peacefuljeffrey

I'm glad to say that my near-death experience, if it qualifies, had nothing to do with either flying or skydiving (I do both). It was on a kayak.

My brother and I were both living in Florida (I still do), and we used to surf our sit-on-top kayaks on the Atlantic off Singer Island in Palm Beach County. I still have the kayak but don't get out much.

We were riding some swells about 100 yards off the beach one day. We don't ride -- or require -- really huge waves to surf the kayaks. We can even do it on waves as small as what, one or two feet! But some days we were out in head-high waves, which when you see them from a seat on a kayak, seem f'in HUGE. Many's the time I was trying to head out past breakers and found that the wave had started to curl, was way too steep (like, back over my head steep) and I went right over backward with a 45 pound plastic kayak coming down on me.

Now, my brother and I generally would wear a rubber/plastic surf leash velcroed to our ankle and the bow of the kayak. Who wants to be out 100 yards in heavy, wind-blown surf without a kayak, even if you're wearing a PFD? I hate thinking about sharks under my feet, but I sure as hell know we got 'em here.

Well, I was starting a ride on a medium sized wave, but it had caught me wrong, and I wasn't heading down it at the right angle. I can't remember for sure, but I think that my bow stuck down into the water (we used to call this "purling" or something, never sure where we picked up that word, either). I ended up just getting flung into the water, a huge wave piling tons of water down on top of me, but here's the kicker:

The boat is getting carried off toward shore by the wave, and I'm getting dragged behind it by my ankle! Forget the PFD, it's not keeping me out of the water. It's like I'm water skiing behind my kayak, but I'm being pulled at an angle down into the water. Since this is a horizontal pull, I'm not able to get closer to the surface.

I was down under the water for what seemed maybe only part of a minute (it definitely wasn't longer than a minute because I simply would not have been able to hold my breath that long. On a good day, sitting in a chair relaxed, I can hold it for about 1.75 minutes. Here I was exerting and scared.)

Down under the water, I realized I was getting desperate for breath. I kept holding. A short time later, the desperation was worse, and I actually opened my eyes under the ocean water, something I'd never done, just because I desperately needed to see how much distance there was between me and sky through the water. It turned out to be only about another foot, so I closed my eyes, miraculously not losing either contact lense, and clawed my way to air.

I still, though, had a kayak dragging me through the water. It was acting like a big sail with the continual waves pushing it. I looked east and saw ANOTHER wave come down ON me, and I was buried again, with barely enough breath regained from before. I was down again, and dragged through the underside again once the wave hit the kayak. When I popped back up, I yanked on my ankle to bring the boat closer (or me closer to it), and managed to scramble aboard. (A sit-on-top kayak does not fill with water: it is self-draining.) I had somehow retained my paddle! (There's a hundred or so bucks saved!) I began to paddle toward shore. Didn't even know if my brother had seen my trial. I got half way there and realized that I would not like myself if I just gave up for the day because of a scare that I had in the end survived, so I turned around and rode more waves. It wasn't a bad day after all.

No, I didn't see any angels or white lights or my body from afar. I think those things are biological in nature, like when you see swimming flashes of light after a bop on the head or a loss of breath. Certain types of near-death will cause a sort of euphoria that corresponds with the things people say they've seen. Me, I was just still there in the moment, eyes closed so it was dark, alone with my relatively focused "get me to where I can breathe" thoughts. If I had died right then, it would have been while I wasn't even thinking about death enough to really fear it, much less welcome it. It was just a bunch of stuff that happened.

I've had a LOT of dreams -- very vivid dreams -- in which I died and was aware of dying. In many or most of them, I find that I am conscious on the other side of death; many times when this happens, I am invulnerable and omnipotent. In one, it turned into a lucid dream. I made the sudden realization, after Patrick Stewart (Capt. Picard, Charles Xavier) executed me in a chamber that focused the sun's rays through a lens in the ceiling to incinerate me, that I was in a dream. The death was painless, as it generally is in my dreams. After I knew I was dead, I was still there in the room with Stewart. I was standing right in front of his face, but he could not see me! I gestured in front of him to check. Then I, in my dream, realized that this couldn't be real, and started to sing to myself happily, "I'm having a lucid dreammm! I'm having a lucid dreammm!" I started to levitate myself by willing it, and found myself floating toward the ceiling of a room that seemed like a barren, leaden-gray box. As I reached the ceiling I passed through the plane of it, but then the dream ended and I woke up.

I'd rather dream than die. But the best is dreaming OF dying. It's actually really exhilarating and a pleasant thing to remember on waking.

---Jeffrey

Quote

Seriously, hunting and plinking aren't big hobbies in my local community, so the recreational aspects are somewhat limited for the kids. Sure, the parents might have a gun for protection purposes, but I don't think the average kid in my suburban "Leave It To Beaver" neighborhood is given a .22 for his 12th birthday.

On an aside:
Did you know that it used to be very common for school-aged kids to bring their .22s and .410 shotguns to SCHOOL, leave them in a locker, and then stop somewhere to hunt squirrels and stuff after school -- AND THERE WERE NO CHARGES BROUGHT, NO SUSPENSIONS OR EXPULSIONS, NO ZERO-TOLERANCE B.S., AND NO ONE WAS SHOT.

So in case people want to blame the "easy availability of guns" for the gun crime rate (falling though it is), think about that. Kids brought guns to SCHOOL and there was not a problem of school shootings. Mustn't that mean the problem is not guns, but what kids are doing to each other lately? The guns were around but there wasn't the violence. What has changed?

Besides, prior to 1968, when a flood of senseless gun control was unleashed (including the "sporting purposes test" for importation of handguns) on the heels of various high-profile assassinations, YOU COULD ORDER A GUN BY MAIL ORDER. That is, ALL DURING OUR HISTORY UP TIL 1968, YOU COULD BUY GUNS THROUGH THE MAIL.

So how does that square with the idea that "guns are easier than ever to get," which is the bullshit pap you hear from anti-gunners. Guns are easier than ever to get? I've seen anti-gunners claim that it's easier for someone to buy a gun than to buy CANDY. They actually made that claim. And I say, "Oh, an instant check on the NCIS is not a block to gun purchase?" "A five-day waiting period is not a block to gun purchase?" "Having to have a permit to PURCHASE a gun, like in NY, IL, MA, is not a block to gun purchase?" IT IS HARDER THAN EVER TO OBTAIN A GUN, EXCEPT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT *ILLEGALLY*. And if you're talking about illegally, well, then, it was ALWAYS possible to STEAL a gun or get one on the black market!

The lies just have to stop. Today's Florida Sun-Sentinel has a letter from some schmuck spewing more lies about how the Brady law and "Assault Weapons Ban" have cleared our streets of so many guns and they must be renewed in September. I'm about to email a rebuttal letter. Bullshit lies must not go unchallenged, or too many people come to believe they are "FACT," in the absence of refutation by TRUE fact.

---Jeffrey

Larry,
Willie has been jumping in sneakers lately, but I couldn't tell you whether they're newly purchased or not. I think money's been tight lately, what with the DZ just getting its start here and all. (Skydive South Beach, operated by Tecumseh DZO Ron.)

I think I've been the only hardcore barefoot jumper out there lately even though this is FLORIDA. We've had a little "cool" weather and Willie went for the sneakers for a couple of weeks. His back was bothering him this weekend so I'm not even sure if he jumped during the SoBe Boogie.

A few other jumpers go barefoot but of all of them, I'm the only one I am certain has not put shoes on to skydive since I did my AFP in August.

I'll tell Willie you said hello.
---Jeffrey

Quote

Hmmm...very interesting.

I know that there were a couple of things that I could have done to fix the problem. I did think to unstow my brakes and try to get out of the spin, BUT I didn't feel at that split second that I had enough time. Maybe that will come with experience.

Keep in mind that you have over 3,000 jumps and I only have 50. I would think that you would realize that if you are put in that situation with very low jump numbers that you would be a little less likely to work on the problem than to just focus on saving your life. I was already approaching my hard deck altitude and did not know for sure how much altitude fixing the problem would have taken.

You also have to keep in mind that I was over a field that is nothing but trees and brush as well power lines. I wanted to be under a functional canopy at a safe altitude to be able to make it back to the dropzone. Last time anyone landed there, the outcome ended in a fatality.

I'm sorry that you think that it might be shallow for me to post about having survived a very scary situation for me. I was not fishing for pats on the back. My post was merely to inform newbies of an experience that could happen to them and maybe fish for some advice from more experienced jumpers of what I could have done to prevent or fix the malfunction. You did just that. Too bad you had to be an ass about it. Thanks any way.

Blue Skies,
Kim

Kim,
I don't care if you were fishing for compliments or something -- you DESERVE them. What you did would scare the piss out of many many people, and you did it in a way that saved your very life. It may be true that cutting away may not have been 100% necessary, particularly to a seasoned skydiver, but you are not yet one of those, but you've lived to keep working at it.

IT FEELS GOOD to recognize, and have others recognize, that you kept your head in a threatening situation. A human being does need approbation and stroking, and you would probably have felt bottled up until you got your story told to some people who weren't there. It's part of the psychological release.

BTW, if your lines had already twisted, isn't it possible that unstowing the other brake may have failed to counter the turn caused by the unstowing of the first brake, because of the twist itself? So maybe you really DID have no choice at that point but to cut away.

I myself very nearly used my reserve on two occasions. Once was on my very first release dive in AFP (which happened to be my first dive after my two tandems). I simply did not feel the handle (BOC) on my first grab. I went for grab #2 and didn't feel it. I knew that if I didn't get it that time, I was pulling the two other handles, so I kept my hand there a moment, told my brain to remind my hand what it was feeling for, and a moment later I had the handle and pulled it. Whew.
The second time was much more recent (like jump 48 out of my 54, or so). I had my opening, looked up and saw what I'm pretty sure was a right side lineover. Apparently it was already working itself out as I unstowed and pumped the brakes, and the lines got right. I was a shy moment away from cutting away, and I felt pride in the fact that I was not frozen up, that I knew exactly what my next step was going to be. I actually felt a little rush from thinking that I was about to get my first reserve ride out of the way. (We'd had a nice spot and I had no issue with making it back to the DZ.) A little less than half of me was disappointed that I hadn't actually had to cut away! The rest realized that it is just fine to have a perfectly functional main al the way to the ground! LOL!

Talk about your experience with your instructors, and others as well, to see all sides of it and to learn from it. It will serve you well in the future, I'm sure.

Peace,
---Jeffrey

Quote

when I did my tandem (very first jump) in July in Playa Del Carmen (mexico)...my TM jumped barefoot. Interestingly, it's one of the things most people comments about my pictures of my first jump. heh.

I figured that he did it because we land on a beach....but he also walked to the airport/plane (which was a little ways away) barefoot and didn't blink. It was obvious that he didn't wear shoes very often.

I would love to try it...but only if I was going to land on a beach (and a 'clean beach'...no big rocks and things)...because my poor feet that are always shoed are so sensitive now...

Elfanie,
Far be it for me to say that you should just go on and jump barefoot... but if you do think you'd like to, but your "poor feet that are always shoed" are not tough enough right now, spend more time barefoot on the ground! It won't take long for them to become accustomed to walking on various surfaces. You will undoubtedly, like me and many others, come to enjoy the different sensations. Eventually, putting on shoes will feel like you're robbing yourself of one of your senses, like putting gloves on for the entire day would feel to your hands!

Once you condition your feet (don't worry, they don't have to become gnarled and calloused just to be toughened) you'll have a lot of fun skydiving barefoot and you'll wonder why you didn't before. Plus, you won't want to do it "shoed" again. Have fun!

Edited to add: I think tha twuffos believe that the landings of a skydiver are traumatic, harsh, impactful events, not the soft, smooth, gliding ones that we mostly do. That's probably why people focus on your TM's bare feet in the picture: they can't imagine landing without shoes on because years of conditioning have left them believing tha thuman bare feet are hardly able to do anything "unprotected." That's just a myth.

For other myths dispelled, check out www.barefooters.org
---Jeffrey

Quote

I am always amazed to watch Willie (skydive long Is)
swoop down barefoot and I would cringe with those
flashbacks of the stubbed toe syndrome when it would look like it got hit with a shotgun..AAARRRG
Willie is still the best. I would get concerned when I
showed up at the DZ and he had sneakers on, hence
put the rig away and have a beer. LMAO

Willie's been jumping in sneakers lately here at Skydive SoBe -- only because it's been too COLD for him! I saw him switched from bare feet to sneakers one day and asked him what's wrong?! He said it was the cold at altitude.

I'm from Long Island originally as well, and I am just more staunch in my preference for jumping barefoot, so through our Florida winter I've not put on shoes. I can tolerate cold, and by the time I pull, it's warm again.

Here at SoBe there are several other regular barefoot jumpers, and occasional ones. Kim, Rob and Lisa all jump barefoot steadily. (Kim hurt her ankle recently but would have in shoes, regardless. More or less, who really knows?) Rob hurt his arm on his mountain bike, so that's why he's been grounded for a few weeks. Nothing to do with jumping barefoot.

There are load of barefoot jump pics on Brian Germain's video and book "Vertical Journey." Some are modern, some are obvious '70s pics. Brian is extremely safety-conscious, as those who know him must be aware. Still, he doesn't seem to mind.
If it feels good, dooooo iiiiiiiit!

---Jeffrey

Quote

Yeah, I know, after seeing a couple incidents, i'm a bit wary to go w/o shoes again. .. That said, I went without shoes only once, I had already done 4 jumps that day and was really confident in landing super softly. I thought the feel was awesome, though the newness kinda disturbed my concentration on keeping a fast and steady sit-fly. It was neat, tho. But, my landing, even though seemingly soft, could still have been softer on bare feet.

If it doesn't bother you landing on bare feet, and you can accept the possible consequences, then go for it!

Angela

Angela, I was there and I remember the day I saw you and Rory jump barefoot out at Skydive Palm Beach. (Or was it after SoBe came down?)

When I first started coming out to train with Dave Cole back in the summer, I called first and asked if there would be an objection to me skydiving barefoot, and was told, "Hey, they're your feet, it's your decision. We do have lots of people who skydive barefoot so it's no big thing."

My first jumps back in '91 and '96 were in boots, because at the time I wasn't "living barefoot" like I do now pretty much all the time. If you see me in flip flops, it means I'm dressed-up.

Some have addressed the subject with me, particularly J.C. Perren. He did not browbeat me -- he's not that way. He's so cool about his suggestions and stuff. He simply said that it's something to consider, that I may land out some day and have to tromp through ugly shit to get home, and that's when I'll wish for shoes. Sooo... it's tucked in the back of my mind that yes, some day I may be jumping at a different DZ that doesn't have ACRES and ACRES of space to land on, like SoBe has there at Pahokee. Some of those other DZs will have far less hospitable surroundings, and then I may opt to wear shoes.

Until then, though, the idea of wearing shoes on my tough bare feet during a skydive, to me, detracts from the purity of the relaxation and peace I feel when I skydive. It wouldn't be the end of the world if I found I had to wear shoes -- but it would feel shitty if I were TOLD I was required to. That would be quite different from simply deciding that circumstances dictated I ought to.

Believe me, I've been living a "barefoot lifestyle" long enough to know that there are many myths that surround going around that way. For instance, people think it's against some law to either drive barefoot, or go into a shop or restaurant barefoot. It is neither. The health department has absolutely no regulations about the attire of customers in any situation. (So signs that say "Shoes required by Health Department", etc., are FALSE.) The AAA Digest of Motor Laws has entries for every state and U.S. territory, and a specific mention for each and every one that says "Driving barefoot is permitted"!! The myth is so pervasive that they specify that no, driving barefoot is not against any V&T law. The same is true for state and federal law: nothing prohibits bare feet ANYWHERE. But still, bare feet are discriminated against because of the shoe-company-inspired myth that human feet are weak and vulnerable and cannot handle being in the world outside of shoes. The fact is that shoes give support to feet, making them weak and further dependent on shoes. Kids who grow up barefoot develop strong muscles in their legs and feet. Kids whose feet are cooped-up in shoes all the time have feet that don't develop as well. (Hammer toes, bunions, etc. can all be brought on by confinement in shoes.) And that's not to mention that the only reason feet come to smell is because they've been sweating in shoes and the bacteria that make the smell just love a moist, dark environment in which to thrive! Also, no one has ever been able to explain to me their objection to my "dirty" feet around them, when I bring up the fact that my feet were scrubbed clean in my morning shower: were THEIR SHOES scrubbed any time recently? I usually get gape-jawed stares as a response. Really, how could my feet, which serve as my shoes, be any dirtier than someones shoe soles, which have grooves to trap shit like gum, dirt, and, well, shit? If I stepped in dogshit, it'd be cleaned off right away because hey, they're my FEET. I don't want dogshit remaining on my FEET. But what's the rush when someone in SHOES steps in shit? Oh, they don't like the smell following them around, but are they going to make sure to immediately get a thorough shoe cleaning? Not likely. So there's another myth, "Feet carry dirt and disease," shattered. Feet are no dirtier in general than the same shoes that people have no problem with you wearing into a store or restaurant. (I do generally wear my flipflops into restaurants in order to simply be able to get something to eat without having a big debate. After all, right or wrong, the proprietor can still set his dress code as he sees fit, justified or not.)

I'm a staunch advocate (can you tell) of freeing your feet, both in everyday life and in skydiving. Yes, there are risks. But 49 straight barefoot jumps have not harmed my feet, and I believe that a safety-conscious attitude about where and when and how to jump is largely responsible for my continued barefoot skydiving success. We all know that the choices we make can result in more or less safety. If you opt to leave your feet bare, there are other things you can do to aid in preventing foot injuries. Yes, if I downsize to a 135 and start swooping like mad, I may eventually wish to try it first with shoes so I can get used to it, but otherwise, don't look for shoes on these feet!

Peace,
---Jeffrey

Quote

Under the butterfly logo on the blade is the #9050
on the back of the blade it says ATS-34
oh and it was free

It has a hell of a kick. When u press the button to open it, it will try to jump out of your hand.

Cool, sure does sound like a genuine Benchmade, then. Free, huh? Heyyyy... I guess I won't ask.

I don't know the models by heart so I can't say I recognize #9050, but it's probably on their website. Have fun with it, keep it decent. Could come to be worth something! Careful now.

If you want to check out a nice one, get the Nimravus Cub -- it's a fixed blade Benchmade. If you're military, it's right up your alley.


---Jeffrey

Quote

I have a benchmade. all black with a spring loaded blade. Its not a primary or secondary or anything like that, because its only used for cutting into MRE's and through 5-50 chord not for cutting people.

Wow, waitaminute... You have a Benchmade AUTO? Usually, when someone has one of those it is not only very expensive, but they won't mention it without a name or model number. Are you sure it's a Benchmade? Their autos are pretty hard to come by, particularly without big bucks invested. (Over $200, I believe.)

---Jeffrey

Ugh, I shudder to think of how much I spent in rental fees before a used rig found me!

I now own a Javelin with a Lotus 170. The container/reserve/new Cypres 2 were sold to me by Tom Collins here at Skydive SoBe. The Javelin had only a couple of jumps on it, by a guy who was going to buy it but couldn't. The reserve, a Raven 181, is new, the Cypres 2 was ordered and sold to me for cost, apparently. The Lotus 170 has a couple hundred jumps on it, and is now equipped with Slinks, a dual-cinch slider, and a collapsible pilot chute. I'm quite happy with the whole rig. It sure feels great to join the ranks of skydivers with their own equipment.

I plan to make my own Monkey's Fist pilot chute handle. I'm an old hand at Monkey's Fists, but when you start to try to make them with NINE turns instead of only THREE, it gets quite complicated and you have to build a frame to help tie it around the golf-ball core. I'm eager to fly a rig that has some part actually hand-made by me.
---Jeffrey

Skydivers tend to be up-to-speed on the latest and greatest gear, of course. That's part of the fun. That's why I would not be surprised if among all of us there are many who carry a knife of decent quality on a day-to-day basis.

I'm curious if any of you own any Spyderco or Benchmade knives (as they are my favorites lately), or possibly any real aficionados have higher-end knives like the Sebenza or even customs.

What do you own and/or carry?

Personally, I carry a Spyderco Military as a primary and sometimes a Benchmade Mini-Griptilian or a Spyderco Navigator as a secondary. (I also wear a Cold Steel Spike in a neck sheath on paracord. That's a last-ditcher.)

Knife people, sound off: what do you like, and why?

---Jeffrey

Quote

I don't know about that right click-open in new window stuff. But if you just left click, and drag it into your web-browser's address bar, it should work.

-Kramer

Yes, THAT worked for me. When I tried the "right click" thing, the option to "open in new browser window" was grayed-out and unavailable to choose. I never knew about dragging to the browser bar. Thanks.

---Jeffrey

Hey, y'all, anyone headed down to Florida should come straight to Palm Beach. We have a new DZ out here, right at the s.e. corner of the big lake in the map of Florida, called Skydive South Beach (SoBe). Just opened in November to replace the defunct Skydive America. DZ is now located right ON Pahokee Airport (no more bus ride to/from the plane)! The place and the people are awesome! First boogie was held on Jan. 24 & 25 -- a great time!
Come on down. If you need a lift from PBI airport, email me. Everyone flies into PBI, so no excuses. The DZ is 50 min. drive from there and I go every weekend, room for 3 passengers in my little Subaru.
---Jeffrey

I'm not military, but my brother was Army (2Lt), airborne/air assault.

I'm a gun and knife enthusiast, and like military things very much. I think it was a disgusting thing when they took the distinctive black beret from the Rangers, essentially told them to go take a shit on themselves, and distributed them to every puke who could sign his life away, merit or not.

Rangers distinguish themselves by their effort and strength. The actions of the top command essentially said, "We don't look out for our own." How much more clear could the message have been, when it was SO ABUNDANTLY EVIDENT that 99% of the army personnel did not support this decision but the brass made it anyway?! What the fuck were they thinking?!

---Jeffrey

Quote

So I am jewlery ignorant as I do not wear any save for my wedding band. No piercings, no tatoos not even a watch.

With that being said, I find myself strangely attracted to pin necklaces. So, what do you peeps think?

I'm a guy, and I wanted one the very moment I first saw someone wearing one. So I ordered 20 pins from Paragear and began making knotted necklaces using them as a pendant. (I'd already been into macrame and knotted jewelry for some time.)

When others at my DZ saw mine, some asked for me to make them one. I've so far made at least 7 of them for other people. Mine use a four-strand round braid made of 550 cord in various colors. I don't have a picture of a specimen yet, but I'll probably make one tonight. The pattern of two colors of paracord make a sort of diamond-looking effect that is really cool. I met a woman at our Boogie this weekend named Tammy who makes the BEST skydive jewelry I've ever seen. Her attention to detail is phenomenal. I know she said she has a website but I don't know the url.
(edited to add: I guess maybe it's the Tami Carbone mentioned in the above reply. She's awesome. She even shared some of her techniques with me just for the asking!)
If you have any desire whatsoever to wear a closing pin necklace, DO it. There is nothing at all un-masculine about it. I know of at least 10 guys, and just about all the girls, who wear them at my DZ. They're sorta talismanic. I love them.

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

Sadly, it doesn't shock me at all to learn about your canopy downsizing.

Why not? I read the incidents forum.

what he said.

from watching 2 landings (some of your very first landings at that) your jm ok's aff student to downsize? and then yet again after a few more?

Maybe it should not be automatically assumed that the JM was remiss in okaying the aff student to downsize. Does the student have pilot training? This, I'm told, helps students understand and then accomplish good landings with a proper pattern, altitude awareness, and flare. I know, because my own pilot training benefited me. My JM knew that I had done four long-ago static line jumps (canopy unknown at this point) and AFF I, and knew I was a pilot, and although all I had available to jump was a PD 190 in F11, I was RELEASED on my first non-tandem AFP jump. Sure, I was all over the sky, but I had my mental shit more-or-less together and made a safe deployment at altitude and landed fine. Stood it up, as I recall. No, wait, not that one. Anyway, I'm just saying that I don't think there's something so crazy wrong with making the progression he made. A lot of factors may have been considered by the JM before he okayed this particular deal, and we're not aware of them.

---Jeffrey

She can't sing, but she's kinda cute. I'd do 'er. Besides, apparently now she knows her place.



---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

I suppose you support a two-week waiting period to buy gasoline. How about a 5-gallon limit?

Perhaps a better logical argument for you would have been steak knives.

Quote

Ignorance and cowardice are powerful forces.

Insulting the opposition isn't really an effective way to get them to agree with you.

Do you honestly think that we expect to change the mind of someone who could have EVER believed the crap you believe regarding gun rights? This is not about changing YOUR mind, quade, this is about letting everyone else who views this thread see how pathetically weak your arguments are in a logical sense. Poking the holes in your anti-gun tripe is its own reward. No rational person can leave this discussion convinced that what you've said holds any water.
And the way you evade questions is pretty lame, too. He asked you about gasoline, which killed what, 180-some-odd people in the Happyland Social Club fire (torched by some illegal immigrant psycho who had been thrown out). What did you do? You asked some stupid question about steak knives. Lots of domestic violence murders are committed with ordinary kitchen knives. Why not license those too?

---Jeffrey
---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

. . . because it is simply a tool to effect prohibition. . . .

I realize a certain portion of the population feels this way. I'm at a loss to understand why. I'm not sure I understand the logic of the conspiracy theory to license them first only to have them prohibited at some later date.

Before I go ahead and call you a thick-headed, ignorant idiot, I feel it's only right to give you a chance to answer the following question:

WHAT FUCKIN' PART OF "THEY ALREADY DID THAT IN NEW YORK, D.C., ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA" DO YOU NOT FUCKIN' UNDERSTAND?!

How do you keep fuckin' ignoring that reality?!

---Jeffrey

Quote

Yes I do in fact support education and licensing for those who own firearms. Also I would support currency. Not to mention the 5 day waiting period because this IMO prevents anyone from purchasing a firearm during a fit of anger. Seriously...anyone who can't wait 5 whole days should have planned further ahead.

What I don't want to see is what happened in the UK, Canada and Australia.

Well, Spiral, what happened in the UK, Canada and Australia happened bit-by-bit, starting with mandatory training and licensing for those who own firearms. This is a case of a frog will jump out of a pot of boiling water if thrown right in, but he will simmer and cook to death if the heat is turned up gradually. The anti-gun people may be stupid, but they're not dumb. They know full well that an outright ban will be fully opposed. So they sneak in "reasonable" restriction after "reasonable" restriction. Soon whole classes of guns are banned for no other reason than they have a bayonet lug or a pistol grip and "look" menacing -- even though they don't function in any way differently from other guns that are NOT banned.

If you want to keep the right to bear arms, you can't support letting the camel get its nose into the tent. At this point, the nose is in, the head is in, and we're doing our best to bash the face of the camel right back the fuck outta the tent. Wishywashiness does not help in that regard. Do YOU like being told that you're not a menace to society simply because your gun now may hold only 10 rounds instead of 13-15? Can you believe that this is the kind of "logic" the anti-gunners subscribe to?

More to the point: CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL EVER BE CONTENT TO STOP [I]THERE[/I]??

---Jeffrey

Quote

I totally understand your thoughts. No further elaboration is required, but consider that for most other devices that have the potential for the instant lethality that guns do, we regulate them fairly heavily -- often requiring education and licensing. Cars, motorcycles, airplanes . . . just to name a few.

Would you support that?

If not, then why not?

I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would be against this -- Winsor included. In fact, since he made such a big deal out of the education issues earlier, I'd be very interested in his comments.

The top three mass-murders I've ever heard about in the U.S. were all accomplished by people who did not have, nor need, licenses to use the means they used to take many lives. They are the steering of airplanes into the World Trade Center, the demolition of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City using ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, and the Happyland Social Club fire in which a spurned club-goer torched the place with gasoline and matches.

Do you want to license the right to purchase gasoline and matches?

You ask, "Would you support that?" when it comes to guns. My answer? FUCK NO. The power to license is the power to DENY. In New York City, the law does not say you may not have a gun. The law says you may not have a gun without a license. Then, what do they do? They make it impossibly hard to qualify for a license! So even though the guns are not banned, you can't get the prerequisite license to own them (and forget about carrying them!) because they police simply rubber-stamp denials by the thousands!

So FUCK NO, I don't support licensing or mandatory training or whatever. The next thing you know, they'll make the "training" so impossibly hard to pass that no one will be deemed "qualified" to be licensed. This is not a matter of "would they ever do that?" They fuckin' HAVE done that!

When you consider that over 80,000,000 people own over 250,000,000 guns in the United States, and we have as FEW gun-related deaths as we have, you have to realize that the vast vast majority of gun owners already know what they need to about gun safety. To be honest, it ain't that hard to be safe with a gun. Any unsafety is more likely due to hubris, or disregard for rules. In such a case, when someone does something stupid (Uh, like RUSSIAN ROULETTE) that's not necessarily because he needed to undergo forced training and licensure -- he was gonna be a reckless idiot no matter what anyone told him. Are you telling me that your friend who blew his OWN brains out on a 1-in-6 chance had never come across the rule of gun safety that says, "Never let the muzzle cover anything you would not wish destroyed"? So don't give me licensure bullshit. Stupid is stupid, license or not. People drive like little old grannies to pass their fuckin' test, and then they are moments later screaming down the highway, cutting people off, blowing red lights, etc. Why are you so naive that you think it would be any different with gun licenses? The guy in England who precipitated their gun ban by killing 16 kids and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland was licensed by their police to own guns. He had been fully vetted by the police. Certain things simply cannot and will not be foreseen nor prevented. That's life. And it's not a reason to take away the rights of 99.99% of everybody.

---Jeffrey

Hey, if you twist your plans a bit, you could fly into Palm Beach (PBI), five minutes from where I live, stay over with me and my cat (I'll take the couch and you can have the bed) and we'll go out to Skydive South Beach (at sunny Lake Okeechobee in the middle of sugar-cane country) all weekend long! I go out every single week, always on Sunday and sometimes on Saturday. Let me know. My house is messy but I cook really well, and I like to play host when I can. Skydivers are always welcome.

I'm a 54-jump newbie with a not-yet-faxed-in A-license, still very much hot for the sport and for learning new stuff. Guess what -- I sit-flew this weekend, in my very own new used rig!!

---Jeffrey

Quote

Welcome to the family! We're glad to have another sister!!

Lookit Brian Germain, whose userid still says "newbie" next to it! WHAT?! Dude, I met you at the Skydive SoBe boogie this weekend, and at the moment they pantsed you (Ron has this thing for butts, it seems) I had no idea who you are -- and it turned out you made my canopy!!! LOL!

I watched Vertical Journey as soon as I got home on Sunday and loved it! Now I'm reading the book. Thanks for all you've contributed to making life beautiful, man. We owe you.

Blue skies,
---Jeffrey

Quote

Like most kids on my block I had a bb gun and we played an extremely early form of paintball with them. We worn Navy surplus Peacoats and shop goggles.

My current fairly anti-gun stance comes from a lifetime of living in Southern California. About 10-15 years ago SoCal could be a fairly dangerous place with random freeway shootings and gang wars. In particular, the street sweepers were particularly bad.

Further, I've done some fairly "interesting" side jobs, a little skip tracing and a little investigative journalism. As a result, I've seen some pretty ugly things and, unfortunately, feel I've been a part in causing some fairly ugly things when we caught people.

I had a co-worker's brother eat his gun when he felt a little too depressed and I had another lose at Russian roulette.

All in all, my personal experience tells me that a person is far more likely to hurt either himself or a family member than somebody trying to break in their house or car jack them. Of course, that's just me and my lifetime worth of experience. If you want to discount that, fine, but it's the world I've seen.

Jesus Christ, Quade, if this is your experience with guns, no WONDER you're anti-gun. Right from the get-go, your attitude about guns has been ass-fucking-backward. You ran around shooting at each other as kids, despite the fact that the first rule is treat all guns as loaded, and the second is don't let the muzzle cover anything you don't wish to DESTROY. With such blatant and contemptuous disregard for gun safety, it's no wonder your take on guns is negative.

Then you had friends lose their lives by SUICIDE and by -- excuse my insensitivity, but it's called-for -- IDIOTIC LUNACY ("RUSSIAN ROULETTE!?! BY CHRIST THAT'S FUCKIN' STUPID!), and THAT is part of the reason you think restricting MY access to guns is a good and proper thing?!

Your "personal experience with guns" is an aberration, and by no means is it valid to use your little heuristic to set policy regarding whether the rest of us remain free to have guns, nor should it be argued so. The vast majority of us live by the rules of gun safety just like we live by the rules of skydiving safety. If we fuck ourselves up, usually it's because of our own choices and our own failings. You will never be able to legislate away those things.

Your coworker's suicide could have been effected by any thousand other means, had he not had a gun. The guy who lost at Russian Roulette... Well, would you sever your main and reserve risers with odds 5 in 6 that you'll survive, and 1 in 6 that you'll surely die? I don't think much of your coworker's intellect, there, and like the Darwin Awards say, maybe we're collectively better off without someone who is able to make such horrible choices, on the chance that they could have impacted a SMART person at some point.

Those of us who have been surrounded my mostly smart and responsible use of guns still support gun ownership. You would do well to dwell on the majority experience, not on the aberrant things that happened in your person experience. That tends to lead to hysterical, rather than rational, conclusions.

---Jeffrey

Quote

Quote

But there has been a large increase in the number of concealed carry permits issued in the last ten years and an increase in the number or States that allow it. It could be argued that this is the reason for the decline. In fact, many people do.

And I would argue that the rate of bullets going into people bodies has decreased -despite- the number of CCs issued.

If you want to check it out, then dig a little deeper into the numbers and see which states have CCs and which don't and which states have had the greatest reductions in gun related crimes.

Further, The Center for Disese Control hasn't found a correlation? Well, geeze, I guess NASA or the Department of Agriculture hasn't found a correlation between the Brady Bill and the decrease in gun related violence either. Big whoop. I think if you look at the Department of Justice, you'll see a pretty damn direct correlation.

WOO-HOOOO! I just KNEW that if I poked around long enough, I'd find that fellow skydivers, just like my fellow pilots, tend to be rationally pro-gun ownership.

Quade, if gun violence has declined while many CCW permits have been issued, I don't see how you can say that it's "in spite of" the permits. That's like saying that if you got a flu shot and then didn't get the flu, it's probably in spite of the flu shot that you stayed healthy.

You asked about in which states the violent crime rates declined. John Lott used the reports from ALL COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES for a comprehensive look at that question, and found in a study (a peer-reviewed study) that violent crime declined MORE in states with CCW permits than in states that are restrictive on guns. Don't forget, with Ohio joining the ranks just this month (and their CCW to take effect in April, I believe) there are THIRTY SEVEN STATES that have SHALL-ISSUE concealed firearm carry permit laws enacted. If a state did experience a decline in violent crime, there's a better-than-1-in-2 chance that it WAS a CCW state. More than half the country's population lives in states that have CCW laws.

CDC's study of the effectiveness of gun control laws like Brady, "Assault Weapon Ban" etc. found no compelling evidence of the success of any of them. CDC examined the results of FIFTY-SOME-ODD studies that were looking for results from gun control laws. Since CDC has been notoriously anti-gun for decades, one would expect that if they could have possibly slanted their study to show some small advantage to gun control laws, they would have. It is quite telling that they did not. The data was there, it was public, and if they had fabricated a pro-gun-control conclusion, they would have been leapt on by pro-gun criminologists and researchers and exposed further as liars. CDC is the department that funded Arthur Kellerman's famous study that purported to prove how having a gun in the home increased your likelihood of getting killed with a gun by "43 times" over the possibility of using that gun for defense. That "study" is now thoroughly debunked. Kellerman never made his data available for peer review, using bullshit excuse after excuse. He did not study ALL counties in the U.S. like Lott did: he cherry-picked the worst-cases to make things look badder than they are. One major flaw in his study: he did not count anything less than KILLING your attacker as a successful defensive gun use. That means if you truly repelled an attack by simply showing that you were armed; wounding an attacker but not killing him; firing a shot that missed... these did not count as defensive gun uses to his study. But in reality, the use of guns in such ways DOES save the lives of the would-be victims, does it not?

So Kellerman is a has-been whose lies are fully exposed now. He also included neighborhood drug dealers and other acquaintances as "loved ones killed by a gun" to pump up his statistics -- rather like the way the CDC calls drug dealers up to age 25 "children" to come up with their preposterous "13 children a day are killed by guns" stats.

Did you ever notice that the number claimed has been declining? It became 12, then 10, now I've seen 8, I think. Something must be going right, regarding guns. The number of actual children killed with guns has been declining EVERY YEAR since statistics began to be kept. Remember, every year that passes sees MILLIONS MORE FIREARMS owned by the general public than the year before. A net increase in guns owned every single year gives lie to the idea that gun control is EVER resposnsible for any decline in crime that takes place. If that were true, there would have to be a net DEcline in the number of guns in circulation -- and that has never occurred.

Look at Chicago, NYC and D.C. They all have de-facto gun bans, since the '70s or so. They also have some of the highest murder and gun crime rates in the country. You want to blame other states where it's easy to get guns? Why then do the attackers GET the guns in other states but go BACK to where they know victims are legally forced to be unarmed to commit their crimes against them? Hmmm? Could it be that they don't wanna push their luck with people who could easily be licensed to carry a gun for protection?

Open your mind. The claims of the gun-banners just do NOT make rational sense.

---Jeffrey