SCOTUS issues order to drop mag bans, assault weapons bans, and carry bans!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (171)
sorted by:
No time to put a parachute on if the plane is in a maneuvering state. No access to independent oxygen. No safe way to exit the airplane. Stand by for the crash...
Yeah, if you are shooting at the range and a shell ejects and hits you square in the forehead, safety glasses will save your eyes. Or if the slide comes apart (Beretta M9 accidents) and whacks you in the face, they will save your eyes (maybe not your nose). Magic is no defense against accidents with equipment that operate under extreme forces. (And safety glasses are not parachutes.)
If it's in a maneuvering state. It's still more possible than it being low over water, yet they give you a life jacket. More opportunities to put on a parachute and survive than a lifejacket and survive. The real reason they do it is to cut costs. A casing although it may burn. It will not cause disfigurement. Although I did have one land on my leg and burn the fuck out of it. The specific variants of the Barretta M9 had manufacturing faults when it came to the slide coming off. It's still pretty rare. People should study their firearms before using them and take the appropriate PPE for that firearm. The majority of firearms are robust and reliable. I think specs and ear defenders should be the shooter's choice on whether they want to go deaf over time from excessive sound exposure, or have protection from an accident that is considerably rare. I know that I can't shoot wearing safety specs. Maybe just me or not enough training, but I was trained without and don't see the need. I will say, it would of been handy the first time shooting a semi automatic when I put my eye too close to the rear sight lol
The doors are not designed to be opened in flight, and the crew would be derelict in their responsibility to attempt this. Exiting an aircraft at Mach 0.7+ at high altitude is not a survivable environment---much less encountering the wings or horizontal stabilizer. Parachutes require careful attention and training to use, and not everyone is going to be a suitable user. Your idea is fanciful. (Don't bother to cite D.B. Cooper. He knew what he was doing and selected an airplane with rear exit stairs. There is no proof he survived his descent.)
If one survives a "landing" on water, then the first order of survival is to be able to float.
I'm sorry, but you do not have a good understanding of airplane safety.
A casing that will burn your leg will melt your cornea into goo. You won't be blind, but you won't be far from it. (I used to design intraocular lenses. No fix for a ruined cornea.) The M9 had no known faults---until they were discovered. It is a safety cop-out to say that one should be familiar with their firearm. That is obvious. But it does not void the need for such things as ear protection and safety glasses. It's always a choice (another cop-out) and one can always be a fool.
But a life jacket over a parachute? I don't think it's foolish to go without safety specs. I think if you are shooting as per hunting or combat training, need to do so without the specs. (been on a piss up so sorry about the short reply lol)
They don't provide parachutes and there is no benefit to invoke them. Your remark makes no sense. If you are in an operational environment, of course you have grounds for discarding the safety gear; that was never in dispute. The issue was why one should take an avoidable risk if there would be no advantage to taking it (such as in practice shooting). You are simply insisting there is no risk. To invoke your own logic, does this mean you do not buckle your auto seat belt? Or wear a life vest when boating? Of have no fire extinguisher at home?
Really, your whole position comes down to "Nothing bad has happened to me yet. And never will." Because that is the policy you are following.