Hooknswoop

No, putting DZ's interests ahead of member's interests and then not fixing it after 16 means means they do not care. Keeping membership mandatory means they do not have to care. Derek V

And it is a perfect example of how the USPA doesn't care about it's dues paying members. Why? Because they can do whatever they want and skydivers cannot vote with their money. Derek V

Isn't this moving the goal post? Last time I talked to RD, it was to tell them someone was doing AFF without an AFFI rating. They replied, "What do you want me to do, take away a rating they don't have?" How did lowering the standard benefit the membership? Derek V

Nothing, no reply to my email. How did lowering the standard benefit the membership? Haha, DZ's either separate the landing areas or they don't, GM pledge be damned. Derek V

Let's face it. USPA doesn't care. I am not convinced. Just one example; The lowering of the AFFICC standards in response to the Instructor shortage. Derek V

Let's face it. USPA doesn't care. Why bother justifying the increase? They will raise the dues and the membership will pay it. Why? because they have no (real) other choice but to pay it. Derek V

Great. We have something we can build on. We have identified 3 factors that contribute to gun crime; organized crime, poverty, and ease of access to guns. Addressing any of the 3 can have the impact of lowering gun crimes. Which should society put their resources into addressing? 1- Organized crime. Reducing organized crime will benefit society in many ways beyond reducing gun crimes. Seems like a good place to invest resources. 2- Poverty. Another good area to spend resources. Programs that provide people with training, good paying jobs, transportation, etc. All good places to expend resources. 3-Ease of access to guns. Limited impact. Some neighborhoods will see zero reduction in gun crimes. Very difficult to pass laws limiting constitutional rights and these laws can be bypassed by going out of the area and creates a black market. These are just initial thoughts and can be debated, but the reality is, #3 is a loser. Kallend- Read billvon's post again: "WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology. " Kallend: "More guns - more gun crime." Derek V

Factor 1(organized crime), factor 2(poverty level) and factor 3(ease of access to guns) are all factors that lead to a result(more or less gun crime). Derek V

No? We are saying the same thing, but you say we are not. "Take away any one of them and violence decreases." Right, so your answer should have been yes..... Remove organized crime and/or remove poverty and crime and shootings tend to go down. Why the "No". Derek V

Except, according to Kallend, that isn't true. It just isn't that simple. It is one of many factors. Derek V

So, easy access to guns minus "an area rife with organized crime" AND/OR minus "the sort of poverty endemic to Chicago" equals "There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign."??? Derek V

Exactly why I don't agree with Kallend's conclusion; "More guns - more gun crime." It just isn't that simple. There are more factors. Same gun laws, different neighborhoods, different results. Derek V

And completely ignore that it only leads to more accidents in cities and not in rural areas? Derek V

Using your example, if you raised the legal BAC for the entire US and only saw an increase in cities and rural areas remained flat, what conclusion(s) would you draw? Derek V

I agree, and that is why I called him out on it. We are not talking the impact on a city vs. a rural area, not even two different cities. We are taling about 2 neighborhoods within the same city. According to Kallend, one neighborhood experienced a rise in shootings, another saw no change. He drew the conclusion more guns = more shootings. I do not agree with his conclusion. The evidence points to other causes since the change in the gun laws had no effect on the other neighborhood. Other factors are clearly at play, i.e. a gang war. Derek V

No. That is exactly the point. Kallend suggested that it is that simple; "Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline" Yet, if you look at his next post, "Attached map shows where shootings have occurred in Chicago since July 1. The big cluster is on the "west side", where there is an ongoing gang war. While most of the victims (and pretty much all the perps) are gang bangers, there are also, unfortunately, some victims who are "collateral damage". The overwhelming majority are young males. There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign." That contradicts his other post that suggests that the increase is because of the legalization of concealed carry in Chicago. I do not think it is as simple as, "More guns - more gun crime." it is much more complicated than that. According to Kallend, the same gun laws applied to different neighborhoods in Chicago have had dramatically different results. From zero increase to a large increase. Why? Derek V

Kallend doesn't want to have a discussion. That is my first point. Secondly, he drew the conclusion that with the relaxation of the gun laws, gun fatalities went up. But they didn't go up in every neighborhood, according to Kallend. So, he intentionally ignored all the facts in order to further his agenda. Dishonest at best. Derek V

You replied, but didn't answer the question. Very simple question. 3rd time I have asked; Are the gun laws the same in the "neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens" and "where there is an ongoing gang war."? Derek V

Me either. And I am sure Chicago is no different. Kallend knows this and that is why he refuses to answer the question. It demonstrates that guns laws does not directly equate to gun fatality statistics. Destroys his conclusion that more guns = more gun fatalities. Nothing like facts to get in the way of a good conclusion. Sounds like aTrump. Derek V

You replied, but didn't answer the question. Are the gun laws the same in the "neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens" and "where there is an ongoing gang war."? Derek V

Check the box...... Derek V

You replied, but didn't answer the question. Are the gun laws the same in the "neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens" and "where there is an ongoing gang war."? Derek V

Are the gun laws the same in the "neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens" and "where there is an ongoing gang war."? Derek V

TK- Very nice presentation. Derek V

Why is this your plan? Why do you plan on 700 feet for tracking? Why not more? Less? The point of tracking is to gain horizontal separation from the other jumpers in your group. You cannot possible know that it will take exactly 700 feet of tracking to gain enough separation to deploy your parachute. Track until your are clear, wave off, and pull. If you find that a 4,000-foot break off altitude is causing you to be under a fully inflated & functional canopy, break off higher and/or improve your tracking abilities. If you find you are able to get enough clearance from everyone else and deploy higher than your planned altitude, great! More time to deal with a malfunction, plan your landing pattern, make it back from a long spot, etc. Derek V