jbscout2002

OK, what exactly have I made up? Please provide the post numbers or links to posts where I have made something up, along with proof that it's made up. They say it takes a bigger man to admit to his mistakes and move on. I guess it takes a liberal hippie teacher to get mad when he is caught in a lie and try to change the truth to what he said rather than making the correct statement. When your wrong, just yell at the other guy and tell him it's his fault. Sad. Translation - you don't have anything and are just weaseling. This is hilarious. You have done nothing but weasled through 22 pages of postings.

This is two years old. Next..... The FBI hasn't released the 2015 data yet. Of course, you KNOW that. So how about YOU provide the 2014 data that refutes mine? Post number 534 you offer up something almost useful and then I'm supposed to submit a formal response in rebuttal? Are you even for real?

OK, what exactly have I made up? Please provide the post numbers or links to posts where I have made something up, along with proof that it's made up. They say it takes a bigger man to admit to his mistakes and move on. I guess it takes a liberal hippie teacher to get mad when he is caught in a lie and try to change the truth to what he said rather than making the correct statement. When your wrong, just yell at the other guy and tell him it's his fault. Sad.

"Misinformed", "forgot the link"... I guess you were one of the kids whose dog was always eating the homework. Yes and with the credibility you have established for yourself, it's kind of like you shot yourself in the foot a long time ago. There needs to be a theoretical academic gun control, to keep that from happening. Credibilty? It was YOU that wrote you hadn't seen a post from me with data and a reference, and a few posts later you quoted your own responses to some of them. If there's anyone here who's credibility is shot, it's the guy who plagiarized an article, denied that he'd plagiarized it, and then finally admitted it when proof was presented with the lame excuse "forgot the link". The same guy who said he hadn't seen one post with references to data, and a few posts later referred to his own responses to such posts. The same guy who had to be corrected over the age of the gunman. The same guy who had to be corrected over the time it took to get CCW permits in Illinois and claimed that 8 months was "almost 2 years". Shooting yourself in the foot with a fully automatic now. Do you have a Class III weapons license? If not you are in violation of the NFA. That law must be toothless.

This is two years old. Next.....

The more direct answer to your question is that it was all some monkey math random jbscout logic. Picking one was a roll of the dice for me. I went economy on the AAD and sprung for the Optimum reserve. The M2 actually doesn't change activation altitude like the Cypres 2. You can jockey the DZ offset in the morning and be good for the day. So you can adjust it how you want, but using that method for that day.

Heaven forbid your AAD weighs 200 grams too much! That's a pretty bold and general statement. Care to comment on what logic led to it? Because I can provide some counter examples where it wasn't... If you already have your nifty little Cypres gift basket, then by all means, rock out with your c*** out. If you are all set up with your with your Vigil, then jam out with your clam out. Size and weight are negligible as far as I'm concerned. I'm starting from scratch, so I have no vested interest in either of the 3. The M2 price was right. Then I asked myself why so cheap? Oh hey are new. It's medal va. plastic, highest firing altitude, I'll give them a shot. The thought never crossed my mind to manually change the altitude. I already figured why not the M2 and then 885 looked better than 750. As far as manually changing it, I figure it comes from the factory set for what the designer determined to be the optimal firing altitude, so why tamper. If you tamper, know what you are doing. C and D can open at 2500. You're a big boy like me and doing a big way, people dick around and break off a little low, I automatically sink. The original plan was I pull in place, being a newb. I thought I should give a couple seconds to make sure everyone was clear of me before I pulled. According to the AltiTrack I'm in the saddle at 1600. (Theoretical scenario of course ) Guess I'm trying to say there is a balance of having the AAD fire and your reserve fully opens and picks up a glide while you are out cold going about 150. Flip side is being inexperienced, a little bit dumb, and having time to get open, but still getting screwed to a two out.

It saddens me that this has become the norm in this country. That every few months, some person with mental health issues, who should not be trying to "throw rocks from his glass house" verbally shoots himself in the foot. We are the only developed nation where this continues to be a problem. Everywhere you look, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so forth, where people rights to shoot their mouths off have been properly restrained, this doesn't seem to be a problem. It is time for America to step up to the plate.

I stand before the American people today and emplor you to support tougher common sense laws that will prevent people from shooting their mouths off in forums with no actuall imput. It is senseless and tragic.

"Misinformed", "forgot the link"... I guess you were one of the kids whose dog was always eating the homework. Yes and with the credibility you have established for yourself, it's kind of like you shot yourself in the foot a long time ago. There needs to be a theoretical academic gun control, to keep that from happening.

Yes yes, very good. Now go back to your coloring books. Grown ups are talking here.

My in laws live in the Bronx though, so I can see where things would be different in that neighborhood.

Where I come from, parents are teaching 7-8 year old kids how to properly handle and shoot a gun. It is very controlled, very hands on, using a single shot .22. Pounding in safety fundamentals and how dangerous they are. Always saying this is not a toy, if you ever touch this without me standing there I will bust your little bottom so hard you'll grow up Dmocrat. My dad let me shoot at apples, milk jugs full of water, and stuff like that. It's fun for a little kid, but then he would say you see what happened to that apple? Can you imagine if that were your foot? In my home town, guns are no different than having a pocket knife. A 12 year old kid can be strolling down the road with his shotgun to go to a fiends house so the two of them can go hunting with the friends dad. No one bats an eye.

How about we do what other countries are doing who don't have this problem? What are they doing differently that causes the stark incredible difference in violent gun death and incidences? Switzerland. They have it figured out. Per capita, they have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe, but the lowest rate of gun violence. There is a culture there of introducing children to guns in a controlled environment and teaching them about shooting and gun safety. Instead of trying to demonize guns, kids start joining gun clubs as young as 12 years old. Guns are common, available, a major pastime sport, and NORMAL. Here we demonize them. We try to keep hem away from everyone. Some people want one just cause they can't have it.

Indeed. That's because they are both very large cities. HOWEVER, the correct comparison is by number of crimes per 100,000 population. When you do THAT, Chicago and LA drop way below places like Memphis, Little Rock, Atlanta, Birmingham, Miami. According to your risk assessment you are safer in a city with 1,000 population where 25% of them get murdered in a given year, than in a city with 1,000,000 population where 0.03% of them get murdered in a year. That is just plain stupid. Uh no. Again you are just way off base. On the topic of gun control, my argument was that cities with the strictest gun control laws had the highest rate of gun violence per 100,000 people. You attempted to cloud that by using cities with less restrictive gun laws, citing that the violent crimes per 100,00 was higher. Get it? Less guns = higher gun crime, statistically (as shown by Chicago and L.A.) If we take the work gun out and simply have a conversation over which cities have violence problems, then you have a great chance of being beat up in Detroit than you do of being shot in Chicago.

The CCW law was enacted July 9, 2013. That is a matter of public record that you can easily check. The first permit was issued at the end of February 2014, which is less than 8 months later. Source: www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/illinois-officials-send-out-state-s-first-concealed-carry-gun/article_44579164-2693-534a-a66d-04e1cda57089.html So according to you, 8 months is "nearly 2 years". Fact is, you have been caught making a bunch of untrue statements, and plagiarizing another's work. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-01/news/ct-concealed-carry-licenses-met-0301-20140301_1_licenses-applications-guns Here is another article stating as of 1 March 14, first CCW permits EXPECTED to go out in mail next week. When did it finally happen? According to NRA forums the stalled a few times and played games before the first resident actually received a permit in the mail. So even if I was off when quoting the time, I was still closer to the real number than your completely fabricated BS. As I had said. I have been misinformed on some things, but when corrected, I accept it. And I haven't plagiarized anything. I copy/pasted an article that started with, "according to the whoever from where ever on whatever...." I did not try to portray myself as some kind of scholar on the basis of someone else's work. You have just simply and blatantly lied on your facts, and you are just grasping for straws trying to discredit me. I'll make it easy. Read what I say, don't read, argue it, it is either my opinion or a copy/pasted article to support my side of the debate. Should I even bother to keep debunking the remainder of your little "look at me" list? Not really worth the effort on an iPad, it is either made up, PLAGIARIZED, or sourced from a quack tabloid.

Irony score 100% for you too. Here is a list of my posts in this thread with references to ACCURATE information. You know, the posts you said that you couldn't see: 23 238 303 312 318 384 385 446 457. 312, I simply was misinformed on the age. Upon being corrected, I pointed out that the age was a mute point anyways in regards to him being able to legally purchase guns with a record of mental illness

Irony score 100% for you too. Here is a list of my posts in this thread with references to ACCURATE information. You know, the posts you said that you couldn't see: 23 238 303 312 318 384 385 446 457. Post 303 you take a top 10 list of dangerous cities and use it to argue which cities have gun problems. These numbers are based on Homicide (by gun or not), robbery, rape, and assault to build their model. I provided you an article showing that based solely on gun crimes, L.A. ranked number 1, with Chicago at number 2.

Irony score 100% for you too. Here is a list of my posts in this thread with references to ACCURATE information. You know, the posts you said that you couldn't see: 23 238 303 312 318 384 385 446 457. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html Another left wing tabloid. And you are questioning my information sources?

Irony score 100% for you too. Here is a list of my posts in this thread with references to ACCURATE information. You know, the posts you said that you couldn't see: 23 238 303 312 318 384 385 446 457. So post 23, you say nothing, just pin a link to a tabloid http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#title I'm doing some googling, but trying to use more credible sources like cdc.gov and fbi.gov

Is this how you teach physics? You tell students there is no gravity on Earth and they simply float away unless the are quick enough to properly cite Newton and provide a bibliography?

I'll admit to making those mistakes. Again, I'm arguing gun politics on a skydiving forum. HONEST mistakes when transferring info from one page to another. Yours are just plain lies. Making crap up and sling mud at a crowd to see if any of it sticks to anyone.

Well, you have had to be corrected on several claims you've made in this thread. The age of the Oregon gunman, the waiting period for a CCW in Chicago, the date of the article you plagiarized... People DO check up on these things, you know. And we're still waiting for you to tell us how the 2nd Amendment saved the world's Jews, as you claimed. The initial report I saw on the gun mans age was that he was 20. My mistake. (Just like initial reports put the number of dead at 13) I used the info that was being disseminated at that time. Never made a claim that any Ammendment to the American Constitution saved any of the worlds Jews. That is your manipulating and misinterpretation of what was actually said. This isn't exact because I'm not scrolling through looking for that post, but what I had said was that the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights for purpose of preventing our government from ever being able to reach a point such as that of Nazi Germany where millions of people were exterminated. Your entire timeline of the gun ban situation in Chicago was false. State police began with processing the first applications in Feb 2014 with residents beginning to receive them a few moths later. You also made false claims that gun crimes increased in the months afterwards, to wit, I presented a link to the Chicago Tribune article stating the opposite. You are the one with no merit here. I fo reward outdated info because I was not looking at the publishing date, or not use a quote box en very obviously copy/pasting info, but you Sir, have just flat out lied. You started with a completely made up and inaccurate statement, and then never refuted anything with any credible information.

Nope - he cut and pasted a long article from ACRU without giving any credit. The link in his first sentence was to something else altogether and was actually part of the article he plagiarized. He didn't put the cut/paste job in quotation marks. He didn't put it in a Quote box. He didn't put it in italics, another way to suggest it wasn't his own writing. He made NO reference to its source. He didn't even say it was from somewhere else. He just posted it as if it was his own writing. Finally, and only after being called on it and first denying it, he posted the link . Apparently YOU didn't bother to read what was posted OR to check your facts either. And another thing John why when I simply asked how you came to the conclusion about your plagiarism claim you have to attack me about it reading and fact checking? That's simple. If you HAD read his cut and paste job, and the link I gave to show where it was cut and pasted from, you would have known it was plagiarized. You would have reached the exact same conclusion I did. QED. Using a tactic favored by gun control advocates, you are trying to divert the readers away from the facts by steering the conversation away from the info that I pasted and onto my improper pasting of the info. Just like taking the focus off of violence and putting it on guns. I'm sorry professor chaos. You caught me. I don't copy and paste info for a living so I'm not as well versed in it as you are. Can you just let me off with a C-? Cs get the degrees right? All this time. Had I been living a lie? Did I try to pass off someone else article about someone else paper as my own discussion about someone else's paper? So many studies debunk gun control. How do we fight this? Well they are right, so we will just have to study the researchers and try to find flaws in their writing to divert attention away from the evidence that would clearly make us look stupid.

Nope - he cut and pasted a long article from ACRU without giving any credit. The link in his first sentence was to something else altogether and was actually part of the article he plagiarized. He didn't put the cut/paste job in quotation marks. He didn't put it in a Quote box. He didn't put it in italics, another way to suggest it wasn't his own writing. He made NO reference to its source. He didn't even say it was from somewhere else. He just posted it as if it was his own writing. Finally, and only after being called on it and first denying it, he posted the link . Apparently YOU didn't bother to read what was posted OR to check your facts either. I have also not seen one post from you where you offer a single number or statistic with any hint of a reference. I have also not actually seen any contribution to the discussion at all other than to try and say I'm lying. Nothing you have said has been quoted and credited to any source, and you have not put together one thought of your own as to what the source of the problem is or opinions on possible solutions to any of it. Much like my young nephew, the general jist of your responses are nut uh, bull hockey, no it didn't no it didn't, liar liar pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire. (-"liar liar pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire was regurgitated from a children's nursery rhyme. The author of this post makes no attempt to claim credit for this beautiful string of literature"-) italic quote box smiley face simply face.