TKoontz

A fair point, one which I had not considered. I suppose I just assumed that a majority of officers, especially those in areas with higher levels of crime than some little po-dunk town, would keep their shooting proficiency decently high. I guess the next bit of data I'd like to see is a 10 year study (same years as the previous data showed) on how NYPD performs on the range (one of those tactical courses where you're running, using cover, targets are moving, etc. not where you're just standing there shooting at a stationary silhouette) and then look at the discrepancy between that and when taking fire Find your peace, though the world around you burns

You're assuming that all other things remain equal, but they don't. Police officers often encounter situations needing arms much differently than other citizens. For example, a police officer arriving on a scene has to consider everybody to be dangerous, and doesn't know who the good guys are, or who the bad guys are. A citizen, on the other hand, is the person being directly attacked, often in their own home, and there is no question in their mind of who the bad guy is. A cop in a traffic stop with four suspects in a vehicle, is not the same as a homeowner with a burglar breaking down their back door. .....and this is why I stay away from posting, but I took the bait, I'll hate myself later for this so here goes: "Police officers often encounter situations needing arms much differently than other citizens" I do not contest this as it is a true statement, however: Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (data I provided applies to one situation for police [a firefight between two armed opponents] with the only major variable affecting accuracy being distance between shooters) Notice, the data does not relate to survival odds, it does not relate to how you may end up using a gun, and it does not comment on whether or not guns should be in bars. It says one thing: "Accuracy decreases radically when under (fire) stress regardless of prior training" I then compared the data to a similar scenario in which a civilian might find themselves, and the final conclusion (not backed by statistical evidence) being that the likelihood of them making a hit will be lower than 15%. In my original post I left it at that, allowing people to make of it what they would. I see now that was a mistake, so what I am really saying is that I believe there is at least an 85% chance the civilian will miss and that their poorly aimed round will strike something other than their intended target You're doing the exact same thing DaVinci did by confusing the premise of my original post to argue a completely unrelated set of variables and scenarios. Stop it. Rooster out (hopefully for good this time) Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I think that if faced with a guy that has a gun and he is trying to kill you... The guy with a gun stands a much better chance than the guy without a gun. whoa whoa hold up, that's not what I meant and I think everyone knows that. Intentional or not, I don't appreciate my words being twisted. We're not talking chances of survival, the entire report was based on accuracy levels when under fire. So let me put this clearly with no room for misinterpretation: If a police officer has a 15% chance of their bullet hitting their target when under fire, it stands to reason that a (relatively untrained) civilian will have a significantly smaller probability of hitting their intended target when also under fire. That's all I said, don't twist it to support something completely unrelated please. Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I do my best to stay out of these arguments as they tend to be much more fun to watch play out, and I do my best to keep out of the crossfire (pun intended ). That and I have little stake in most of them, such as this one, but I stumbled across an interesting article while doing some research. Of special interest are the data tables on pages 4 and 5 (still reading through the whole doc. there may be more). [url]http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf What it boils down to is that NYPD officers had an average 15% hit probability when engaged in a 'gunfight' (defined as a shooting encounter between an officer and an armed suspect). When you're a trained police officer popping off an average of 5 rounds per encounter where 88% of these encounters are 7 yards and closer and there's only a 15% chance you hit your target...how well do you think the average (likely with less training) person will fare? I'm certainly not against ownership or ccw, but if/when a civilian does decide that lethal force is the best choice, what's the likelihood they'll be shooting on par or better than 15% when they're scared as hell and preparing to end life? I've been following this thread off and on for a while so I'm not sure if this point has been brought up; if it has, my bad, continue on and I'll watch from the bleachers. If not, I hope this is relevant information and I'll check up on the source to verify legit-ness Rooster out Find your peace, though the world around you burns

+1 Customer Service

...unless spiders are involved. No joke, we get those gnar sun-spiders and monster tarantulas out here in the desert. I don't know about you, but having one of those fuckers fall from the ceiling and land on my neck in the middle of of a movie one night was the **WORST** experience of my entire life. Hands down, I'd consider chasing my rig out of the plane then go through that experience again Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I had the same transition period between jumps ~12-19...What it boiled down to for me was as I continued on in my education and became more aware about the gear I was jumping, the physics involved, others around me, etc. I became more and more aware of how many ways things could go wrong. This put me in a fairly frightening position for a while, but as I learned and became more confident in my abilities and the gear I was jumping the fears were allayed somewhat. I'm definitely not advocating a loss of fear, if you lose that in this sport I would consider you ignorant in the extreme or possibly insane. But I do think it will pass if you continue jumping and keep your instructors close at hand for all your questions Find your peace, though the world around you burns

So assuming it was AoA, why was the pilot not flying level on jump run? Or if he was level, was he just flying ridiculously slow? Maybe some sort of accommodation for the tandem passenger? The jumpers hanging out aft of the door makes sense in terms of weight distribution, though would that have created the problem in the first place or just intensified it after it started? Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I read the captions in the video but I don't quite get it; what causes the wing to stall "at any altitude/airspeed"? Was this from the increased drag from the door open and the jumpers hanging out, weight distribution problems, turbulence? Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I agree with you...I'm not sure if you misread my post or you were just stating facts. Regardless, I agree. @Kelpdiver if you want origins we need to start talking abiogenisis, Miller-Urey, and that new RNA strand they found that can replicate like 50% of itself from unassisted sources...but that is for another thread and I'd want to do more research before I made any hard statements on THAT theory

Well crap...ya got me. God must be the answer, scientific inquiry is now dead. Party time!! Find your peace, though the world around you burns

My bad, I meant a scientific hypothesis, not just any guess, educated or not, about something. Scientific hypotheses must be both testable and able to be proven wrong. Until such a time that a hypothesis becomes testable (such as the multi-verse, orbiting teapot, Intelligent Design, or the FSM), it will not be considered as such in the eyes of the scientific community. Find your peace, though the world around you burns

Textbook perfect example of Creationists' grasp of the theory of evolution, and their subsequent misunderstanding of how it works. For the record, and this isn't directed at you, Amazon, but ID is not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis. For it to be either of those, it must be testable, and repeatable. ID is nothing more than a widely believed fairy tale. A theory does not need to be proven, people have the misconception that theories lie in a heirarchy of importance, ie: observation, hypothesis, theory, law A law is not the next step in the growth of a theory, a law is nothing but a VERY general set of rules that things obey (such as gravity) across the board. Most times, theories end up being far more powerful than laws in terms of scientific inquiry and the progression of knowledge. As for 'proving' evolution, while I refuse to say that it is or even can be proven given its status as a theory, I can and will say that of any scientific idea ever put forth in the history of our existence, evolutions is the most tested, observed, and supported theory we have ever, and most like will ever see and that there has never, ever, been a single shred of evidence put fourth that could not be explained that 'disproves' evolution. I will concede that as new evidence comes to light, it has the potential make us reappraise ideas of evolution, but the pillars that make it up remain unmoved in 150 years. -Rooster Find your peace, though the world around you burns

@ :14 it looks like his steering line is routed through the wrong side/grommet of the slider...is it a removable slider and he somehow misrouted his line or something? I've never used or even seen a removable system being repacked so I'm not sure on the specifics of how they work Edit: Looks like his right steering line was wrapped around his left set of lines before going up to the slider? This is confusing lol Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I research skydiving-related things A LOT lol, mostly in an attempt to pass the time when I'm saving up for my next trip to the DZ. My knowledge isn't based on first hand experience of an aad activation though if that's what you meant. *knocks on wood Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I'm confused by this picture...you (line twists) are, or at least your canopy is below and behind the guy with the orange and white canopy. His lines can be seen in front of your cells. What caused that to happen? Did they slip around your tail and this picture was taken after his initial recovery? He overtook me from above and behind, His knee hit my elbow, his lines hit the end cells of my canopy. Photo was taken from the ground just after he passed me, which is my you see his lines in front of my canopy. I didn't actually take the time for a detailed analysis of the dynamics, too busy thinking about other things, like landing alive. Makes much more sense. I think the angle was messing with my ability to figure out how that happened. Thanks, glad you made it out of that one Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I do believe so, going off of what I found at chuting star ($225- argus replacement cutter) Actually only 1.25 Cypres Cutters ($180), semantics, regardless However, in the world of aads (and I may be speaking out of turn here, I don't know the specifics of Vigil or Cypres) there's never a reason you should have to pay for a cutter. If it fires, fill out an incident report/testimonial and Argus sends you one for free, or if an SB negates your current one, send it in and they will replace it for free as well. Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I'm confused by this picture...you (line twists) are, or at least your canopy is below and behind the guy with the orange and white canopy. His lines can be seen in front of your cells. What caused that to happen? Did they slip around your tail and this picture was taken after his initial recovery? Regardless, glad to see it didn't take your life Find your peace, though the world around you burns

Heard the same from Laura at Chuting star, they have them on hand now and ready to ship out the same day, no charge...glad that issue was resolved, I was not looking forward to dropping another 200+ on a cutter 3 days after my unit arrived in the mail Find your peace, though the world around you burns

Just got off the phone with Dave Crouch out at Taft, he said Aviacom *should* replace it free of charge if you email them with your serial number Find your peace, though the world around you burns

well crap...the cutter on the one I just got is July '07. I didn't understand all of the acronyms at the end there though. Will they cover the cost of the replacement cutter, or do I just buy a new one from Chuting Star or elsewhere? Find your peace, though the world around you burns

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was contrasting 'nutters' Those who are physically dangerous, and those who are just obnoxious. Al-Queada was used as an example for the dangerous ones, so I used the Mormons as an example of the obnoxious ones (and to vent a bit ) Find your peace, though the world around you burns

I'd consider religious nutters and Al-Quaeda to be the same. I'm assuming by 'nutters' you mean extremists who actually pose a threat versus the (physically) harmless assholes. Kind of like the Mormons who line up in front of my old high school with posters of 7-8 month old aborted fetuses and who taunt the young girls going into the clinic on the anniversary of Roe V Wade Find your peace, though the world around you burns

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I'll definitely make a trip out there soon and test the waters Find your peace, though the world around you burns

N/A