propblast

I swear to god I thought you meant a reefing system for a canopy. Yeah, I'm showing my age. Same here. When he posts a thread titled "skydiving bag!", I'm not opening it. My first thought as well.

Yep, and the DC-3 made it worthwhile.

I enjoyed the DC3 more. What a awesome plane. Propblast

I really enjoyed the movie. Propblast

377 That c97 is a dream plane. Wow. Propblast

Now that would be wicked cool. Have you jumped it? Propblast

But you desire more acts of violence. You've stated just that up thread. You're OK with removing firearms even though they're used for defensive means. You've stated you're FOR an increase in violent crime. The CDC study on gun violence determined that firearms are an important self defense tool. "Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." So yes. Increased presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens could mean less violent crimes. then go look at the CDC study yourself. It also found that laws removing guns would not be effective in reducing crime. Or you may not trust the CDC study commissioned by our President by executive order. So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with. An additional rapes: 35K-211K robberies: 149K-894K assaults: 316K-1,895K That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats. Why do you promote an increase in violent crime? Didn't we cover this already? We already decided that I was in fact for more rapes and assaults if that meant less murders. Why? Because rape and assault don't end the life of people. I still don't understand the disconnect between M.A.D and nuclear proliferation (which we as a nation are willing to go to war to prevent) and small arms proliferation under the same M.A.D (an apt acronym IMO) mentality. I understand all the gun advocates inability to reconcile the two ideas, I have a tough time of it myself. Your problem is you don't understand MAD or for that matter the NPT. Go read a book, get educated and tell us what those are factually. Then we will have common ground to talk about it and firearms. I don't have time to educate you on nuclear law, on proliferation, and the NPT. You use them as an example which just shows me you don't have the foundation to discuss what you talk about. I'm serious go read something, maybe even eisenhowers atoms for peace speech, then come back and argue with everyone. Propblast

those too. Locations? Propblast

Well, I am always looking for new planes to add to my Log. I'd like to start a list/ current location of "older" or unique planes that are still putting out jumpers. I am looking for: C-47 or DC3 B25 B17 Stearman But am always looking for other neat opportunities. So what is near you? Cessna 182 need not apply, I have plenty of those.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I just have a right to life. AGAIN, since I(we as humans) can't control the actions of others. The best we can do is control their access to the tools (means). We can't control Iran's leadership, we can't control their actions. So we attempt to control their access to the tools they would use. Or to frame it a bit differently....If control of the tools is moot, ineffective, and ultimately causes the reverse of the intended effect (more deaths not fewer), why are we so concerned with Iran and North Korea acquiring their own tools (means). Is it really that hard to follow the logic? I would go on to argue that I am much more likely to be killed by a gun than a nuclear weapon, and as such they should be first on the list of tools to restrict. Step back and look globally. Explain to me the rationale that 280 million guns produces a safer society than drastically fewer guns would.....when we are the most heavily armed, and nowhere near the safest... Methinks, just like that class on Nuclear nonproliferation you also are not schooled in logic. Your arguments lack logic and you refuse with pure stubbornness to see the logic in the arguments that are being made. Tell me why do you have this irrational fear, why do you hate firearms? You keep saying your less safe in the US than elsewhere, I have lived all around the world and, your Argument is besting you. Given all those dangerous firearms, the US is still one of the safest places you can live... Unless you are a criminal. I will say that I can't believe you want to see more people raped, assaulted, and robbed so that you can remove firearms from the equation. That shows a lot about your irrational argument. I am not stating that, that will or will not happen but the fact that you are willing to accept such a egregious idea to get rid of a tool to me is unfathomable. I don't really understand(logically) how you can support such a position. Propblast

Yes And believe it or not, Yes. Propblast

I think you need to take a class in nuclear nonproliferation. I think you would be surprised at what you might learn. Your pontificating on this topic make you look no more educated than those on guns. Propblast

Nataly, What is your feelings towards AR15s. How about that Glock? I really am curious. What your thoughts are. Propblast

You just make that up? You have any ballistics data to back that up? Any statistical analysis of fatalities due to firearm or caliber types? Didn't think so. Why do you not think so. They use the same firing mechanism. They are both semi autos. Could you explain you reasoning? Oh come on, seriously? Do you think that guy who shot people in a cinema would have hit 71 people and killed 12 had he been armed with a glock instead of an AR-15? Really? Don't think so. Propblast

I will ignore the crazy bigoted tirade you went on.... I stand by my statement that 280 million fewer ways to kill each other is a good thing. I am not sure what you are trying to say regarding sucking knowledge from people. Ways and means are two separate things. Yes they are. Propblast

Opinions vary. Something about opinions and assholes... ---------------------------------------------------------- It is to obvious that he hates the tool for no reason and cant come up with a real arguement. When backed into a cornor, brings pot into a discussion that isnt about it and generally cant make a arguement and keeps going to the premise that they are bad. He has a myopic opinion that everyone goes to the grocery and buys steaks out of the freezer. I understand the want for a utopia, but I do believe as everyone has pointed out, that this tool actually helps create a better society. It appears as though that arguement is lost on him. Hoplophobia. That is all it is. Have fun skydiving, Bignugget. I am headed out to do the same. Propblast

I had a Fxc on my student gear in 2001. Propblast

Emergency preparedness (Prepare to kill people or animals) Commerce and employment (Yep, sold as a means to kill things) Historical preservation and study (I guess?, not really what they were intended for I don't think.) Obtaining food by hunting (Yep, by killing bambi) Collecting (sorta falls under preservation and study) (All these to make you more proficient at killing something with a gun) Olympic competition Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting The gun is designed to kill shit, thats its purpose. The joint is designed to relax you and make you eat Cheetos. When I am world dictator general, first order of business is collecting 280 million guns, and distributing 280 million joints (and buy the cheeto factory). Congrats you have proven you can't make a rational argument or stick with one. Propblast

Emergency preparedness Commerce and employment Historical preservation and study Obtaining food by hunting Olympic competition Collecting Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting Propblast

Sigh....That is not there only use. Propblast

Well, I am learning that lesson the hard way. I have bought two rip cords and they both have been for the navy NB-8 and are the wrong pin config. One day I will have this rig together I swear

No one is 'blaming the gun'. That is ridiculous. Reasonable people can understand that with 0 guns on the streets, the likelihood of being killed by a gun is much smaller than when there are 280 MILLION guns around. While banning all cars from the roads would have an ENORMOUS impact on the way the country operates day to day. Removing ALL GUNS from the USA wouldn't, people would continue to live pretty much as normal. There will still be plenty of assholes who want to kill people, and they will have to find new, more creative, ways to do it. BTW, given your own statement that it won't stop criminals from killing a lot of people if they want. What is your reason for banning them? You have yet to give a valid one. Since by your own admission plenty of assholes will still kill folk. Propblast

Banning guns would have a large impact on the lives of many as well. Even if you can't admit it. So tell me if criminals will just find more creative ways to kill. Why shouldn't the law abiding continue to be able to protect themselves. Propblast

On your top point I was using something here we can all understand. Misused a parachute can kill its user, it can kill others as seen by the low turn incidents where the inconsiderate have ended the live of another. Most of the time they are used without incident or harm. The same frankly is true with the AR 15. Which coincidently is a rifle produced for civilian use. I used the example of civilian rifle match of which whether you realize it or not hundreds go on every weekend. They are used without incident or harm. I also used the example of cars. There was just a news story last week where a individual purposefully used a car to plow into a crowd. It wasn't an accident. It was done on purpose. I personally think anything where someone maims another carelessly or with malice is bad. It just appears to me that a lot of folks are willing to accept that when it is a car/ parachute and chalk it up to individual actions, where as when a incident with a firearm happens, they are not. They would rather blame the gun. Your second point as I broke them out above; In the United States, it is absolutely a right as enumerated by Ammendment II of the US Constitution. I do think you are asking a good question. What I see are not many responses with real reasons why these rifles should be banned. I really think the term, "Assault rifle" is a poor term that many use to demonize civilian rifles. The AR15 buy definition is not a assault rifle. I ask you to define what an assault rifle is. You are a smart woman, who has handled firearms in the military, I think. What was the military definition of a assault rifle? I am sure somewhere in the learning process of weapons an instructor mentioned that assault weapons are select fire which ARs are not. BTW: Everyone out there is aware that AR in AR15 does not stand for automatic or assault rifle, I hope. ( It stands for Armalite Rifle) Cheers Propblast

That is your narrow minded ness. Your thought process on weapons was not what I meant. But please carry on. Propblast