gunver79

This was also my first thought.[...] it is really a bit hard to believe, is it not? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WV2EdDGq5I Can anyone who has more information factcheck this video? I don't generally agree with Stefan Molyneux, but this is really close to my first instinct about how this could have wound down. (Don't bother watching after 9:00...no new information added.)

This does not look like a good idea. Selling what is essentially BASE gear to the uneducated public? Not a good idea at all. If they'd ban these, I'd say it's reasonable. But of course this is not what the ban is about...

Wow...I think that alone says a lot. (Not about you, but rather about the circumstances; I think you get my meaning.) True, it probably would have.

Although I am probably coming from a different direction politically: This was also my first thought. I mean, this kid was wearing a NASA-T-Shirt for crying out loud! Can you make it any more cliche-ish? And then President Obama and people from Harvard and Oxford coming out the next day, offering invitations and support and whatnot. Also, the science teacher, obviously having no idea what kind of a student he has in class, considers his gizmo a possible bomb yet does not initiate evacuation nor call the bomb squad? Can anyone possibly be that stupid AND be a science teacher? I really hope this story is legit and if so, all power to the kid. But it is really a bit hard to believe, is it not?

If you want to get an idea of the actual science behind it: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/ It remains to add that just about anybody can do it (after completing elementary school). Sorry to break that to you.

So your point was that the limiting factor on many occasions is the willingness/determination of the perpetrator and not his psychological (or technological) ability? Then I misunderstood you and you clearly have a point. But think about this: Given that having a firearm makes it psychologically easier to kill someone relative to most other types of weapons this also reduces the minimum willingness/determination required that is necessary for someone to actually get killed in such an incident. I am aware that this belongs to the realm of speculation, it's just meant as food for thought. I agree that in the given incident it probably would not have changed much. Still, 'not much' can easily mean the difference between the life or death of one more person. Just for clarification: This is about the only point that I tried to make above (and one that obviously isn't really challenged by anyone here. At least by now).

It's rather the question what your point is. It has been said that the boy in the given scenario could have managed to wreak much more havoc before he came to his senses if he had a gun. Champu countered with the argument that killing is not only about technical or mechanical action, but also about the psychological ability to do so. While this is true, the level of psychological training needed increases with decreasing distance to the target. It's a lot harder to kill someone in hand-to-hand-combat than with a knife, it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bow than with a rifle and so on. The psychological cost (trauma, chance of PTSD) increases, too. The actual psychological mechanism is more complex, but what it boils down to is: Therefore, it has already been made clear in this thread, that modern firearms make it easier to kill not only mechanically but also psychologically. At which point I am really wondering what your point is. I can already hear someone joking around that German military is not real military and that I therefore have no idea what I am talking about. Please note that your OWN military guys are in complete agreement with me on the basic psychological principles of killing, which in fact, they have researched and made established in the field. I don't not expect you to take my word for it, you may prefer to read it for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ Please also note that since I am no US citizen I have no opinion on whether the US should have stricter gun control laws or not. I'm simply not in favor of pointless arguments that are purely based on misconceptions.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of anger in that fellow, better not let him fly a passenger airplane. No reason for name-calling. In fact, the best reaction to that would be no reaction (especially if he really does pull the Lubitz-card some time in the future). If you're above that, be above that. If you have to state that you're above that, you're not really above it. There is a quote that's commonly attributed to Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." The same principle applies here. If your opponent is about to disqualify himself from any sensible discussion by an obvious low shot, don't get involved. Those who get it will get it all by themselves, those who don't, won't anyway. Plus you can't get in trouble by assuming positions that are very hard to defend such as Hitler held the German citizenship since he could not legally be president of the Reich otherwise, which he was. In fact, there was an appeal in 2007 to revoke his German citizenship, which did not happen because of formal legal reasons (apparently a dead person can't hold any rights and therefore they cannot be taken from him). If you are going to argue that he was somehow not "truly" German, since he wasn't BORN German, well, that's where the "hard to defend"-part comes in. I also agree with mpohl about Lubitz' family. I strongly believe that is why the media should've kept their mouths shut and not publish his full name. I can't see it doing any good, since the guy is dead and I can definitely see it doing a lot of bad to all his family and everybody bearing that name by chance. Memes like the one presented by Driver1 surely don't help either. [P.S.: If anyone is offended or feels lectured, I apologize. I was serving as an army instructor for a decade and now I am studying to become a school teacher. It becomes sort of second nature over time, though I'm really trying to avoid it among adults/civilians.]

After his (in)famous Sportpalast speech Goebbels wrote in his diary: "This hour of idiocy! If I had said to the people, jump out the fourth floor of Columbushaus, they would have done that too." I'd be really curious whether Fox News moderators believe their own stories themselves or rather despise their audience for actually trusting them. Some stories just sound too incredible to accept that they believe them themselves (no-go areas for non-Muslims in Europe come to mind, but then again that may not look as ridiculous from your side of the water as it does from mine).

http://s.likes-media.com/img/12509e04672f804f46c2698db5531bf1.600x.jpg

Are you a skydiver yet? No offence meant, but it sounds a bit like you aren't. It's not a problem if not, it might just be a tad too early to think about switching jobs. Is there a possibility to get training or at least do a tandem jump where you live (e.g. in one of the places named here: http://www.redbull.in/cs/Satellite/en_IN/Article/5-places-to-aerial-dive-in-India-021243307642901)? I am fairly new to the sport myself so I am not in the position to throw advice around, but if you still want to hear it: Get into the sport, see if this is for you, make the decision about expensive courses later. If you are indeed already a trained skydiver and are looking for advice for your further progress in the skydiving world then please forget everything I've just said and instead listen to the guys who actually work(ed) in the industry. Thanks

I am also planing to to work on a DZ in summer 2017 and I think this is pretty much the most likely scenario. I'm still hoping to find a trailer that doesn't leak, though... :D

BTW: I don't know about the US, but the German parachuting federation indeed provides data in the way that you might have in mind: Severe incidents and deaths broken down by jump numbers (see attached file). BUT: While useful, this doesn't proof anything about what was discussed here. The only valid comparison would be between risk/jump not risk/year with widely varying jump numbers/year*. To gather the required data, all jumps would have to be logged with the related jump number of the jumper and then transmitted to your respective national federation. Conclusion: The way you demand it to be done is not going to be done anytime soon. The only way we have to produce sound data is the one described by yoink. *[Edit to clarify: My assumption is that people with high jump numbers jump a lot more than people with low jump numbers (hence their high jump number and because all the professionals are among them). Thus they expose themselves to/create a much greater risk per year than a typical low timer, even if their created/taken risk per jump may be much much lower. There also seem to be a lot more active jumpers in the more than 200 jumps range than below that. This maybe true or not, fact is that it can't be proven right or wrong with the data we have]

The university belongs to the Missouri synod. But I may be over-thinking things. Exchange semesters are about inter-cultural experience after all. If it was only the language that was different then it would be boring. Putting my foot in my mouth from time to time is part of the adventure. Side note: I almost regret having said something. I certainly don't want to add to ongoing stereotype wars (e.g. lawrocket vs. christelsabine in that other thread).

From an outside perspective it seems that the SIM itself leads the discussion into a problematic direction by suggesting that there is a jump number or skill level (C licence) at which you can just add a camera to everything you've been doing previously and you're good. The German system requires you to get ground training and at least 6 check dives (2 flying relative to a motive without camera gear, 2 with only camera gear but no motive, 2 with motive and full gear). Among the requirements to get this training are proficiency in the discipline you're about to film, a licence and 100 jumps (50 of which during the last 12 month). I am not a camera flyer nor will I be anytime soon, so I can argue only based on assumptions here. But the least that the German approach does is minimizing the discussion about requirements for jumping with a camera. If you really want to put in the necessary effort and jumps to learn how to camera fly, go find an instructor or a professional camera person who is willing to work with you and start learning. The only thing that's not allowed at any skill level is to simply strap a camera to your helmet and think that's all there's to it*. A thought which is indirectly forwarded by the American SIM, even though the suggested skill level is rather high. *(although I assume that in the 1000+ jumps region this is not really policed/enforced by most DZOs in Germany)