# 5905 bytemplar@... on Nov. 14, 2004, 6:59 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: Steve Long [mailto:longsteven@...]
on the back nine) would play upon a master's-sized golf course!"
Heck, it'll play havoc with trying to play catch with your kid in the park!
Long-time habitat residents will probably get used to it, and later
generations, born and raised there, will find it `normal', but I've no doubt
there will be any number of accidents, from the humorous to the tragic, as
the first folks try to adapt.
(Groundside tourists in habitats, and `spacers' vacationing on Earth, Luna,
and eventually Mars -- who'll be trying to deal with a *lack* of noticeable
Coriolis force -- should make for lots of laughs by the locals, in their
respective environments! )
My military/law enforcement background has me considering a somewhat grimmer
issue the Coriolis force will affect: the weapons of the habitat
security/police forces. Even at the close ranges normal for armed
encounters, the firearms commonly used on the job have velocities low enough
that the spin of the habitat may well be a problem. My suggestion?
http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_5.7x28system.htm
Not something most folks might want to think about, but once we have
habitats with populations as low as in the hundreds -- much less the 10,000+
often mentioned -- there's gonna have to be some cops.
Dave
"Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justice is gone, there's always force."
Lindsey Buckingham, intro for `Peacemaker'
# 5906 bylongsteven@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 1:28 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Dave Logsdon wrote:
>
> From: Steve Long [mailto:longsteven@...]
>
> "Imagine the havoc coriolis effect (port on the front nine,
> starboard
> on the back nine) would play upon a master's-sized golf course!"
>
> Heck, it'll play havoc with trying to play catch with your kid in the park!
> Long-time habitat residents will probably get used to it, and later
> generations, born and raised there, will find it `normal', but I've no doubt
> there will be any number of accidents, from the humorous to the tragic, as
> the first folks try to adapt.
>
from a faucet to a glass will be problematic; but as the habitat grows
larger and the radians/minute rotation needed to produce one G of
centripetal force declines, only the larger free ballistic
trajectories will be affected significantly. In a torus large enough
to require 1-1/2 to 2 minutes to complete one rotation, golf and
baseball could be affected ("It's a line drive to right field ... no,
center field ... no, it's a foul ball into the left field bleachers!")
but table tennis won't. And I was thinking that it would require a
large habitat indeed to have in place a 5700-yard par-70 golf course.
> My military/law enforcement background has me considering a somewhat
> grimmer
> issue the Coriolis force will affect: the weapons of the habitat
> security/police forces. Even at the close ranges normal for armed
> encounters, the firearms commonly used on the job have velocities
> low enough
> that the spin of the habitat may well be a problem.
Interestingly, depending on the direction you're firing, "coriolis"
may not be the effect that is the problem. My perception is that
shooting (or throwing or hitting) across the torus, perpendicular to
the direction of rotation, should have little effect. Shooting in the
direction of rotation would tend to produce short trajectories,
because your target is "rising" relative to you, and your bullet or
ball is going to want to drop quickly to the floor as if "gravity"
were much stronger. Conversely, firing "anti-spin" would cause your
projectile to "hang", overshooting its target which is dropping
relative to the aim line as if "gravity" had suddenly become much weaker.
It would only be trajectories with large up or down components that
would require correcting to spinward or antispinward to correct for
coriolis. Something thrown vertically would appear to curve in the
spinward direction going up and in the antispinward direction coming
down. (I have used the terms "up" and "down" loosely.)
>
> Not something most folks might want to think about, but once we have
> habitats with populations as low as in the hundreds -- much less the
> 10,000+ often mentioned -- there's gonna have to be some cops.
>
I hope they find someway to subdue the violent that doesn't require
high-velocity metal projectiles. There's too many opportunities in a
space habitat to break a window and let the weather out.
See the Sean Connery movie "Outland."
Steve
# 5907 bya.goddard@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 10:21 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Dave wrote:
grimmer
issue the Coriolis force will affect: the weapons of the habitat
security/police forces...
Ok - just one moment. Why would the police need guns? Heck, would you
even need police?
If the first habitats are construction sites for SPS's and
ore-processing (a likely idea) then they'll be business and/or
government-run. How many oil-rigs and wilderness drilling sites require
a police force, when the incentive to the inhabitants is that it's their
only/primary source of income?
Later settlements may well resemble small towns with service industries,
but with one crucial difference: the risk to the habitat by irrational
people armed with weapons would suggest that a blanket ban on firearms
would make sense, no matter what a planetary national constitution might
suggest. Why would an individual /need/ access to a firearm?
Give your security forces a stick and a taser, and you'd be able to
handle 99+% of all perpetrators of crimes. Go further: take samples of
all the inhabitants' DNA, track their movements around the habitat (and
keep these results secret unless a crime has been committed, if you're
not happy with that sort of information being public-domain) and no-one
is going to get away with a pre-meditated crime. No-one. Crimes "in the
heat of the moment" will still occur (the inhabitants are human, after
all) but a habitat is not going to give a criminal anywhere to run to,
and forensics alongside tracking will nail the perpetrator easily.
Habitat policing? I see it as a cushy job - perhaps a few in a thousand
would be required to maintain control. You could dish it out like
rubbish collection and sewage recycling - you have to do a month a year
on "unsavoury jobs" as part of your terms of habitation. :-)
Andy Goddard
# 5908 bycapcartoonist@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 2:52 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Steve Long [mailto:longsteven@...] wrote:
on the back nine) would play upon a master's-sized golf course!"
"Dave Logsdon" responded:
generations, born and raised there, will find it `normal', but I've no doubt
there will be any number of accidents, from the humorous to the tragic, as
the first folks try to adapt.>
Russian cosmonauts who spend months in space find it hard to readjust to
Earth's gravity. At least one has commented that he'll be drinking coffee
and reading his newspaper, and absent-mindedly let go of his cup in midair
because he's so used to doing so. He's broken a lot of cups....
"Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justice is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi, Mom!"
-- Laurie Anderson, "O, Superman"
# 5909 bytemplar@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 9:57 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: Steve Long [mailto:longsteven@...]
rotation, golf and baseball could be affected... but table tennis won't."
And a habitat large enough to even try to put a golf course in would be
turning about that slowly. The `Island One' size habitat would have around a
2 rpm rotation: about 4 times as fast. Someone with better math skills than
I have (which would probably include most of you folks! ) ought to be
able to work out a few formulas utilizing habitat rpm, projectile velocity,
and distance covered. Do we have any volunteers? :)
"It would only be trajectories with large up or down components that
would require correcting to spinward or antispinward to correct for
coriolis. Something thrown vertically would appear to curve in the
spinward direction going up and in the antispinward direction coming
down."
Correct. And any trajectories that are going at an angle both `lengthwise'
and `across' the habitat are going to include a bewildering combination of
both horizontal and vertical deviations from what our Earth-trained sense of
direction tells us is correct. For the sports/recreation aspects, it could
be amusing. For moving liquids around the habitat (fresh or waste water),
there could be some interesting problems, as mentioned. There might be some
other problems, besides the firearms concerns I listed.
"I hope they find someway to subdue the violent that doesn't require
high-velocity metal projectiles."
There's a lot of work being done on `non-lethal' and `less-lethal' systems.
So far, nobody has anything even close to being able to replace a sidearm;
the alternatives are too bulky, too slow, unable to deal with multiple
opponents, too fragile, too easily blocked, or some combination of the
above. Still, since habitats are some years off in the future, it might be
possible we'll have an solution by then.
"There's too many opportunities in a space habitat to break a window and
let the weather out. See the Sean Connery movie "Outland." "
The habitat design with the greatest percentage of widow area I know of is
the classic O'Neill. In `The High Frontier', the scenarios of an `Island
One' and an `Island Three' losing a single window suggest that a one-hour
repair time wouldn't allow enough air to escape to be noticeable by the
occupants, and that it could take "several years" before the `I-3' lost all
it's atmosphere. And all that is based on O'Neill thinking the windows would
be made of glass, manufactured from Lunar silicates. If, instead, we use the
hydrocarbons available from the NEOs, we can make the windows out of Lexan,
and have no concerns about bullets, and less concern about micrometeorites.
As to `Outland', it's an entertaining movie, but it's also a
typical example of how little Hollywood pays attention to the "science" part
of science fiction.
Dave
# 5910 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 15, 2004, 10:27 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Logsdon" wrote:
> velocity, and distance covered. Do we have any volunteers? :)
I've loaded a Excel spreadsheet on Habitat design into the FILES
section. You can alter the radius, spin rate, etc yourself.
> If, instead, we use the hydrocarbons available from the NEOs, we can
> make the windows out of Lexan, and have no concerns about bullets,
and > less concern about micrometeorites.
Damn fine idea.
TangoMan
# 5911 bylongsteven@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 12:42 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> And a habitat large enough to even try to put a golf course in would be
> turning about that slowly. The `Island One' size habitat would have around a
> 2 rpm rotation: about 4 times as fast. Someone with better math skills than
> I have (which would probably include most of you folks! ) ought to be
> able to work out a few formulas utilizing habitat rpm, projectile velocity,
> and distance covered. Do we have any volunteers? :)
>
the rotating section in meters. (I looked it up.) It turns out that to
make one g on the inner surface of a cylinder or torus at 2 rpm, the radius
should be right around 225 meters, 450 meters across, 1476 feet. A
cylinder 1.8 kilometers (5906 feet) across (.9 kilometer radius) will
produce one g at a complete rotation about every 60 seconds. I'm guessing
that the two-minutes per rotation size would be just over seven kilometers
in diameter, and if you're talking about an O'Neill cylinder, you're
approaching the size that might begin to have its own weather, too, to make
life even more fun for the golfers.
>
> The habitat design with the greatest percentage of widow area I know of is
> the classic O'Neill. In `The High Frontier', the scenarios of an `Island
> One' and an `Island Three' losing a single window suggest that a one-hour
> repair time wouldn't allow enough air to escape to be noticeable by the
> occupants, and that it could take "several years" before the `I-3' lost all
> it's atmosphere. And all that is based on O'Neill thinking the windows would
> be made of glass, manufactured from Lunar silicates. If, instead, we use the
> hydrocarbons available from the NEOs, we can make the windows out of Lexan,
> and have no concerns about bullets, and less concern about micrometeorites.
In a Stamford habitat there's much less air per diameter than in O'Neill's.
The pressure would drop faster. How large a window is the basis for the
calculations? Someone with better math than I could do a calculation of
how much air would leave per sq. ft. of lost window area at standard
atmospheric pressure.
I saw a short film of a guy getting sucked into the intake of a relatively
small jet engine, and that wasn't even pulling a perfect vacuum. He was
standing a few feet away, and SWIIIPPPP! I'm not sure I'd be happy to be
on a window-patching detail, unless the windowpanes were only about 3"
across ...
Has anyone studied the effects of long-term hard vacuum and uninhibited
solar radiation on polycarbonates like Lexan? What do they use in the
windows in the ISS?
Just questioning.
Steve
# 5912 bytemplar@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 1:41 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: Andrew Goddard [mailto:a.goddard@...]
Only somebody from the U.K. would even *ask* this! For that matter, I
believe more than a few U.K law enforcement personnel are armed these days,
are they not? A large percentage of the military security/police forces,
civilian law enforcement personnel, and private-sector security operatives
throughout the world are under arms. The number of these folks that have had
to (legally!) use their weapons, and the number of them that have died in
the performance of their duties, stands as a testimony of the need, under
the appropriate circumstances, for these people to be armed.
"Heck, would you even need police? If the first habitats are construction
sites for SPS's and ore-processing (a likely idea) then they'll be business
and/or government-run. How many oil-rigs and wilderness drilling sites
require a police force... ?"
I doubt if you'll find very many -- if any! -- of them that don't have some
form of security force. And just about all of them will (at the least) have
an arms locker. The same is true of most ships at sea with a large crew,
and/or passengers. The ever-growing understanding of a need for an
anti-hijacking and/or anti-terrorist contingent just amplifies the extent to
which this is true.
"Give your security forces a stick and a taser, and you'd be able to
handle 99+% of all perpetrators of crimes."
First Question: On how many years of *personal* law enforcement experience
do you base this?
Second Question: On that *other* one percent you list above, do you think
it's better for innocent victims and/or the police/security personnel to
die, rather than the "perpetrators of crimes"?
Any comments on the remainder of your post are held at this time, based on
my suspicion that your answer to my "First Question" is going to be `zero'.
I'm not saying my years as a USAF cop, a civilian cop, a firearms
instructor, and a corporate security advisor, mean your opinions, or others,
don't count. But I *am* questioning the degree to which these are *informed*
opinions.
Dave
# 5913 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 1:51 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Steve Long wrote:
> uninhibited solar radiation on polycarbonates like Lexan? What do
> they use in the windows in the ISS?
I'm pretty sure it's sapphire windows. Not something that would work
for the size of a Habitat though.
TangoMan
# 5914 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 1:59 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Logsdon" wrote:
> based on my suspicion that your answer to my "First Question" is
> going to be `zero'. I'm not saying my years as a USAF cop, a
> civilian cop, a firearms instructor, and a corporate security
> advisor, mean your opinions, or others, don't count. But I *am*
> questioning the degree to which these are *informed* opinions.
Dave, are you accounting for differing SES that will likely be found
in a Habitat?
Your experiences were formed dealing with society as we have it and
with people from broad cross sections of society.
I would think that those selected for work in a Habitat will be drawn
from a narrower pool of applicants, have tighter bounds on the SES
range, be psychologically screened up the wazoo, and generally, once
up there be more conscious of the community (we're all in this boat -
tincan - together, and it's not completely an every man for himself
mode of existence as it is on Earth. Less anonymity like on Earth. Etc.
Surely you've seen differing crime rates within different populations.
TangoMan
# 5915 bycapcartoonist@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 6:35 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Andrew Goddard [mailto:a.goddard@...] wrote:
Despite Mr. Logsdon's objections, most of them probably won't. Here on
Earth, we have large segments of our population suffering from the effects
of high population density and low employment opportunities, hence the need
to arm our police.
There will always be some people who run foul of the law, but violent crime
shouldn't be much of a problem in the space habitats. I think the USA has
something like 1% of its population locked up in prisons. I doubt that the
habitats are going to waste a lot of space on prisons. Not when an airlock
is handy to dispose of unwanted garbage.
That aside, we shouldn't assume that a space settlement is going to resemble
an American city with all its little quirks. For one thing, the prevailing
philosophy is liable to be along the lines of Captain John Smith's decree,
"He who does not work, does not eat." People who can't find work cannot
become a burden on the 'citystate' and will probably be deported. (My
personal view -- I could be wrong.)
# 5916 bya.goddard@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 10:26 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Dave wrote (in reply to me):
>Only somebody from the U.K. would even *ask* this! For that
matter, I
believe more than a few U.K law enforcement personnel are armed these
days,
are they not?
It's a small fraction. You see armed police at airports (and it's a
shock to most people in the UK), while there's a small proportion of
city police who have training in firearms (they don't tend to carry them
on their person).
>The number of these folks that have had
to (legally!) use their weapons, and the number of them that have died
in
the performance of their duties, stands as a testimony of the need,
under
the appropriate circumstances, for these people to be armed.
One could argue that it's a chicken-and-egg situation. If the population
of criminals have access to firearms, then there's a greater requirement
for the police to be similarly equipped. Are you proposing that habitat
residents would naturally have a right to bear arms? And if so, for what
legitimate purpose?
(Hmmm...just a thought: the NRA habitat...disgruntled firearm lovers set
up their own living space in LEO... ;-)
>First Question: On how many years of *personal* law enforcement
experience
do you base this?
Other than having lived 41 years in a generally well-ordered and polite
society where guns are far from the norm? Well, I was stopped for
speeding once. ;-) Not that that's something I'm likely to be doing on a
space habitat...
>Second Question: On that *other* one percent you list above, do you
think
it's better for innocent victims and/or the police/security personnel to
die, rather than the "perpetrators of crimes"?
It's less than 1%. This is a moral question, and one possibly outside
the scope of this list, but the answer is "yes I do". Joining a security
force (or the fire service, whatever) entails an acceptance of duty,
risks and responsibilities for the greater good of society. If the
habitat society is established (as was said elsewhere) from a population
unlikely to be criminally-minded, made aware that crime was difficult to
perpetrate, and access to weapons was low-to-non-existent, then these
risks would naturally fall.
Regards,
Andy Goddard
# 5917 bya.goddard@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 10:44 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Tangoman wrote:
>for the size of a Habitat though.
The ISS windows are glass. Four panes thick, with pane thicknesses
ranging from 12.7mm to 31.8mm. The ESA-built cupola (which will be the
biggest windows to fly in space) are made from fused silica and
borosilicate glass. Pyrex, basically.
Andy Goddard
# 5918 bytemplar@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 3:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
in a Habitat? ... Surely you've seen differing crime rates within different
populations."
I've never seen "SES" as an acronym, but from the context, I'm going to
guess it means `socio-economic structures'? If so, the answer is *yes*.
Different groups, different societies: Different, often *very* different
crime rates. One thing I've never seen is a *zero* crime rate.
"I would think that those selected for work in a Habitat will be drawn
from a narrower pool of applicants, have tighter bounds on the SES range,
be psychologically screened up the wazoo, and generally, once up there be
more conscious of the community ..."
I would agree to all the above, especially when discussing the first,
`working' habitats. (The later, larger ones, being populated by more
general, less thoroughly-screened `colonists'.) However, your qualifiers
read like a list of the same ways military personnel differ from the general
civilian population. Military personnel are also trained in matters of
discipline, a code of conduct, and obedience to orders and the chain of
command; such training is somewhat more `vigorous' than civilian
habitat residents are likely to tolerate! My time in the USAF Security
Police was certainly different than my time as a civilian cop, but we were
still very much needed. An even better example would be the crew of a US
Navy submarine. They're more thoroughly screened than average, even by
military standards. They consider themselves an elite, or to put it your
way, they're "more conscious of the community". And there are sailors
designated `Master-at-Arms' -- the Navy version of military police -- on
every one of those boats. Submarines don't have any room to spare for
unnecessary personnel; they're there for a reason.
To give a space-related example: The commander of Mir had a sidearm
available, even if he didn't wear it. It was there, just in case. Anybody
want to make a wager about the ISS? ;)
I'm not suggesting that the habitats are going to by high-crime areas: Far
from it! But I don't believe in Utopia either. Habitats are going to need
cops, paramedics, firefighters, and a plethora of emergency services
capabilities. Less need than in the average city groundside? Probably. But,
still needed.
Dave
# 5919 byxenophile2002@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 5:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "Dave Logsdon" wrote:
>> "Ok - just one moment. Why would the police need guns?"
> Only somebody from the U.K. would even *ask* this!
It's well known that American police carry guns, and that British
police (generally) do not. What about other countries? Japan?
Brazil? Sweden? Do Aussie cops carry guns?
Of course, here in the US firearms are available to pretty much
everybody, law-abiding and criminal alike, so the police pretty much
*have to* have guns. To have unarmed cops in America is simply to
provide tax-supported target practice for criminals. At least until
somebody invents the "phaser set on stun," American cops *must* carry
firearms. They simply must.
In a habitat? If nobody else has them, then the cops don't need
them, either. Oh, sure, there'd probably be a "special locker" back
at Habitat PD, "just in case." I see this locker containing several
handguns, rifles, and even shotguns. It might well never be opened.
If I were making an action movie centered around Habitat PD, then of
course I'd make the plot about that rare, perhaps even unique case
where "I hoped it'd never come to this, folks, but it's time to open
the Locker." It would not too much to show an unusual and unlikely
situation as the plot of a movie. But a "cop show" format, where the
cops have to open the Locker *every week* I would consider
unrealistic in the extream.
Xenophile ("I'm sorry we can't come to the phone, but my wife's
programming the burgler alarm, the kids are feeding the pit bull, and
I'm cleaning the shotgun. Please leave a message, and I'll get back
to you after I finish reloading.")
# 5920 bydanj_caslaw@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 7:23 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Goddard"
wrote:
> >The number of these folks that have had
> to (legally!) use their weapons, and the number of them that have
died
> in
> the performance of their duties, stands as a testimony of the need,
> under
> the appropriate circumstances, for these people to be armed.
>
> One could argue that it's a chicken-and-egg situation. If the
population
> of criminals have access to firearms, then there's a greater
requirement
> for the police to be similarly equipped. Are you proposing that
habitat
> residents would naturally have a right to bear arms? And if so,
for what
> legitimate purpose?
people will not accept that as a 'legitimate' reason, but they never
seem to be able to explain why.
My take on this question goes something like, 'if you're aware that
the people around you are competent, responsible, and not given to
psychotic episodes, why would you NOT trust them?' There are always
exceptions, granted, but I'm not sure how depriving the whole
populace of guns deprives them of the capacity for making
mischief...it does, however, deprive the rest of us a chance of
coping with their antics, which I suppose is what bothers me.
> >Second Question: On that *other* one percent you list above, do
you
> think
> it's better for innocent victims and/or the police/security
personnel to
> die, rather than the "perpetrators of crimes"?
>
> It's less than 1%. This is a moral question, and one possibly
outside
> the scope of this list, but the answer is "yes I do".
Yikes!
You did read the question carefully, didn't you? You did notice
that he said 'innocent victims' as well as security staff? Are you
still sure about your 'it would be better if they[innocents] died
rather than the perpetrators of crime' stance? There are moral
problems in spades with that attitude, chief.
Anyway, you're probably getting a sense of how anti-gun folks rub me
up the wrong way, so I'd better be polite and bow out now :)
# 5921 byryjaz@... on Nov. 16, 2004, 10:53 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- Dave Logsdon wrote:
> Mir had a sidearm
> available, even if he didn't wear it. It was there,
> just in case. Anybody
> want to make a wager about the ISS? ;)
On a side note, the only reason Russians carry a side
arm is because the soyuz lands on land that is often
wild and has been known to contain bears. Therefor
all commanders of the soyuz (and Mir for that matter)
have carried a gun just in case of this emergency. It
has nothing to do with law enforcement or in space
security.
Ryan Z
# 5922 byDarren.Brown@... on Nov. 17, 2004, 12:32 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
People,
Australian police, I'll make an exception.
Yes, the Australian police do carry guns, all six state forces, the
Northern Territory Police and the Federal Police (who also police the
Australian Capital Territory, where I live) carry side arms, however it
is a rare thing for them to need to use them, front page of the national
papers and headline news items. For the most part we are an unarmed
society, I've even known police to make arrests without being armed,
though not in the last few years.
Darren Brown
Australian Federal Police
Canberra Australia
--- In spacesettlers, "Dave Logsdon" wrote:
> From: Andrew Goddard:
>> "Ok - just one moment. Why would the police need guns?"
> Only somebody from the U.K. would even *ask* this!
It's well known that American police carry guns, and that British police
(generally) do not. What about other countries? Japan?
Brazil? Sweden? Do Aussie cops carry guns?
Of course, here in the US firearms are available to pretty much
everybody, law-abiding and criminal alike, so the police pretty much
*have to* have guns. To have unarmed cops in America is simply to
provide tax-supported target practice for criminals. At least until
somebody invents the "phaser set on stun," American cops *must* carry
firearms. They simply must.
In a habitat? If nobody else has them, then the cops don't need them,
either. Oh, sure, there'd probably be a "special locker" back at
Habitat PD, "just in case." I see this locker containing several
handguns, rifles, and even shotguns. It might well never be opened.
If I were making an action movie centered around Habitat PD, then of
course I'd make the plot about that rare, perhaps even unique case where
"I hoped it'd never come to this, folks, but it's time to open the
Locker." It would not too much to show an unusual and unlikely
situation as the plot of a movie. But a "cop show" format, where the
cops have to open the Locker *every week* I would consider unrealistic
in the extream.
Xenophile ("I'm sorry we can't come to the phone, but my wife's
programming the burgler alarm, the kids are feeding the pit bull, and
I'm cleaning the shotgun. Please leave a message, and I'll get back to
you after I finish reloading.")
WARNING
This email message and any attached files may contain information
that is confidential and subject of legal privilege intended only for
use by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use, copying,
circulation, forwarding, printing or publication of this message or
attached files is strictly forbidden, as is the disclosure of the
information contained therein. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your
InBox.
AFP Web site: http://www.afp.gov.au
# 5923 byoevega@... on Nov. 17, 2004, 3:38 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Yes, the Australian police do carry guns, however it
> is a rare thing for them to need to use them, front page of the
national
> papers and headline news items. For the most part we are an unarmed
> society, >
Darren Brown
> Australian Federal Police
> Canberra Australia
country, Chile, the policemen that ride mountain bikes (to get
thieves) wear bulletproof vest, hard hat and sometimes a small
machine gun. And they actually need it. They risk their lives daily.
For the same reason in downtown Santiago there are more cameras for
square meter than in the novel 1984.
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 5924 byDarren.Brown@... on Nov. 17, 2004, 3:59 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Omar,
sorry to hear that your police need such things, don't get me wrong, we
do at times have the need to resort to force, even deadly force, it's
just not a common thing. In an orbital habitat I think it would also be
a rare but not unknown thing. Consider, why do people use force? To
commit the crime and then to avoid capture, where are you going to go to
in a habitat? The very large ones may have places to hide but still, it
is an enclosed space and you can't just pop outside. This is not going
to stop crime but it will slow it.
Darren Brown
From: Omar E. Vega [mailto:oevega@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 November 2004 2:39 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Coriolis Force (Was: New member)
> Yes, the Australian police do carry guns, however it is a rare thing
> for them to need to use them, front page of the
national
> papers and headline news items. For the most part we are an unarmed
> society, >
Darren Brown
> Australian Federal Police
> Canberra Australia
Congratulations to Australia and you make feel quite envious. In my
country, Chile, the policemen that ride mountain bikes (to get
thieves) wear bulletproof vest, hard hat and sometimes a small machine
gun. And they actually need it. They risk their lives daily.
For the same reason in downtown Santiago there are more cameras for
square meter than in the novel 1984.
Regards,
Omar Vega
WARNING
This email message and any attached files may contain information
that is confidential and subject of legal privilege intended only for
use by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use, copying,
circulation, forwarding, printing or publication of this message or
attached files is strictly forbidden, as is the disclosure of the
information contained therein. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your
InBox.
AFP Web site: http://www.afp.gov.au
# 5925 bytango_dancer@... on Nov. 17, 2004, 4:14 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brown, Darren"
wrote:
> a rare but not unknown thing. Consider, why do people use force? To
> commit the crime and then to avoid capture, where are you going to
go > to in a habitat?
I imagine that in the first Habitat that things might be relatively
peaceful for a long stretch of time but then one day there will be a
crime of passion and I'm willing to bet that the OJ and Scott Peterson
publicity will be nothing compared to that first murder in space.
How many of you believe that it will be more like the "High Noon"
"Outland" corrupt town vision? Brutal work camps building stuff in orbit.
Sigh, innocence lost. We can't completely escape from human nature.
TangoMan
# 5926 byDarren.Brown@... on Nov. 17, 2004, 5:12 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Tango,
the courts always amazes me, certainly you need to be able to report the
crime but were does the it change from informing the public to voyeurism
to polluting the potential jury? Here there are no cameras in the court
and it is unheard of to have the kind of coverage some of your cases do,
in the rare case that this looks like happening the judge slaps down a
gag order and that's it, no more until the case is finished, in fact,
one judge in Victoria wanted to have a camera in his court for one day
to allow one case to be shown (he wanted kids to see the outcome of
really stupid behaviour) there was a huge public discussion of if it
should be allowed, in the end it was his court so he got his way.
Darren Brown
From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 November 2004 3:14 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Coriolis Force (Was: New member)
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brown, Darren"
wrote:
> In an orbital habitat I think it would also be a rare but not unknown
> thing. Consider, why do people use force? To commit the crime and then
> to avoid capture, where are you going to
go > to in a habitat?
I imagine that in the first Habitat that things might be relatively
peaceful for a long stretch of time but then one day there will be a
crime of passion and I'm willing to bet that the OJ and Scott Peterson
publicity will be nothing compared to that first murder in space.
How many of you believe that it will be more like the "High Noon"
"Outland" corrupt town vision? Brutal work camps building stuff in
orbit.
Sigh, innocence lost. We can't completely escape from human nature.
TangoMan
WARNING
This email message and any attached files may contain information
that is confidential and subject of legal privilege intended only for
use by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use, copying,
circulation, forwarding, printing or publication of this message or
attached files is strictly forbidden, as is the disclosure of the
information contained therein. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your
InBox.
AFP Web site: http://www.afp.gov.au
# 5927 bylucioc@... on Nov. 17, 2004, 5:57 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:38:53 -0000, Omar E. Vega wrote:
(...)
> Congratulations to Australia and you make feel quite envious. In my
> country, Chile, the policemen that ride mountain bikes (to get
> thieves) wear bulletproof vest, hard hat and sometimes a small
> machine gun. And they actually need it. They risk their lives daily.
> For the same reason in downtown Santiago there are more cameras for
> square meter than in the novel 1984.
(...)
times. Also, their firearms tend to be kind of heavy (as far as I
understand firearms) - I have seen policemen with machine guns and
rifles in heavily crowded areas like Downtown. Unfortunately, that's a
necessity - drug overlords' firearms are still heavier (including
bazookas and grenades) - and there is even talk that the situation in
some cities (like Rio) has reached such an appalling level of "crime
war" that the Army should take over urban security permanently.
# 5928 bycapcartoonist@... on Nov. 18, 2004, 5:04 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"Dave Logsdon" wrote:
cops, paramedics, firefighters, and a plethora of emergency services
capabilities. Less need than in the average city groundside? Probably. But,
still needed.>
I totally agree. I also agree that the first 'settlers' will be relatively
law-abiding, and that as more people from more diverse backgrounds are added
to the mix, the crime rate will go up. But the rate should remain
relatively low when compared to major urban areas on Earth. Or it may
resemble orderly Singapore ("Disneyland with a death penalty." -- Wm.
Gibson).
# 5929 bycapcartoonist@... on Nov. 18, 2004, 5:23 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"Xenophile" wrote:
Brazil? Sweden? Do Aussie cops carry guns?>
I don't believe Japanese cops carry guns as a rule. However, they do have
them at hand when they need them. There was a case a couple of years back
that made the news because it's so rare in Japan -- some poor slob with a
rifle went nuts.
*have to* have guns. To have unarmed cops in America is simply to
provide tax-supported target practice for criminals. At least until
somebody invents the "phaser set on stun," American cops *must* carry
firearms. They simply must.>
Back in America's Wild West days there was a town marshall (somewhere in
Kansas, IIRC) named Tom "Bear River" Smith who maintained law and order
without wearing a sidearm. He was good with his fists and fast on his feet,
and could disarm a hooligan without much difficulty. He was gunned down one
day when checking out a domestic dispute. A gun wouldn't have helped him --
he got shot as soon as he walked thru the door.
Wyatt Earp, prior to Tombstone, only shot one or two people as a law
officer. Generally, he'd draw his weapon and clunk the culprit on the head
with the pistol butt to subdue him. A billy club would have done just as
well.
Amerca is a more dangerous place nowadays. ;)
# 5930 bycapcartoonist@... on Nov. 18, 2004, 5:37 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"danj_caslaw" wrote:
psychotic episodes, why would you NOT trust them?' There are always
exceptions, granted, but I'm not sure how depriving the whole
populace of guns deprives them of the capacity for making
mischief...it does, however, deprive the rest of us a chance of
coping with their antics, which I suppose is what bothers me.>
Good point. But I'm reminded of an incident in one of the slums of
Bennington, Vermont.
Some lunatic got pissed at one of his neighbors and took a couple of pot
shots at him that went wild and tore thru someone else's living room. Those
people did not return fire; instead, they called the cops. When the nice
men in the blue uniforms asked the lunatic to put his weapon on the ground
and his hands in the air he obliged them. It's amazing how people's
attitudes change when the fuzz arrives. LOL