wolfriverjoe

On an interesting note, this has been a very deadly year on Everest. 11 climbers are known dead. 8 more are dead (or missing & presumed dead) after an avalanche on another peak. So more people have died in the Himalayas in the past month than died jumping in the US all of last year. Which, of course, doesn't mean skydiving isn't dangerous.

I know you didn't address this to me, but... That depends. Would the 'change that limited rights' have any real effects? The problem with most (all?) of the proposals so far is that they limit the rights of those who don't break the laws while having little or no effect on the ones who commit these acts. They fall under the "Do something, do anything!!! Make me feel safer!!" type of action. Very similar to the TSA making everyone remove their shoes, it's usually "security theater". Australia did a pretty good job of stopping these kinds of attacks (maybe*). They took away almost all of the guns. But they had a fairly small population and the guns were all registered with the government, so they knew exactly who had what. As I posted before, that sort of solution would have a very hard time of it in the US. The destruction of a variety of other civil rights that would have to happen in the process would get ugly. New Orleans in the wake of Katrina is a pretty clear example of this. Search house to house. Beat up little old ladies who had a revolver to keep the looters out. Ignore pretty much the entire 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. Because of an 'emergency'. * - I say 'maybe' because Australia took the extreme measure of banning virtually all repeating firearms in the wake of a single shooting incident. It was the first one in their history. Would they have had another one had they not banned the guns? Perhaps.

Can't? Or just won't?

My choice of words was not accidental. Glad someone caught it.

No, he just doesn't understand what 'exponentially' means. It's just a big word that means "a LOT more."

Well, you gotta love his 'business skills.' If you don't like a deal, walk away. Just leave. Don't pay your bills. And sue. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/politics/trump-sunday-times-interview-brexit-grb-intl/index.html Can I go to Mar-A-Lago and say "I didn't like the service. I'm not paying my bill"?

Well, to be fair, it really wasn't Ron's prediction. He was just passing on a prediction from "Q-something". Of course, he was gullible enough to believe it and pass it on as 'gospel truth.'

Ok, if you want to do 3rd grader jokes: What's big & grey, has 4 legs & a trunk and doesn't matter at all? An Irrelephant.

I think you are right. There's also the fact that no state law can violate the US Constitution and survive a challenge. The 'pro-birth' faction doesn't care. They have said quite clearly that they know full well that the decision in Roe v Wade makes this law unconstitutional. In its entirety. They want this law to be challenged. They expect to lose those challenges. They want to see this go all the way up to the Supreme Court. They think that the two recent appointees to the court will allow them to use this to overturn Roe v Wade. They seem to forget, or ignore or simple be unaware of the way the SC decides which cases to take. Typically, there would have to be an unresolved (by the SC) issue. There would have to be multiple, conflicting rulings on the same or similar issues by the lower appeals courts. It has to be an issue that affects a lot of people (this one would apply). I don't know if this law will meet their requirements. Historically, the SC is reluctant to overturn prior SC rulings without good reason. Also, four of the nine justices have to agree to hear the case. I don't know if there are four who wish to revisit Roe v Wade. A quick search found this: https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/

The person doing the shooting will carry the gun in regardless of whether or not it's a "possession prohibited' area or not. AFAIK, school property is prohibited property for everyone except police in most states (in Wisconsin, even having a cased firearm locked in your car in a school parking lot is a felony). I also doubt it would be a deterrent. The shooter in those situations is not thinking rationally or logically. They're going to go to work/school/wherever and pull out their gun and shoot everyone they can. Typically they have a few 'specific targets', but often times they just want to go out in a 'blaze of gunfire'. Many either expect to be killed or plan on committing suicide. I've had this conversation a few times (AggieDave on here maybe?). Balancing the prevalence of carry permits with the actual frequency that they are utilized, I would make a guess (and it's mostly that) that there's somewhere between a 25% and 50% chance that there's a concealed firearm on someone in the immediate area anytime you are out in public (and in a 'carry permitted' area). Posted prohibited areas are going to see a lower number (although not zero) , depending on the consequences for getting caught. Most private 'prohibited' areas will just make you leave. Public areas will see stronger consequences, depending on the circumstances (helpful hint: Don't get caught with a gun in a school, court house or police station). That's a good question. The 'standard' response for civilians is 'run, hide, fight'. Escape if you can, take shelter if you can't escape, fight back if you have no other choice. As a 'non-cop' I have no obligation to 'protect and defend' anyone. How willing I would be to put myself in danger in a situation like that has a lot of 'depends'. Who is in danger? What tools do I have? What options do I have to escape? What kind of threat (how many, what kind of weapons, what sort of behavior) is being presented. As a 'for instance', if I'm in the hangar, and I hear shots coming from the lobby, and I know where a gun is in a gear bag (generally, unsecured in a gear bag is a really bad idea) or a car or something, I would likely go for it, keeping an eye on the door to the lobby. Presuming I can get to the gun before the shooter appears, I would then either take cover/concealment or escape from the hangar. Depends on who is still in there, what kind of cover I can get to, how far the door is, what kind of noise is coming from the area being shot up, and on and on. In a 'building situation', getting out is the best choice. Hiding in a room is next. If that's what ends up, barricading the door, hiding in a closet or behind furniture, having most of the people hide in one area while anyone with a weapon takes up a position covering the door, and on and on. I remember the VA Tech shooting had a situation like this. A professor held the door closed against the gunman, at the cost of his life when the shooter opened fire through the door. There have been other 'hiding in a room and could have ambushed the shooter if we had been armed' situations.

Well, to counter that, what's an acceptable number of drunk driving deaths per year? There are thousands. And while there has been a change in the overall attitudes towards drunk driving, and the numbers have declined, it's still a big problem. And it's a problem with a fairly simple (although not cheap or super 'easy') solution. Many people convicted of OWI are required to have an 'intoxilock' in their car for a period of time. That's the device that you have to blow into and show no alcohol on your breath before the car will start. They are expensive, inconvenient and subject to problems (one I know of is that they freeze up in the winter). But if car makers installed one in every new car, and people were required to retrofit all cars on the road with them, then drunk driving would virtually disappear. I've asked this before and been accused of asking a 'gotcha' question. Or that it's a false equivalence. To answer your question directly (I didn't before), the answer is zero. No deaths are 'acceptable'. But what would you do to stop them? How many other rights would you be willing to give up along with the 2nd? I'm certainly willing to listen to ideas that would help. But I have yet to hear any substantive ideas that would stop shootings of this kind, short of bans and confiscation. What specific solutions would stop these kinds of shootings? Background checks? Most of the high profile shootings that I know of used guns that were purchased after passing checks. There are a couple incidents where the checks should have prevented the shooter from getting the guns, but they 'fell through the cracks. The one a few months ago in Aurora (Chicago) is a stunning example of the shortcomings. The shooter had a felony conviction. But it was in another state, so the check didn't catch it. He then applied for a carry permit. That had a deeper check (fingerprints) that did catch the felony. But, rather than actually doing something, the state wrote him a letter telling him his FOID card had been cancelled and that he had to turn in his gun. That was it. They knew he had a gun and that he was a felon (that's a crime). And they wrote him a letter. Ban military style rifles? While the ones that make the national media use those, most shootings aren't committed with them. There are millions of them out there (probably tens of millions). When Obama got elected sales went absolutely nuts. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, they went nuts again. Everybody wanted to get one before they got banned. With the previous ban, it only applied to new manufacture. Stuff that was already out there could be owned, bought and sold. So while availability went down some, and price went up, they were still readily available. Unless a 'ban' included confiscation of some sort, it would be equally toothless. Are you willing to see that? Government confiscation of private property? Unless the government is willing to pay a LOT of money, it would simply be 'taking', not 'buying' (since the government never owned them in the first place, it's not a 'buy back"). And are you willing to see the cost in privacy/search rights? There would be a lot of people who wouldn't turn their guns in. The government would have to search virtually every house and business in the country to find all the guns. Sales & background checks would show a lot of owners, but what if the owner said "I sold that a long time ago, I don't have any guns." Would you believe him? Would you search his house? How far would you search? Tear out the walls & ceiling? Destroy the house? Would you take a metal detector around his back yard if you didn't find any? What about people who never bought a gun from a dealer (no check, no paperwork). Do you get ammunition sales records, parts and component sales records, gun range membership lists. ect? How far do you go? And the gun rights folks are also flipping that around: If you ban abortion, they will still happen, just illegally. So why would banning guns work? This came up while I was composing my response, so I can't attribute it (haven't figured that out yet). I'm going to disagree. I know a few people who carry guns on a regular basis. NONE of them 'open carry'. Most 'gun types' don't really think much of open carry. It's more an 'ego' thing than a 'self protection' thing. It also puts a hell of a target on the person carrying the gun. Cops open carry, but they wear distinctive clothes and drive around in really obvious cars. Even if they carried hidden, everyone would still know. The plain clothed cops carry under their jackets more to be discreet than to keep it secret (that big bulge under their arm is a pretty good clue). I don't think anyone is going to carry when jumping, but not jumping and just hanging out? Betcha there's one or two. I know pilots who carried when flying the 182. I've known of staff that carried when working the desk. It wasn't advertised, and I knew because I either had long conversations about guns with these people or I spotted the gun at some point. And don't totally discount the 'gun in the car' situation. There have been a number of shootings that were stopped by someone who had a gun close by. A janitor at a school, a principal, a couple of off duty cops at a college (these are off the top of my head). It wasn't stopped instantly, but the shooters were stopped before they were done.

Not sure this would fall under 'stupid accidents'. And it appears that the gun was brought by one of the party-goers, not just sitting 'around the house'. Shooting ones self in the head while 'playing with' a gun sounds a bit suspicious. Not criminally suspicious, but 'Darwin' suspicious. There was a similar incident somewhat local to me in the past year or so. What eventually was uncovered was that the 'drunk teens' decided to play Russian Roulette. Guns almost never 'just go off'. The trigger needs to be pulled.

About $40. Seriously, try to cut something. A decent hook knife will cut stuff fairly easily. A crappy one will break.

Not really. I believe the 'greenies' are against destruction of the environment. Placing federal land off limits means the oil companies can't destroy them. Banning fracking means they don't create all of the really nasty byproducts. And are a lot less likely to just open the valve on the tanker truck and drive down the road rather than dispose of the crap properly (real situation). Stopping pipelines means that they don't destroy the environment installing them, and there's no pipeline to break and leak (although pipelines are a pretty safe way to transport oil overall). "Burdensome regulations" mean that the oil companies (or other industry) can't just do what ever they feel like (usually what's cheapest) and dump their hazardous wastes 'just anywhere'. It's been a few decades since the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, but consider how many EPA Superfund sites are still awaiting cleanup. How many abandoned mines out west are 'ticking time bombs' from an environmental disaster standpoint? Nuclear power has all sorts of pitfalls. Waste disposal is just one. But a big one. Large scale hydro destroys the ecosystem of the river. How many salmon are left running naturally in the western rivers? Wind farms are pretty benign, but there's a fair amount of environmental damage in their construction (depending on the site - Farmland is usually the least destructive. Remote mountain tops the most). They do take their toll on birds, although overall less than most fossil fuel types. Powerlines are similar to pipelines. They do a lot of environmental damage clearing out the right-of-way. I don't completely oppose any of the above. But to characterize the 'greenies' as being opposed to that stuff just because they want to see energy prices rise is pretty simplistic. And wrong.

Or Republican misinformation. But they are virtually identical, so it's hard to tell which is which (or who is who) much of the time.

One often overlooked source is the FAA Rigger Handbook. It has a section on packing mains. Available as a free download. The 'thing' that helped me the most for recognizing the line groups is the knots. A/B & C/D are easy because they go through the front & back slider grommets. But distinguishing the A & B (or C & D) from each other can be a bit challenging. Look at the knots. Each line group will have its knots at about the same level. The knots for the different groups will be at different heights.

Ahhhhh Crap!!!!! Sorry. Got busy and spaced this. I found one from an old Student Hawk H/C, but didn't get a pic. I found another one, most likely off an old SSK Sweethog (not 100% sure on that) with pretty much identical lengths on the cables (putting them next to each other looked the same but didn't pull out a tape measure.). Going to be a few days before I get back home.

And you are basing that supposition on what actual data?

I'd suggest the "Diver Driver" site. Chris Schindler put together a really comprehensive page. http://diverdriver.com/ As "sexy" as Otters & King Airs are, plan on learning to throw people out of a 182 first. Don't plan on paying the bills with just jumpers. With a few very prominent exceptions, most DZs are small, weekend only operations. The easiest way would be to find the closest DZ to wherever you are now (or want to be), head out and introduce yourself. It may take a few tries at a few places to find one that needs/wants you. Some places have enough pilots that they don't need to add more to the 'list'. Other places have had bad experiences with newer pilots and tend to shy away from 'new guys' (which doesn't necessarily mean 'low hours'). Once a place has found out how expensive & inconvenient cylinder scoring from shock cooling is, they tend to get a bit picky. It's a real blast flying jumpers. The mentality on the DZ is like nowhere else in the world. It's a good way to build hours. You get a lot of takeoffs & landings. You are usually operating out of little airports, with short (often grass) runways. Takeoffs are often at (or above) max gross. You also get a good bit of experience in engine management. Full power climbs all the way up, level off for a couple minutes and then back down as fast as you can without damaging anything. Keeping the mixture rich enough to keep it from getting too hot, yet lean enough that it produces power, keeping an eye on head & oil temps, being very careful on descent not to shock cool it. Also, running enough fuel to be safe & legal, yet not so much that the weight is an issue. There's a hell of a debate about pilot training. That the current airline pilots are 'book smart', yet have little practical experience. I personally like the idea that they should spend a season or two flying jumpers (or other stuff) to find out all the little stuff that can catch a pilot off guard. Good luck.

Yup. Some folks seem to think these people have a choice.

Wait a minute... I thought Trump called Nazis "Fine People."

Kinda like how you get along with your neighbors. If you don't get along with one or two, it might be them. If you don't get along with any of them, it is most likely you.

It has also proven a difficult medium to share "9/11 Truther" 'knowledge'. Rhys took a lot of time and went to a lot of trouble trying to convince everyone of that garbage. He failed because his "proof" was bullshit. Plain & simple. Not genius. He tried to convince people how smart he was, and how he knew things everyone else didn't. In the case of 'Revelation knowledge', it's pretty much the same. You've made prediction after prediction of the 'Coming End Times', or "The Shit's Going To Hit The Fan... And SOON!!!". And it hasn't. As was pointed out in the other thread, these predictions have been made for something like 2000 years. Give me ONE good reason to think your current ones are any more 'real'. Your QAnon (or Q or Q+) crap is no different. Lots of predictions, ZERO results. I'm certainly willing to 'think outside the box', but I also will analyze claims in a thoughtful and meaningful manner and try very hard not to fall for blatant bullshit. Like "The Boy Who Cried SHTF."

Well, Hayes is a proponent of "QAnon". So based on your statements, he's following a 'false prophet'. So does that mean he's wrong? Or are you hopping on his bandwagon because his fantasies so closely parallel yours? What's the difference between "Q" and "Q+"? Free shipping? Millions of people around the world believe in lots of different fantasies. Yours seem to be 'SHTF', "Rapture" and "Armageddon." A bit telling that you wish death and suffering on so many people. Again, I was always taught that being a 'Christian' means actually following the teachings of Christ.

Do you have any clue what the actual definition of treason is? Helpful hint: Its in the Constitution. A document you seem to disregard and ignore. The crap about Trump starting an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe have made the news. Most have reported it as a 'witch hunt' by Trump (not their words), where he is trying to show how badly he has been treated by the FBI, Mueller and the R held congress which started the investigation. While it's not treason (see above), Trumps behavior, and Barr's 'whitewashing' of the Mueller report are despicable and traitorous. He's committed impeachable offenses and is doing everything he can to avoid the consequences. I love how he has now decided to hold the entire country hostage with his pledge to not do anything on infrastructure until the 'nasty democrats' stop investigating him. Apparently he's done so much wrong that any investigations scare him into committing extortion.