Give me a Break

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:05 pm

Oops hit the double click. My bad.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:30 pm

Does Woodchip have credibility?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:37 pm

Deadman, if the market dictates wage they will be paid less than they already are. That's just the way the market works. Do you support that?

Not only that, but we will begin to have two (even more so than now) systems of primary education: a publicly underfunded one that minorities and children of abuse go to, and one private and expensive on that white children will go to. Is that good?

Privatizing education would be no more than just another tired and pathetic system of stratification. Anyone who says the market is pure is deluding themselves.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:56 pm

kufyit wrote:Deadman, if the market dictates wage they will be paid less than they already are. That's just the way the market works. Do you support that?

Yes, because when enough teachers leave the profession, the wages will come up.

To save you some trouble, I am anti-union. Save your breath if you are trying to convince me that unions are good. I don't beleive they are, and I see the probability of you convincing me otherwise to be remote at best.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:58 am

During the ~13 years I was in public school (K-12) I remember at least 3 teachers strikes, and maybe 4. Every time, it was about them wanting money the district didn't have. Every time the teachers got the wage they wanted, it led to other programs being cut. They wanted money that simply didn't exist.

I remember during the last teachers strike, when my brother was a senior, a newspaper reporter asked him how many of his teachers were on strike. "None of them", he answered. This took the reporter by surprise -- most people were saying "all of them" or "all but one". "Why aren't any of your teachers on strike?" "Well, I've been at this school 4 years, and that's long enough that I know which teachers really care about educating their students. I'm taking classes from them." Suffice it to say, the newspaper didn't print that quote.

Like Dedman, I'm pretty strongly anti-union. I think unions rock in certain situations -- but the vast majority of the unions in the US today are just bastions of corruption and mediocrity. There simply aren't very many situations in the US today where there's legitimate need to strike. And when people do strike, it's coming far too soon. The reason I'm anti-union is because of my teachers going on strike and refusing to teach, over what amounted to a 3% pay raise instead of a 3.5% pay raise from a district that could barely afford to keep music, art, and drama programs in the high schools.

What's wrong with teachers unions? They keep bad teachers teaching, and they keep good teachers from getting the bonuses they deserve, and they pull teachers out of classrooms to strike when they should be teaching us. Teachers are some of the most important people in the country, and I wish they made more money than they do -- but a union is the wrong way to do it in 99.9% of cases. There might be a few districts out there that treat their teachers like garbage, but the vast majority of them do a pretty good job of giving the teachers the fairest wages they can with the resources they have. Instead of going on strike, they should be lobbying the legislature -- with parents and administrators by their side -- to have funding increased for the best teachers. Instead of fighting against the school board to get money the school board doesn't have, they should be working with the school board and making sure no student has to miss a day of education over some stupid strike.

I'm all for strikes when people are protecting their lives or livelihoods -- if someone's forcing you to go into an unsafe mine, strike. If someone's exploiting you as near-slave labor, strike. But if you wanted a 3.5% raise and you only got a 3% raise, tough. Find a district that'll pay you more. And if you're too principled to do that because you want to teach those inner-city kids, well, you should also be too principled to go on strike.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:25 am

Unions served their purpose but now we have the Labor relations board.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:56 am

Ford Prefect wrote:Woodchip:
If this amendmant had passed, with candidate Kerry's support, we would no longer be able to purchase .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, or .30-30 Winchester ammunition for yearly deer hunting trips.
C'mon Woodchip you got to be kidding. At most certain grain weights of powder combined with certain slug jackets might be banned but a soft nosed round that can kill a deer has no need to penetrate body armour. And what about .303 caliber rifles. A lot of deer have gone down under those rounds.
I understand if you object to Kerry pretending to hunt game if he doesn't but don't go over the top and call a restriction on specific types of amunition the end of hunting in America. You really lose some cred with that kind of Bill O'Rielly crap.

Ford I suggest you look up ballistic charts as even the .223 round will penetrate the typical kevlar based protection. Penetration is more about speed of the projectile and its kinetic energy than size of the bullet. So for example:

Pistol round in 38 caliber has at 50 yard a speed of 865 fps with a kinetic energy of 160 ft/lbs

Rifle round in 30-30 caliber has at 100 yards a speed of 2000 fps with a kinetic energy of 1300 ft/lbs.

I'll let Lothar describe the significance of the kinetic energy if he cares to.

In short Ford, most any rifle round is going to put holes through police body armor. In the military, the troops body armor consist of ceramic plates to stop the typical .223 or 7.62 round. Police do not wear ceramic based armor. The Master has again corrected the illusions of the grasshopper.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:10 am

I think Ford meant Woodchip, that voting against armor piercing bullets really shouldn't hurt your guns for sport rally. Do you need that kind of shell to hunt deer or any other kind of animal? Last time I checked, an elk didn't have a ceramic based armor system that only certain shells could penetrate.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:37 pm

The problem is the definition of 'armor piercing' included all the normal hunting rounds.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:18 pm

Ah so great teacher. If the definition of armour piercing was so loose as to include rounds used in hunting for the last 40 years then indeed it was flawed. Science will yield the correct answer when the question is properly asked.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:44 pm

Will hits on the correct answer. Any rifle round capable of downing a deer, elk etc can penetrate body armour, thus being classified as a "armour piercing" round. Even varmint rounds used for praire dogs, woodchucks etc can penetrate armour. So Zuruck, this idiotic labeling of bullets and cosmetically appearing "assault rifles" is a red herring having no basis in reality other than a step towards confiscation of most firearms.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:50 am

Woody, you're off base on the armor.

Police wear kevlar vests with what's known as 'trauma plates' in order to stop rounds from a handgun.

I've asked.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:55 am

Ummm....Ferny, we're not talking about handguns.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:32 am

Wanna steal money illegally? Be a crook.
Wanna steal money legally? Start a union.

Its all the same, and impacts negatively on society.

They could all stop paying a large fraction of the "union fee" from their paychecks and use it for themeseves, then they would'nt have to ask for a raise in most cases. It doesn't take a degree in college to look at the negative impacts unions have. Look at United Airlines and how many times it got bailed out of trouble thanks to corporate welfare, yet charges high for its tickets. It all has to do with their buisness model in how they have to deal with their unions. Yet we have all these other airlines who do not have unions, yet charge less for tickets, have happy workers, and are doing just fine financially. Funny how they never got to the bankruptcy chopping block.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:46 pm

Yeah, organizing to protect your rights is bad.

You're a bunch of corporate facists.

Lothar's got some good points, but other than that...

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:12 pm

kufyit wrote:Yeah, organizing to protect your rights is bad.

I was wondering when someone was gong to bring this one up. What rights are those kuffy? Last time I checked, you don't have the right to an artificially high wage, cheap health care, job security, liberal work rules, etc... Those may be nice things to have, but you have absolutely no right to them.

A for profit corporation has one primary goal: to create wealth for it's equity holders. That's it. It really is that simple. Some companies are good at doing that AND being able to give their workers high wages and great benefits. Some companies aren't. If a person isn't happy with their working conditions, find another job. If there aren't enough jobs out there, either start your own business or increase your skill level to be more marketable. Unions are not the answer.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:17 pm

The labour movement has essentially codified much it was fighting for already.

Unions only exist in developed countries for the sole purpose of attempting to make their members richer with less effort, even over their objections of their members, to the sole deterement of anyone else.

Case in point: Canadian Airlines.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:23 pm

:oops: wrote:The real fruit of the battle lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:02 pm

Welp, I was wrong. Evidently Kerry bagged four Candian geese but he denied the press their blood-soaked photo op by having an aide carry the birds, claiming he was *too giddy* over the Redsox victory to lug the birds himself. Very politic of him if I do say so myself.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:17 pm

Dedman wrote: I was wondering when someone was gong to bring this one up. What rights are those kuffy? Last time I checked, you don't have the right to an artificially high wage, cheap health care, job security, liberal work rules, etc... Those may be nice things to have, but you have absolutely no right to them.

You're absolutely correct. "Rights" was an example of hasty diction. Perhaps "interests" is a more appropriate word. However, that isn't the point.

What people DO have is the RIGHT to form unions, as expressed in the First Amendment.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:21 pm

kufyit wrote:What people DO have is the RIGHT to form unions, as expressed in the First Amendment.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see it in there....

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:23 pm

Uh, peaceably assemble? What would you call that? Oh, a Union!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:28 pm

It's a bit of a reach to call people gathering together the same as a recognized entity given protection by the governement and forcing a business to deal with them in a collective bargaining scenario!

But hey! They found out that "privacy" means suck a fetus through a tube from a womb so go figure!

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:38 pm

From http://equipmentlocker.fateback.com/bodyarmour.htm

As there is a lot of confusion about the various test standard, the harder NIJ standard is used by law enforcement agencies in the USA and generally in other countries which do not have their own test standards. In Australia, where there is no Australian standard, all body armour tendered for and also sold under contract by us to various Police and Government Departments MUST meet the NIJ standard. The NIJ standard is also required by all of our Asian and Middle East customers. In Europe we work manly to the German standard Schutzklasse "L" which allows only 40mm blunt trauma for concealment vests (Covert Armour) and 20mm blunt trauma for any type of vest which is worn over clothing (Overt Armour). In Finland where personal body armour is issued to every police officer the NIJ standard is used. In Great Britain we work to the Home Office requirement of 25mm blunt trauma using the NIJ test standard. This clearly demonstrates, that the NIJ Standard and its test method is most widely used standard in the world.

There are basically six protection levels under the NIJ standard ranging from Level I for .38 revolver to Level IV for .30-06 Armour Piercing Rifle Ammunition and allows to test with any type of ammunition using the prescribed test methods. There are only five levels under the PPAA standard available, as this standard does not have a Level I for .38 revolver. The main level of protection used in Australia by Police Forces is Level III-A, as protection is required against the .22 magnum rifle. This round must not be confused with the .22 LR which is a much slower round and not metal jacketed. The .22 magnum is a widely used round in Australia and as it is a metal jacketed fast moving bullet, it is not easy to stop. However, with the new KEVLAR 129 type cloth stopping .22 magnum is not a problem and the armour is even lighter and more flexible than before. Level Il-Plus Covert Armour manufactured by us has the critical area of the front and rear of the vest reinforced to withstand any attack from .22 magnum and also from the more powerful .44 magnum. Also stopped are 9mm submachine guns in these areas, even though the armour is only referred to as a Level Il-Plus vest.

So Woodchip which vest is the mark to be used against ammunition in the failed legistlation?

Don't you love a hijacked thread? You union/right-to-lifers go start your own thread. You're plugging up this one.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:34 pm

First off Ford, again we must look at ballistics:

.22 win. mag @ a 100 yards has a speed of 1350 fps and a energy of 162 ft/lbs. This is the standard that your article uses.

Now lets look at a .223 round where the bullet size is almost the same size as the indicated .22 mag. bullet:
.223 at a hundred yards has a speed of 2747 fps (roughly twice as fast as the .22 mag) but has 921 ft/lbs of energy (or almost 6 times as much energy as the .22 mag.)
So a vest designed for the .22 mag criteria is not going to withstand a rifle cartridge powder load pushing even the same size bullet, let alone a much larger bullet like the 30.06. Some sort of ceramic plate will be required to stop the more powerful rifle bullets. Go here to read up a bit more on body armor:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/body-armor1.htm

As a example some cop hater in New York fired his .45-70 krag at a armored police car and the bullet went through the side door armour, through the driver and into his partner. The 45-70 krag is a hunting caliber used for moose or elk and as such is classified as a hunting load. Obviously you could also consider it armour piercing.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:36 am

Hey woody:

"Some types of vests may be augmented with metal (Steel, Titanium), Ceramic, or polyethelyne plates that provide extra protection to vital areas. These "trauma plates" have proven effective against all handguns and some rifles, if the bullet actually hits the plate."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... oof%20vest

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:07 am

Actually Will, it isn't a stretch at all. Perhaps you need a history lesson.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:14 am

kufyit wrote:
Dedman wrote: I was wondering when someone was gong to bring this one up. What rights are those kuffy? Last time I checked, you don't have the right to an artificially high wage, cheap health care, job security, liberal work rules, etc... Those may be nice things to have, but you have absolutely no right to them.
You're absolutely correct. "Rights" was an example of hasty diction. Perhaps "interests" is a more appropriate word. However, that isn't the point.

What people DO have is the RIGHT to form unions, as expressed in the First Amendment.

I never said you didn't have a right to form a union. But having a right to do something doesn't make it right to do.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:38 am

LOL. Sure, Deadman...What are you like some kind of fanatical "Bill of Rights" revisionist?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:39 pm

This has nohing to do with the bill of rights and I am a bit puzzled by your line of reasoning. All I said was that I think unions are a bad thing. Next thing I know you are trying to draw me into a constitutional debate.

Are we even participating in the same conversation?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:52 pm

Dedman wrote: But having a right to do something doesn't make it right to do.

My point is, by saying that it's wrong to have the right to form unions, you are implicitly saying that that part of the First Amendment is somehow flawed.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:09 pm

Uh, no.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:10 pm

What are you saying then?

BlueFlames · Post by **BlueFlames** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:22 pm

Dedman's saying that he doesn't like unions. He never said he thought they should be banned from forming. You're inserting ideas into Dedman's posts that just aren't there, Kufyit.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:36 pm

seems like dedman thinks that a union is only good when and if he agrees with it...that's not quite how the Constitution works. just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong for other people. Isn't that what this country is supposed to be about? Just because you don't like it, someone else might? If my opinion, Miller beer should be eradicated because it is far poorer quality than Budweiser, but someone will disagree with me and call Bud piss water.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:57 pm

Miller Beer IS piss water. Good, we are in agreement then.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:30 pm

If by union you mean a gathering of people with or without a common cause you are correct. The Constitution does say you may gather...and speak etc.

If you are saying the first amendment says I can't get a job in a union town or an industry that is dominated by unions unless I join it then you are wrong. The first amendment doesn't provide for, or even mention, a labor union.

Don't just say I'm wrong, educate me oh master of history.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:12 pm

WILL THE UNION/ANTI-UNION RIGHT-TO-LIFE/CHOICE GROUPS PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSION TO YOUR OWN THREAD!!!

Sheesh. Damn pirates.

Woodchip there is more to balistics and body armour than weight and velocity. A larger diameter slug will have a harder time piercing the armour as it encounters more material. A soft nose bullet will deform, again causing more resistance. As Ferno points out your example is of a slug that must have passed through the side of a vest possibly even under the arm where there is not much armour at all.
I have not, and have no intention of reading the failed legislation but I'm sure it's INTENTION was to ban or restrict specialy coated slugs and powder loads designed for military style weapons that are availible to the public and designed to pierce military grade body armour. I'm sure such rounds exist, just as I am sure that you are right that the proposed legislation was flawed and did not define these intentions properly.
But give me a break. You know it was not their intention to ban or restrict the standard hunting rounds that have been used on moose, elk and deer for decades. No politician in the U.S. could ever survive re-election after proposing such a ban. Making such a claim is just classic right-wing fear mongering bluster that inspires a lot of eye rolling.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:54 am

Ford, weight and velocity is everything to develope safe armour. Your "larger diameter" bullet scenario can be exampled this way:

Take a .22 short rifle round and shoot it at your body armour and no penetration will occur.

Take a .500 Holland & Holland round and your standard body armour will be toast as will the person wearing it. For those of you not familiar with the .500 round, Holland & Holland developed this round for Africa's largest big game animals.

Ferno's post was in aggreement with me. Special plates are need to stop certain rifle rounds (typically .223 & 7.62 nato type military rounds). Due to the bulk and weight most police do not wear them.

The way the law is written, those hunting loads will be considered cop killers and technically illegal under the law. Their are specific rounds that are tungsten tipped that the military classifies as armour piercing identified by certain colored tips (can't remember the color code off-hand). If the anti-gunner crowd was doing the job right, these bullets would have been specifically listed instead of using generic terminology that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:14 pm

"Due to the bulk and weight most police do not wear them."

Wrong.

Like I said, I have asked a sheriff AND a security guard, and they both wear armor with trauma plates. I've seen it with my own eyes.