jfields

Since I won't be playing with them, nope, I don't care either. I like the natural feel, but if I'm just looking, it doesn't matter.

Zennie, Keep it for now. It will come in handy when you get a friend to pawn it for your bond money when you get arrested on a BASE jump. Just kidding. I think the Bridge Day idea is a really good one.

Speed Racer, I totally agree with you. I'm also in the same boat as far as jumping once every month or so. There is a lot of other stuff to do other than jumping. I doubt I'll ever be in the "practically lives at the DZ" crowd. A big part of that is being in a relationship where my wife doesn't jump. My jumping is a compromise and I'm not willing to be an ass and go jumping every weekend. I also have to pull my weight in the care of my daughter. I'm sad to say it, and it isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I see a whole lot of discussion about "Ex's" and "damned whuffos" on the boards. Maybe, just maybe, it isn't the whole rest of the world that is fucked up. Sometimes, people get a little too obsessed with one thing and lose touch with reality. Skydiving is great, but I think a lot of the divorce I read about in the forums is due to people just being damned selfish. Like I said, this isn't directed at any particular individual. It's just some observations on our fun dysfunctional family as a whole.

Kennedy, In the twists of this thread, we've already discussed the technical issues relating to keeping ballistic records. I've already stated that if it isn't very accurate, there is no point in doing it. That pretty much finishes up the question I had when I actually began the thread. However, I was unable to get the information about ballistic fingerprinting without getting dragged into the debate about gun ownership as a whole. If you go back and catch up, you'll see that the prevailing view by the courts is that individual, non-military, non-police gun ownership is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. We've also discussed the variation in interpretation of the Second Amendment. My take is that unless you are in the militia (National Guard, Army, police force), you have no "inalienable right" to bear arms, thus, nothing to be infringed by restricting the privilige.

250 years ago, sure. In today's society, I think if we answer honestly, the general answer is no. I'm not sure what the hunting laws are like where you live, but I don't know if the limits are high enough to keep a family fed. And how many families have enough private land to support enough game anyway? That is a reflection on how society has changed in that time period. How many people actually hunt their own meat, compared to the number that buy it at the grocery store? Sure. But if you use your gun to kill someone in your home, ballistic evidence may be a part of the investigation, even if it is ruled as self-defense. The discussion of forks, knives, pillows, pianos, gloves and icicles is absurd. I hope you realize that. While they can be used to harm others, you have yet to present a compelling example of how they are designed exclusively to cause harm, as is the case with firearms.

I see taking people's DNA samples in a pre-emptive fashion and making a database of accurate ballistic samples as completely different. I'm against the DNA example, because it is an invasion of the individual's privacy. The weapon is totally different. What is the fundamental function of a firearm? To injure or kill. It is a reasonable assumption that a given firearm may be used to injure or kill. Most potential firearm injuries or deaths are likely to criminal, or at least justifiably investigated as potentially criminal at some point. That is also why I think the constant comparisons and sarcastic calls to ban this or that because it is "more dangerous than guns" only highlight the logical flaws in that reasoning. It drives me nuts. "Ban buckets". From the DWI thread, "Ban cars". Moronic. While people could die from both of those, neither has injury and death as its primary function. They are designed for something else and only have the slightest tangential affiliation with intentional harm. They may cause inadvertent harm, but that is different. If something's purpose is harm to others and infringe on their right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", I don't see keeping a record of it as an infringement on any right to privacy.

Yeah, if I were in their shoes, I'd be hoping the same thing. A lot of people would line up to see them tortured, and many people are hoping they end in a jail cell with "Bubba" for a long time. Honestly, I'd be happier if they were just fried or lethally injected. It gives a better sense of closure to people. If they are dead, there is no chance of parole, escape or repeat offenses. Another reason I'd like it to go that way is that it denies the killer their glory. The "Son of Sam" killer was making press releases about the current case and getting them read on TV. We will all remember serial killers, but I'd prefer to deny them the opportunity to gloat through the media or gain celebrity status. The last thing the victims families need for years to come is smart-ass quotes from the person that killed their relative.

Now they are debating trial jurisdiction. Since the assholes committed the murders in DC, Maryland and Virginia, there are choices that need to be made. Right now, Maryland has a moratorium on the death penalty. I think it is still available in Virginia. I live in Maryland and love it, but I just might pull for Virginia on this one.

I saw that you replied to my post and cringed, but after reading it, I am pleased that I took the effort to write what I did, and that you did as well. We return to civility. With regard to Warren Burger, I’m not saying that he was perfect. Nobody is. I didn’t know about the etymology of the term Saturday Night Special, but the essence of what he said remains valid. His quotes coupled with his position give credence to the fact that we remain a nation divided on this issue. If he feels that the Second Amendment is misrepresented yet powerless to have a substantial impact on public opinion, how is the average citizen to feel? I honestly don’t have any opinion on the classism and the historical cost issues of personal protection. I won’t dispute any of the history you cited. I also see it as irrelevant to the modern issues of weapon ownership. To me, the added cost of ballistic record keeping is low enough to be completely worthwhile, if the technology works. The relative accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the techniques is the crux of that issue. If the cost of each weapon went up by, say, $10, what effect would that have on the overall firearm demand? That would be for the round(s) and the tiny amount of time that would be required to collect the physical data. All the database maintenance and functionality costs would be spread out across the general public, both weapon-owning and otherwise, in the form of taxes. In a scenario such as this, I see the change in demand being negligible, and the cost to taxpayers being paid back in solved crimes, if the technology is viable. When the country was founded, the most deadly weapon of the age could not significantly impact very many people. At the time, it was reasonable that people be allowed to own firearms, because the potential abuse carried a relatively low cost. And people couldn’t carry around cannons. In the modern age, the potential damage of abused technology has increased exponentially. I see it as having escalated out of the realm of what is reasonable to have in the hands of the public. I admitted that my personal nuke example was ridiculous, but it illustrates that the progression from pocketknife to nuke is technologically feasible. Both items exist, as do hundreds of things on a sliding scale between them. I’m looking for where on that scale we should draw the line and say, “This is as much as the public should have.” I see the Second Amendment as being clearly tied to the defense of the nation, which is not how the gun lobby is interpreting it. The Supreme Court has repeatedly seen it as I do, denying that there is a fundamental right for anyone to own whatever weapon they want. Gun control is all about the “slippery slope”. Both extreme viewpoints are worried about losing control in the direction they don’t like. The NRA and the gun lobby often portray themselves hideously. In an effort not to lose their perceived right to bear arms, they defend the right to own absolutely anything. To the vast majority of people somewhere between the two polar opposites, they look like idiots. The inane examples and analogies that get cited make the proponents seem like immature schoolchildren fighting over the best toy. The mockery shown in this very thread by comments such as the “Let’s ban buckets. More kids die from that than handguns” (or something like that) only strengthen the resolve of the opposition. On the other side, the anti-gun fanatics annoy me as well. I was in the military. I qualified expert on the M-16 and the 9mm. I threw grenades, fired an M-60, and did other stuff. You know what? It is fun! I am not afraid of firearms. I respect them. I believe in their existence in defense of our country. When people cry about how “guns are bad”, they look as stupid as people do when they retort, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” There is nothing wrong with going to a range and firing a weapon there. It is an exercise in skill. I don’t believe that everything needs to be banned. Unlike the anti-gun fanatics, I see that there are times when ownership may be justified by a person that isn’t in the police or military, but not uniformly available to everyone. But in their defensive posturing, both extremes hinder the progress that both sides should honestly be working toward. Take the “gun show loophole” that anti-gun folks get irate about. Is it really necessary to buy a gun without a background check? Why is that practice being defended? When gun advocates say that gun laws only hurt the honest people, they refuse to admit their own contribution to the ease in which criminals obtain guns. It is the same type of issue with a waiting period of significant duration. Without having any effect on who can buy and who cannot, increasing a waiting period will weed out some of those who would only use the weapon in a period of rage. Legitimate owners would pick out what they want, say, “Thanks. I’ll be back in a month to pick it up.” No sweat. My wife teaches in an elementary school. This month, a child brought unfired bullets in to school. When he got caught showing them off, he ended up in the principal’s office. The parents were called, as were the police. The child said he got the rounds “out on the playground”. The cop called BS on that, noting that there was no chance of that, judging by the immaculate condition of the bullets. It came out finally that he just brought them from home. The same kid that brought ammunition in from home could just have easily brought it in, loaded in the dad’s gun, to which he also had access. Then show-n-tell with his buddies becomes a dead child. If everyone were responsible in their firearm ownership, I would have no problem with common household ownership. But people prove again and again that they are not capable of handling the responsibility. You can say, “But I am”. Fine. But if you take 100 people that all say that, chances are that it won’t be true in all those cases. Whatever the frequency of accidental child death due to handguns, it is too high. If the gun owner kills themselves in an accident, I don’t really care. I also don’t care if two gun owners kill each other. That is their problem. But the problem comes in when someone innocent dies due to the negligence or hot temper of firearm owners. That is where the issue of personal rights comes into play. I think the frequency of innocent people having their rights infringed upon has become too high. That applies to many things. I feel that if there were a lot less firearms, a lot less would be in the hands of irresponsible incompetents. It was in another thread, but I am also harsh on drunk driving. I’d be in the “one strike, you’re out forever” lobby. People should be held strictly accountable. I’d say if your weapon is used by your wife/kid/neighbor to hurt someone, you go to jail with them. Don’t like that possibility? Don’t own the weapon. When people say to just punish those that abuse their rights, it is an injustice. For the dead person, it is too damned late. Their rights were taken from them, as was their life. Retroactive punishment of the offender in our current legal system values the rights of the criminal more than the victim. It is appalling. Manslaughter? Some jail time, then parole. Murder? Ditto. The victims won’t be getting second chances. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” begins with “life”. I want my best chance at my rights, and maybe that means that the privilege (not right) of firearm ownership needs to be restricted somewhat. I’m not asking them to give up their life in exchange for an apology afterwards. Damn. This is nearly a book. Basically, I’m in between the extremes, annoyed at both sides, but leaning toward more regulation of firearms as the means toward improving everyone’s chances of enjoying the rights we all value.

On that note... I started this thread, so I'll hijack it. Constitional Right to see lots and lots of BOOBIES?

Sigh.... Did you have to? Did you really have to start slinging mud? You said: A little less rhetoric and a few more facts would go much farther to persuade those who don't share your opinion. Others have managed to keep it more civil. You also said: Yes, so I'll quote one: In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as He continued to say... Okay, I'll go with the opinion of the Supreme Court Chief Justice on that one. You said: Just like automotive airbags that save lives every year? I think the higher cost issue falls apart pretty easily. If mandatory, the volume would decrease the cost to a miniscule amount. You also tossed out Ben Franklin: Please define the line that specifies an essential liberty from a non-essential liberty. Do we have the right to carry a small pocketknife on the street? A hunting knife? A pistol? An automatic rifle? A rocket launcher? How about a personal, portable nuclear weapon? Yes, that is an exaggeration, but the point remains that somewhere a line must be drawn between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The "punish those that abuse the 'right'" theory wouldn't hold up too well if pissed off people went nuking the cities they lived in. Yes, it is ridiculous. I hope you see that as excessive "freedom". Do I carry a pocket knife? Sure, and I think I should be able to do so. But where is the line between the extremes? It is up to reasonable people to debate the nature and extent of weapon regulation, but not the philosophical merit of it, which should be undisputed. Someone else (Mark, I think), tossed out Thomas Jefferson: I agree with that, and Mark's sentiment about the profound and meaningful impact of the statement. I care about it deeply. I care about my inalienable rights. Since all men are created equal, yours rights stop where mine begin. Your rights are no more important than mine. The role of government, and the Supreme Court in particular, is to find the balance of how much rights a person has before they interfere with the rights of another. Thanks, but I need no straightening out. I'd suggest you read more carefully before you launch off on a tirade.

Mark, How many times in this thread, and in bold type even, did I say I was just talking about the specific "fingerprinting" issue, not the overall issue of the right to bear arms? I've been in enough debates about that already. We don't resolve anything. We continue to interpret things very differently. We continue to disagree on the intent of the words above. Sadly, we can't ask for a clarification of what they meant when they were written. I think one thing, you another. I cite U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and Quillici v. Morton Grove. You cite U.S. v. Emerson. I rebut with Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, which even came after Emerson. I list the four times the Supreme Court has upheld the view that the Second Amendment does not infer a right to firearm ownership outside of the National Guard. I'm sure you give more counterexamples. Needless to say, it is hardly an established fact that we do or do not have a "right to bear arms" in an individual, unregulated fashion. The courts have gone back and forth on the issue, so it is obviously not a clear issue to the general population. If it was a clear, black & white issue, either we would already have a complete ban on firearms or they would be completely unregulated. The fact that we are still in the middle is due to the ambiguety of the law and the variations in interpretation. However, all of that is totally aside from the actual issue I raised when I began the thread. I can see that there are probably some technical problems that may invalidate the whole "ballistic fingerprinting" concept. Fine. I asked to learn, not because my mind was made up. But that is from a technical standpoint, not from that of an elusive and debateable philisophical discussion of alleged "rights".

But the streets would be a lot safer for the rest of us! Seriously, things would go as you say for awhile, then a collective awareness would sink in and the law would provide effective deterence to the majority of the population. With repercussions that severe, most people would stop and think twice about driving drunk. Those that did it anyway would deserve to have their license yanked. Just my $.02, of course.

Mike, While written with an obvious slant, that is the first substantial post to explain the guts of the issue at hand. Thank you! Clay, You are just paranoid that the GPS chip would constantly show your location in the sheep barn. Conflictingly, you want to have GPS chips implanted in all your livestock so you can get government assistance tracking them down when you are horny.

No problem. Taken to PM.

The sarcasm isn't helpful, Dave. I said I wasn't trying to get into the issue of whether you should be able to own a firearm, or whether the ability to own one really is a "right" or not. We disagree on those facts, but I don't want to talk about that. We've done that enough. You totally skipped my sincere question about the accuracy of the ballistic record. I already stated that I wasn't an expert on it. I barely know anything about the matter. That is why I asked. As a gun owner and ownership advocate, you have the power to be helpful and educate me on the issue. That requires facts (which I believe you have), not rhetoric about rights. If it completely won't work, then we shouldn't do it. I agree with you on that, but other than changing components, nobody has told me how the signatures change over time or any other factors that render the concept invalid. Dave, if they did this, neither of us would be able to have this discussion, because on occasion, we are both idiots.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about the details. How accurate is it? Is the accuracy something that degrades in a predictable way over the lifespan of the weapon (assuming same barrel), or is it something that changes dramatically even in the course of normal usage? Of course people could do things to make the system less functional. That is true of anything, whether it is firearms, odometer rollback, fake drivers licenses, etc. But maybe it can help catch some of the less intelligent criminals. Are you in favor of thorough background checks to help make sure you can get a weapon legally while making it harder for criminals or spur of the moment wanna-be's? Does the right to drive imply a right to do so without a driver's license? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I just don't understand the objection to the registration concept. True, with or without a ballistic record. The flip side is that perhaps it could clear you. Who knows. I didn't make this topic to troll. While I have a definitive stance on public gun ownership, I'm trying to have an open mind about this sub-issue.

Although I'm on the opposite side of that debate from you, I feel exactly the same way. So I'm not going to go there. We'll agree to disagree. I'm trying to stick to the more specific issue of pros and cons of having a ballistic record of firearms.

Dave, I'm not saying it is a cure-all by any means. I'm also not saying that your never-fired heirloom weapons should be forcibly taken, fired and returned to you. I'm also not naive enough to think that all criminals walk into stores, use their real IDs and buy weapons. BUT... I think that gradually, as weapons are replaced with new ones, the feature could be put into effect. It could help in some crime situations. Why is an untraceable weapon a right? Without even going into the whole, "Right to bear arms" debate, when did the anonymity of a weapon and hindrance to police become a right as well? If you do no crime, how does this effect you in any way?

In light of current events and all the gun control/gun ownership threads, I thought I'd toss out the issue of Ballistic "Fingerprinting". To me, it seems to have very little potential downside, and many situations where it could prove useful. On a large scale, I also don't see that there would be much cost involved on a per gun level. Pros, cons? Thoughts?

Did you accidently drag it into another folder, making it a subfolder of something else? Hard to diagnose without seeing your system or knowing anything about it.

I guess that was a bit terse. I think Outlook Express has even more security holes than Outlook, with far fewer features. The risk/reward ratio isn't as good as Outlook. It has also driven me nuts the few times I've tried to work with it on other people's computers. Does that make any sense?

I wish we could get that law passed here.

That dilemma sucks. What to do depends on how close you are to your neighbor. If close, mention something to them about how they could be busted doing that and it isn't a good idea. Luckily, we have pretty strict laws about DWI/DUI where I live. The blood alcohol limit is low (.06 or .08, I think) and if you are actually drinking while driving, I don't think it even matters. From my understanding, that is pretty much an automatic DWI even if it was your first sip and you are totally sober. I'm fine with that. I've never been busted for DWI, and I never will, because I just won't do it. The days when it was even remotely "accepted" are long gone where I live. Drunk drivers should be happy I'm not in charge of the courts. They'd come in for DWI and I'd charge them all with Attempted Murder.

Outlook actually works very well. The majority of users that are having problems with it haven't installed any service packs or patches in the last several years. It really is a stable, feature-rich e-mail client. It is the target of the most attacks because it is the most popular. It gets a lot of its bad reputation by being used by idiots that would screw things up, get viruses and crash their systems using any e-mail client. Outlook Express, on the other hand, is crap.