champu

You're going overboard. Double barrel shotguns are not well suited for combat/defense, but they're also not some antiquated technology that you only buy if "that's all you can afford." That's absurd. Competition over/under models can set you back 10 times what a remington 870 costs.

Ah, all good stuff. Can't believe I forgot to mention wave-offs. And I can add some discussion of grips and timing as part of the exit considerstions. I probably won't get too much into canopy patterns as that's covered by a different speaker and that was one of the things (along with spotting and exit order) that I got a bit long-winded on a couple years ago. I think at least a note about planning canopy traffic into the dive flow especially as formations get larger would be good though.

You don't seem to be paying very close attention to the details of the discussion. You really should.

Hey, so I've been asked to do another talk at safety day this year at Skydive Elsinore regarding FS / belly flying safety. It has recently come to my attention that my portion of the talk from last year is available on youtube. This time around I would like to add in some discussion of tinted/mirrored goggles as well as wearing of small format cameras while flying inside a formation. I would appreciate it if experienced folks would watch the video let me know if there is anything else you'd add. Thanks.

You forgot the rest of the formula: billvon offers a skydiving analogy Andy makes a smartass 1-liner TK says something Communist Wendy says something "Ann Landers" and we all join hands and eat cookies You forgot, "kallend bends over backwards to try and point out hypocrisy god damn it, no matter what."

Well... what is the going rate for ground beef vs ground horse? Contrast that with the market price for red snapper vs tilapia. What's that? They don't sell ground horse at your butcher? Well then you're getting a priceless meat at common ground beef prices! You should be thanking them you ungrateful bastard! Seriously though, it's apples to oranges but in the grand scheme of things I would actually consider not being able to keep track of what meat went where much worse than intentionally ripping off people who don't know what fish they're eating anyway.

He may have assumed that, but I would not recommend someone inexperienced with firearms plan to use one in a home defense situation.

Agree regarding Bill's thoughts. And I, too, would like if we were better at IDing deranged people before something bad happened, but I'm going to be very skeptical of any proposed way of doing this.

Including yours. Fascinating. My post was thorough, critical, and direct to the point of being rude. It was anything but snide. /edited to add: my apologies to you both though. Picture the thread as an old-timey black and white saloon fight and I felt compelled to grab each of you by the shoulders, shake you twice and then slap you across the face. It's because I care...

What the fuck are you two even arguing about anymore? You both sound like fools. Joe Biden made a really stupid argument in favor of banning "assault weapons" saying you'd be better off going outside with a double barrel shotgun and firing it off twice into the air to scare people away than defending yourself with an AR-15 or something similar. It was an indefensibly stupid response to the question that was asked, and the fact that other types of shotguns do make good home defense weapons does not change the fact that it was an indefensibly stupid response. Now toolbox starts a thread saying, "well why doesn't the secret service use double barrel shotguns?" Of all the professional armed entities out there, I think the secret service is probably the worst one you could choose to make the point that double barrel shotguns are not intended to be combat weapons. So this thread gets off to a great start. Next quade jumps in saying the secret service are super-human and all police cars have some type of shotgun as far as he can remember. Which makes absolutely no fucking sense as a response. toolbox proceeds to ramble on aimlessly about firearms training. quade follows up by snidely suggesting toolbox gets his firearms knowledge from movies, and then immediately states that he gets his firearms knowledge from google, and demonstrates he's not very good at adding value to his google searches because the Remington 870 is not the type of shotgun Joe Biden's comment and the OP was about. Followed by more rambling... followed by more snide comments...

What I'm seeing in this thread is the assertion that there exists a test of mental illness that would serve as an analog to a BAC test in your analogy. If that were the case, then deciding that "being mentally ill with a gun" was just as illegal and enforceable as "driving while drunk" would be trivial. But adjust your analogy just a little to the case of driving under the influence of marajuana in the states that have legalized recreational use, and the issue starts to emerge. What happens when quantitative tests to determine if a person is currently impaired have a much worse false-positive rate than a BAC test? Maybe improvements could be found for such tests of mental illness to bring it up to a "BAC level" of agreeableness if, to use your words, we get less lazy about it, or maybe we'll never get there. Either way it is rather irritating when people smugly chastise those who focus on the real and immediate problems we would need to address before agreeing to implement any such test for having "given up."

Interestingly enough, my feet are not particularly close to a foot long In a shoe my feet are almost exactly a foot long; comes in very handy for estimating distances. Size 11 Vans, as it turns out, are within a 1/16" of a foot. I agree it is very helpful for estimated measurements, especially when you need to call bullshit on a sandwich.

...just fixing the emphasis of this statement.

The problem isn't that people post things to the internet anonymously. The problem is that people aren't always very good at treating anonymous opinions (as distinct from anonymous tips, whistle-blowing, etc.) for what they're worth: not much of anything. It's why teachers/professors get a little twitch in their eye if a student asks them how to include a citation to wikipedia. When lawmakers propose legislation like this or when a media outlet reports on what comments appeared on a youtube channel (see: SMB injury incident thread) I fear it reinforces the misconception that anonymous opinions on the internet actually matter.

THE STIG, for skydiving The Stig's skydiving cousin.

Yes. In fact, that's precisely how it works. I hope you see that claim as a terrifying precedent and I hope you didn't stop reading my post there (it was just starting to get good... trust me.)

actually, it's the perfect test since his real life actions just showed he is a direct threat to the rest of us (of course, I'd like incarceration (or incineration) at this point rather than just take away his pistol) - the issue is by then it's too late to avoid the first instance, as we couldn't predict his future actions we can only respond directly against a person based on his present and past actions......... we can only address the possibility of it prior to then by being allowed to be prepared to respond if it happens See my statement as amended. My intended point was what you stated.

You owe the resistence you're seeing here not to people's desires to see armed mental ill people but to statements of yours like this: This isn't I Robot and people are not programmed with "prime directives of normality" where you get to declare solely based on some output that the brain isn't functioning correctly. If I click in the address bar of this browser window and pound on my keyboard, I won't get what I want, but that doesn't mean the software is broken. Your exasperation in trying to convince everyone that we need to think of mass murderes as necessarily insane is pointless because "whether the person has committed a mass murder" is a pretty poor test for determining if a person should be allowed access to firearms, and it is not the stepping stone to more useful prophelactic determinations that you think it is.

You're missing the point... probably intentionally. No one here suggested that a shotgun can't be a good home defense weapon and no one in the thread you referenced suggested taking an under-over shotgun outside and firing it empty when you feel threatened.

That was a pretty goofy answer to the question. He basically said, "If you live in the woods and you hear a noise outside you think might be an intruder, firing a shotgun off into the air will probably scare whatever/whomever it is away, therefore no one needs an AR-15." I would liken it to saying, "Why would anyone need an AR-15? We live in a gated community."

Now... Where were we...? If we want to make a thread for every shooting we should come up with a scorecard to save time. Assault weapon ban: Ineffective here. CA already had an assault weapon ban, from the photos it appears it wasn't a semi-automatic shotgun and, while black, it didn't have scary features. Magazine capacity limits: Ineffective here. CA already has this ban and this was a fixed magazine with what I would guess is a 7 round capacity. Criminal background check: Ineffective here. The article states he doesn't have a criminal history. Adjudicated mental illness: Story doesn't say, but I would doubt it. We will probably get some 20/20 hindsight kind of clues in future reporting, but I doubt anything that would have shown up on a feasible background check without running into privacy issues that lawrocket has raised in other threads. Mandated securing of firearms (ignoring enforcement issues for a moment): TBD, but may have helped. The article said the shotgun belonged to someone at the starting address. If it had been locked up well and he didn't have access, then the rampage may not have gotten started. More good guys with guns: TBD as usual as details are thin. California is largely devoid of CWPs, but unless one of the people specifically attacked had been armed and had a little bit of warning, this probably wouldn't have mattered. Access to Mental Health Treatment: TBD. I don't think we know what the "trigger" was yet. Police/Authority Response Time: It sounds like witness reporting and police response were pretty key here given he shot himself almost immediately when authorities showed up. I would look at the chain of reports (I'm pretty sure there would have been multiple 911 calls) and see what worked about the response and what didn't. How well are the dispatchers equipped and trained to handle a situation unfolding like this? Violence in culture: Kinda sounds like something out of Grand Theft Auto, but a game is a game and life is life. I think a game like that's influence would begin after you snap, not before. See "Access to Mental Health Treatment."

I also like perusing these various state awb bills as they all have fun gems in them... Guns don't kill people... ...guns that fit your shoulder properly, that you can fire while your thumb is below your index finger, or that don't burn your left hand kill people. I'll tell you what the people who wrote this bill can do with their thumbs...

I flew to the University of Illinois twice last year via American/American Eagle (they're the only airline that flies there to my knowledge.) When I went there about a week and a half ago I just flew Southwest to Chicago and drove the remaining 2.5 hours each way. I had to drive through a snowstorm on my way back and it was still less of a hassle than all the delays, getting stuck in the middle-middle seat of a 767 going to DFW, and having to check, reclaim, and re-gate check bags.

I like that one. That's a good one.

Translation: I am a politician who is trying to get votes from people who are willing to ignore that my idea failed because it was broken and not because my political adversaries are evil or distant.