Backintothesky

Indeed there was a shooting in Belgium. Did the shooter use legally or illegally obtained firearms? Belgium's gun laws are some of the strictest in Europe I believe. The last school shooting here in France was done by Mohammed Merah the other year. Illegally obtained firearms. Yes every country has it's nutbags, okay fair enough. But banning guns doesn't stop them. When was the last time a mass shooting happened in a place where citizens were armed? Why do they target schools? Why do they not target NRA conventions? Or police stations? Why do shootings happen in cinemas that have "no-carry" policies? I would argue that a mass shooter doesn't want a firefight, so he will choose a soft target. These men are cowards and bullies. They don't pick on the people that can fight back, they pick on the "weak" who cannot. I would say you're wrong on the American psyche being the problem. Every country has their nutbags that should not get their hands on a gun. Wasn't there a mass murder somewhere in Norway a few years back where one guy went bonkers? What we have is a mental illness problem, and it's a world-wide problem. I believe there was one in belgium this week...

Fair point re. statistical comparison. However, looking at the Swiss shootings in 2013 for example we can see some serious breakdown of due process on the part of the authorities in a couple of cases. The Menznau shooter was once sentenced to a year in prison for robbery. The accused Daillon killer was a veteran whose service weapon had been confiscated because of his history of mental health problems. It was not sure how they acquired those firearms, but if it was illegally then no legislation will stop them doing so. And if it was legally then they should have, by the law, NOT been allowed to buy them. I believe the same thing happened with the Dunblane shooter in the UK who should have had his weapons confiscated but the police failed to act and instead of blaming a failure in the system, the government and the people blamed handguns and now no-one can have them. You can make a very reasonable argument, but what you can't do is support it by asking how many shootings they've had in Switzerland. The answer appears to be 2 in recent years (2001 - 14 dead, 2013- 4 dead), which would translate to 80 here (and I don't believe we've had that many in the 2000s). And when the data point is so small, random variation could get you 1 or 3 or even 0 or 4 or 5, so you can't make statistically valid comparisons between the two. Yes, mostly, but no. The "well regulated" bit is motivated more by concerns of national defense - that it doesn't really help the nation if all it's armed citizens can't shoot for shit. They wanted to ensure proficiency. I don't think it resonated as deeply in the discussion as the fear of tyrannical government, but again there was some salesmanship going on. The Founders feared the mob as much as the mob feared another King George. They already had the failed experiment with the first US government.

Indeed it does have a smaller population. I would still argue it is the cultural differences. When I said it is an American psyche problem I don't mean to say that only Americans have mentally ill people. What I mean to say is that it is the attitude around firearms that makes the difference. The Swiss for example view their firearms through the lense of protecting their country first and foremost. It is to deter and defend their country and all the people within it including their family from foreign and I guess domestic attacks. The general consensus, and forgive me if I am wrong, behind the NRA and gun owners is that a gun is primarily their for the individual. A gun is nothing to do with defending the country from attack but to protect and defend the individual first and foremost. And it is to defend the individual from their own government. There is a HUGE difference between that. One is an extension of personal power and the other is an extension of the country's power. One is a "in this together" mentality and the other is a "me against every other fucker" mentality. That's not to say all Swiss are like that and all Americans are like this but that seems to be the general underlying philosophy. Of course I cannot back this up what so ever but I would be relatively confident in suggesting that if Switzerland were the population size of the US that the number of gun related murders and mass shootings would be less than the current US figures. ignoring any potential cultural differences, it has a population that is 1/40th the size of the US.

Yep, every country has those nutbags. Banning people from owning arms won't stop them. And doing so will stop legal gun owners from protecting unarmed citizens. Which is why when the Norwegien guy started shooting up an island where nobody was carrying arms he was able to kill over 60 (I think) children who could only just cry and beg him not to kill them as he reloaded and slotted them calmly in the head. THAT guy was so determined he would have just bought the arms illegally, and NO it isn't that hard to do. I would say you're wrong on the American psyche being the problem. Every country has their nutbags that should not get their hands on a gun. Wasn't there a mass murder somewhere in Norway a few years back where one guy went bonkers? What we have is a mental illness problem, and it's a world-wide problem.

I'd LOVE to have most countries bring back national service. It's a damn shame they don't have it. But yes you are right, the NRA wouldn't go for it. If you want to make US requirements for gun ownership the SAME as requirements for gun ownership in Switzerland, then go for it. I think you might want to look into what that is though. I have a feeling the NRA isn't going to go for it.

So realistically, you aren't cutting away under a malfunction anyway. As you said you just chuck in the direct of the spin and cos its a front mounted round you will probably get it clear and inflated. And I guess with a 400 feet exit I guess it's a case of getting as much fabric over your head as possibly and hope for the best!

Yeah I know, I think he might be talking about rigs that the military use for skydiving - whether for sport or HALO/HAHO drops. As far as I was aware for dumping troops out at 1000 feet on operations, they still use rounds with a front mounted reserve. Be interesting to see if they've started to change this for some reason though....

Are they for static line jumps or military freefall though?

Yep that makes sense. I just had visions of some poor SOB at 800 feet trying desperately to release his shot and a halfs whilst weighted down by 150 pounds of kit and 200 other jumpers in the air around him! Chuck out the reserve and deal with the main later!

He was evidently too immature to buy a car as well but you can't legislate against those things. Guy was a fuck up. I say this time and again to people, I'm a Brit who loves the USA and the US people. It's a great country with a lot to offer and I have friends and family who live over there and are US citizens. BUT, the reason there are these shootings aren't because there are guns but because there is something deeply wrong with the psyche of the USA. Switzerland is full of guns - how many mass shootings do they have? In the UK the countryside if full of shotguns and hunting rifles, even a few straight pull AR-15's - how many mass shootings? Even when handguns were legal there was one mass shooting and that caused the ban (and people are still being killed by handguns in the UK) France - country is full of legal weapons, the only thing France can't have is full auto. Mass shootings? A couple but done with ILLEGAL firearms. I could go on, but guns ARE NOT the problem in the USA. The American psyche is.....

I was wondering if it was that. Seems a bit of an old fashion system for modern SL rigs no? Any ideas why they haven't converted to 3 ring release with cutaway handle - especially given a number of paratroopers will also be sport skydivers...

Just out of curiousity, do modern military static line rigs (for the purposes of dropping paratroops into warzones) use 3 ring release at all? I've seen that they use a front mounted reserve and of course that both reserve and main are rounds, so I'm just curious to see if they use 3 ring release or something like Capewells?

I watched a guy dislocate his shoulder on a dummy rip cord pull on static line. He stuck his left arm through the deploying risers as he went for the dummy cord with his right and as they snapped back during inflation it popped his arm out of socket. I believe he also broke his other arm on landing that same jump.

You are absolutely right, he could have killed the victim. Thank god he didn't. The point is not with the situation, but with the sensationalist reporting of it. He was NOT fired for "refusing to be a murder victim", he was fired for the unauthorised carry and use of a firearm in the workplace. It's actually a good case for changing the laws to allow trained concealed carry employees to carry their firearms at that store. But by outright lying about the facts, you don't create a dialogue but a distorted argument where both sides (pro gun and anti-gun) just resort to emotional arguments that have no basis in reality such as "store clerk fired for defending himself" and (on the anti-gun side) "Get rid of guns for the kids".

Yeah that's exactly what their policy is. REALLY! What you are saying below is bullshit. Sensationalist exaggaration. Not being allowed to carry a firearm at work does not mean you cannot defend yourself. You don't need a firearm to defend yourself - of course in some situations it would be "preferable" to say the least. It may shock you to know that countries that don't allow you to purchase a firearm for the purpose of self defence still allow you to defend yourself and defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. He wasn't fired for defending themselves, he was fired for discharging a firearm at work when he wasn't supposed to be carrying one. If he had disarmed the assailant, they had produced another weapon and he had then opened fire with the assailant's original firearm then he probably wouldn't have been fired. And if he had then he would have had a good law suit against them. And before you jump to conclusions, I own a number of firearms.

U-571 where they show the Americans recovering the enigma machine, when it was the British warship HMS Bulldog. And they were planning to do a film called the few which would focus on an American airman called Billy Friske who flew for the RAF in the Battle of Britain. In reality he didn't shoot down any Germans and had no impact on the Battle over that summer in 1940 - but Hollywood planned to show him single handedly winning the Battle for us..... Yes we would have been fucked if American hadn't joined in but that doesn't mean America did it all, I think the American public can appreciate a film that doesn't star Americans as the heroes!!

I love making bigots heads spin with that when they claim that if gays are allowed to raise children then those children will grow up gay and then society will fall apart (don't know how that reach that extreme conclusion anyway!). Ok, with that logic then there shouldn't be any gay people at all!

Err.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9203822/Spitfires-buried-in-Burma-during-war-to-be-returned-to-UK.html

Nice

It's amazing how calm shock can make you....he was pretty icey given the circumstances!

Violence is often the only solution to other violence - in a lot of cases to not use violence will result in your death. But your culture does NOT promote violence as the only solution to other violence - it promotes it as the best solution to MOST PROBLEMS. Therein lies the problem. Ban guns and other weapons will be used because your country has a massive problem with violence. I think (and others think) that your world ranking in violence will not change much if you banned all guns. I do think there should be laws in place around firearms. I actually think that owning a firearm should be something you receive after military training in a citizen program. You would have monthly training in your local groups. Having a concealed weapon carry permit should be a right you have after regular training in these citizen groups. Make guns serve a greater purpose - making people feel part of the protection of their local area in times of peace and war. This will go a long way to firstly keeping an eye on everyone who has firearms for signs of mental instability, but will also provide a sense of purpose and collectivism that would help prevent people lashing out.

Apologies if there was a miscommunication on my part, I never said there would be more gun violence with less guns - I'm saying having less guns won't significantly reduce the level of social violence with guns (and other weapons). Rather than sticking a band-aid over the problem by banning guns (a questionable tactic that may or may not work), the focus needs to be on actually preventing people from getting to the point where they feel violence is a way to solve their (often petty) problems.

In that case you should see half the amount of gun violence in Switzerland than you do in the US. But you don't, it is MUCH lower than that. I believe in Switzerland there has only been one mass shooting in recent memory - there has been a number in the UK despite the laws. Rather than banning something and restricting the rights of a large portion of your country who have done (and will do) nothing wrong with firearms, perhaps it would be fairer for all to look at alternative models where firearms are used without the catastrophic effects it is currently having in the US. By attempting to ban guns you would also be ignoring all the lives that have been saved by private ownership of firearms. Like everything in life there are two sides to the argument. Yes by banning all guns you might stop some mass shootings but you would also be condemning to death all those people who have been confronted in their homes by armed criminals. Extreme solutions are NEVER right. Both anti-gun lobbies and the NRA are equally wrong - banning all guns or giving everyone a gun is not the solution. The solution is not less guns, it's a change in culture in the way people view and use guns. Looking at the Swiss firearms culture is a good place to start.

Yeah, you've got more people in total. I'd be interested to see the figures as a percentage, I guess the US would top out there as well. What's interesting is when you look at countries such as Switzerland where every household has military weapons in the house - that country is armed to the teeth as they do indeed have a militia style military. But they don't have school, mall and cinema shootings like you do in the US..... I love America and Americans, it's a great place (especially Vegas ) and I have family over there. But, I think there is something quite fucked up in the general culture and mentality that causes people to go nuts and kill people cos they got fired or they weren't the popular kids at school. There's a strong culture of violence in your nation - most of your movies essentially promote violence as an effective way to deal with problems. When someone hurts you, even by accident, you sue them. It's a very "fuck you" mentality, a very "us" and "them" theme running through your social and political discourse. I've never seen such hatred between two people just because they are on different sides of the spectrum politically. It seems people cease to become a human being and just become a label like "republican" or "democrat" or "liberal". It's very easy to hurt someone when you don't view them as a person but as a one-dimensional label. That's the problem in my humble opinion. Not the gun.

You are correct, only certain police units are armed. But this isn't really anything to do with levels of firearms in the country (there are a lot - legal and illegal: did you know you can legally own an AR-15 in the UK) It is because the philosophy behind British law and order is that the British police are "policing by consent" I.e. The public consent to their authority, the public allow them to police. The common consensus is that having all police armed would break that philosophy, turning them into a more "paramilitary" force that rules through threat of violence. There have been calls in recent years following the murders of unarmed police officers to arm all police officers with firearms but it has been rejected by the establishment because of the factors I mentioned. The police officers I know don't want the responsibility of a firearm, one mistake and you're going to jail for murder. An unarmed officer would never attempt a stop on a potentially armed suspect if they could avoid it. The instant a member of the public calls the police to say they've seen a weapon they send out Armed Response. Armed Response spend their days cruising around in unmarked vehicles and can respond to incidents very quickly. Armed response (I think they used to be called SO19) have a LOT of work on their plate, there are thousands of incidents requiring them every year in London alone. The UK is not some utopia despite what Piers Morgan says on US television, the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre has achieved nothing except stopping law abiding citizens from practicing handgun shooting in the UK. Our Olympic handgun team has to train in Ireland, stupid law that doesn't stop criminals obtaining handguns and killing each other and innocent bystanders.