nigel99

I don't think that is strictly true as I seem to remember a local passenger jet loosing pressure and having to "dive" to 10k. I think it was a UK to Spain flight (oops just realised where Cornish Chris is flying) If you experience explosive decompression I believe that it can cause medical trauma that may be life threatening. In any event remember to put your oxygen mask on first before kitting up. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Until very recently I did not understand that in the US the right bear arms is so closely related to defence against bad governance. I think that in Europe we have far more faith in democracy than they do (I still haven't figured out if this is a good or bad thing) I can definitely see the logic in it, not that I can see how it could be implemented (a popular armed uprising). Imagine Joe Public with his favourite .45 up against an F16/Apache - cause after all President is CIC and would have command of the military. Scenes from that Apache video could just as easily be in the US should an uprising occur. Regarding crime - if carrying a fire-arm means that crime is deterred then why does the US not have the lowest crime rate in the world? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

If you don't think it is PC speech then what do you call the unintended collision between a motor vehicle and something or someone else? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Hi Mike, You missed my point. It is precisely that 99% of car accidents are NEGLIGENT driving(BTW I am using 99% to mean most in case anyone asks for sources/statics) All of the examples that I gave you of gun accidents were negligence. It may be that people distort stories when guns are involved (funny seems we feel the same about skydiving

I hadn't ever heard of ND before. This is a propaganda war playing out in the states. I don't know where the saying originates but it is a defence mechanism. I believe any logical person understands that an Accidental Discharge is caused in most cases by a human. It is akin to automotive companies trying to fight the case that all car accidents are ND (negligent driving) because car accident implies a defective vehicle. Guns are designed to fire a projectile at potentially lethal velocities and accidents will always happen. I personally know of the following incidents involving direct friends & family. (Alright I grew up in a war zone and hunting environment so guns were pervasive) 1) Previous boss was shot in the back of the head through a radio pack by someone cleaning a weapon that loaded (he lived with the bullet lodged next to his spinal cord) 2) Teenage friend left a .22 caliber loaded and his mom shot a hole in the roof when tidying his bedroom. 3) Another teenage friend was carrying his dads new 308 to put back in the gun safe without realising that while they had been "admiring it" a round had been loaded - shot an impressive hole in the wall! 4) Shotgun left on a neighbours bed was loaded and their dog climbed onto it and the weapon discharged. All of the above were accidents with no long term consequences and I am sure Africa is not unique and that similar events happen in the US. BTW I think guns can be fun toys but that they should treated with respect - some people are to stupid to do this by themselves so we need laws. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Sorry context was lost in my original post. I didn't want to express an opinion regarding whether the US was justified in dropping an atom bomb where and when it did. I honestly don't know enough about that specific detail to have a strong opinion. Taken at face value then yes probably justifiable but this is a very dangerous precedent because to avoid "double standards" then you have to accept that if we are justified so are they and then suddenly civilian attacks are just part of war. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial. As a Non-american I may feel that the US commits war crimes (I don't know enough about the 2nd world war to have feelings either way). Iraq is a good current example of US war crimes. However under no circumstance would I feel that a US city deserves being bombed (Bush on trial - even facing execution Saddam style is a completely different situation. Similarly I would say that the objective of war is not to kill the enemy but to get your own way - death & injury is a cost not an objective. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Why would you be against free enterprise? I think there are a few problems with your proposal. The first is that often when you lack the skills you don't know what skills to hire. I realise that with Africa there is a feeling that it is "abused" by the west. I would have thought that in general business is about getting rich and good business tends to treat its benefactors well in order to survive. Tanzania is a little far from my direct experience growing up in Zimbabwe I was exposed to Zambia, Mozambique and SA. Corruption is rife and the average person is culturally so different to you and I it is virtually incomprehensible - this can make business very difficult. I am making the basic assumption that Tanzania is very similar. Another angle to consider is that the vast majority of African tourism is pretty much family business rather than chains/large enterprise. Tour operators, game ranches and the like are often fully run by a family - I don't know how the legislation treats this type of outfit. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I think the problem with laws like this and the general attitude is that foreign companies bring skills and contacts with them. You only have to look at Zimbabwe to see the consequences of full scale indiginisation programs. BTW recent Zimbabwean law states that a "local" person can ONLY be black - so 2nd and 3rd generation whites & indians are excluded. I think that there is a growing trend towards this in southern Africa with Zimbabwe leading the pack. As much as I am loath to say it I think that better regulation in terms of minimum wages & employee rights are a better way to ensure that more money stays local. (I am against regulation - not better pay in case this reads odd) Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Even with licensing schemes in place how do you predict that someone will become mentally unstable? I guess that you could suspend licenses due to "events". So for example your wife files for divorce and your gun license is immediately suspended. I wouldn't want that to happen but isn't it divorce, rejection at school, problems at work (being fired) that form a major trigger for the majority of known shootings? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

There is an accounting trap that can be had in efficiency savings. I guess it applies in other area's as well but electrical supply is the area that I am most familiar. From an engineering point of view a national grid with excess capacity to cope with sudden fluctuations in loading is required - the problem is that this costs money, lots of money. When people look at the financial aspects of running electrical installations they tend to say that there is alot of waste, excess charging etc as a result of this spare capacity. I am sure that accountants accept a certain level of redundancy but by their nature (and its their responsibility) they look to minimise, where an engineer looks to maximise. The end result of privatising for efficiency is that the engineering viewpoint gets lost in the cost savings and then when a disaster happens people suddenly realise that you can't just bring that de-commissioned power station back online in 20 minutes. The problem is that government focus has shifted over the past 50/60 years such that even governments look at cost savings in isolation to national wellbeing. So I doubt that government/private control would make a difference. With regards to health the problem with National healthcare, versus private healthcare is that the objectives are different and the patient suffers (I have first hand experience of this). National healthcare must provide the MINIMUM recovery in order to be efficient with tax dollars. Private health must deliver MAXIMUM recovery as cost effectively as possible to remain competitive. A direct example of this - I broke my wrist snowboarding. Private medical in Switzerland told me that I needed to have surgery and be pinned to minimise the long term effects. NHS in the UK just slapped a plaster on and told me I would have 80% movement for the rest of my life. I chose to get it done for free and regret it as it is severly limiting. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Our club had 2 accidents. The first I was not in however someone was sitting in the co-pilots seat and on rotation they got spooked (student I think from memory) and leaned back into the control column causing the plane to nose-dive Everyone survived and a friend was thrown from the plane with no injuries. The 2nd we were at about 1500ft when we had some sort of catastrophic engine failure that caused hot-oil to piss all over the windscreen. I was a T10 static line student (I was a slow learner - too poor to progress quickly as I was 16/17 years old at the time - it was about jump 15)and the pilot was not prepared to risk his life playing games with drag etc, so I was given the choice of landing with the plane - or getting out directly onto my reserve . I chose to stay with the plane much to the distress of the despatcher/jump-master (it meant he had to stay to). The other 3 went out onto their mains directly with no choice or options about where they got out - just dive exits (nearish) a local road. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

You've got to ignore the England part of Johns posts. It used to mildly amuse me or piss me off depending on my mood that John was England bashing again... But I have recently come to see that John is using Englands ban as a defence against gun ownership. John is campaigning against a ban in the US - not pissing on the english (it just comes across that way) Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

John, I think that you are focusing to tightly on the "ban" of firearms in the UK as the cause of rising crime. I believe (& I don't follow these things closely) that in the US your per capita chance of being shot is higher than the UK. Therefore a ban MAY be working. I also believe that most UK gun crime is committed by 16-30 year old black males. It is probably more likely that it is a social problem causing the growing murder rate. I would suggest that family breakdowns and music that glorifies killing to protect your "respect" and "honour" are of more influence than anything else. I don't think banning gangster rap would solve it though Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I'm not going to defend your government workers spending. But I will throw something else in the mix. Airlines such as BA have sleeper beds in business class and when I was flying to the States alot it mean't that I could sleep well which meant the next day was immediately productive (hence my not defending gov workers - are they ever productive?). I had a few clients who bitched that I wanted to travel business - which was fine - they then paid an extra day of my time (each end) due to lost productivity as they accepted you couldn't function after an overnight in coach. Strangely this incurred an extra night in a hotel and overall cost them more - but it fit their rules better. On 2 or 3 occassions I flew London-Dallas-London business class and just being in the US long enough for meetings. I wouldn't attempt that in coach (or Delta type business where it is just a bigger seat and free booze). The bigger question on costings is probably flexible/non-flexible tickets. You pay 2 or 3 times the price (a flexible coach ticket is more than a fixed business ticket). I reckon alot more Government money is wasted on this. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I don't think that money plays a major role in "class". I have a friend who was a bank manager who defined himself as working class. Here in the UK, a number of people are proud to be working class and I have observed the following references: Chavs - our equivalent of trailer trash (although people like Vic Beckham who is loaded is often placed in this category) Working class - people who work for a living. Toffs- inbreds who live off the sweat of others. I find the whole concept quite interesting especially having relocated from a country where we were relatively wealthy, to a place where we are towards the middle of the foodchain in terms of income. I find that amongst people who define themselves as "working class" there is a general apathy towards learning and self development lack of competitive spirit and a general resentment towards people who have more than them. This resentment is a key identifier and I would define a middle class person as someone who believes that to have a better lifestyle/income they need to work harder and or obtain better eduction, whereas lower class/working class see others wealth as unfair and believe that the wealth should be "shared" more equally. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Your viewpoint is pretty interesting & appears to align with the statement made by JR as 1 of the major reasons that the right bear arms in the US is the ability of the populace to use force against a tyranical governement. I don't see how the ability of civilians to be armed is related to the government abusing our rights. I would appreciate it if you could expand. Personally I think that the UK tends to suffer from extreme voter apathy, 2 political parties that are very closely aligned making voting a joke - and I think this contributes to the rapid erosion of civil liberties. The UK has spent years fighting for mediocrity it is so deeply embedded in the general populace mindset (I could quote a whole bunch of examples, but the best is school sports days where it is common not to reward "winners" because it makes the others feel bad). The direct result of this mediocrity is that nobody stands up for anything. Look at the Iraq war - nobody here supports it, but on the same token nobody gives a damn they just let it drift on. Yes in the US you have freedoms that are not present in the UK. However it is when you analyse the differences that it becomes really scary. For example in the US as I understand it "free speach" means that you can ligitimately hold a "negative/dissenting world view". Take for example the KKK I believe that it is legal. So you can take a stance of I don't like skydivers,lawyers,different race etc and it will be tolerated so long as you are not violent & engage in criminal activity. Whereas in the UK these types of opinions are crushed - this is very unhealthy. I mean even fringe political parties are largely held as something to be concerned about. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Clowdburner. I toyed with a title along the lines of "reduces right to life" but felt it was to strong. I won't argue that the UK is a surveillance society. The personal privacy issue is a major concern, and amazingly the average person here does not protest. I would bet you that in 10 years time we will have satellite tracking of our cars for so called "green taxes" and charging by the mile. This will then be "enhanced" over a period, to isolate criminal activities etc, and eventually here in the UK you will no doubt get a visit from the cops because you were "kerb crawling" at 11pm in a known area for prostitution... and the list will go on. Despite this I would still argue you are more likely to get a violent response from US police than UK police. There are very few accusations of excessive force by police officers here. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I would say that this reinforces the argument that "armed" civilians increase the likely use of deadly force by the police. I was using relative terms comparing the US/UK and not absolutes. The growing threat of suicide bombers mean unfortunately that if you or I are mistaken for a terrorist we are now more likely than ever to be killed first and questions asked later. It is a nasty side effect of terrorism. Due to the ability of a single individual I can sympathise with the police response. I may be speaking out of line here but those were counter-terrorism police who I imagine would have greater freedoms than your average "bobby on the beat" - for 1 thing most UK police are not armed and (all?) US police are armed. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Ok thanks for the response. Completely hijacking the thread now and dooming into the Iraq circle of discussion... With a view like that - you must surely understand & be able to accept the stance taken by the "insurgents" in Iraq? I am being specific here about armed actions against the Coalition forces/Iraq government. I am certainly not trying to trick you/con you into being accussed of being a sympathiser to suicide bombers. Also back to my original argument - would your accept that as police in the US are more likely to encounter an armed person on a callout - it is reasonable to accept that the police have greater freedom to use deadly force as a direct result? Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Question for you on this. Surely by this definition you condone a terrrosist response to government policy? As I understand what you have said means that if you feel that all other means of changing your governments policy have failed you have the right to resist - if necessary with deadly force? To be very honest the 5th reason that you have given scares me as personally I see that a very slippery road. Regarding collecting guns - I can understand the kick out of playing with them. Out of interest I know someone (not a friend) who collected 2nd world war fighters, and he got a "visit" from bailifs for something and they found one of the planes had "active" machine guns. Not legal here and really funny as he had been flying around over key areas etc... He didn't have a clue Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

You worded this a little more along the lines that I intended. Rather than heavy handed, I mean't I expect that police NEED to respond as if the worst case scenario is happening. Where legal gun ownership exists the stakes are immediately higher than where they do not. So whereas in the US I would expect police to attend a domestic with a weapon, in the UK I would not. My point is that everything comes at a price. Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I have been thinking about the discussions here regarding guns and general difference between the US and UK. First some context, I think guns can be nice toys & given the opportunity I would go sport shooting/hunting, however I don't own a gun. Generally the law 1)assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. 2)expects the police/public to use "reasonable force" when dealing with a situation So my observation is that in the UK where the population does not have the right under law to carry lethal weapons, the police response to an incident (disturbance at a private home etc), does not require an armed response team, as under the presumption of innocence reasonable force ASSUMES that the people are unarmed. Granted this has the disadvantage for the police that if the person/people are criminal and do have weapons the police are seriously disadvantaged. However as most people, are not criminal and having non-armed police response results in a lower likelihood of a bystander/misunderstanding where an innocent (aka you & I) are killed through the use of deadly force. Contrast this with the US, where civilians have the right to weapons, a measured and reasonable response from the police has got to assume from a risk assessment that the disturbance mentioned above COULD have a someone in an agitated state with a legal weapon. Therefore it is reasonable and proportionate in the US for police to be armed. Similarly if a person is deemed to be a threat then it is right to allow the police to intervene first, prior to a 3rd party being injured/killed. So my basic argument is that your right to bear arms in the US, comes at the price of a "heavier handed" police force, that that in the UK. Another consideration to the arms argument is the reason for owning a weapon and I can only see 4 reasons: 1) Sport (Hunting & range) 2) Collectors item 3) Self Defense 4) Criminal activity. In the UK there is limited scope for hunting and rifle ranges etc (kids/people can't realistic use small caliber guns in the back garden due to size) and therefore for us this is not a major outlet, Granted the US has much more scope for this. Collectors - well whatever floats your boat, but I believe (and may be wrong, that in the UK you can collect so long as they are disabled) Self defense - see my arguments above, as well as there being substantial evidence that your average Joe Bloggs is at more danger with a weapon than without due to the will & skill to use it when required. Criminal activity goes without saying that the law is not a deterrent, although I do believe that at least the police have a route to prosecuting someone in the UK due to illegal ownership prior to an event. Legal ownership in the US appears to make it more difficult for police to be proactive. It is ironic that a spell check offers Uzi as an alternative to UK!! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I think it comes back to context. Initially looking at the video I felt that the police used excessive force, and I am still inclined to believe that the situation could possibly have been handled differently. However the police actions shown in the video clearly are a snippet in time, by the sounds of it the culmination of an evenings events. If this person only did what was shown on video then the police should be brought to account. If as appears to be the case this guy, was causing trouble earlier then the video lacks context and the response was possibly justified. On a side note, the US police/military does have a perceived reputation for being aggressive relative to other countries. For example in the UK you would not crap yourself if pulled over by the police on the roads, whereas people feel very differently about the police in the US. I remembered this post from Tonto http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1311995;search_string=police;#1311995 Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

I don't know that I entirely agree with you. Personally it would scare the crap out of me if I was suddenly grabbed by police. There was another shorter but clearer video on youtube, and it appears that the guy get a little carried away stepping away from the mic and gesturing, but not really approaching anyone, more like your average tele-evangelist! It appears that he got extremely distressed and the police made the situation worse (the female copper screaming in his ear, could not have had a calming effect). I would really like to hear the opinion of a practicing copper (Scoop?) - because I thought crowd control/disruption was generally to de-escalate situations. Granted there are things like background checks etc, so I might be defending a known arsonist/GBH person here! Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.