Credit: Pierre Thomas (LST), ENS LyonNaturally, Wikipedia has the explanation.
A meteoroid is a sand to boulder-sized particle of debris in the Solar System. The visible path of a meteoroid that enters Earth's (or another body's) atmosphere is called a meteor. If a meteoroid reaches the ground, it is then called a meteorite.
One of our frequent commenters, Bob S., who runs a very interesting pro-gun blog by the way, has gone to great lengths to explain why he carries a gun. When I asked him if he'd had to use it lately to save himself or his family, he said no he hadn't, but it's better to be prepared just in case. To that I asked why he doesn't prepare in a similar way for that occasional meteorite. If a tiny meteorite ever lands on his head, I'd bet he'd wish he'd worn some kind of protective head gear.
The following is what all responsible men should know, if they want to protect themselves and their families that is.
The biggest asteroid to hit Earth on any given day is likely to be about 40 centimeters, in a given year about 4 meters, and in a given century about 20 meters. These statistics are obtained by the following:
Over at least the range from 5 centimeters (2 inches) to roughly 300 meters (1,000 feet), the rate at which Earth receives meteors obeys a power-law distribution (meaning there is no typical size in the conventional sense) as follows:
N (>D) = 37 D {-2.7}
where N(>D) is the expected number of objects larger than a diameter of D meters to hit Earth in a year.
This is based on observations of bright meteors seen from the ground and space, combined with surveys of near Earth asteroids. Above 300 meters in diameter, the predicted rate is somewhat higher, with a two-kilometer asteroid (one million->megaton TNT equivalent) every couple of million years — about 10 times as often as the power-law extrapolation would predict.
What's your opinion? Is it fair to compare the probability of needing a gun to save your life to the chance of being struck by a meteorite? Have you ever seen a picture of the surface of the moon?
I make this comparison only partly in jest. The point is both are so unlikely that reasonable people don't take any extraordinary precautions.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"The point is both are so unlikely that reasonable people don't take any extraordinary precautions."
ReplyDeleteAre you inferring you're a reasonable person, or confer with some that agree with your position?
explain
Well, let's see...
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Brady Campaign, guns kill 30,000 Americans every year.
When's the last time you read a story about an American being killed by a meteorite?
Is there some sort of media conspiracy to cover up the events?
On a more serious note, defending yourself against a chunk of rock and iron coming at you from above traveling 35,000 mph may prove rather difficult. Not quite sure any defense would be effective short of living deep underground.
However, defending yourself against an assailant coming at you within your line of sight and traveling at 4 mph would have a high success rate when armed with a gun.
This would be funny if you weren't serious. Since you are it's just flat out sad.
ReplyDeleteHey Sparky,
ReplyDeleteMy answer is here
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=931
Hey,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I've been wrong.
I need to take serious precautions against meteor strikes.
I'm thinking portable rail gun set up with high explosive darts for carrying.
Maybe something with a mega-ton yield thermonuclear intercontinental range for home defense.
If you think the gun control advocates have serious Pant Soiling Hysteria now....wouldn't either of those two set ups give them the vapors?
Mike, it's true that the average American probably will not have to use a gun to defend themselves. But the average American will also not be a victim of a firearm homicide or accident either, so if your argument is that it's silly for the pro-gunners to be worried about violent crime, then it's just as silly for the anti-gunners to be worried that one of these gun owner's weapons is going to be used in a crime. You can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I've never been struck by a meteorite, but I've been a victim of violent crime and had to physically defend myself four times (not with a gun—didn't own one). My house was burgled while I was asleep once. When I was young, my mother was raped.
Violent crime and the need to defend oneself is not even remotely on the same par as a meteorite strike, and nobody who has ever been attacked or been in fear for their life is going to appreciate you treating it like a paranoid fantasy that doesn't really happen all that often.
May I request a post on Laci's recent bigoted posts?
ReplyDeleteMay I request a post on Laci's recent bigoted posts?
ReplyDeleteFrankly Laci's posts go far beyond bigotry.
That said, I'd expect MikeB to actually defend her, birds of a feather and all......
Have you ever seen a picture of the surface of the moon?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that the moon's atmosphere offers little to no defense against meteors?.......
You can't really be this dumb.
We spend millions every year on fire safety in our schools. As much of 20% of the cost of a new school building is complying with fire codes. Walls, carpets, ceiling tiles, everything is fire retardant. There are fire alarms everywhere. Emergency signs and lights that point the way to safety should we lose power in the building. Fire extinguishers and hoses hang throughout. Every child in the school knows what to do if there is a fire. There are fire drills to ensure that they do.
ReplyDeleteHow many American School children have died in a school fire in the last 50 years?
None. But we continue to invest in the security of that eventuality anyway. No matter which school of thought you follow: either fires are rare and we do not need that level of investment or fires are rare because we do have that level of investment, no one would ever say our children are not worth the trouble.
I pray to God that I would never have to defend my family at the Wal-Mart. If I thought there was a remote chance that I might, I wouldn't let them go in the first place. But since this is a sick world, I'll carry my gun and watch over my family. Does that make me paranoid? You bet it does. And years from now I hope my kids can laugh about my paranoia when they are watching over theirs.
MikeB will defend Laci till his dying breath.
ReplyDeleteThey are virtually the same person.
Nice company ya keep there MikeB...real classy.
MikeB defends people who advocate that wheel chair bound people should commit suicide.
ReplyDeleteReal classy.
Care to refute that?
kaveman makes a good point that there are 30,000 gun deaths compared to few or no meteor deaths per year. But don't forget what you guys keep telling me. Most of the gun violence is gang and drug related. That means the lawful gun owner's chances of having to use his gun is a lot lower than it would seem. Almost as low as the possibility of meteor strike.
ReplyDeleteAbout Laci, I'll say this. The title of the blog is something like "Where Satire Meets Serious." Although it may not be my idea of satire or humor, I don't criticize people for what they write on their own blogs.
ReplyDelete"I don't criticize people for what they write on their own blogs."
ReplyDeleteThen I'm sure you won't mind if we all do a write up on you on our own blogs, right?
That means the lawful gun owner's chances of having to use his gun is a lot lower than it would seem. Almost as low as the possibility of meteor strike.
ReplyDeletemikeb, you have no critical thinking skills. To begin, the number of meteor deaths is not few to none. It is none! The number of injuries each year does vary from 0 to 1 (I seem to remember a story about some kid getting hit with a micro meteorite a few years ago). Even assuming a low estimate of 80,000 DGUs per year (which is about the lowest any study has shown), and then accepting that 90% of them aren't really DGUs, (leaving 8,000 DGUs per year) a gun owner is still 480,000 times more likely to be involved in a DGU than get hit by a meteor (1 injury a year for the whole world). I would guess that you are more likely to be involved in an automobile accident with a one armed blind midget than get hit by a meteor. But you don't like those car analogies.
"Then I'm sure you won't mind if we all do a write up on you on our own blogs, right?"
ReplyDeletehe's seemed to take issue with some of the things I've said at mine.
MikeB - The shit Laci posts is not humor or satire.
ReplyDelete"But don't forget what you guys keep telling me. Most of the gun violence is gang and drug related. That means the lawful gun owner's chances of having to use his gun is a lot lower than it would seem."
ReplyDeleteOnly if you assume without reason that the only thing a legal gun owner needs to defend themselves or their families against is "gun homicide." It completely ignores the fact that most other types of violent crime—including burglary, robbery, drunken attacks, rape, etc—are not concentrated in the drug dealer/gang banger demographic.
Yes, there is very little chance that someone is going to randomly try to kill me—I'm not involved in criminal activity, so there's little motivation. I'm not really worried about that, and defending myself against a drive by is not my motivation for wanting to own a firearm.
I don't know who this Laci person is or what their relationship to Mike is, but it strikes me as irrelevant and a total distraction. Mike is under no obligation rebuke or refute this person who says ridiculous shit. It's got nothing to do with the specific arguments we're discussing, and if he did, it wouldn't make his arguments any stronger (so failing to do so doesn't make them weaker).
ReplyDeleteIt could be his wife for all I care—not relevant. Either he's right or he's wrong, either his arguments have merit or they don't. The company he keeps might color how we view him as a person, but they don't have anything to do with the debate.
That and bringing up how he once owned a gun illegally seems to me like pointless poo-flinging.
A voice of reason in the midst of chaos.
ReplyDeleteGuav said, "That and bringing up how he once owned a gun illegally seems to me like pointless poo-flinging."
Guav,
ReplyDeleteMikeB302000, who once was not stopped by gun control laws, advocates more gun control laws.
How is that not relevant to the discussion?
It's not flinging poo, it's pointing out the ineffectiveness of gun control laws.
As far as Laci, many of us have had comments not make it past MikeB's moderation process, yet Laci who uses profanity laced personal attacks seems to have no problems.
Isn't pointing out the inconsistency in a person's behavior versus stated values relevant?
Mike is under no obligation rebuke or refute this person
MikeB302000 took his commenters to task because we didn't rebuke or refute people who were making personal attacks. If it applies to one side, shouldn't it be the same for a person who states he lives his values?
Pointing out the difference between behaviour and stated values is relevant.
Now, I'll be surprised if MikeB lets this through but thought I would try anyways. If I don't see it in a day, I may post it at my site.
Bob S. said, appealing to Guav,
ReplyDelete"MikeB302000, who once was not stopped by gun control laws, advocates more gun control laws.
How is that not relevant to the discussion?"
You're right, Bob, that it may be relevant. But, I've stated very clearly that I don't want to divulge any more personal details about myself than I already have. I've stated this to you several times, yet you continually, repeatedly keep asking. Only you and I know how many of these inappropriate comments I've deleted.
What's your problem, Bob? The borders I've drawn about how anonymous I wish to be have been made clear.
The reason you persist, I suppose, is that you think you're damaging me in some way by asking questions that I won't answer. That is the very essence of a personal attack, which may or may not have relevance to a particular discussion, but which I have outlawed.
It would appear that banning "personal attacks" (whatever that means) is about as effective as gun bans, eh MikeB?
ReplyDelete