0
normiss

Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

Recommended Posts

The sheriffs are indeed trying to get the law overturned. Are they making nearly as much effort to determine where criminals are buying their guns? Do they even care? Perhaps more crime = bigger budgets and toys for the cops?

Your second link is dead.

I will ask you again. Decades of increasingly onerous laws and penalties, and massive investment in police forces and prisons has failed completely to win the "war on drugs". Why do you think this approach will suddenly bring crime with guns under control?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker


To Bolas: restricting magazine size to 2 would not be a restriction on the second amendment. They didn't even have guns that could shoot more than two bullets in succession when it was written.



The Heller decision says otherwise. Citizens have a right to self defense and the handgun cannot be banned. Restricting it to 2 rounds would neuter its ability for protection against bad guys without such limits.

And this, in a nutshell, is why magazine limits are pointless. Good guys carry the single magazine in the gun. Maybe a second one, but it's hard to carry that concealed and yet accessible.

Bad guys bring as many guns and magazines as they need for their intent, can buy full capacity magazines illegally, and can reload so quickly that it doesn't matter. As I noted, as well as the person from London, knives readily replace guns when there's no other choice, and the SF numbers show it's equally deadly.

Note that no magazine limit ever applies to Law Enforcement - why do you think this is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon


I will ask you again. Decades of increasingly onerous laws and penalties, and massive investment in police forces and prisons has failed completely to win the "war on drugs". Why do you think this approach will suddenly bring crime with guns under control?



So why will it work in the parallel war on guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The sheriffs are indeed trying to get the law overturned. Are they making nearly as much effort to determine where criminals are buying their guns? Do they even care? Perhaps more crime = bigger budgets and toys for the cops?



I do not have the answers to those questions.

Quote

I will ask you again. Decades of increasingly onerous laws and penalties, and massive investment in police forces and prisons has failed completely to win the "war on drugs". Why do you think this approach will suddenly bring crime with guns under control?



http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***
I will ask you again. Decades of increasingly onerous laws and penalties, and massive investment in police forces and prisons has failed completely to win the "war on drugs". Why do you think this approach will suddenly bring crime with guns under control?



So why will it work in the parallel war on guns?I did not say that it would. I asked Hook why he thinks it will.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

http://www.cnbc.com/...ence-commentary.html



I'll see your commentary and raise you an actual
analytical study (the one I posted before that you apparently did not read).

I'll remind you that correlation does not prove causation.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

***

Quote

Plan A: make it more difficult for legally barred people (felons, people under court or restraining orders, seriously mentally ill) to obtain guns by requiring a background check on every purchase, and by prosecuting people who sell without the background check. Downside: adds an inconvenience factor to private sales.



***Adds an inconvenience factor and added cost to private sales, without actually having any impact of firearm related violence.

In the Iowa model, the cost and inconvenience is borne by the buyer, who has a background check done by the police/sheriff who then issue a permit to buy any number of guns and good for a year (if I recall correctly). The only inconvenience to the seller is having to ask to see the permit. Rushmc also takes a photo of the permit and they buyer, which is smart but not legally required. On what basis do you say such a system could not have an impact on firearm related violence? Iowa is the only state I am aware of with such a system. Not only is the violent crime rate there low already (due to demographic factors such as small & primarily rural population), any possible benefit might also be reduced by the ease of buying in an adjacent state. The only way to test the effectiveness of universal background checks would be to apply them everywhere.


Quote

***Plan B: wait until legally barred people obtain a gun and use it to commit a violent crime. Then prosecute them and jail them forever. Downside: dead or maimed victims are a prerequisite before action is taken. Significant cost of incarcerating people for extended periods. Significant cost associated with indigent defense. Social and financial costs associated with significantly larger, more intrusive police presence and control.



I guess you could prosecute them before they illegally obtain a firearm, but that has obvious problems associated with it. People barred from owning firearms are going to obtain them. I am not saying make it easy for them.

Increased police force size and budgets have been shown to be very effective in reducing firearm-related violence. Gun-control laws have been ineffective. The way forward is obvious. Spend the money, enforce the laws.

Derek V

Georgia (where I live) has quite strict laws regarding gun possession by felons, which are enforced, but this has not reduced the violent crime rate, at least not so you'd notice. Every evening the first 15-20 minutes of the Atlanta evening news is full of story after story of stupid senseless shootings. A few years ago two police officers were shot, and one died, at the hand of a felon who had been released from prison only a year before. This fellow (Jamie Hood, so you can google him and check my story) had no difficulty obtaining multiple handguns which he used in the course of his drug-dealing business. In addition to being convicted of murdering one officer (Buddy Christian) and wounding a second, he was convicted of murdering a city worker just to send a "message" to a friend of that victim. Where did he get his guns? No news story reported on any effort by the police to discover that, and certainly no-one was prosecuted for giving or selling him guns. Indeed it may have been perfectly legal for the seller to do business with him, as long as the seller was not aware of Mr. Hood's status as a convicted armed robber. So, what do people mean when they say "enforce the law"? If there is no background check requirement for private sales, anyone can sell to anyone. It's true the buyer has committed a crime if they are barred from possessing a firearm, but the police have no way of knowing that the transaction ever occurred. There are only a couple of ways they could find out. One would be if the buyer later committed a crime with that firearm, or at least did something dumb enough that could be stopped for probable cause. The other would be if a police officer was detailed to follow and observe every felon upon their release, for the rest of their lives. I'm sure that would be unconstitutional, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

Many people believe that increased police activity suppresses crime, but that is not always easy to prove. See here for a discussion of the subject. Crime is also influenced by other factors, especially economic activity, and so it tends to cycle up and down. Typically communities will respond to periods of high crime by hiring more police, so police staffing will generally also cycle up and down, lagging behind crime by a couple of years. As a result police staffing will often increase just when crime is already peaked and starting to decrease, due to completely different factors, and it will appear that more police caused the crime to go down. This is not to say that a heavy police presence can't discourage crime, at least in local area, it just means a causal connection is not easy to prove.

A problem (or so it seems to me) with the approach of a heavy police presence and strict enforcement of every law and ordinance (also known as the "broken windows" strategy) is that it tends to spawn other problems that end up being counterproductive. Such approaches are notorious for breeding unconstitutional practices such as stopping/searching people without probable cause to believe they have committed any crime. Often communities try to recoup the cost of the police staffing by creating a multitude of fineable offenses, which end up trapping especially the already poor in poverty when they are repeatedly arrested and jailed for being unable to pay hefty fines that result from "offenses" such as parking facing the wrong way on the roadside. Perhaps most insidious, entire communities end up with most of the adult male population in-and-out of jail, so kids grow up without any male parent, a situation that lends itself to future problems for those kids, especially the boys. This destruction of the two-parent family has been one of the worst effects of the so-called "war on drugs", in my opinion. Indeed, the "war on drugs" is the best example I can think of to show that strict enforcement and draconian penalties is not able to change well-established human behaviors. If that approach failed in the case of drug use, why should we expect it to work for people who have already shown their predisposition towards violent crime?

I'm not saying that there is not a place for intelligent, community-oriented policing, there obviously is. I do think the problem is too big and complicated for simplistic solutions, such as overwhelming police presence, and the cost might be worse than the cure in many places. It needs to become much more difficult to buy a gun without a background check, I think, and that requires enforcement on both the buyer and the seller (as exists with alcohol sales). There needs to be a much higher level of trust between communities and their police, so the "code of silence" disappears and police can get the information they need to solve a higher percentage of violent crimes. I think we should also reconsider some of the life-long consequences of a felony conviction. It doesn't make sense to me to bar felons from many kinds of jobs, for life, if we expect them to stay away from future crime. In Georgia, felons cannot ever work at any career that requires a state license, such as teacher, contractor, or even a barber or beautician, even if the job has no relation to their crime. I also think felons should be able to have their voting and second amendment rights restored, if they can go a period of time (say, 5 years) without re-offending. Providing an opportunity to work, and an incentive to stay on the right side of the law, could go some way towards reducing the pressures that tend to steer felons back towards crime.

Don

Not a pic of the person but there drivers license.

And of note, this process would not have stopped any of the shootings we have discussed here recently.

And then there is not paper trail, which those who think more regulation is needed, will not accept.


And lastly, I own about 10 guns. Only one of them is traceable to me at this time as that is the only one I purchased from a dealer. Some I inherited and some I bought privately after showing my carry permit.

Again, the anti gunners (for the most part) will not accept this as registration and finally confiscation is the goal IMO.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not a pic of the person but there drivers license.

Even better, and a good idea. More info and less intrusive.

Quote

And of note, this process would not have stopped any of the shootings we have discussed here recently.

No process could stop every crime, and mass murders by people with mental illnesses is especially difficult to predict and prevent. I am more concerned about the thugs who get out of prison and find it incredibly easy to arm themselves and resume preying on innocent victims.

Quote

And then there is not paper trail, which those who think more regulation is needed, will not accept.

I don't support registration. There is no evidence that registries prevent crime, and they cost a lot and discourage lawful gun ownership, as the Canadian registry shows.

Quote

And lastly, I own about 10 guns. Only one of them is traceable to me at this time as that is the only one I purchased from a dealer. Some I inherited and some I bought privately after showing my carry permit.

I don't own that many, but my son built a shooting range on our farm and that's a lot of fun.

Quote

Again, the anti gunners (for the most part) will not accept this as registration and finally confiscation is the goal IMO.

I'm sure there are such people, but I don't know any of them. Almost everybody I know does think it is too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Tell me how many deaths you are willing to accept before you would ban cars and
>driving?

Fortunately no one here is proposing to ban guns (or cars.)

Now, how many drunk driving deaths are you willing to accept before you make drunk driving illegal?

How many collision deaths are you willing to accept before you mandate crash testing for cars?

How many deaths due to incompetent drivers are you willing to accept before you require a driver's license for drivers?

How many deaths before functional horns, brakes, directionals and bumpers are mandatory on cars?

How many rear end collisions are you willing to accept before you require CHMSL's?

Car deaths per mile driven have been declining steadily since the 1920's. That's because we have been making cars better, usually by passing laws requiring new technologies, testing and training, as well as laws that outlaw things like drunk driving. We have also spent a lot of money researching how to make cars safer, and by analyzing the data from incidents and fatalities. We've improved infrastructure to make driving safer in the US. No one has "banned cars," cars are more affordable in real dollars than ever, miles driven has kept going up, cars are safer and more efficient than ever, and car ownership is at an all-time high - fewer people die is all.

Once we apply the same sort of strategy to firearms we will see similar gains.



BUT... i thought it was already illegal for felons to buy guns.

There are enough no buy lists already:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/opinion/a-no-buy-list-for-guns-is-a-bad-idea.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Anyway ther is already a irrefutable source on the truth and facts on all aspects of guns: https://home.nra.org/

Every US gun owner should buy their children a lifetime NRA membership as a birthday present when they get their first gun.

These are great guns to start your kids off with when they are ten years old and up. http://www.crickett.com/crickett_rifles.php about $129 at Cabelas.

NRA lifetime membership only: https://joinnra.nra.org/join/Life.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

Iowa is the only state I am aware of with such a system. Not only is the violent crime rate there low already (due to demographic factors such as small & primarily rural population),



I wish I could also comment on the rest of your post. It's very decent.

I would not just quote 'small and rural'. I'd also suggest that guns are typical very 'normal' and people tend to learn early about responsible gun ownership (in a non-violent culture, the tools in the culture tend to be used in the non-violent way - amazing how that works). The culture that this is based in correlates to a more general low rate of violent crimes.

We really do need to focus on training and culture and not knee jerk to just 'the big bad gun'. Even the "just enforce the laws on the books" is really just more of the same - Culture, comfort, training - the problem is very fundamental, very basic - bandaids won't fix it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
California Governor Signs Legislation Limiting Assault Weapons
"LOS ANGELES — Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed legislation that would impose new restrictions on assault weapons and regulate the sale of ammunition in California, cementing the state’s reputation for enacting some of the most stringent gun regulations in the country.

Propelled by the reaction to mass shootings in San Bernardino, in Southern California, and Orlando, Fla., the gun regulations are the latest example of how this state, where the Legislature is under Democratic control, has been able to enact a legislative agenda on issues that have deadlocked Congress.

The legislation in Sacramento was passed with overwhelming Democratic support, and was largely opposed by Republicans who make up a small minority in the Senate and the Assembly."

"A separate bill banned semiautomatic weapons with “bullet buttons,” which make it easy to quickly remove a magazine and replace it with another."

For the uninitiated thats another name for a magazine release button. Which releases the empty magazine and allows the insertion of a loaded magazine. Yikes... i like some liberals and believe they have a positive effect on society but sometimes a absence of neurons in the cranium is problematic for them.

Full story:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/california-guns-jerry-brown.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

California will now be so much safer. They should outlaw IS as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Then by all means, let's all get high and kill each other.
Personally, I don't give up that easy.
Many others do not either.



We should just put up signs.

That will stop all the guys that cause death . . .
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Then by all means, let's all get high and kill each other.
Personally, I don't give up that easy.
Many others do not either.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Your comment has no relationship to anything I wrote.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

You quite simply shrugged your shoulders in defeat when comparing gun violence to the war on drugs.

You misunderstood. That is easy to do I suppose if you read only the last reply in a long conversation. I was responding to people who argued that background checks are useless, all that is needed is more police and more people in jail to solve the gun violence problem. My question to them, and now to you, is why you believe that is true even though it has totally failed to change people's behavior regarding drug use.

Had you read the whole conversation, you would know that I believe that it has to become more difficult for career criminals to get their hands on guns. Perhaps changes in policing tactics have a role there, but that is unlikely to be sufficient all on its own. Universal background checks throughout the country (not just in a couple of states which are easily evaded by buying in a neighboring state), enforced as alcohol sales laws are enforced (spot checks on sellers as well as buyers, with penalties for knowingly selling to illegal buyers) could be a part of the approach. I pointed to Iowa as an example of a possible permit system, where the buyer must obtain the permit and the seller merely has to confirm that the buyer has one.

I am surprised that you would attack me for suggesting that universal background checks could have a role in keeping guns out of the hands of felons and criminals. I am pretty sure you have supported background checks on several occasions. Perhaps I was wrong, and you also feel that more cops and more prisons is all that is needed?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

enforced as alcohol sales laws are enforced (spot checks on sellers as well as buyers, with penalties for knowingly selling to illegal buyers) could be a part of the approach.



How do you identify the sellers and buyers? They don't have brick and mortar stores like alcohol stores. They walk into their hoise, one with a firearm, the other with cash. They walk out, having completed the transaction and are now safe from prosecution.

For criminals buying firearms, police could run a sting operation. But that would still only catch the buyer or a seller. How many people are selling firearms illegally? How much of an impact of firearm violence would these efforts have? Is this good use of law enforcement resources?

I do use what shootings would have been prevented had a proposed gun control law already been in place. Isn't that the measure of how effective a gun control law is? Politicians say we have to pass these measures to prevent future mass shootings, shouldn't we look at if a measure will be effective or not?

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do use what shootings would have been prevented had a proposed gun control law already been in place. Isn't that the measure of how effective a gun control law is? Politicians say we have to pass these measures to prevent future mass shootings, shouldn't we look at if a measure will be effective or not?

Sure, but we should also look at the design and implementation of the law. A law that is unenforceable or otherwise not enforced is unlikely to be successful. A law that makes it legal to sell a gun to anyone as long as you do not have prior knowledge that person is prohibited from purchasing is unlikely to have any positive benefit, because it puts the entire responsibility on the purchaser to be honest and we already know they have a criminal history. Even cases where the seller likely knew the buyer was illegal are almost impossible to prove, as you have to prove beyond doubt that the seller was aware and prove their intent to sell anyway. You can catch the buyer after the fact and punish them, which is what we already do and what you have promoted as the solution to the problem. Obviously though that is not working. First, police only become aware the felon has acquired a gun after they have used it to commit another crime, so you have to have another dead, mutilated, or traumatized victim before any action can be taken. Then you have the expense we all must bear of incarcerating the criminal.

The only way such a system could work to reduce violent crime would likely be by permanently imprisoning anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime. You and I and all law-abiding people would be deterred by the prospect of a long jail term, but them we would be very unlikely to commit such a crime in the first place, due to our upbringing, social norms, and so on. Criminals, especially repeat violent criminals, for whatever reason do not seem to weigh things the same way. Long sentences, which already exist and are imposed, are not a deterrent. Going to prison is not a deterrent, rather it seems to be an expected right of passage, just part of "becoming a man". For you and I, prison would be devastating, leading (for me at least) to the permanent loss of my career, home, and social standing. Incentives that work for us are irrelevant to much of the criminal culture. So we are left with permanent incarceration, with all the financial and social costs that entails, as the only way to make a real impact via "law enforcement".

Also a law that can easily be evaded, such as universal checks in one state but not adjacent states, can never work. The failure of such a law to work only proves that there are too many ways around it, not that it cannot ever work under any circumstances.

I agree that there needs to be a rational case for a law to be likely to be effective before it should be passed. I don't see how magazine limits could make a significant difference (aside from Skydekker's example of a limit of 1 round, which is an obvious non-starter), and so I don't agree with such laws. Likewise I don't think banning guns because they look "scary" (so-called "assault weapons") makes sense. To me, though, a serious effort to keep guns out of the hands of people we as a society have decided cannot be trusted with them does make sense, and it is something we have not seriously tried to do.

Quote

...prevent future mass shootings, ...

I have not been talking about mass shootings, I have been talking about the constant flood of victims produced from "ordinary" violent crime (armed robberies, home invasions, carjackings, etc). I think that mass shootings are a very different issue, perpetrated by people who are going for a high body count for whatever demented reason they imagine, not for "business" (as a criminal might look at it. Mass shootings are a very different problem, requiring different approaches that are likely very long term, but as far as I know almost every perpetrator of recent mass shootings obtained their guns legally. Even the San Bernadino shooters could have purchased their guns themselves, apparently they used a straw buyer to avoid attracting attention.

Quote

How do you identify the sellers and buyers? They don't have brick and mortar stores like alcohol stores. They walk into their hoise, one with a firearm, the other with cash. They walk out, having completed the transaction and are now safe from prosecution.

I described such a system, in use in Iowa. The buyer goes to the police, has a background check, and is issued a permit to buy as many guns as they with from whomever they want, good for a year. The seller only has to ask to see the permit. If such a system was universal and sellers respected the process it could make a difference. Indeed, if it was really "universal" then a permit issued in one state could be respected in other states, so the buyer could benefit by being able to buy across state lines.

You statement proves my point that the existing system cannot be enforced and cannot make a dent in violent crime.

Quote

For criminals buying firearms, police could run a sting operation. But that would still only catch the buyer or a seller. How many people are selling firearms illegally? How much of an impact of firearm violence would these efforts have? Is this good use of law enforcement resources?

Most people including, I presume, you and I, want to avoid a criminal prosecution. A modest level of enforcement is all that would be needed. As I said before, it is illegal for bars to sell alcohol to underage patrons. Do you think bars would forego the revenue and follow the law if the police never checked to make sure they were carding customers? Of course the system would not be perfect, after all bars around here are occasionally busted for getting casual about checking ID. However most take it very seriously as they could lose their business license. Even a small chance of getting caught would be enough for the vast majority of private sellers to make the extremely modest effort to ask to see the buyer's permit and ID. It costs them nothing (except maybe the sale if the buyer does not have one) and takes perhaps one or two minutes. It is something that has not been tried, and it is rational to expect that making access to guns less convenient could have an impact on criminal activity.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>BUT... i thought it was already illegal for felons to buy guns.

Yep. And it was illegal to drive drunk in the 1970's. But people did it anyway; 60% of all traffic fatalities involved drunk driving, and 66% of the traffic fatalities between ages 16-20 involved alcohol. Fortunately, there was a lot of work done to figure out what the problem was. They learned that:

-It wasn't middle aged drivers that were the problem (although they made up most of the people who were pulled over) - it was a problem that started much earlier, around the time most people got their driver's licenses.

-A lot of education was missing. There wasn't much awareness of the risks of drunk driving; a DUI was something of a joke, something that was just as serious as running a red light.

As a result, some laws were passed (zero tolerance for new drivers) some changes were made in driver training (emphasizing risks of drinking) and some changes were made in enforcement (penalties got much more serious.) As a result of these and other changes, fatalities from drinking and driving have been reduced by 50%, and by 70% in the 16-20 age bracket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. They used education and increased the penalties for violators because they focused on the behavior, drunk driving, and not the tool, car control.

Had they chosen to focus on car control like they do gun control, most likely certain colors of cars, body styles, and accessories would be banned "because they look dangerous" and would have greatly impacted many people who did not drive drunk. Meanwhile the drunk drivers would either ignore the car restrictions or if it got to the point where the cars were banned (because the only reason what they're doing isn't working has to be they haven't banned enough), would just keep driving drunk using other modes of transportation such as motorcycles, lawnmowers, zambonis...
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

I would challenge you to equate shooting 100 people vs. shooting them with a case of beer.



How many fatalities per year from drunk driving? More than 100?

The dead do not care if they were shot or killed by a drunk driver.

My reply was addressing Bill Von's analogy of how drunk driving was addressed. Controlling alcohol was not the solution. Education,mentor cement of the law and stiff penalties for violating the law made a difference.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Exactly. They didn't require background checks for buying alcohol or limit alcohol purchases to a 6 pack or one bottle.



My (adult) kids are carded every time they try to buy alcohol.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0