Free Republic

I tend to agree - if your shots are pulling high and right, and have an 8” spread at 60 yards, it’s probably you, and not the scope or the rifle. It’s been my experience that the spread can be reduced with better breath control. Firing high and right typically indicates that you’re anticipating your shot, and subconsciously fighting the recoil - even before it happens.

It might not be a bad idea to have a local professional spend a little time with you. It shouldn’t take long to knock the rust off and lose the bad habits.

Best of luck!

I’ve always liked Rod O’Steele.

My coworkers and I have been watching Spartacus lately. We’ve come up with several that fit us:
Geriatricus
Farticus
Flatulus Maximus

As you can probably tell, we’re firefighters with too much time on our hands.

“...to prevent an attempt by ladder from the outside sounds positively unacceptable.”

lol...I KNEW someone would bring that up - but I’d already written so much, I didn’t want to address it in my previous post.

If you are going to try a rescue, that would be the way to go. At least you’re easier to get to if something goes wrong.

However, I still can’t recommend it.

While an external ladder rescue isn’t nearly as dangerous as an internal search, some of the same principles apply. I’ll assume that the would-be rescuers are physically fit enough to climb the ladder, since they carried them to the scene and were willing to put them up.

Do we know the weight limit of the ladder? Many home-use ladders top out at 250-300 lbs, which may or may not be enough in this situation. If you’re holding a 75 lb child in your arms, 15’ up, and the ladder catastrophically fails, you’re both in a world of hurt.

What if mom panics and throws her child to the rescuer? Could the rescuer safely catch and hold the child, and remain on the ladder?

Would the rescuer be able to safely bring the victims down the ladder? This sounds trite, but it is much more challenging than you might think, if the victim is confused, hysterical, injured, or unconscious.

There is still some danger involved. If the rescuer slips, they will likely injure themselves and the victim. This will again take EMS resources away from the victim.

By definition, the ladder will be set up within the “collapse zone”. Pieces of the building can and usually will come loose during a fire. This creates quite a hazard for people working close to the exterior of the building. Would the rescuer be able to keep their cool and do the job if a 2x3’ piece of flaming tar paper fell on their head and shoulders?

Most people would weigh these disadvantages, and proceed with the rescue attempt. The odds are with you on this type of rescue, and our human condition pretty much demands it (especially with children involved). Things would have to go very, very wrong for this to not be a better option than leaving the victims inside to burn.

That said, it’s still much more dangerous than most would think, and fire departments still wouldn’t recommend it. Every victim you add to the equation makes our job much harder, ties up resources, and delays rescue of any victims that weren’t rescued.

Also - when we know there are victims inside, and we know what room they’re most probably in, we can usually get to them within 3-5 minutes of our arrival. You may not be saving much time with your ladder rescue, and you may be getting in our way if we’re going to use a ladder.

Saving lives is always our number 1 priority. If we believe there is a reasonable chance of saving someone, we will make every effort to do so - even at the calculated risk of our own lives. Firefighters are just normal people, with all of the same feelings and drives you have. We really, really don’t want to leave people in a burning building.

I fully understand your sentiment, but I must disagree.

I’m a firefighter in Texas. We will gladly take calculated risks for the possibility of saving a life. If there is a chance that we can save someone, we will go in.

However, we are highly trained and have supporting equipment (turnout gear, air supply, entry tools, etc), as well as a team of professionals to support us. We train for this specific type of event, and are fully conversant in the necessary techniques. Even with those tools and that training, it is very, very difficult to find people in a smoke-filled home. It is physically and mentally demanding. Most people do not have the physical conditioning to do it. That’s why we train so hard and so often. To get an idea of what the inside of a burning building actually looks like, do a YouTube search of “Firefighter helmet cam” and watch some of those videos.

When we search a home for people, we usually use up a lot of our air just finding them. Once we find a victim, we have to decide the best way to move them - should we pull them out, or call in a fresh crew to remove them? Either way - if we know there are three victims, and we’ve only found one, we know there are still two more we have to go find. Even if they’re in the same room, just a few feet apart, it can be difficult to find them all. In our methodology (some jurisdictions are different), we require at least 2 firefighters per victim (we don’t go into a burning building alone). If there are 3 victims, we’ll probably need 6-9 firefighters just to get them out. Usually, we’ll need more than that, because the initial crews will become exhausted after long searches, and start running low on air. (Remember: We’re also wearing about 45 lbs of gear, and carrying another 5-15 lbs of tools...and our turnout gear feels like a full-body parka lined with a raincoat, being worn in an oven).

Now, if those police officers hadn’t stopped the neighbors from going in, here’s what would have happened (I’m assuming the building is 30% - 40% involved at this point):
Within 1 minute (probably within 30-40 seconds), the “rescuers” would have been overcome by toxic smoke and heat. Since there is typically zero visibility inside a well-burning structure, they’d be blind, and their eyes, lungs, mouth and nose would be stinging and burning. Every breath would bring on panic and pain. It would be like breathing boiling pepper spray. Without proper search training, they’d be lost and disoriented almost immediately. Smoke-induced hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in your brain) would cloud their thinking. They would pass out or die where they dropped, never having reached the victims.

So, when the fire department showed up, they would have to decide if they could reasonably enter the home to retrieve the victims. Only now, they also have “rescuers” to retrieve. The “rescuers” will be between the firefighters and the victims, so they would be found first. Remember, you tie up at least two firefighters per victim. It will typically take 3-5 minutes to extract one adult. Our air bottles usually last 10-20 minutes when we’re working hard. Lugging dead-weight adults through a burning building is grueling, so we use up our air and energy faster. If only 3 “rescuers” went in, they’ve tied up 4-6 firefighters, for up to 15 minutes. I will almost guarantee that the original victims have died by that point.

All victims pulled out of a building must be evaluated by EMS. Typically, two medics or EMTs will work a victim, and each ambulance typically has only those two people. How many ambulances will we need to evaluate and treat 6 victims vs 3 victims? If this home was not in a large city, how long do you think it would take to get those extra ambulances to the scene? Assuming any rescuers and victims were found alive, any time, personnel, material or ambulance space taken up by a rescuer is a resource that will be denied to one of the original victims.

The police officers did the right thing. As hard as it is to swallow, those police officers saved lives and should be commended. I know that flies in the face of what you are feeling - and almost everyone would agree with you. But for the safety of the victims, the rescuers and the firefighters, the cops did the right thing.

Here’s another point. Most jurisdictions have manning issues. It’s just hard to put enough people on a fire within the first 15 minutes. Remember: Almost all jobs require 2-4 firefighters - never less than 2, sometimes more than 4. Each engine or truck typically carries 3-5 firefighters, including the officer. In the first 15 minutes, firefighters MUST: 1) put water on the fire, 2) search for victims (at least one crew for each floor), 3) ventilate the building (a must for safety and putting the fire out), and 4) have a RIT team formed (this is a team of firefighters that will rescue downed firefighters). These are the absolute minimums. More victims means more firefighters searching, which means there are fewer firefighters doing the other “must” jobs. The longer the fire burns, and the longer the building remains unventilated, the worse the odds are that the victims will be found alive. It also makes the jobs of the searching firefighters much harder, and much, much more dangerous.

Please, please, please: Do NOT enter a burning building to rescue anyone. I know it’s frustrating to stand and watch, and your protective instincts scream at you to do something. But you will only make our job harder, and pose a further danger to the victims you’re trying to save.

LOL...Then you should start now. I work tomorrow.

I’m afraid your view of atheists (as delineated by the words of Gagdad Bob), is naive. It’s akin to saying that all Christians must follow the Catholic tradition. There’s a lot of room between what Bob calls “Sacred” and treating everyone and everything like a sack of meat, with no meaning or value.

For those who do not acknowledge a specific “supreme being”, there is absolutely no reason why they can’t feel love, nurture their children, and show reverence for life.

Let’s start the sacrifice at the top. As of 01/2009, let’s make POTUS a minimum wage position, with no benefits.

If he’s sworn in on January 20th, he’ll be my (and our) president. He’s got some strong ideas, and I’d like the implementation of these ideas to start with him.

For instance - I plan to contact my congressman and ask that congress pass a new law, stating that the position of POTUS is a minimum wage position, effective 01/20/2009.

He’s worked hard to get where he is. But surely he’s not under the simplistic and misguided notion that he’s entitled to be compensated for his level of achievement.

I don’t suppose we’re going to get to vote on this expenditure, are we?

Nah...a trillion here, a trillion there - no big deal.

And this is outside of the $700 billion (or $850 billion) we’re already spending.

Outstanding.

50 QUESTIONS (are you willing?):

1) How much money is in your wallet?
$18

2) Do you still love your ex?
Nope.

3) What kind of car do you drive?
2005 Cadillac Escalade

4) Have you ever been punched in the face?
Yes. I used to be a kickboxer.

5) Do you ever get depressed?
No.

6) When is the last time you cried?
Yes. See Question #4.

7) Ever been on a motorcycle?
Yes

8) Do you think your pretty/handsome?
No. Again, back to Question #4.

9) Do you go to church?
Nope.

10) If you have a driver’s license, what class? Any endorsements?
Yes-Class BM. M so I can drive a motorcycle, and B so I can drive the fire truck.

11) Do people usually like you?
I don’t know. They seldom run from the room screaming anymore, so I’ve got that going for me.

12) Are you emotionally sensitive?
In a cuddly, high-functioning, sociopathic sort of way.

13) What brand of shirt are you wearing now?
Archer

14) Do you smoke cigarettes?
Nope.

15) Did you shower today?
Yeah, that’s kind of a daily thing for me.

16) Are you closer with your mum or dad?
Mom.

17) Complete the sentence ‘By This Time Next Year’:
I’ll be about a year older.

18) Would you ever pose for Playboy?
LOL. No. Why do you keep asking questions that go back to Question #4????

19) What is your weapon of choice?
Concealable: Glock 40 cal, compensated.
Non-concealable: Flame thrower. (Insurance agent won’t allow that.) M-16 SPG.

20) Do you believe once a cheater always a cheater?
Sounds about right.

21) What is your goal for this year?
I’ve accomplished them: Finish fire school and EMT school and get my Search and Rescue certification.

22) Do you like to travel?
Yes, if there’s diving involved.

23) What is your favorite kind of food?
Right now, I’m having a major ice cream jones.

24) Can you cook?
Well enough that no one’s died from it…as far as I know.

25) What is your star sign?
Aquarius.
26) Where exactly are you from?
Torrance, CA, USA, Earth

27) Whats your favorite drink?
Pina Colada (…and let the jokes begin)

28) What kind of movies do you enjoy?
Comedy, Action

29) Have you gone muddin?
Not on purpose.

30) Have you played paintball?
Not the colorful type.

31) Do you have a close family?
ROFLMAO…no.

32) Do you have any big plans that will occur soon?
9th wedding anniversary. No really big plans, just a big event in our lives.

33) If you aren’t married, do you ever wish to get married?
n/a

34) Do you enjoy working at your workplace?
Usually.

35) Do you have any piercings or tattoos?
Nope.

36) What is your usual bed time?
10pm

37)Do you own a laptop?
Three home laptops, two work laptops.

38) Would you be ok with being a step parent?
Nope. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt.

39) What are your living arangements?
Just me and my wife…just the way we like it.

40) What’s Something That Really Annoys You?:
Hypocrisy.

41) What was your childhood nickname?
hhhhmmm…I don’t think I had any. At least, none you could play on the radio.

42) What’s the weirdest thing you have done while driving?
Can’t think of anything silly that I’ve done while driving.

43) Can you keep a secret?
Can’t really tell you that, now can I?

44) What do you do when you need to relax?
Poke at the logic holes of hypocrites.

45) Do you think it is OK to sometimes tell lies?
Yep.

46) Could you forgive a boyfriend or girlfriend who physically hurt you?
I might, but my wife would still be pi$$ed at her.

47) What is your greatest fear in life?
Being unable to save a loved one.

48) Favorite month and why?
June. It’s warm, but not stupidly hot yet in Texas, and folks don’t wear much. In some neighborhoods, that’s a great thing. In others, not so much.

49) Favorite color/colors?
Depends on the application.

50) Favorite Season?
Spring.

A study conducted by UCLA’s Department of Psychiatry has revealed
that the kind of face a woman finds attractive on a man can differ
depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle.

For example: If she is ovulating, she is attracted to men with rugged and
masculine features. However, if she is menstruating, or menopausal, she
tends to be more attracted to a man with duct tape over his mouth
and a spear lodged in his chest while he is on fire.

No further studies are expected.

I see one of two scenarios...

1) He has proven he’s too stupid and panic-prone to lead.

- or -

2) He believes his constituents (and the rest of the country) are stupid enough to believe his threadbare story.

Frankly, I don’t care who he likes to boff. My problem is that he’s obviously lying or stupid. Either way, he shouldn’t be in a position of leadership.

And, if he was actually involved in the types of behavior of which he’s been accused, he’s far too irresponsible to draft national policy. Having a wide stance and happy feet in a public restroom is just asking for all kinds of trouble.

The CDC’s BMI measurement is a joke. A little side note saying that it’s not entirely accurate because it muscle weighs more than fat doesn’t cover the discrepancy.

I’ve lifted weights and done other workouts for most of my adult life. I’m in much better condition than average, even though I do carry some extra weight now. Looking at the CDC BMI charts, I’d look like the crypt keeper if I got my weight below “overweight”.

“What offends me is the stereotype of men on tv that portrays men in one of 2 ways: Either men are stupid incompetent fools who need women to direct them, or they are evil, manipulating, conscience-less b*stards. That bothers me.”

Me, too. As an evil, manipulating conscience-less b*stard who needs women to direct me, I just don’t seem to really fit in to either group.

I’m jealous. I do 3d photography as a hobby (http://www.plano3dphotography.com) and I think these would be INCREDIBLE in 3d!

I can't even begin to plug the holes in this person's logic.

I completed my BA online a couple of years ago. Overall, the experience was great. I was able to move at my own pace (within the constraints of assignment deadlines), and could log on to submit school work 24/7. Since you don't have anyone breathing down your neck, you really need a lot of discipline to do the work. If you're considering this path, you should keep that in mind.

I also found that online classes were more expensive than the classroom variety, and the entire amount had to be paid up front, because the school used an outside service provider for the online classroom.

I'm glad that more schools are offering online classes. I'm also starting to see more class and major choices online.

One last note: If possible, you should take your lower level courses from a community college (either classroom or online). They cost only about 10% of what the same class costs online from a university.

...or this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/state.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the page to skip the, um, narrative (nicest word I could come up with). There's a table that shows "actual" 2005 spending, and estimated 2006 and 2007 spending.

That's exactly the type of response I think should be used to discredit Mr. Morford's opinion. You accurately point out that he's caught himself in a logic trap. Your conversation with him, and his history of anti-Christian histrionics, lend themselves to credible refutation.

IMHO - Discrediting the "Judas Gospel" based only on its age is not the way to go. All of the works that are considered the gospels were written between 60 and 200 years after the events they describe, by people who not only were not there, but (in some cases) were not even alive during the time in question.

There very well may be very valid reasons to discredit this writing - The Church fought bitterly for years, trying to decide which known writings should be included in or excluded from their bible. Simply discrediting the document based on its age appears (to me) to be a glaring example of bigotry.