Hooknswoop

I worded that poorly. I wasn't calling anti-gun people emotional. I meant the entire discussion, both sides. Derek V

Agreed. Agreed. That is the price of the 2nd amendment. Derek V

"No one here is against guns" Proves my point that Bill Von is wrong that no one here is against guns. You are not alone and that is OK. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am willing to accept the current level of gun deaths for the current level of gun restrictions. Kallend once wrote; "In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation? One reason I do not trust those that would pass new gun laws: The Colorado congresswoman who sponsored the Magazine limit law, Rep. Diana DeGette, did not understand that magazines can be reloaded: http://blogs.denverpost.com/...how-they-work/93506/ Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said: “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” A- The onus is not on me to defend the current situation. The onus is on those that want to make the change. I do explain why I think others' ideas not not valid; Too much restriction for not enough decrease in gun-deaths. I have been on the other side of the discussion, the wing loading BSR. Kallend did the same thing; "I believe that decisions about rules and regulations should be the result of detailed analysis of the problem, not my gut feeling." So much of the anti-gun discussion is driven by emotion. Too much restriction. No way am I going to allow my firearms to be remotely locked. Derek V

1. Define the problem. 2. Brainstorm solutions 3. Pick a solution. 4. Implement the solution. 5. Review the results. 1. We fundamentally disagree on the definition of the problem. You see a need to go to step 2. I do not. Derek V

No, I wouldn't be OK with "licensing, insurance, inspection and registration requirements" for guns. Cars & trucks already have these restrictions and requirements and are used to kill, in one attack, 86 people and the injury of 458 others. They would not be any more effective for guns than they are for cars & trucks. Non-gun owners do not care how much restrictions are place on guns because these restrictions would not affect them. For example, I do not own or want to own a bump stock. I don't care if they are restricted. You keep trying to get to step 2 (what laws should we pass to reduce gun-deaths) and skipping step 1 (how much restriction will any new law create vs. how much of a reduction on gun-deaths and is the trade-off worth it?). The equation (restrictions (s) vs. gun-deaths) looks different depending on where you stand. For someone that doesn't own guns, they would want as much restrictions as possible. The restrictions don't affect them and there is a reduction in gun-deaths, however small. For a gun owner, the small reduction is not worth the large restriction(s) to get it. You aren't against guns, yet you suggest passing the same law that Australia did....... See why I laughed when you said, "No one here is against guns"? Derek V

Hahahahahaha. I'm not convinced. Just because You think it is too high does not mean it is too high. Changed item 1 from gun-homicide to gun-death. You missed 2 through 4..... 1- The current gun-death rate is too high. 2- What new law(s) do you propose? 3- How would these new law(s) affect the gun-homicide rate and further restrict gun purchases, ownership, and use? 4- That the increased restrictions are worth the reduction in gun-homicide rate. Derek V

No. The current BAC limit for driving in the US is 0.08. Anti gun logic is it must be changed to 0.00 and pro gun logic is let's leave it at 0.08. Laws won't stop every incident, drunk driving or homicide. Increasing the penalty for a crime will reduce the rate of the crime, up to a point. People still commit crimes with very severe penalties. adding restrictions to the purchase, ownership, and use of cars and guns will reduce the numbers. But how much restriction for how much reduction? At some point you are adding severe restrictions for very little reduction. Convince me; 1- The current gun-homicide rate is too high. 2- What new law(s) do you propose? 3- How would these new law(s) affect the gun-homicide rate and further restrict gun purchases, ownership, and use? 4- That the increased restrictions are worth the reduction in gun-homicide rate. Derek V

I never said the 2nd amendment was unlimited. Own anything newer than a musket? Derek V

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2] On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this is what the argument boils down to. You feel (and correct me if I am wrong) that there is low hanging fruit and I do not. I suspect that is because I am a gun owner and you are not. If you are not affected by a restriction, you are not inclined to feel it is too restrictive. Again, correct me if I am wrong. I believe that is where the discussion should start. Derek V

Love this argument. “Justify your rights, and if you can’t or don’t do a good enough job, they will be taken away.” I don’t have to justify my rights, the 2nd amendment or any other. I feel like you do not understand the US constitution, as amended. Derek V

And imagine how much those efforts would restrict the 2nd amendment. I do not believe "there's nothing anyone can do, ever". I do believe that it would take large restrictions on the 2nd amendment for small gains. We could do a lot to reduce the vehicle fatality rate; 1- Require smartphone manufacturers to enable the no notifications/tests/etc. while the phone is above 10-mph feature. 2- Initial training similar to Germany's system. Expensive, but a good system. 3- Require all new vehicles to have Tesla's Auto Pilot system and require it to be used on freeways and highways. 4- Mandatory loss of driver's license for 1-year for not wearing seat belt. 5- Double the number of traffic police. 6- Require annual recurrency training and testing. 7- Require certified helmets and HANS devices to be worn. These are just off the top of my head. Why don't we do these things today? Expensive and restrictive. Derek V

There isn't 30,000 bank robberies OR homicides per year. According to the FBI, there was 4,251 bank, credit union, etc., robberies in 2016. Best I could find is 2015 is 13,286 homicides by firearms. In researching numbers for this post, I found this on the CDC's website for 2014: Motor vehicle traffic deaths Number of deaths: 33,736 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,594 Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5 I don't see a lot of threads on DZ.com discussing vehicle fatality numbers and what can be done about it. Interestingly, vehicles are now being used by terrorists to cause mass casualties. Vehicles, bank vaults, and firearms. Not the same thing. If you look at the issue of private firearm ownership and use logically and not emotionally; "What if your wife was shot and killed?!", or "Why do you need a 30-round magazine?!". The basis for the disagreement is not the numbers, or the firearm laws, or possible new firearm laws. It all boils down to what is the acceptable number of firearm homicides per year and how much restriction of the 2nd amendment is acceptable. My personal view is that we are currently at the point of diminishing returns. It will take large increases in the restrictions to the 2nd amendment for small gains. Derek V

Did you have 10,000 guns? Derek V

I kinda figured the same thing would happen if you were caught in possession of 10,000 guns. Derek V

They aren't different? Both are legal? http://www.snopes.com/business/money/10000.asp Derek V

No, of course not. But let's not use a bank robbery to justify eliminating ATM's, installing TSA-type screening with manned security at the doors to banks, and requiring vaults to be so secure that you have to wait 24+ hours to get cash from them. Seems to me that bank vaults are secure enough and that they are at the point of diminishing returns for increasing their security. We accept that at their current level of security, there will be some bank robberies every year, but not enough to spend a lot of money and inconvenience to increase their level of security. Do you own any guns more modern that a musket? Derek V

Bill Von & Kallend; How would the ideas you have put forth (reverting to muskets only or 5-round magazine limit) affect your current gun ownership? Do you own any 6+ round magazines or any gun other than a musket? Derek V

That has not been my experience with vectran kill lines. And my kill lines do not slowly go out of trim. Derek V

Or you can replace it with 500 Vectran and it lasts the life of the PC without ever going out of trim. Derek V

Why? Derek V

I disagree. I track until I am clear of other jumpers and then deploy. No more, no less. I want to deploy as high as possible to deal with traffic, long spots, winds, malfunctions, etc. If I have to track longer than normal to get separation, I will. If I safely can track less and deploy higher, I will. I do not have a set pull altitude. It varies jump to jump depending on circumstances. Derek V

There is a belief that reserve systems are designed to be deployed while unstable. This has been used as a defense of standard RSL's; From AC-105e, d. 2. g; "(g) Since body position and other factors may cause a delay in the actual parachute opening altitude, the devices should only be used as a backup to manually deploying the reserve parachute." Derek V

FAR Part 105.3; "Direct Supervision means that a certificated rigger personally observes a non-certificated person packing a main parachute to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly, and takes responsibility for that packing." Derek V

Yes you have, when they lowered the affi course standards 16 years ago. Derek V