Douva

You're probably right. I probably misinterpreted her post. I thought she was saying she would shoot to kill because that's all that would be required to stop the criminal, but she was probably saying she chose "shoot to wound" because she felt that was the closest answer to "shoot to stop." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I just killed my neighbor and gave the now severely rattled perp time to draw his weapon. Now the perp is really pissed off and shooting back at me. I pat myself on the back for being so considerate of the armed criminal, as I use my belt to make a tourniquet for my femoral artery and cover my loved ones' dead bodies with sheets. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

What kind of #$%@ed up "safety and accuracy" course did you take where they taught you to "shoot to wound?" Unless you're a character in a movie, you shoot center of mass (aim for the heart) every time. If that doesn't stop them, you shoot for the pelvis and then the head. You don't play Annie Oakley and give them a chance to pick you and your family off with a backup gun fired from their good hand. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I really think that is as much an oversimplification as saying you should never shoot another person at all. Let's say you, your wife, and your three children live in a Winnebago filled with all your worldly possessions, including your wallet containing your last three hundred dollars, and you have no insurance besides the basic liability insurance required to drive your Winnebago. You're on your way to a new town to look for a new job when you stop at a convenience store thirty miles from the nearest town, to buy diapers. You and your family walk out of the store just in time to see the Winnebago pulling away with a car thief behind the wheel. You're carrying a gun, but you don't have a clean shot at the tires or the engine block (this is a philosophical question, not tactical scenario question); your only clear shot is at the driver. Do you risk leaving your family homeless and penniless to spare the thief's life? Do you forfeit your family's chance at a real life because the Winnebago and its contents are just "things?" Texas use of lethal force laws clearly state that a person using deadly force to protect property must have reason to believe "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means." This has been interpreted to mean that you can't shoot someone for steeling your car if the car is insured against theft. Overall, I think this is a good policy. The loss of property can, under certain circumstances, ruin a person's life. Why, then, shouldn't a person be able to take a life to protect that property? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

When I was in 9th grade, all the schools were jumping on the bandwagon of banning anything that could be construed as "gang symbols" or "gang colors." As a jab at these new rules, a bunch of us bought and wore shirts that said "Kayaking is Life" and claimed they were our "gang shirts." The shirts were promptly banned. I wanted to try to use the official school shirt as our next "gang shirt," but I didn't find much support for that idea. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm with you. Who reads this and thinks, "Wow, I didn't know Mel Gibson used to be a circus freak?" Give me a break! Somebody needs to check the chlorine levels in the gene pool. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

My friend sent that same email to me (along with everyone else he knows). I promptly responded with the Snopes page that disproves it. It takes all of two seconds to disprove that stuff; it really pisses me off when people don't take the time. I'm not sure if they are really so naive as to believe everything they receive by email or if they just don't care whether something is true, so long as they like the point it makes. It makes you feel good to know that these people vote, doesn't it? --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I would have never made it through school under today's rules. I drew pictures of battle scenes in the back of my notebooks, I made toy guns on of click pens, I played shoot 'em up at recess, and I once brought two real swords to school because I thought they'd be useful in the school play we were putting on (they were). Those are just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head that would probably have gotten me expelled. The people who support these rules because "times have changed," don't seem to understand that most children have not changed. Children don't understand why playing with a cap gun at home is harmless fun, but bringing it to school is a serious crime. They don't understand how a drawing threatens anybody. They don't understand how a creative writing assignment suddenly turns from an essay into a psychological evaluation when one of the characters gets shot. They're just kids. Most of us seem to have forgotten how simple the minds of most children really are. We expect them to be little adults. They're not little adults, and it's not healthy to expect them to be. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Hmmmm.....Well.....Geeze.....Huh.....Let me think....Well.....I don't know....Ummmm.....Maybe.....No.....Uhhhh....Wait....Yeah....I know....A SKYSURFING COMPETITION! Yep, that'd do it. Short of that, you could just hold it at the drop zone where I'll be jumping anyway, making it very hard for me to not attend. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

When I was about 4 or 5, I would have my dad cut up old shirts for me to make parachutes out of. We'd tie the parachutes to plastic coke bottles, and I'd place an insect inside the coke bottle. The insect would then get to spend the day "skydiving." When I was about 11, I saw a guy skysurfing on TV (I think it was probably the Reebok "Play Hard" commercial with Patrick de Gayardon), so I tied my tennis shoes to my skateboard, tied the skateboard to a tree, and was sitting on the edge of the trampoline fastening the board to my feet, getting ready to step off the edge of the trampoline and simulate skysurfing, when my dad caught me and made me disassemble my skysurfing simulator. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm pretty sure there are several hotels in Biloxi, Mississippi, built over water. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm not going to read every post in this thread because these gun threads wear me out. I would just like to comment on so-called "gun free zones," such as churches and schools. These laws represent the same types of ineffective, feel good legislation as the so-called "assault weapons ban." These laws operate on one of two ridiculous assumptions. They assume that either a person intent on committing capital murder will be deterred by the possibility of committing a misdemeanor or minor felony or that the presence of a gun is likely to cause law abiding citizens to snap, without warning, and turn into murderous lunatics. The idea that these "gun free zones" are places where law abiding citizens have absolutely no use for a gun has been disproved over and over as defenseless, law abiding citizens have been gunned down in churches and schools by madmen with absolutely no regard for what laws they are violating. Many people quickly flew into an emotional tizzy when George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, signed a bill that allowed holders of concealed handgun licenses to carry their weapons in church. This legislation came on the heels of a mass shooting at a church in Fort Worth (somebody correct me if I have the location wrong) by a lunatic who neither cared what laws he was violating nor possessed a concealed handgun license. Allowing citizens who have passed multiple background checks, multiple fingerprint checks, attended a course on the legal and prudent use of lethal force, and passed written and shooting tests to discretely carry handguns in church hasn't caused an increase in these types of shootings in the years since the law was passed. If anything, it's made Texas houses of worship safer. If many of the antigun activists could put emotion aside and look at the facts, removing "gun free zone" restrictions from schools might be seen as an equally prudent move. Students can still be restricted from bringing guns to school without the "gun free zone" designations. Americans must realize that laws need to be based on fact and sound logic, not simply emotion or our personal views on an issue. In my opinion, too many of the issues before congress, from gun control to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, are being fueled by emotional further, rather than fact. We are a nation governed by a rule of law, not personal ideals. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I can remember when we'd have "Western Day" in elementary school, and just about every kid in school would be wearing a pair of paper cap six-shooters. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Everybody likes to feel "elite." Some people are just plain silly about it. The way I look at it, if you have a license that identifies you as a "pilot," you're a pilot, and if you have a license that identifies you as a "skydiver," you're a skydiver. I'm not saying the license is what makes you a skydiver, but it's hard to argue that somebody with a license is not a "skydiver." --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I was born a skydiver. I just couldn't find anybody to let me jump until I turned 18. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Just for clarification, are we talking about surviving a double mal or a double total? I've known several people who've survived double malfunctions (lineover on a reserve, main/reserve entanglement, etc). When most whuffos talk about surviving a double malfunction, they're talking about surviving a double total (nothing out). Most of them point to the video that's been on Real TV about a million times where the guy lands in a field under a streamer. If you actually watch the video, the guy's canopy is about 1/3-1/2 inflated, so he was a long way from terminal velocity. If they aren't pointing to this particular video, which they never seem to really understand, they're referring to some variation of the same old urban legend where a person lands in six inches of water or a muddy field or a pile of manure (that one's new to me) and survives. If there is a physicist in the house, we could really use an explanation of the properties of a liquid when hit at 120mph. Blue skies, Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Oh great, I'm screwed! I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Wow, that's pretty skinny. I think you need to eat some more Maltesers...but not the ones you're bringing me. Seriously, at 6'3", you could add 30 more pounds and still look good. But, you seem to have a pretty good personality, and most girls like a guy who can make them laugh. I don't think you have any worries either way. I'm with Zeemax on this one--Skinny guys need loving, too. Most people don't realize that it's just as hard for some people to gain weight as it is for most people to loose weight. I worked my ass off to get up to the 150-155lb. range, and I have definitely peaked (at least for the time being). When I started skydiving, I was 6' 1" and 135lb. That's the average body weight for a man 5' 4." I used to float on 90lb. girls in free fall. I finally got a skintight jumpsuit and a weight vest that could sink a battleship and was able to keep up (down) with the rest of the jumpers. Weight lifting and a high protein diet, combined with the natural weight gain that comes with age, has gotten me up to the average body weight for a man 5' 8." I guess that'll have to do for now. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/26/senate.guns.ap/index.html Dems seek to amend gun bill Thursday, February 26, 2004 Posted: 8:24 AM EST (1324 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation that protects gun manufacturers and distributors against lawsuits over gun crimes passed its first Senate test Wednesday. But Democrats said the cost to Republicans will be public votes on extending the assault weapons ban and requiring comprehensive background checks at gun shows. The bill providing immunity from suits won the support of 75 senators in a test vote, and opponents acknowledged it has the backing to pass when they get to the final vote on Tuesday. Still, several Democrats and Republicans plan to force votes on less popular gun measures. "We all know this underlying bill has legs. That's why we want to get some amendments on there," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California. Democrats on Tuesday will force votes on a plan that deals with gun shows, where unlicensed sellers do not have to check buyers' backgrounds. They also want to extend for 10 more years the ban on assault weapons, which expires in September. "If we can't amend this bill to add the assault weapons ban, we're not going to have another vehicle this year," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. But the bill's Republican supporters insist that any attempt to make changes would simply amount to an attempt to kill the bill. For example, the GOP-controlled House already has said it does not plan to approve an extension of the assault weapons ban. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the bill, said the amendments were an "attempt to divert legislation and delay final consideration." The White House, which has indicated support for the assault weapons ban and the gun show measure, called on the Senate to pass the legislation without amendments. "Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable," according to a White House statement released late Tuesday. Democrats took that statement as an indication that President Bush was backing off his support for those two separate measures. "For the president to say he's for the assault weapons ban and act against it, that is a flip-flop if I've ever seen one," Schumer said. Republicans, along with some Senate Democrats, have pushed for the gun immunity legislation for some time. Gun advocates say firearm manufacturers make legal products and should not have to spend millions of dollars fighting off suits. Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, agreed to get behind the legislation after gun supporters agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales. But renewing the 1994 assault weapons prohibition also is a Democratic priority this year. Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the original sponsor in the Senate, say they are close to getting the votes they need to get it added to the gun show bill. They picked up support Tuesday from GOP Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I was reading one of the gun threads stating that the senate is supposed to be voting on gun legislation this week, so on a whim, I flipped over to C-SPAN2, and sure enough, they are currently debating gun legislation. So, if you're interested, channel surf on over and check it out. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Has anyone come across an online copy of the 1991 Reebok "Skysurfer" commercial featuring Patrick de Gayardon, or does anybody happen to have it on their computer? Thanks. Blue skies, Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

1. Notify my immediate family. 2. Make sure my will is in order. 3. Update my "in the event of my death" letter. 4. Kiss a pretty girl. 5. Make a few jumps. 6. Make that chuteless jump I've always wanted to try (no use screwing up my gear). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

It is natural for people who have attained some notable level of success to want to help people who remind them of themselves or come from a similar background. I don't think it is racist to say, "It was tough for me growing up as a poor [insert race or nationality] kid, and I'd like to help other [insert race or nationality] kids to have the same success I've had." Likewise, I don't think it's racist to say, "When I was trying to get into college, there weren't nearly as many scholarships available to me, as a white American, as there were to the minority students, so I'd like to create a scholarship for white Americans, to help bridge the gap." Everything doesn't have to include everybody--We may all be created equal, but we're not all created the same. I agree that some promotions of heritage have the potential to be divisive, like separating the teaching history by ethnicity, but overall I believe we have simply become too sensitive to anything that doesn't include us. Who cares if there is a television network that caters to black culture? All television doesn't have to be for everybody. I'm sure the viewpoint of the black community would be that most existing television networks adequately cater to white culture, but they still shouldn't object if somebody wants to start a television station that does just that. If we all came from the same background, any division by race would be a ridiculous as a division by eye color, but we don't come from the same background--Our heritage, our culture, and often our values are very different. It is not wrong to acknowledge differences, so long as you don't label one side better than the other. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

There is a fire dancer who jumps at my home DZ. When the weather is warmer, she frequently treats us to an evening performance. It's really a lot of fun to watch. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

My post probably came across harsher than I intended; however, I still believe my point was valid and the metaphor made a legitimate argument, not a "personal attack." I did not lash out at the other poster in anger or simply to hurt her; I was trying to show how her approach to politics is hurting our nation. I believe a person who neither contributes to the current system of politics nor tries to change it, yet still gains from the system, is only hurting the nation, the way a virus ("parasite" would have probably been a more accurate analogy) hurts its host by taking from it until it is dead. If I have seemed a bit defensive, it is only because I resent the notion that I attacked the poster and not her views. I feel this metaphor clearly attacks the idea that an undesirable system of government should simply be ignored. My original statement was harsh, and the moderators clearly had trouble with the line "you are a virus." Obviously my intentions were misunderstood, and I'm sorry I caused such a ruckus and took us off topic. I'll try to be more sensitive in future postings. --W. Scott "Douva" Lewis I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.