bigbearfng

Quote

Quote

I'm at a loss a bit with this one, and the last two, experienced people going in at an alarming rate, what's broken here?

"At an alarming rate" in this case would be "ever." As in, if this ever happens, it's at an alarming rate. It should not happen at all, but there are a number of elephants in the room that nobody really wants to talk about at this time because it's just a little too soon.

I'm still felling stunned and shocked, but I'm more than willing to listen about the elephants in the room....please continue.

Yup, definitely have to sort out the BS; but when I was a 50 jump wonder, here is where I got the detailed info to feel confident enough to ignore the 1000 jump wonders that still swore by the 45 degree rule.

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're on for one jump on my dime in a suit of my choosing, with an induced spin, exactly as originally offered and thus declined on your part.
Can't WAIT to see you use a "delta" to get out of a spin

so you've withdrawn THIS offer?

"Tell ya what...you can ride my back like a pony, that'll be close to the unicorns Labrys wants. Try to hang on during a flat spin. Would be a new experience for me, too. Never done an intentional with someone on my back before. Might be kinda fun in a butterfly/pony way."

That was never an "offer," Robin. Twas a joke that many folks in the wingsuit community understood.
S'ok. I understand why you won't/can't get down on the offer I made. No shame in being afraid of a flatspin. Most intelligent people are.

Quote

Yes, DWE, it WAS an offer, in exactly the way the first one was: you proposed it in writing on this thread -- and now you're not only withdrawing it (too rich for your blood, I guess), you're tripping over your tail feathers trying to pretend you didn't make it. (Gee, what a surprise).

As for your original offer that also may or may not be an "offer:"

I accept -- even though many folks in the wingsuit community understand THAT offer to be the real joke because of your reckless disregard for my lack of currency in your pursuit of proving me wrong (I mean, excuse me for bringing up an inconvenient truth, but wasn't this whole thread about a wingsuit god who recklessly endangered someone who was essentially clueless in order to show everyone how cool he was?).

But while you approach this recklessly, I don't, which is why I'm still jumping after 38 years, and why you won't be.

So you'll have to wait while I get wingsuit-current again before I come over and we sort out what's what. I'm sure it'll be good video if you can keep up with me.

So, thanks for your generous offer. It'll be fun.

Thanks even more for the nudge -- just the motivation I needed to start spending more time in the sky again.

See you soon -- unless, of course, by accepting this offer, it magically becomes a joke too.

I'm just a newb compared to the rest of you in here....
But I've done enough wingsuit jumps and had my silly ass in more than a few flat spins so your remarks implying that you seriously think his offer was anything more than a joke-well I'm afraid you shot down your credibility with that one without even realizing it.......(first real spin scared the livin shit outta me and made my ass dizzy!!!)

And I'd really like to know what the tandem manufacturer's have to say about it?
Wouldn't they pretty much have the final say????

And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved.
And that includes you.......
Hmmm,
Looking at the fact that you recently registered here, with no info filled out whatsoever-
And has only posted to this thread....
Yea, I have to call troll also.
Or someone with an ax to grind that randomly searches for places to spout their one sided rant on the internet.......
I do appreciate getting to see the other side of things that I may not have seen otherwise by looking in SC.
However I guess we shouldn't feed the trolls.

Here's the scenario for you to digest-
I see a guy walking down the sidewalk in a residential neighborhood at 10 at night with a knapsack on his back
I detain him pat him down and check his bag. (Allowed to check for weapons within reach of him for officer safety if you want to pick at that also.)
I do find something in the bag and arrest him.
On the face of it-it's getting tossed out of court.

However-if this neighborhood has had a recent run of burgleries in the evenings, and this guy may even match a description of someone seen in the area of a recent burg-then it's a good detention and bust when I find burg tools and stolen property in his bag.

So it may appear to be fishing-but if current circumstances rise to reasonable suspicion, then it's not fishing-it's doing a good job and not being lazy.

And in this BP case we obviously don't know all the circumstances involved.

I do understand the concern for not trampling constitutional rights-and at the same time do the job and do it well.

And you have to admit he was baiting and probably hoping they would "treat him like a King" so he could sue.......

So according to your view/interpretation, if the BP observes enough to reasonably suspect a crime is staring them in the face (other than citizenship status) they have to ignore it?
They are LE-if they smell drugs/see blood dripping out of the trunk, they're supposed to ignore that?

OK, let's take another look at this....
Border patrol not only check illegal immigrants, they also check for anything illegal coming in; wehter it be drugs, assholes with kids they're molesting or whatever else comes across the border. They are law enforcement.
So if I've got a guy that won't roll down his window, my first reasonable suspicion would be that he doesn't want the smell of drugs (or even explosives) wafting out of the vehicle where I or the dogs could smell it.
Make sense so far?
So I would not have had a problem with the BP insisting on searching that car.
So I'd say they showed an amazing amount of restraint!!!!!
And the guy is just a baiting asshole that I sincerly hope was reamed by his CO; as he most assuredley deserves.

Quote

Quote

I am just trying to genuinely address what was brought up-and attempt to infuse some reality to the knee jerk reaction of-"ban the object".

Understand, I've NEVER said we should ban guns in general or even handguns. That said, in this very particular case, had the previous ban on high capacity magazines had remained in effect the shooter would not have been able to purchase one in his local gun shop. It would have forced him to either find a different source, which would have slowed his plan, or do without, which, again in this particular case probably would have meant fewer bullets fired and fewer people hit by them.

As to any sort of DMV-style solutions to removing handguns from people thought to be incompetent; I'm all for that. However, as stated MANY posts ago, strict 2nd Amendment proponents would never allow such a thing since it pretty much means all gun owners would have to be de facto licensed. I'm not opposed to that at all, it's the exact same way we handle any one of a number of things; cars, airplanes, nuclear power . . . unfortunately, the strict 2nd Amendment folks have a conniption anytime the thought of a license is even mentioned so that's just not going to happen.

Thank you-
Actually the DMV style would not have to deal with "a license" to own a firearm.
As the system currently stands, if your background check when you attempt to purchase shows that you are a convicted felon, declared legally mentally incompetent, not a US citizen/citizen of the state where you are purchasing, then you're denied.
So a person that checks negative can go forward with the purchase, no license required. Of course Ca. now requires a firearms certificate to be shown that you took a class on firearms safety, but again that is not a required licensure.
As it stands already-if someone already owns a firearm (again I'm familiar with CA. so other states may very well be slightly different.) and is then convicted of a felony/domestic violence/domestic restraining order/legally declared mentally incompetent-then they forfeit the constitutional right to own a firearm-with specific provisions/requirements for reinstatement.
And hey-ban the magazine or the firearm-sorry it's still "ban the object", and doesn't deal with the "crazy". And the fork-you missed the point /not assasination it's death-and I only personally know of one death by fork, but they were just as dead whether by fork, knife, gun poison etc..
Again, I'm just trying to constructively throw some actual ideas out there.

Quote

First - since this is SC, if someone ever does come for me, I'll say the blood os on you. A crazy person may ne reading this and view it as a suggestion. [Sly]

But, with regards to "doing nothing." Yeah. I prefer doing "nothing" to doing "something" when it looks like everything suggested stomps on people's rights. As I said, I SUPPORT the reasons why the mental patients were released. I SUPPORT the release of Gitmo prisoners if they aren't going to be prompty tried.

I would not support anybody going after you to make you prove you are sane or a prove you are not a threat.

I further do not support the creation of a system that punishes people for seeking or receiving treatment for a mental illness. "Well, it says here that in 1994 you were diagnosed with depression. As a person who has suffered mental illness, we are required to confiscate your weapons."
"That's a Colt Peacemaker I've had since 1963."
"Well, under the rules you are considered a threat."
"I reported myself, was treated for six months and I've had no problems since."
"Well, if you can prove you will never be a threat, you can get your weapon back."

Shoud we have a system where we punish people for seeking treatment? Because I'm telling you, it's what happens.

Very valid points-thank you.
I was thinking more along the lines of the DMV example.
You already have a drivers license. Now they have to have a current retest that you failed before they can pull it.

As for a psych test and who would administer it-that's an important question/issue.
And yes even then it wouldn't be perfect- I've worked with deputies that passed the psych same as me, that then ended up doing some atrocious things.
You would have to be a mind reader and all knowing to make it a perfect system.
And again, very valid points-would it deter people from seeking treatment? What would the effects of an H&S5150 on your record be? How long ago was it?
I am just trying to genuinely address what was brought up-and attempt to infuse some reality to the knee jerk reaction of-"ban the object".

Quote

Quote

At least we have acknowledgement FINALLY that the issue is the person, not the tool.

Well, uhm, actually . . . in this case it turns out to be both and what's ironic is that the "tool" so many people have touted as being able to stop this sort of crime wasn't used to stop it and the specific gun part that goes on to this "tool" (a high capacity magazine) had been previously banned and it was ONLY because this particular crazy person had to reload that the event ended.

It would have ended earlier if he had to reload earlier.

Sorry guys, facts are facts and in this case it looks as if the previous ban on magazine size was, in fact, a good idea.

And here's the kicker, it wasn't ended by a CC holder, but instead a middle-aged woman that grabbed the fresh magazine he was swapping in.

Dear Quade-it seems you just can't get past some things.
I was really appealing to you for some constructive feedback, I figured you or Kallend could have had some type of constructive critizism, ideas to apply the current DMV method of identifying persons that are not safe to be driving to firearm purchase background checks, I would of appreciated it.

Fact is a determined person can kill some one with a common kitchen fork.

If you can legally deal with the person, then it doesn't matter about the object-as brought up before if the "looney" gets a hold of anything from a semi-truck to fertilizer then the results are even more catastrophic; and you can't reasonably "legislate" away the semi-truck or the fertilizer.

So I was trying to address the concerns on how to identify the "crazy person" which you have totally ignored and keep going back to the "object".

OK, as the saying goes, you can't reason with a two year old, I'm done here.

Quote

The reporting being factual based was my opinion from British newspapers and commentary.

As for the trap you think I'm falling into...I think you missed my point mate, being that the problem is gun proliferation itself.

Significantly reduce the availability of guns and you'll significantly reduce the number of innocents being murdered by madmen. Of course criminal elements will still access them through illegal means, such as here in the UK, and of course there will still be murders through guns. But reduce your weapon proliferation and you'll reduce the continual, and ever increasing (?), murder of innocents.

It's a tough call; gun ownership is so deeply engrained into the American psyche it would require a massive change of your culture - so be it; hasn't America demanded similiar cultural change of other problematic nations?

Ban the guns!

Sorry but I have a pretty hard time listening to any "suggestions" from across the pond.
A country where you can't even defend yourself or your family-thats just inherently wrong and I can't fathom that mindset.

I'm asking for a workable solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. By all accounts, even the NRA is for that as a general goal, yet the current system is badly broken.

How would you actually fix it?