gowlerk

You keep asking how this affects you. But it is not about you. It is about the fact that being around or owning firearms makes anyone statistically more likely to suffer a gunshot injury. As far as how it could affect you? Well, there are cases everyday of family members killing each other. Someone living with you could get angry and shoot you with your own weapon. Maybe for asking the same question over and over again with slightly different phrasing until they could no longer stand it. Or having to explain to you the same thing over and over while you either pretend not to or refuse to understand. But the most likely way (statistically again) is that you could use one of your weapons to kill yourself. Or, you could suffer from an accidental shooting as hundreds of people are every year. Mostly from carelessness, but even some experts have accidents occasionally. Guns were invented for killing people. They are tools made for that purpose. They can also be used as toys, or as collectable pieces of beautiful machine work. But their original purpose is to kill people. As long as people with human frailties and tempers have such easy means to kill they sometimes will do so.

Yes, this is because they are like nearly all drivers, or skydivers for that matter. They are all sure they are above average in ability and that will be enough to keep them safe.

Maybe in some cases. But my belief is that most of the people who voted for him willfully chose to ignore his very obvious flaws.

It would be useful if when you are quoting someone you bear in mind that your words will be taken as a reply to what that person said. You keep on replying to quotes in the context of completely different posts that you remember from earlier. Wolfriverjoe did not spout stats or use incorrect terminology. You just have a memory that someone did. You can still make that point, but if you simply reply to the thread it will be far more clear.

The fact that you have done well is an anecdote. It is only one data point and does little to change the overall statistical picture. Most, if fact almost all gun owners will do fine, just like you.

???????????????????? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I suspect that earlier poster didn't either , but I could be wrong. My belief is that you were told that owning a gun makes you more likely to die of gun violence. That is not the same thing as being more likely to be attacked.

Where in the constitution is it required that a President have proof of financial integrity? The people knew who Trump is and was. The nation chose him anyway. None of the stuff that has come out so far has revealed anything people did not have good reason to know about him. What you saw is what you got. America made a sickening choice, but no one forced them. Russia did not cast any votes. America elected Trump. In 2020 you get another chance. Use it wisely.

Sigh.....Gun owners are more at risk because they are near guns. Guns are made to kill people and the closer you are to them the more likely they are to kill you. They don't make you more likely to be attacked. But if you are, most likely by your spouse or someone close to you, your gun makes you more vulnerable because A) it may be used against you, or B) your attacker may feel the need to get the drop on you, or (most likely) C) you will use it to commit suicide.

And that is how it should be. I agree with you 100% on this. Tax returns are private. Running for office should not require anyone, even Trump to give up their rights. There is in theory a political cost in refusing to make returns public. It should be up to any candidate to decide whether or not to pay that price.

I don't think so. Where does it say that? Senators nearly always run as being the best at looking after their state.

UPT does not manufacture canopies. They will have no problem or conflict of interest answering your question. However, they probably have not tried every size canopy possible into every sized container that they make. But they have tried most combinations and they answer questions like this one every day. That is, as long as you asked them if so and so canopy will fit. They will not give you an opinion on Icarus or R-max being better. Another edit, I see now where you already asked them once about a Decelerator 150 and they could not answer. That would be an example of a canopy they have not tried. I have a UPT size chart on my HD that lists both The R-Max 148 and the Icarus 149 as full fitting in the V310. Along with PDR 143 and low bulk 160s. They seem to have replaced that chart with some Flash driven "container size finder" that doesn't work. So I'm attaching it now. Be aware that it may not be current. V3 Rig_Sizing_Chart.pdf

It's great to see a professional perspective on this. It leads me to ask your opinion on what you would consider to be the root cause of these accidents, given what is known so far. Is it lack of training and/or poorly implemented software? Or does it go further into the design compromise of moving the engine mounts? As a pilot are you OK with Boeing's decision to just use software to counteract the bad effects of moving the engines or do you feel a deeper more expensive re-design should have been done? My feeling is that too many compromises were made in the rush to get an aircraft certified to keep up with the competition. But I have absolutely no qualifications to judge. I doubt that you are in a position to completely know the answer either. But I'd still like to know your feelings on the matter.

Yea, shooting at people is usually illegal too.......

It's hard to see how they could with Indiana being a 15 minute drive away.

Send an email to UPT. They will tell you. They do have a tendency to overestimate how much canopy fits into their containers. But never by so much that an experienced rigger can't cope. If UPT says it's full, it will be. But it will fit.

You are confusing correlation with causation. Likely deliberately. Chicago does not have high rates of gun violence because it has strong gun laws. It has strong gun laws because it has high rates of gun violence.

Which led me to research suicide rates by Nation. The US ranks as the 27th highest rate of 176 listed.At 15.3 per 100K. Lithuania and Russia are at the top with around 31, several small Caribbean island nations have the lowest rate at around 1. I suppose paradise really exists there. Canada is 12.5 almost as high as the US despite far fewer guns. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/

Off topic, but I agree. Search in forums is now nearly useless. I hope it can be strengthened because the archives here were a great resource in the past.

The refusal of either one of these companies to give up the name "Icarus" causes me just forget about their products and stay with PD.

But did he inhale? Or more to the point, did she swallow?

Well, actually they are now. And many of them resent that.

It's a problem because they are more likely to be A)darker skinned, B)immigrants, C)Democratic voters. But that is not the only reason, not everyone outside of the cities feels those things. Many Americans still hold the picture of frontier independent living as part of their National Myth. Dislike of the power of large cities is hardly an America only feeling. Large numbers of Canadians hate Toronto. Especially those with roots in the formerly rural areas that surround it. Even in far away Manitoba where I live about 2/3 rds of the people live in the greater Winnipeg area. And there is a sharp political divide that follows those boundaries. Why is it a problem? It's a problem the same as any majority having all the attention and power. There is a natural tendency to ignore the needs of the minority unless something balances the power structure.

Maybe so. But that completely overlooks the fact that the Senate is set up with two members per State regardless of population. That is a far more important imbalance of electoral power per capita than the Electoral College. When you add in perversion of the filibuster in the Senate a Senator from Wyoming has a ridiculous amount of real power for the population represented.

So, just what is it about this horrific act that makes conservatives feel so uneasy? I don't understand this reluctance to accept that the killer shared some of their views. Why can't they simply say that they reject absolutely the kind of thinking that this man had? Could it be that they agree that white mostly Christian countries need to stay that way? The fact is that many of them agree with large parts of his manifesto, so they hesitate to condemn him because they understand and are in agreement with his message. Just like Trump and his "shithole countries" versus Norwegian immigrant rant. If you feel that way just say so. Right after you clearly reject the violence committed. Stand up and be counted for both of your views. But no, they are for the most part too ashamed to admit their true feelings because they know the wider world will not accept it. White nationalists for the most part are simpering cowards. Like Cadet Bone Spurs.

I'm not convinced either way on the wisdom of the Electoral College system. There is some justification for regional and geographic balance as well as equal representation by population. Your example of Wyoming versus California is, I assume, the most at the most extreme end of the imbalance. Can you cite how many people the average EC vote represents nationally?