Ron 10 #76 September 24, 2009 Quote He thinks the 45 degree rule works. Does that mean he's right? It means he is a much more likely to be right than some whuffo that happened to walk onto the DZ."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #77 September 24, 2009 QuoteSure, if the results of them breaking the law are (relatively) minor. Oh, so you are ok with punishing people for things they didn't do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #78 September 24, 2009 >>Sure, if the results of them breaking the law are (relatively) minor. >Oh, so you are ok with punishing people for things they didn't do. Try again! "Sure" means "yes" not "no." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #79 September 24, 2009 QuoteEveryone is allowed their own opinion... you are tying to have your own FACTS. Ron, again, it's a matter of opinion. You're the angriest here and got all hot and frothy over some semantics we disagree on. Try not to have a stroke over it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #80 September 25, 2009 QuoteQuote He thinks the 45 degree rule works. Does that mean he's right? It means he is a much more likely to be right than some whuffo that happened to walk onto the DZ. What if the whuffo were a physicist?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #81 September 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote He thinks the 45 degree rule works. Does that mean he's right? It means he is a much more likely to be right than some whuffo that happened to walk onto the DZ. What if the whuffo were a physicist? It would mean that the whuffo physicist knew very little about skydiving in general but he would be overly arrogant and have a undeserved feeling of self importance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #82 September 25, 2009 Yes, it is a matter of opinion... More so it is the matter of an uneducated opinion vs an educated opinion. This was not a disagreement over semantics.. It may have started that way but it turned into an ignorant person trying to claim he knows more than an educated and experienced person. Add into it, you had to try to make it personal with your snide comments when you ran out of logic. Don't blame me for your inabilty to have a rational discussion without lame insults"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 September 25, 2009 Bill you have stated that you support preventing law abiding citizens from having a weapon in certain places. You support bans which have been shown to not prevent criminals for having and using weapons. Bans only punish law abiding citizens since criminals don't obey the law. Therfore you DO support punishing people for things they didn't do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #84 September 25, 2009 Quote What if the whuffo were a physicist? Then he might very well have a better opinion as long as he actually understood the situation. Now John, Which physicist would be better to listen to: A whuffo physicist, or a physicist with 1,000 jumps?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 September 25, 2009 QuoteBans only punish law abiding citizens since criminals don't obey the law. Therfore you DO support punishing people for things they didn't do. Do you lock the doors of your home or vehicles when you aren't in them (or are sleeping)? If so, why? If someone wants to break into your home or car, the locks won't stop them.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #86 September 25, 2009 Quotethat just goes to show criminals are not going to stop using weapons due to a ban. I am not disagreeing with you on that. Look at coke, it's illegal, yet still widely available. Which is exactly my original statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #87 September 25, 2009 QuoteQuote What if the whuffo were a physicist? Then he might very well have a better opinion as long as he actually understood the situation. Now John, Which physicist would be better to listen to: A whuffo physicist, or a physicist with 1,000 jumps? I'll take the 1,000 jumps. However, it IS a physics problem and amenable to analysis by any competent physicist whether or not they skydive. Experience shows that even some expert skydivers haven't understood it AT ALL.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #88 September 26, 2009 QuoteDo you lock the doors of your home or vehicles when you aren't in them (or are sleeping)? If so, why? If someone wants to break into your home or car, the locks won't stop them. A wonderful question... Yes, I do lock my doors (I didn't when I lived on the DZ in ZHills). The reason is simple... It is an easy way to prevent the casual thief. Yes, the pro could easily pick my lock and crack my safe and have a free run of the place provided I am not home. But I think your example is lacking. What harm or who's legal rights do I step on by locking my house?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #89 September 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteDo you lock the doors of your home or vehicles when you aren't in them (or are sleeping)? If so, why? If someone wants to break into your home or car, the locks won't stop them. A wonderful question... Yes, I do lock my doors (I didn't when I lived on the DZ in ZHills). The reason is simple... It is an easy way to prevent the casual thief. Yes, the pro could easily pick my lock and crack my safe and have a free run of the place provided I am not home. But I think your example is lacking. What harm or who's legal rights do I step on by locking my house? You're doing no harm and violating no rights by locking your house, so far as I can tell. (Likewise, not all gun restrictions violate rights.) I was just using it as another example of a precaution that will work some of the time, even if it doesn't work all of the time.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #90 September 26, 2009 But in my example, no rights are violated. While I agree that there are times that guns should not be allowed (people with violent pasts, criminals, mentally unstable individuals...ect)... I tend to think that a citizen with no criminal or violent history that has training should be allowed to own pretty much whatever he wants. Also, I think that same person should be allowed to carry pretty much everywhere. Gun bans only hurt people who follow the law... The Ruby's attack in TX is a good example.. A nutjob with a violent past killed many innocent people while a citizen who had a gun left it in her car to obey the law. She could have easily taken out the shooter, but instead had to watch several people to include both her parents be killed. The law prevented her from defending her family, but it didn't do anything to prevent the attacker from carrying a gun. I tend to side with allowing rights to citizens as long as they don't affect innocents."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #91 September 26, 2009 >Bill you have stated that you support preventing law abiding citizens > from having a weapon in certain places. Correct. I support your right to not allow me to carry a gun into your house. Would you support a law that said you had to let anyone carry anything into your house that they chose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeathByCactus 0 #92 September 26, 2009 QuoteBill you have stated that you support preventing law abiding citizens from having a weapon in certain places. You support bans which have been shown to not prevent criminals for having and using weapons. Bans only punish law abiding citizens since criminals don't obey the law. Therfore you DO support punishing people for things they didn't do. There is a difference in a CHL holder carrying into a college (banned) and being able to carry in your friends friend's house (regulated). However, I fail to see the logic in how you claim that since he has fell into your little trap he suddenly supports punishing people for things they did not do.Aspiring flying squirrel / Jump student Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #93 September 29, 2009 QuoteCorrect. I support your right to not allow me to carry a gun into your house. Strawman... We are talking about a PUBLIC place, not a private residence."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #94 September 29, 2009 QuoteHowever, I fail to see the logic in how you claim that since he has fell into your little trap he suddenly supports punishing people for things they did not do. He wants to punish a law abiding citizen by removing his right to carry for self defense in a public place."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #95 September 29, 2009 >We are talking about a PUBLIC place, not a private residence. OK cool. So you also support preventing abiding citizens from having a weapon in certain places. Now we're just arguing over what those places are. How about your bedroom? Your back yard? Your place of business? A church you are the pastor of? A mall you own? An airport? An operating room in a publicly owned hospital? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #96 September 29, 2009 QuoteOK cool. So you also support preventing abiding citizens from having a weapon in certain places. Where did I say that? Stop trying to put words in my mouth."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #97 September 29, 2009 >Where did I say that? You admitted that it's OK to ban guns in some places (like your private residence.) Cool, we agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #98 September 29, 2009 QuoteYou admitted that it's OK to ban guns in some places (like your private residence.) Nope, I suggest you read it again. I can prevent PEOPLE from coming into my home.... And that's for any reason I see fit. I can ban ACTIONS in my home. Such as I don't let people smoke, but I don't ban cigarettes. QuoteCool, we agree. Nope."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #99 September 29, 2009 > I can prevent PEOPLE from coming into my home.... And that's for any >reason I see fit. I can ban ACTIONS in my home. Such as I don't let >people smoke, but I don't ban cigarettes. OK. So you can ban PEOPLE with guns. Fair enough. Many places do the same. Good to see you're OK with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #100 September 29, 2009 Two can play your silly little game Bill. Good to see you still favor taking away citizens rights when they have done nothing wrong. Good to see that you think a gun will kill on its own so it must be prevented from being in some areas..."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
