If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"John Galban" wrote in message oups.com... Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case? Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on anyone and rights begin to disappear. That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good thing. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration, discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you John, I completely agree with you.
Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"John Galban" wrote in message oups.com... Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case? Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on anyone and rights begin to disappear. That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good thing. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) Well, here is the other end of the spectrum: http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?statio...t_ local.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Capt.Doug" wrote in message ... "John Galban" wrote in message Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane. I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit. It'd be easier _without_ the scope. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Capt.Doug wrote: "John Galban" wrote in message Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane. I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit. D. I shoot a Super Blackhawk (no scope) and I think hitting an airplane at 100+ yeards and 80+ MPH would be a pretty mean feat. You'd have to lead just right, etc. I tend to think the "golden BB" moniker is pretty apt. It's be tough for a novice, but not for someone who's even a fair marksman. You'd have to hold only about 10 feet in front of it (130fps for the 150@80MPH, 1400fps (?) for the .44 Mag round). Five feet in front would just about put the impact at the front of the cockpit. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Capt.Doug" wrote in message ... "John Galban" wrote in message Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane. I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit. It'd be easier _without_ the scope. Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what. Matt |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Matt Barrow wrote: "Capt.Doug" wrote in message ... "John Galban" wrote in message Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane. I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit. It'd be easier _without_ the scope. Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what. I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with standard sights. I doubt it's be that hard. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Very good point, John. I was just commenting that the Feds will probably be
all over him, too. I'm not encouraging that, I just think he deserves plenty of grief. A bunch of the neighbors around our airport are pretty irrational (see http://www.bbbccc.net/ for the most organized group). I would not be all that surprised if someone took a potshot at one of us someday. I sometimes feel like a target on short final. I hope I'm wrong. -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) "John Galban" wrote in message oups.com... Bob Chilcoat wrote: Not to mention Federal charges for firing at an aircraft. The TSA ought to get a shot at him too, for terrorism. This guy's toast, and deserves every bit of it. Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case? Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on anyone and rights begin to disappear. That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good thing. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Capt.Doug wrote: "John Galban" wrote in message Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane. I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit. D. I shoot a Super Blackhawk (no scope) and I think hitting an airplane at 100+ yeards and 80+ MPH would be a pretty mean feat. You'd have to lead just right, etc. I tend to think the "golden BB" moniker is pretty apt. It's be tough for a novice, but not for someone who's even a fair marksman. You'd have to hold only about 10 feet in front of it (130fps for the 150@80MPH, 1400fps (?) for the .44 Mag round). Five feet in front would just about put the impact at the front of the cockpit. Well, I'm a pretty fair shot, but this isn't easy even for a marksman. Judging 10 feet isn't trivial at that distant and this presumes that you know the exact speed and distance to begin with. Not many people can hit a running deer at 100 yards with a handgun and that is a much slower target. It does bob up and down a little which adds to the challenge though! It these shots were as easy as you suggest, then the military would use single-shot AA guns and save a lot of ammunition. Unfortunately, the sniper's motto doesn't apply to shooting at aerial targets. Matt |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Matt Barrow wrote: "Capt.Doug" wrote in message ... "John Galban" wrote in message Amazing! Hitting a target in a moving airplane at several hundred feet with a pistol! The odds are pretty slim. Military pilots call that the "Golden BB". That one lucky small arms shot that, totally by chance, ends up occupying the same area of space as the plane. I dunno, I go shooting with a .44Mag revolver w/ 12" barrel and scope. A Cessna at low level wouldn't be so hard to hit. It'd be easier _without_ the scope. Maybe, but most pistol scopes are pretty low power with a fairly large FOV. I still think it would be difficult no matter what. I dunno...I can hit a 12" pie plate at 100 yards with a 1911 with standard sights. I doubt it's be that hard. So can I. We all make lucky shots occasionally. However, few can hit a pie plate at 100 yards EVERY shot when shooting off-hand. Actually, even a machine rest won't do that as the standard 1911's tend to scatter their hits more than 12" at 100 yards inherently. And if the pie plate is moving at 80 MPH, the odds get MUCH worse. I don't think Doug Koenig could do that with any consistency and he's a lot better shot than you or me. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFI without commercial? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 75 | December 8th 10 04:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Owning | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |