jfields

Because they were all fine, upstanding citizens, obeying the laws? If you believe in the conspiracy with all your heart, you will see its evidence everywhere.

Kevin, What I meant by the content of the laws is what they say. In relation to guns, it is the body of law that applies. I actually think it matters less what the laws are than how they are enforced or applied. We have laws for all sorts of things that get ignored with a wink and nod. If we aren't going to enforce them, get them off the books. The laws should be clear, and clearly enforced. The less confusion there is, the more focused we can be on fixing problems. As those criteria would apply to "the war on drugs" you mentioned.... 1) Enforcement is a joke. Walk to any college campus or college-area bar and count the underage drinkers. Go to any major concert and walk the aisles, counting the times you smell pot. Check for ecstasy at a rave. We have all discussed the issue of drugs at dropzones, on a public forum even. Would you say we are all squeeky clean? People of authority (DZOs, jumpers that are cops, etc.) know, but as long as things are relatively under control, it is given the green light. Things are harder on dealers, but still not enough. They get back on the street too fast, once they do get caught. 2) Equality of enforcement is non-existent. How many times have celebrities gotten a slap on the wrist and a suggestion to go to rehab. How many times to they get off with nothing. Lots. If you were to get caught in the same circumstances, you'd be in jail in a heartbeat. Money and name recognition definitely buy leniency. 3) Education is getting better, but is still not up to par. It also takes a long time to kick in. Not months, or even a few years, but generations. I think people are finally beginning to get the clue that tobacco is dangerous, after decades of warnings and ever-increasing anti-tobacco advertising. I know that when I was growing up, there was damned little truthful, reliable information available on the dangers of different drugs. I didn't know, and my friends didn't know. Some did the drugs anyway, and some didn't. I also know some that ended up in the hospital. Others are now marginally productive burnouts. I'm 32, so high school wasn't that long ago. Young children today know a lot more and get warned a lot more. So 10 through 30 years from now, that will really start kicking in and we'll see the benefits. A lot of the change is through generational attrition, and gradual societal change. When my parents were young, drinking and driving wasn't a big deal. Almost everyone did it. Now, that is clearly bad, and most people know it. It is still a problem, but not nearly like it once was. 4) I really don't know a lot about how our anti-drug laws are written, because they aren't a concern for me. The only drugs I do are legal ones, namely alcohol, caffeine, etc. I'm not passing moral judgement on people that do some others in addition, but just noting that I haven't had reason to keep up to date on the relevant laws. From my personal experience, seeing how pervasive drugs are, and knowing where I could buy them, I don't believe we really have a "war on drugs". If we honestly did, a non-user like me wouldn't have a clue where to see people using drugs, or have an inkling where I could buy them. The fact that I do means that law enforcement isn't squashing down hard enough to even keep it underground. I'm not saying that the problem could be completely remedied by following a few guidelines, but great progress could be made.

Skip it. Any small measure of amusement in making sure people know you skydive would be outweighed by the sheer frustration of the event. If you don't particularly care about the people, why bow to the convention that says these are "must attend" affairs. I've found that the people that are the most secure in their lives are the ones least likely to go. They are too busy living. The people with things to prove and axes to grind are the ones who attend. I say, skip it, make a jump, then laugh at those poor fools from exit all the way to landing.

Kevin, As we've discussed, the actual laws are only a small portion of a "gun control" solution. If I were to list the various factors in order of importance, I'd say... 1) Strict enforcement of laws (general criminal, not just gun-related) 2) Equality of enforcement (not just against poor, no exemptions for rich, uniform by region) 3) Education about gun safety 4) Content of gun-related laws My guess about Brazil would be that despite strong gun laws, they are severely lacking in strict law enforcement and equality of enforcement. Without those, it doesn't really matter what their gun laws are. I would say that we are better about all four criteria, including freedoms relating to gun ownership. The "ban them all" camp may find Brazil's laws better, but I don't. A moderate view looks for the combination of attributes that reduce crime and accidental death as much as possible while maintaining as much ownership freedom as possible. If all four issues are adequately met, gun control WILL work, but not until then.

At my old apartment, the couple next to me got in a big huge fight. They were screaming and throwing stuff and it sounded like they were smashing each other into the walls. This was at about 3 in the morning, on a weekday. I must admit that I had a chuckle when the cops and fire department showed up. A week later, new neighbors. As far as I'm concerned, that problem solved it self. The real story, I'll never know. Damned inconsiderate of people to do that stuff.

The curbside pickup of all paper products, glass and cans is provided by the county. Taking the obscure stuff to the transfer station is also free. If you go with a pickup truck, you can get all the free mulch you want, because that is what they do with the yard waste. It isn't top quality, but the price is right.

Maybe, but I really think you just used your lightsaber to shove a horshoe up there for luck. WinME blows. Yes, it can work, but you can play successive rounds of Russian roulette and not die too. That doesn't mean I want to step up and play if there is a better game at the next table.

That is a personal issue between you and your light saber. All I have to say is.... May the force be with you!

Ivan, Would you owe beer for that... or not?

Buy it in the back of dim dirty stores from sleazy creepy guys, just like in the olden days.

Me either in social or business dealings. But I if we are all brutally honest, appearance does play a role in physical attraction toward potential lovers. The specific thing (burns) isn't one that would bother me, but others are. It has nothing to do with respect or character. Some people just "have a thing" for a particular attribute. Maybe they love readheads, or big butts, or tall people, or whatever. It isn't even necessarily a conscious decision. Just the same way people have subconcious attractions, they can have things that they don't prefer. It isn't a matter of being prejudiced, because you can't really apply that to love, and nobody is being mistreated. These things are factors in how we unconsciously perceive others. The more we know them, the more other factors there are, and the less it generally matters, but if it is a strong enough aversion, it may override the other issue. Some aspect of sexual attraction are biochemical. If you know someone is your sibling, you don't feel that attraction to them, unless you live in Georgia, West Virginia or Alabama. It is complicated stuff. You can't dictate who people should find equally attractive as prospective partners. As long as they aren't malicious and maintain civility, that is all that is fair to ask.

Shouldn't that be:

Nope.

I would totally jump rounds just for the fun of it. I'd like to give it a shot without a ruck, weapon and all the other hindrances I had before. I'm fine with the bellywart reserve and Capewells. So, when are we doing T-10 jumps?

I thought the scene in Fargo was great. We can recycle all kinds of paper, cardboard, glass, plastic, steel and aluminum from curbside pickup. We put paper products in one recycle bin and all the other stuff in another. I'm getting ready to buy a third which will handle the overflow. If we go to the local waste transfer facility (10 minutes), we can also recycle tires, batteries, motor oil/transmission fluid, computers and a few other things. They also have a separate place to dispose of things like paint. Just gives you a warm fuzzy green feeling. And I'm not talking about moldy cheese.

You don't grow those outside. You order your special Hydroponic Grow Kits out of the cheesy ads in the back pages of Popular Science.

Not if you have the chipper output directed into your pirahna pond.

Just curious what people recycle. The county where I live has a thriving and still growing recycling program. Since it got going, I've noticed an incredible difference. Lots of people (including me) have once-a-week trash pickup instead of twice, and generally over half of our waste gets recycled instead of going into the landfill. I actually had to buy extra recycle bins because we are recycling more than will fit in the one the county provided. The volume of paper, plastic and glass is really pretty incredible.

But they don't have anything we want. People get cigars and rum from elsewhere these days, so why bother? It isn't like they have nice forests or mineral resources, like Canada, who we will be taking over shortly. Shit, did I just give away our secret?

LOL. Exactly. Well, until we start talking about mandatory waiting periods, trigger locks, armor-piercing bullets, training requirements and such. But I'm glad we took the time to hash it out until we at least agreed on something. And thanks for not mindlessly repeating the party line without caring what the other side (me, in this case) is saying.

I've mentioned good enforcement a number of times through this thread. As for the laws, lots of folks on the pro-gun side have commented on how convoluted and contradictory they are. I'm not saying we need more laws. That is like saying we need more tax code. We don't. We need to clean it up, simplify it, and make it more uniform. I'll give two examples: If you commit a murder in the US, you get a minimum of a 25 year sentence without any chance of parole. If you used a firearm in your murder and get caught with a firearm any time after you get out, you go back in for life, without exception or parole. That would lower crime by eliminating a lot of repeat offenders. If you are a gun shop owner and you get caught knowingly violating any laws pertaining to the sales of firearms, you instantly and irrevocably lose your business license, along with a hefty jail term. No second chances. Those laws would only put criminals behind bars for longer, hinder crime and reduce some of the sloppy practices that let firearms into the wrong hands. No legitimate citizens are having any rights taken away. Off the top of my head, I'd see little reason for any honest gun owner to argue with either of those, or object to their enforcement. I'm not a lawyer, nor have I memorized the firearm statutes of every jurisdiction. But I toss out those simplified examples as laws that crack down on crime and illegal weapons flow without stopping anyone without a criminal record from buying or owning weapons. "Gun control" isn't about a mission to eliminate freedom.

It will not work... if done half-assed without corresponding tough enforcement, stiffer penalties, uniform laws, better education and improved safety awareness. If we do all those things along with practical gun control measures, it will help tremendously. Any single aspect pushed without the others is doomed. Having a tough jurisdiction next to a lax one effectively negates the stances of both, leaving just confusion and trafficking across the border. "Gun controls" are not equivalent with "gun bans", despite the rhetoric of the far-right (including the NRA) trying to tell everyone they are. I'm not advocating any bans. Gun controls are things that try to maintain the ability of people to legally obtain guns and keep them safely while reducing the ability of criminals to get and use them as easily as they do now. Our current laws could use a lot of improvement, but saying that laws won't help is perpetuating a falsehood.

If you know where they are, keep them secure and use them responsibly, I have absolutely problem with you owning them.

They can be used well, or carelessly, as shown by all the accidental deaths. Here the "what about pools" question is valid. But go back to those stats and realize that firearms are used to kill more people than everything else *combined*. Even if you add in the 9/11 terrorists attacks, firearms are damned close, if not still more. (I don't have exact comprehensive figures for 9/11.) The overwhelming preference of firearms as the tool for murder is why they get singled out. That goes back to what I said in my mega-post earlier in the thread. If the body count from firearm deaths drops enough, people will stop singling it out. Right now, it does deserve the extra scrutiny.

I see your point. But what about when your failure to supervise your kids handling of the gun you don't need to own leads to the death of my child. You aren't the one grieving. If seeing you tossed in jail forever would keep a second innocent child from being killed by your carelessness, I'd be fine with that. That is their perrogotive. The safety of their children with regards to guns owned by other people is the responsibility of the other people. However wise firearm education might be, it is their option. Even if they choose not to teach their children those things, it isn't their fault of their child is hurt from the actions of another. Some personal responsibility of the part of the firearm owners is in order.