is why "find cover and assess the
situation" is important.

> Dave, of course, the firing of guns at someone's feet and chanting DANCE has
> a long memetic history, so maybe
>
> PS: Terry will now tear into this either at length or with a pithy rebuttal

Indubitably - isn't that his usual M.O.? But since I've killfiled him, I
won't notice unless/until somebody quotes his spew. (Please don't feel
you need to go out of your way to do so for my benefit - I can happily
continue through life without his brand of "conversation", thanks)

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA629D15CE5...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

The thing that bothers me about Orlando is that he killed 50 people. If
50 people had rushed him he couldn't have killed all of them before
enough got to him to knock him down, take his gun away from him and beat
him into submission with it.
>
> pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA629D44D8F...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

And that is location dependent. "Call 911 and call Dominos--see who
arrives first.
>
> pt

[Robert Bannister]

I have never heard of such a thing happening. If it's like that where
you live, I suggest you move.

>
>> Are there no police there?
>
> Are there police in your house right now? And what do you think the
> police are going to use on them? Nerf bats?
>
>> And anyway, if it
>> were to happen, the chances of your having your firearm handy or being
>> able to use it are remote.
>
> Why would one suddenly lose the ability to use one's firearm? Are you
> laboring under the misconception that all skill departs with the onset
> of danger?

I forgot you carry yours with you even in bed.

[David Johnston]

In theory. Certainly he gets moral credit for it, but he had three cops
shooting at him in a crowded confusing night club and since they didn't
hit him, I'm not sure they didn't hit anyone.

If
> 50 people had rushed him he couldn't have killed all of them before
> enough got to him to knock him down, take his gun away from him and beat
> him into submission with it.

So you have four guys shooting at other and your move would be to charge
in?

[David Johnston]

Nope. But then there aren't 1567 knife gangs either. Note that
knifings are not generally a team sport.

[J. Clarke]

In article <dsh55l...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

>
> On 16/06/2016 2:54 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > I haven't heard anything concrete said on the topic yet from any source,
> > media, police, or otherwise - probably at least partly because I've not
> > been paying close attention to the circus its turning into - was the bar
> > in Orlando a "no guns allowed" zone? I'm betting it probably was - most
> > are, if not by law, at least by custom. I'm also betting that the body
> > count would have been significantly lower had there been one or more
> > armed patrons (or at least a bouncer or bartender with a gun) present.
> > Then there would have been at least a chance - note that I didn't say
> > anything about a guarantee, just a chance - to stop the shooter before
> > he racked up anywhere near the body count he did. As it was, no matter
> > how fast the police responded, none of the victims had a snowball's
> > chance in hell of doing anything but laying there and bleeding - or in
> > the case of the survivors, perhaps shitting themselves with worry over
> > whether they were going to be the next to catch a round. Not very
> > constructive, either way.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're right about this being a no-guns bar, but I also
> think that had the patrons been armed, the body count would have been
> just as high with all the misses, ricochets and bullets passing straight
> through bodies into other people.

And why would there be all these bullets passing straight through
bodies? A well designed bullet puts all its energy into the target.

> Mass shootings have occurred in a few
> other countries, but, apart from places with civil wars, nowhere else
> has the sheer number of mass shootings like the USA.

We have more knifings too, but nobody seems to care about those--
apparently violencs is fine as long as it's not a shooting.

[J. Clarke]

In article <njvnn7$ujq$1...@dont-email.me>, Davidjo...@yahoo.com
says...

Were the cops there from the start? If so they did a piss-poor job.

You see someone with a gun on a crowded dance floor your first reaction
should be to knock him down. Not one person, a hundred all piled on
him. But we don't teach people to think that way anymore.