nigel99

How can jumping during the day when the streets below are busy with pedestrians and traffic not be a potential endangerment? Nobody can guarantee that they will not have a malfunction and unless you clear the area below then surely you are being reckless? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7194086.stm Well as it is close to home its not very good news, however nobody was seriously injured. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

But isn't there lots of terrorism in that little country Iraq that sits on the border with Scotland and France Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I think the core issues are: As Jackc pointed out & I like the 100% inherentance tax example. When the government starts programs such as this where you have to opt-out it moves the onus onto us as individuals. I can easily imagine this government proposing taxes and the like where you have to opt-out of them. They will manipulate the system to their ends. Secondly a number of people whose beliefs or preferences want them to be "whole" after death are likely to be violated in an automatic system as the inevitable loss of their opt-out will render them donors. A mixup of this nature would be very traumatic for the living relatives of such people. I also think that as Nerdgirl brought up artificial sources will become a "better" replacement in the medium term and would personally prefer to see development and effort put in that direction. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Reading an article on BBC regarding the CIA, this paragraph caught my eye I have always assummed that if a country signed up to the Geneva convention it applied to the nation, whereas this reads like only the US Army applies the rules (is that why the USAF doesn't mind friendly fire). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7185648.stm BTW I don't have a problem necessarily if the US wants to use torture, however it must then never complain when its citizens are tortured (and yes I mean citizens not soldiers as the US does not distinguish the two for others). Personally I don't think torture is effective or right but that is a separate issue. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

http://xkcd.com/250/ This one is really great for all the snopes quoters! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

As someone mentioned the biggest problem with peer review is that all of us filter based on our own belief or learning structures. Therefore peer review tends to build on consensus and radical idea's are sometimes discarded wrongly. I fully accept that in excess of 99% of material that is debunked/dismissed is genuinely flawed however. There was a BBC radio discussion on this and it was mentioned that if Einsteins work had been subjected to modern peer review much of it would have been rejected. We already have the alternative option though, as science/engineering operates in 2 spheres (academic & commercial). You can entirely aviod peer review and go for venture funding and build an enterprise out of a concept or idea. I think this is a viable alternative model that is proven to work. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

"Hang T-Ten i'd rather be Square" "Grab Grass" Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Gerry Adams and Osama can happily not tick the terrorist boxes after all they are "freedom fighters" On a serious note BBC had an article about a guy entering Australia with Cocaine - he ticked the box that said "Are your a drug dealer" or the Aussie equivalent It is probably quite a good method actually in a high stress moment (which I assume immigration or customs is for a criminal) you may well slip up. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

ok thanks for clearing that up. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I am way out of my depth here and repeating something from the dim and distant past. But don't the military use for example 7.62mm rounds which are relatively small that tend to "tumble" on impact causing lots of damage, whereas there are rounds that fragment on impact instantly killing you? Also a larger calibre would tend to be "more" lethal. The point being that in a military operation you can overwhelm the enemy system with caring for their wounded? Regardless I don't want to come across as nitpicking of guns being designed for killing - as a general rule it is a safe generalisation. People having guns in a safe don't benefit from self-defence and I recall hearing that often people who have guns intended for self-defence end up being victim to their own weapon. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

It is wrong to equate guns solely with killing humans, as it is as dishonest as those who say that guns do not pose a problem. On a finer point aren't most military munitions designed to maim and injure rather than kill as it is supposed to be more of a problem for the enemy? I am no gun expert but I am sure that someone like JR could list a few sport rifles that have been designed from the ground up for specific types of target practice. Outside of the military most guns are probably used for target shooting, a lesser percent for hunting and a tiny percent for criminal activity. I don't believe many people who own guns for self defence could or would actually use them -but rather hope that producing a gun will de-escalate the situation thereby saving lives. As others have said it is the user that determines the outcome. What bothers me is not the presence or absence of guns but the greater lack of civil society that is causes people to disregard the life of other humans - and how that can be addressed. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

However due to the long waiting times and poor service... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7045263.stm However I have never seen a mouth like that in the photo Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Or Billy for making it? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Sorry don't quite follow you. I don't see the point in stopping people from owning guns (and I said I don't support banning guns). I personally don't see the value in reversing an existing law that deprives a small sector of the population of a hobby. No doubt a selfish viewpoint that I accept that. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I agree and I doubt that many people disagree with this fact. The only reason that I get frustrated with some of the way the debate is held is that the UK ban is in place I don't see any reason to reverse it. If the clock was back 10 years and it was being proposed then I would see it as a waste of tax money. So I don't advocate banning guns, but I am certainly against reversing an existing policy. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Rather than start a new thread and as it is relevant to this - what do people think about this solution from Cincinati? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7153430.stm Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Is it possible to statistically separate the chances once you take the into acount a persons individual risk profile? Logically speaking a swooper must be n times more likely to die than a conservative person who jumps a larger canopy. I believe that fatalities per thousand have remained aproximately constant for a long period but that while 30 years ago it was gear related, but the advent of mature parafoil designs, the widespread use of Cypress etc now mean the bulk of fatalities are human error rather than random failure - is that true? Has anyone ever spent time working out the relative risks of each discipline? I would have thought that this would be quite interesting. Intuitively swooping seems the most dangerous form of modern skydiving - but how would the following rank: - Tandem Masters - AFF Instructors - Camera - Freeflying - Big RW formations - Wing suits - CRW etc Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Why did God invent Tornado's? Because he doesn't like trailer parks! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I think the point is that with a gun ban in place there are no more legal handgun owners and therefore by definition it can never happen again. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

My mind refuses to associate GW with Global Warming instead I tend to read GW as refering to Mr Bush! I think lots of people think he is a loony Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

No this is very different to "thought" crimes. By providing the police with the means to proactively deprive a violent person of their liberty they MAY avert the loss of life. Don't take this to mean that I think gun ownership is wrong and that all gun owners want to kill people. I do feel that the UK is rapidly implementing thought crime laws (the literary terrrorist is a recent example). Criminals will find a way to arm themselves despite the law I don't think you can focus on that angle as if you purely view a gun ban from that vantage point they are truly pointless. However I do feel that it enables the police to more effectively control violent people. You may be able to control the minority through licensing regimes and the likes but that costs quite a lot of money for a small number of people to have their hobby. As Skyrad has pointed out their are rifle clubs and I am aware of a number of pheasant shoots and clay pigeon clubs where people can still play with guns there are just less guns in homes than in the US. Which on a side note having seen the damage a 0.308 round did to a 4.5" brick wall I would not want a neighbour in a terraced house to be armed as we may well get caught in the "cross fire" if they fired a weapon in doors! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Isn't the point of gun control laws that they give the police the ability to prosecute a person BEFORE they commit a crime. So by allowing legal ownership the police don't have the ability to separate the wheat from the Chav. In theory the police have an easier job preventing gun crime although something tells me that figures for prevented crime are hard to come by. Surely you aren't arguing that by reversing the ban crime would reduce? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

No I am aware that the Dunblane massacre was the trigger for action it does not necessarily mean that gun crime was not rising and hence the politicians felt that action was needed. I find this whole debate pretty rhetorical anyway as most people here don't want guns - the ban is in place and lifting it will not suddenly make anybody any happier so why bother. I would rather my tax didn't go to removing a law that few people care about. If the NRA in the US wants to foot the bill for UK parliament to overturn the ban then I am fine with it otherwise lets give the coppers their 0.5% pay rise instead. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Thanks it is and this is the exact quote. I hadn't quite realised that it was Tim Collins - he has been a vocal critic for some time. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.