tkhayes

And you will continue to dig in your heels, and your will volley for ABSOLUTELY no change, and you will be standing there with your jaw hanging when you lose he argument and they DO in fact take it all away from you. The guns are a problem, they are part of the problem. The number of guns, the types of guns, the people who have them, why they have them, who can get them and how they get them. It is ALL part of the problem. And you will dig in, and they may very well pry your gun from your cold dead hands. Or you can actually lobby for some changes and make the country safer. And I'll let you in on a hint.... another 100M guns out there will not actually help solve the problem.

'the dude911' posted the story about the Chinese school attack with a knife, then apparently deleted it. So in THAT story, people were not 'hacked up', did not have their 'heads cut off' or whatever other fantasy that you are trying to create here as an example. If 15000 people were killed every year in the USA by KNIVES, then we would most certainly be having a discussion about KNIVES. But they are not. So again, you to, extrapolate nonsense into something that no one is saying and therefore not much of an argument. No one ever killed 27 people with KNIVES in just a few minutes. The facts are clearly demonstrated that the USA has fewer gun restrictions, more guns that anywhere else. They also have a higher rate of gun crime and gun death that anywhere else (in the civilized world anyway). Try posting a fact instead of fantasy please. The number of guns out there and easy access to them IS part of the problem. It is not the only problem but it IS part of the problem.

go ahead, get pissed off. Your 'pissed-off-ness' is nothing compared to the grief and tragedy experienced by the thousands of people directly affected by a massacre shooting of children,. No one claimed that gun owners are all nut jobs. knife attacks that result in injuries are far different than gun attacks that cause fatalities. No one is talking about taking away guns. And no, they will NOT find 'a way to get one' if there are no guns. A fact demonstrated in other countries and clearly ignored by you bottom line is that fewer guns will mean fewer gun related deaths. Fewer cigarettes results in less smoking related deaths. Fewer teenagers driving on Saturday night results in fewer teenage related driving deaths. Fewer bowls of ice cream results in less weight gain. these are actually pretty simple concepts. You have extrapolated them into a list of nonsense that is not being claimed nor is factual, nor is the basis for any argument being made here.

oversimplified argument that has no merit. Australia's stats, and for that matter the stats of many other regulated-gun countries demonstrate that overall, fewer guns mean fewer gun deaths. simple STATISTICAL math.on a LARGE scale, not on a single-sample-one-school-size scale. try statistics 101 at your local college perhaps.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884#.UNABn7bA_Og .223 is plenty 'high power'. That is why it is the choice of the US military for the most part. light weight, accurate, 3000fps for the most part - which part of 'high power' is not being expressed here? Your comparison to .308 or whatever is moot. they are all 'high power' and your definition is not really relevant to the argument. No ban on assault rifles because they don't get used in massacres? This is a high power, high capacity assault rifle. Yes there are 'higher' power and 'higher' capacity, but will the right clips, purchased almost anywhere, this thing can knock off 100+ rounds, 20 children and 7 staff members in record time. already proven.

no one is talking about banning airplanes. But if you want the comparison..... airplanes are STRICTLY REGULATED. they have qualifications to meet to use them, require massive amounts of very expensive training, demonstration of skills and that costs a lot of money and it is all on you, the user. As a result, owning and flying an airplane is actually a very expensive proposition and a pain in the ass. And then if you do not keep up that training, you LOSE your privileges to do anything with that airplane. So most likely your airplane will simply be LOCKED up in a hangar, unavailable to anyone else. And every facet of the airplane is regulated, not only the use of, but the purchase of, and the availability of parts, and the methods by which the parts are installed and methods by which the airplane is used. And by the way, many airplanes ARE actually banned in the USA - they cannot be flown here (at least for commercial use) because they are not certified to fly in the USA under our standards. And this is all done with public safety in mind. But thanks for the comparison.

wow, me and Ron agree on something.....

If there are no guns, then no one can be killed by a gun. If there are FEWER guns, then one can expect FEWER gun related deaths. amazing how simple math works. Not sure that they teach math in American schools anymore.

Obviously you (most of the gun lobby) do not agree with changing anything, so I expect then that nothing will change. And so far, I am right.

And most CCW permit holders have even less training, making them nothing short of a danger to society rather than a benefit. I did not make any claim that the mall 'hero' made the situation worse, but most the gun lobby makes the claim that CCW holders (and more and more of them) will make any given situation 'better'. And that is not really supported by any evidence. Yes it might 'possibly' make the situation better, and it might not. Carrying a jar of peanut butter around might make situations better too and I have a case about my 'right' to do that, but there is no evidence that carrying a jar of peanut butter around actually does anyone much good. But the jar of peanut butter is not a lethal weapon in the hands of an 'untrained person'. Now substitute 'jar of peanut butter' with assault rifle. Nuclear bomb. stick of dynamite. hand grenade. Shotgun. 50mm anti-aircraft gun. chemical weapon. Obviously you (most of the gun lobby) do not agree with changing anything, so I expect then that nothing will change. And so far, I am right.

And you are unable to come up with much evidence that CCW's help prevent massacres or homicide in general for that matter. Yes, it is their duty, and given that they are required to intervene, because it is their job, then they are more likely than anyone to actually be involved in a shooting. It's kind of like - there are many aviation businesses on the Zephyrhills airport, but if there is going to be an accident, it will most likely involve Skydive City because we do more take-offs and landings and more activity that everyone else on the airport combined, so yes, we would actually likely be the ones involved. Police are more involved in 'crime' and 'shootings' that anyone else, so you will see more police related shootings.

The NYPD is required to intervene, so shots got fired, even if bystanders may be in the way. It's their job to deal with the situation. The citizen is NOT required to intervene, changing the dynamic significantly. This guy may or may not have been there with his weapon. He says so, I'll take his word at that. He did not intervene in the end. There is little support here that carrying a gun on your person would do any good for anyone. Putting more guns out there to solve problems has NOT been demonstrated by this story. If he was a police officer, who knows if any shots would have been fired either I suppose, but I prefer the trained police officer to the 'untrained' citizen.

That is pretty much the case. The City actually HAS the right to do anything they want, even on our leased property (which physically is on the airport property). They have every right to, but they are not immune to damages nor compensation. Largely this is the case that we are making. It is right in the lease, article 13, regarding government regulations that improvements and change scan be made by the entities, but not without every best effort to preserve the rights of the tenant and if they cannot, then not without compensation. I expect the compensation will far outweigh the value of cutting us off from airport access. The RV park in an 'incompatible use' on the airport and that is fact from the FAA and other aviation agencies. However it also have always been there, has always been approved to be there (in our lease) so we argue that the RV park is a 'approved activity' and the tenants are therefore 'approved' to be there. Don't like it or you need to change it? Fine then MOVE it. But don't build barricades that solve YOUR RV park problem and create a hazard and dysfunctional uses of our property, which again, you already approved.

that's funny as hell. I wonder what kind of mileage I might get out of it....

Have an RSL. You are likely too young to remember why we put them there in the first place. They save lives every year. Or a Skyhook, same difference for the most part.

We surpassed 2500 signatures today. Thanks so much for everyone that has supported this and I expect the City will take notice. Most of the City Council members were elected with between 200 and 400 votes. I might have to brag about our results. I hand delivered printed lists of the petition signers to the City and the Airport management today and we will be on the agenda of the Airport Authority on Monday at 530pm at City Hall if anyone is interested. thanks again everyone, the support is overwhelming. The petition will still remain open for a few more days

But for sure we do not have a gun problem.... If people and the right wing thinks that a bunch of pissed off Moms are not going to be taking action, well go ahead and stand there clutching your guns.... Look what they did for drunk driving. No different in skydiving. If we fail to regulate ourselves, then someone will step in and do it. And if the NRA and the extreme gun right digs in, then they can expect to lose absolutely everything in the end.

latest news I read .... The mall itself claims there were 10,000 people there that day so up to 500 of those people could have had a CCW permit. So to say that NO ONE in the mall was carrying at the time of the shooting would almost certainly be absurd.

It's not really an FAA thing. The funding is from Aviation fuel taxes (federal obviously) but the money is coming from the FLORIDA Dept of Transportation, so things have transferred somewhere along the way. FAA has already stated that the City can do whatever they want, which is our issue. The City is stating that they are being 'told' to do it, which is not true and the FAA confirmed it.

One of their arguments is that they do not have enough money to fence the entire airport property. Our response was "How much do you need?" So far no response, which leads us to believe that this is NOT the issue, that their true intention is to fence us out.

The hardship issue will actually be the only issue that we will have left to argue. Yes we all know the fence is ridiculous; even the people that are building it and paying for it - but the 'madness' will not actually stop. The security freight train is here and steamrolling over everything and no one is going to stand in the way of that, regardless of whether the country is broke, regardless of whether the fence provides no security, regardless of whether everyone thinks it is stupid.

2/3 to 3/4 of the airport IS already fenced in, all around the GA areas and over near 4/22. Even that is silly. Open gates allow people to come and go, and when you hit the buzzer to get int through a drive-through gate, they just opn it without even asking who you are.....

The proposed fence is a 6' chain link fence that would effectively cut north-south from the tree line south, across the beer line, keeping the RV park outside, cutting off the Swoop pond and then to the hangar. (Approximately 1000' of fence) A second leg from the hangar north to the tree line and then continuing around the tree line to the rest of the airport. This puts ALL of Skydive City's structures outside the fence, except the front of the hangar. Gate access to go to and from the boarding area and the landing area only in front of the deck, but they did say they could add additional gates as necessary. (To which I always say "If you are going to put a gate wherever I want one, then want is the point of the fence?") Things they cannot seem to get over: 1) that an RV Park could exist inside the fence, and 2) that skydivers are some sort of risk and thus must be kept outside the fence. Our compromise is to put a fence around the perimeter of the AIRPORT, not Skydive City and then if they want, some sort of gate access on the road that allows customers to come and go. When inside, they are 'on the airport' Our property is in fact, 'on the airport', and our lease states all the activities we can do, including an RV park, a restaurant, sales, aircraft operations, fire pit, camping, etc - EVERYTHING is allowed in the lease, and the lease is for AIRPORT property, therefore we argue that we are, in fact, part of the 'airport' and therefore authorized to be there. Not to mention the fact that the fence effectively subdivides land that we lease, rendering it useless except for the fence, with no compensation offered of any kind. And the City does actually have the right to do this, they can do pretty much whatever they want, but they are hiding behind a 'mandate from the Florida DOT' and say they are being forced to do this. This statement is patently false and there is no mandate from ANY govt entity forcing anyone to build a fence or fence us out, the decision is ultimately up to the City what they want to do for security. But the grant is for fencing and only fencing. No one wants to see the grant money go away, not even the politicians that are on our side - we get that. We do not object to security, we we also argue that all skydivers, residents, and students that come to Skydive City are thoroughly vetted through registration and we collect more about them than any other business on the airport that simply has customers come and go. The security risk is NOT from us or our customers and TSA/DHS/FAA documents state the same fact - airport tenants are NOT the risk here. Lots more to it of course, but this will cramp our business and slow down the operation. We may have to cancel the CP Nationals in May if they build a fence that interferes with the swoop pond and creates a hazard. We are under contractual obligation to host it. The City might be able to build a fence, but that also does not free them of the tortuous consequences if they do so.

http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-zephyrhills-please-do-not-fence-skydive-city-out-of-zephyrhills-airport thanks and please sign this to help prevent the dropzone from being completely fenced off the airport

Sounds like I'm getting under your skin. is that an indication that maybe my point is better than yours? By the way I never said anything about magic crystal balls. What I did say sarcastically, is America doesn't have a gun problem