jfields

I don't know any lawyer that would sign after reading it. She probably just covered her eyes and initialed all over the pages.

I can't vouch for everyone, but I post a lot at work when I'm frustrated by being stuck inside. Justin My Homepage

On a spotting-related note.... I was recently on a load where I would be in the first group out the door. We were doing a 3-way tube/donut dive. We talked on the plane to one of the experienced video guys that would be near the door. He was going to let us know when to exit, after we'd opened the door and gotten into position. All was going well. We got into position quickly and were waiting for the camera flyer to give us the signal. We heard "go" and rolled out the door. The only problem was that it had been someone in the front of the plane yelling. None of the three of us made it back to the DZ, because we had gone too early, even though we'd heard what we thought was our cue. We found out that the guy that yelled was one of the tandem masters. That pissed us off. If it had been a student or something, that would be one thing. But a TM should know better than to do that. He wasn't anywhere near the door and didn't have a clue where the plane was when he yelled. I can understand people being impatient if a group in the middle of the jump run chokes in the door, but that wasn't the case. This jump turned out to be the farthest out I've landed. It could have easily landed one of the three of us in the trees. Thoughts on what to do, or how to avoid this type of situation in the future? I know part of that is to learn to spot for myself. But other than that... Justin My Homepage

Mike, To be painfully honest, I have no clue. It was never taught at my home DZ. The closest I've gotten to "spotting" is the few times I've been first out the door, I've looked to check for other aircraft, but that is about it. I wouldn't begin to know when to have people start exiting the plane or know the duration of the jump run. I plan to learn, but it is hard when nobody else seems to care. Justin My Homepage

Clay, Just so you can start thinking about how to proceed, here is the first step of your 12-step program: 1. I admitted I was powerless over the message boards - that my life had become unmanageable. Don't worry. We'll help you through it.... Justin My Homepage

In other words, everything has gone to hell because of some people being super postwhores. [cough]Clay[/cough] Justin My Homepage

Water training has been elusive for me too. I did a road trip for it one time, only to have it cancelled. I wonder if I could have someone sign me off for it if I make an intentional nosedive into a swoop pond somewhere. j/k Justin My Homepage

He should be an honorary member at the very least.

Damn, Merrick is really a biker chick!

Skreamer, If you aren't going to get suckered in, why did ya post? Post whore! Justin My Homepage

Wahoo! Justin My Homepage

Good. My fingers are getting tired from all this typing. Justin My Homepage

My comments were illustrating the ridiculous nature of the thought process that states we'd all be safer if everyone was armed to the fullest. You're right. You don't use a nuke for self defense. You don't need a fully-automatic machine gun either, so why do people own them? The whole "more is better" is a fallacy. As you mentioned, knowledge and respect for weapons ARE the key, combined with keeping them out of the hands of those that don't have said knowledge and respect. I have yet to hear how anyone can have a weapon around for self-defense while guaranteeing that it will not be used by anyone other than the owner. Justin My Homepage

Yup. Us men will be the same boobie-obsessed creatures forever. And proud of it.

CJ, You said: True, but as discussed earlier, why make it easy? Because a technology is possible doesn't mean it should be in everyone's hands. To carry the logic to the extreme: I'm glad the average Taliban whacko or Columbine delinquent doesn't have a "suitecase nuke". Saying that they could kill me with a knife too so why not just let everyone have nukes doesn't really work. You can kill millions with a nuke, dozens in a shooting spree, and only a few with your fists. Average citizens (with the usual percent of nutcases), don't need to leverage their ability to cause death beyond what it is naturally. Marc, Did I ever say I was a pacifist? Nope. Just a gun control advocate. I'm glad your dog got the person that broke into your house. I hope your dog chewed the guys balls off. He deserved it. While I'm a "gun control" advocate, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have them. Just that they need to be... well... controlled. If you keep it safe and locked up, that is fine. I'm not sure how you'd get to it in an emergency if it was secured, but that is your business. Gun ownership is definitely a responsibility. It is one that many people have shown they are clearly not up for. If they were, they wouldn't be accidently shooting each other and letting kids get a hold of their guns. And I maintain that personal, civilian gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Justin My Homepage

Like Remi, I disagree with the whole "If someone broke into my house..." mentality. The facts are that it is damned unlikely in the first place. Second, chances are that someone will get themselves killed trying to defend themselves when they might have had a better survival rate unarmed. Third, the guns in a home are mostly likely to be used in a manner that kills the homeowner or someone in their family. The facts support that. So if you are looking at the odds (we all do, we're skydivers), you and your family would be substantially better off unarmed. The most likely weapon to kill you in your home is your own. If you don't have one, you remove that possibility. "Paint" away, Remi. If the shoe fits, we'll wear it. Justin My Homepage

It doesn't matter if you own them, as long as you don't kill anyone with them, or allow others to. That is the problem. many people have no control or responsibility over the weapons they own. And I'm sure our founding fathers would have a problem with that. And as an aside, the Constitution was intended to preserve the rights of citizens to bear arms as part of a militia, in defense of their country. Disregarding what the NRA says, does this honestly apply to most of the people that insist they have the right to own guns? Go read it for yourself: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html Justin My Homepage

That is 99% of my issue with guns. Responsible ownership doesn't bother me. We're actually in agreement on that. Justin My Homepage

Wildblue, Okay, context of stats issue noted. Disregard my rebuttal.

Dave, You right, the parents are significant. The kids didn't buy the guns. It was irresponsible ownership that provided them. Thanks for helping make my point. I never said video games or music were relevant. Yes they also tried to use pipe bombs. "Tried". They didn't work. But that easily-available, ever-so-reliable gun sure does! Your right, messed up kids will try to do things with or without guns. The guns just let 'em kill a lot more people. Great..... Justin My Homepage

Wildblue, The stats about children are significant. Saying that more kids die from things other than guns is irrelevant. Why add another easy and senseless cause of death. How many people used to die from smallpox, polio, infections or half a dozen other diseases that aren't widespread or fatal anymore? It is called progress. We could make similar progress in reducing the number of kids dying from gun violence. Please explain how guns were insignificant in the events at Columbine. Justin My Homepage

Dave, I'm glad you were raised well. I agree that parenting is a major part of the issue. While it worked for you and your parents, unlocked guns obviously don't work for many others. And nobody knows until after the fact which is which. Some (like you) will be fine. Others will just end up dead, or their friends will end up dead. Then the "I thought they knew better" will be of little value. Justin My Homepage

We've had gun control discussions in the forums before. Here is a link to a relatively recent example: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forums/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=forumtalkback&Number=23106&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1#Post23106 Still, we aren't going to resolve it today. The sides are so dramatically divided and the issue is so emotional that there is no middle ground. I'm not going into the whole "if owning a gun is criminal, then only criminals will own guns" rhetoric. It is true, but silly. Yes, criminals will always be able to get guns. No argument there. Another big catchphrase is "we don't need more laws, we just need to enforce existing ones." That is BS, plain and simple. Existing laws allow for unsafe gun ownership, which is my personal objection to civilian gun ownership. My basic objections to civilian gun ownership stems from unresolved safety issues. With current technology, it is fundamentally impossible to have a gun available for "home defense" while guaranteeing that it does not end up in use by an unauthorized individual. That person could be a drunk friend, your child, or someone else's child. The research shows that the friends and family of gun owners are far more likely to die as a result of gun ownership than "the potential burglar" that seems to be a common justification for gun ownership. If you have a gun (or 100 for all I care), in a secure, locked gun cabinet that only you can get into, I have no problem. When you go to the range to fire, that is also fine. It is a safe, controlled environment. Mere ownership is not the problem. The moment that the cabinet is left unattended and open, or the gun is kept "in a nightstand drawer, for security", safety is thrown to the winds. Anyone can get it, and probably use it. Where are all the guns used in school-room and playground shootings coming from? I'd bet that most elementary and middle school kids aren't walking into a gun shop and slapping down the money for that new pistol. They are coming from people's homes where they are left unsecured. Somebody's "home defense weapon" just became something else, evidence in a homicide investigation. One thing I particularly object to is homes with children and unsecured weapons. Before bringing up the "my kid went to NRA gun safety class" junk, honestly answer this, "Did you do everything you were supposed to and obey all rules to the letter when you were a kid?" Right. Me neither. How do you expect your kids to? What about the neighbor's kid, who never had the class. It is a tragedy waiting to happen, and it happens a lot. Another issue is training. To be used in a home setting, going to the range once when you first buy a gun isn't enough. The target isn't holding a real gun pointed back at you. To use two DZ.commers as examples (in a good way), take a look at Chuck and Clay. Two current/former military members that dealt with weapons and close-combat training. They are among the few people that have had sufficient training to have better than even odds of surviving a gunfight with a burglar. That kind of training takes a lot of time, money and effort, when it is even available. How many "typical" gun owners have done that? I doubt it is very many. The majority of gun owners have a sense of false readiness and courage, bolstered by a piece of inanimate metal. Their chances of living would probably be better if they just told a burglar to take what they want and leave unhindered. Once someone has a gun, they must be responsible for it. Many gun owners are not good custodians of their equipment. Would you treat your ownership differently if you were held equally responsible for everything that happens with a gun registered to you? Whether you commit a crime or not, if you faced the same jail time as a criminal using your weapon, would you leave it out? If a child kills another child with your gun, YOU should go to jail for negligence and stupidity, if not outright murder. If you are safe enough that this possibility (however slim) doesn't apply to you, great. You may be the rare gun owner that I don't have a problem with. Sorry for the long post. I'll finish it the same way I did the last time the topic came up.... Responsible gun ownership = No problem. Gun owner accidental deaths = Not my problem. Gun owner domestic dispute deaths = Also not my problem. Irresponsible gun owner's gun in kid's hands = BIG PROBLEM. Own 'em if you want, but do it responsibly. If my wife or (future) kid was killed by some irresponsible gun owner's negligence, I wouldn't need a gun. I'd go and strangle them with my bare hands. Flame away..... Justin My Homepage

There are a lot of us, so it is a quantity issue.

LOL! Nice! Justin My Homepage