wolfriverjoe

Bruce - Sorry to hear you got hurt. You are on my prayer list. I hope you can find the strength and courage to get through this ok. Like others have said, if you decide jumping again is not for you, then good luck with the rest of your life. But you don't have to make a final decision on that right now. If nothing else, you can honestly say that you have done it. Also like others have said, can you please clarify what happened? (as much as possible anyway) Did you break your ankles at Cypres fire/Reserve deployment or on landing after a very low opening? Edit to add: What was the nightmare in freefall? Unstable and tumbling from exit all the way down? Ok at beginning and went bad later? (if so what and when were you doing when you went unstable?) "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Ok, thanks. I'm in the middle of arguing about that same study in the "Carrying a gun increases..." thread. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

If you follow the link, you will see that it is an "Anti-Violence" group with a pretty strong bias against guns. The home page has a graph showing the difference in assaults on police in carry permit "may issue" vs "shall issue" states. Guess which one is higher? I fail to see the correlation, especially when the permit holders (everywhere) have been shown to have a significantly lower rate of arrest or conviction (for all offenses) than the population as a whole. Seem to me that EVERY person in this thread who criticizes the article has (a) a strong pro-gun bias, and (b) with the exception of Dr. Bordson, no expertise in statistical analysis. (A) The people with the strong pro-gun bias are the only ones who take the time and effort to argue these things. Do you spend much time arguing things you don't care about? (B) I don't have any more expertise in statistics than I do in research. I am not arguing against the statistics they are using. (hell, I only understood about half of it anyway). I am arguing against the basic premise of the study. That whether or not a shooting victim has a gun has any correlation to how dangerous it is to carry a gun. Especially when you look at the numbers on shooting victims (2/3 have criminal records, 1/4 are involved in criminal activity at the time.) They didn't take into account how many people are armed and not shot, yet claim it is dangerous to carry a gun. I am also questioning their bias against guns overall. They (as I mentioned in a previous post that is quoted above) try to compare carry permit types (shall vs may issue) with police assault rates. Without any mention of how many assaults are commited by permit holders, what does it have to do with the assault rate? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

So what did Carnegie do that was so bad, other than giving away a whole lot of money? Ok, I withdraw Carnegie. I remebered the Strike Contreversy and assumed he was a monopolist (economic anarchist) like most of the other "Robber Barons", but as it says in the Wiki cite (scroll up a couple paragraphs) "By the standards of 19th century tycoons, Carnegie was not a particularly ruthless man". "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Not only can but did. Here in the US just before the turn of the 20th century. They called them "Robber Barons". Carnigie, Rockefeller, Brady, Fisk are the most famous (or notorious) Also the "Big Four" that ran California after the transcontinental railroad was built. that wasn't anarchy - that was capitalism. carnegie, rockefeller etc... were capitalists. Right. Unregulated capitalists practicing economic anarchy. Doing all the things Billvon named above. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Actually I think the answer is pretty simple. Most criminals simply want to mug you/obtain your property with minimum of fuss and danger to themselves. So if you are unarmed you comply hand-over the goods and are left in peace. The instant you as the victim add a gun to the equation the criminal is now faced with potentially losing his life and therefore fight/flight takes over. Unfortunately criminals tend to have less regard for the wellbeing of others so the innocent person is further harmed. It goes to fairly fundamental principles of avoiding a fight de-escalate the situation where-ever possible, a gun doesn't tend to do that. Sounds good in principle, but FBI stats don't agree. Nor does common sense of you think it through. Being at the mercy of someone who has no regard for your life is a bad place to be. They might kill you because of your attitude. Or because you don't comply fast enogh. Or because you move to fast trying to comply. Or because you don't have enough of value to satisfy them. Or because they think you'll be able to identify them. Or just because they feel like it. Your chances of getting hurt are lower if you resist in any way (including running away) compared to complying and hoping the criminal won't hurt you. And the most effective form of resistance is using a gun, THIS is from the NRA, not the most independent source, but the best I could find fast. The Kleck/Guertz studies are considered by many to be fairly independent. Most anti gunners don't try to argue against them, they just ignore them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I'm not a member and don't really feel like signing up. What does it say? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, it would behoove that person to know the answer before they put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of lawyers and a jury. Yes it would be nice to have a cut and dried answer, but unfortunately, no two situations are exactly the same. Nor is the behavior of the cops, prosecutors, courts or juries exactly the same or even all that predictable. The short version of what you are asking is what is commonly known as the 5 points for use of deadly force in self defense. 1 Immediate. As in right now. Not left over from yesterday, or "I'm gonna go get my gun and come back" 2 Unavoidable. As in you can't go into that neighborhood past the gangbangers on purpose. Some states took this far enough that you had to have no way to escape (even your own house) before it was unavoidable. This is where the "Castle Doctrine" came from. 3 Threat of Death or Great Bodily Harm. As in someone with a wet rolled up towel won't kill you. Guns, knives, clubs and in certain circumstances a large, or skilled or multiple unarmed attackers (a small woman against a large, violent ex-boyfriend for example) will. 4 Someone You Can Defend. This is always yourself and your immediate family. Some states include servants (really!). Others may or may not include friends, aquaintances, employees, or strangers. 5 Someone You Can Defend Against. The only real example of this is that it is very hard to establish self defense against a cop. State laws vary. Court precedent changes over time. If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, make damned sure there is no other choice before pulling it out. Because doing so will put you at the mercy of the cops, prosecutors, judge and jury. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The problem with that is that it will be too big and get too heavy. I use THIS as a gear bag. It holds 1 rig a couple helmets, a couple jumpsuits, weights, goggles, spare glasses, logbooks, and all my other little skydiving stuff. It goes close to 50lbs. My lunch and rigger kit go seperate. I've got a Square-1 backpack style bag, but it doesn't have enough room. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I'll bet we never see it again. Julia took it over and painted it Pink!! Prove me wrong Nick!! "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Okay, feel free to answer the question that no one else has answered: What constitutes intent to assault? Once someone acts in such a manner that I feel threatened by them, they have already committed assault. If I pull a gun before they commit assault, I have pulled the gun before I feel threatened by them. Ok, since I'm the one who first used "Intent to Assault"- I look at establishing "intent" as behavior that a reasonable person would interperet as an indicator that an assailant is about to engage in an assault. Since threats can be considered assault, the establishment of intent becomes unneccessary for self defense to apply. But not every threat is considered assault. Nor can every threat be considered strong (or threatening) enough to justify self defense. Especially self defense involving deadly force. So when can a threat that doesn't meet the threshold of assault meet the threshold of intent? That would be a question for the lawyers and the jury to decide. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault. Remember that you have to be convicted. I doubt that most courts are going to convict someone who brandishes in self-defense of assault. It could happen, of course, but I think it's unlikely. I took some time composing my last response, so this one and the one below popped up while I was thinking. Tom - don't bet on it. Do some reading. There are a lot of people tried and quite a few convicted for situations that were self defense. It isn't fair, or right, but it often is up to the prosecutor and his views on self defense. FWIW, in Minneapolis, the written policy is to "arrest the gun". In any confrontation, anyone holding a gun gets arrested. Self-defense or not. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault. Right. That's what I said. Self-defense is rarely cut and dried. Most CCW classes teach that pulling the gun out will get you arrested and cost about $5000. Actually shooting someone will cost around $20k. (not including the lawsuit the guy you shoot files). The use of deadly force isn't a joke or a game. It is (literally) a matter of life and death. The only time I can justify it is when my (or someone I can legally defend - that's a BIG can of worms) is at risk. I am fairly passionate about defending my rights to self defense, but I also realize that this is real life, not some movie or book. There are potentially very serious consequences to carrying a gun. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Not only can but did. Here in the US just before the turn of the 20th century. They called them "Robber Barons". Carnigie, Rockefeller, Brady, Fisk are the most famous (or notorious) Also the "Big Four" that ran California after the transcontinental railroad was built. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Intent to assault? What, exactly, is that? (I know what intent means. I'm still waiting for someone to post the definition of assault.) Wiki:assault Basically attacking, hurting or (under some circumstances) scaring someone. A person (or group) approching in a menacing manner, perhaps voicing threats ("Give me your wallet or I'll...) or brandishing weapons (a raised fist could constitute a weapon under certain conditions) could all be interpreted as "intent to assault". Or not. Which is why the victim of the assault may go to jail for defending himself. And Billvon is absolutly right in his comment that having a gun won't always protect you under these kind of circumstances. It isn't a magic wand that makes the bad guys go away. The trick is avoiding these kind of situations by staying out of certain areas, paying attention to what is going on around you and stopping the attack before it really gets going. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I have been contemplating replying to this for a while, but I have been busy arguing about guns And RhondaLee has since said most of what I would have. What do we do about these bigoted, chauvanistic, controlling idiots? Treat them like cockroaches and turn the lights on. They'll run away. Not right away, but eventually. Make sure everyone knows what they really stand for. Put economic pressure on governments that support this kind of behavior (like using less oil to encourage the Saudis to rein in their extremists - not real practical at this point, but...) Just like the Klan here in the US, they'll never go away entirely, but it isn't that hard to marginalize them. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

We're talking about the same British Empire that enslaved the entire world until the mid 20th Century? Yep. Just like we (the US) are screaming about genocide after obliterating the indians in the 19th and early 20th centuries. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases? It depends on the circumstances. Yes, pointing a gun at someone is considered "Assault With a Deadly Weapon" in many juridictions. But if someone (or a group of someones) approaches me with intent to assault, or rob or whatever, and I point a gun at them - then I am acting in self-defense. I may or may not be detained or arrested, go to jail, be charged, and very possibly be convicted if the local authorities decide that my claim of self-defense is not valid. (Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6). One of the many reasons that a CCW permit and the exercise of it is a very serious decision to make. In any case, the incident wouldn't have been applied to this study and is one reason that I think this study is a load of anti-gun propaganda. And thanks for clearing that up about the percentages Billvon. I found it hard to beleive they'd be that ridiculous. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Are they male cats or female?? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Ok, so 98.5% of the shooting victims were criminals. Do I understand that correctly?? And this lobby group wants to use this to influence laws? Do they understand the concept that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

If you follow the link, you will see that it is an "Anti-Violence" group with a pretty strong bias against guns. The home page has a graph showing the difference in assaults on police in carry permit "may issue" vs "shall issue" states. Guess which one is higher? I fail to see the correlation, especially when the permit holders (everywhere) have been shown to have a significantly lower rate of arrest or conviction (for all offenses) than the population as a whole. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Dave's Insanity is the hottest stuff out there. This account is actually pretty close to what can happen. I have seen people with a high tolerance for "hot" puke after trying too much. But it really doesn't have any real taste, it's all heat. I like the Tabasco Chipotle a lot better. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I had a pretty good time yesterday. It's really nice here today, and I have to work outside all morning

I don't claim to be. The only "research" I did was to look for some support for a claim that most victims of shooting are criminals. I was surprised as all hell that the best supporting document I found quickly was from the same city as this "study" But I am pretty good at recognizing anti-gun propaganda disguised as a scientific study. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

??? Yeah, I'm not seeing what the deal is either... It was a lot less flattering earlier. There were some questionable terminations that had folks pissed off. The links to those are gone too. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo