On 9/30/01 10:43 PM, "Michael M. Butler" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think I mentioned that in my earlier post: three guys with .223s vs. one guy
> with something in .30.
Since you mention it, a .223 with SS109/M855 loads and the occasional tracer
would be nearly ideal -- better penetration than most .30 and a flatter
trajectory to boot. Unfortunately, platforms to adequately deliver this
load are in short supply (and no longer available) in Kalifornia, nevermind
that tracers are, as has been stated, illegal.
>> Should we all go and buy gasmasks, or even full biohazard suits?
> Full-on suits are very uncomfortable, and you probably won't get the atropine
> ampoule and needle included in the
> price. So much depends on the agent and the dose.
> If an attack is bio, rather than chem, assuming no open cuts and no direct
> contact with spores, etc.,
> your lungs are your first thing to protect, your eyes and mucosa (lips, etc.)
> are the next most important.
A gas mask might be useful in a chemical attack (most chemical weapons fall
like rain and leave shadows), where inhalation is the most significant
threat, particularly if you aren't standing underneath the cloud or are
inside a closed building. The "nice" thing about chemical weapons is that
they are fairly predictable in this fashion. A gas mask can also
substantially reduce exposure to bio-warfare agents.
A bio suit is substantially less useful. If you aren't wearing it when the
attack hits, you might as well not have it for most purposes because you'll
survive without it if you are smart. The risk reduction offered by this is
quite small compared to the risk reduction a gas mask might offer.
But even without a gas mask, knowledgeable individuals know how to get by
with fair odds.
> There are lots of OSHA style respirators that might provide some protection.
Absolutely. Some OSHA respirators arguably offer better protection than
many gas masks. And unlike a dusty old gas mask, the OSHA respirators are
put to the test regularly under conditions where liability for the
manufacturer is high.
>> And walking around in such garb with a rifle slung over my shoulder could
>> give people reason to panic...
> This is true; this is today. Consider:
> How much can you pack in a gym bag? How often can you practice donning,
> assembling, loading and taking aim?
> What are the odds you'll be effective?
> What are the odds you'll be braced as a potential crazy by the gendarmes?
Yeah. Buying a bunch of neat-o toys at the local REI, military surplus, and
gun store won't do you much good if you have no experience using all your
stuff when it counts. It is like all the Abercrombies that get pulled out
of the woods every year: All the latest gizmos and gadgets but not the
slightest bit of experience at using them (or anything else), and not the
common sense to actually bring someone along that *does* know what they are
doing so they can learn. Gadgets don't equal ability, but people often fool
themselves into thinking that way because laziness is seductive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT