Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
benditlikeabanana said:
That auto switch or 2-3 round burst is a pretty big difference and makes these rifles illegal. its kinda true to say a AR-15 and m-16 share a lot of the same ideas, but they are an old design and fall into the its not broken so don't fix it bracket. To be an assault rifle, the rifle must be capable of selective fire, and fire an intermediate power cartridge the AR-15 that you can legally buy fails in those last two.
A lot of states have banned the AR-15 from hunting anything bigger than a small mammal because the cartridge is not powerful enough. Totally agree that a fully auto rifle is useless for shooting, a bump stock is a good way to waste ammo, one round would hit the target and the other 29 would be hitting clouds.
In a classroom a trained teacher with a pistol would hold so many advantages against a shooter with a rifle. I am surprised that these rifles have been used in massed shootings, I would have thought that a semi auto shotgun with 16 shot mag would make more sense- cheaper, less likely to jam, more likely to hit the target and the shells are much easier to buy with less red flags.
Click to expand...

Yes the auto switch is indeed what makes full auto guns illegal (i.e. it's written in the law) but so what? I've explained very clearly that even without that switch you are left with the rifle that armies use in 99.9% of situations. It's a distinction only ever made by gun apologists.

As for "trained teachers" having guns, no. Just no. After several days of specific house-clearance training, knowing I was going to be up against non-lethal fire, wearing protective gear for pretty much every part of my body, fully prepared for what was coming, the adrenaline when we entered houses was fearsome. I'm prepared to bet that a week or a month later and unprepared, I'd have been lucky to hit the house if I'd been shooting at it from the inside in a room with no windows.

You do realise that under gunfire people don't react at all like it is depicted in films? Calm and collected they are not.

This whole thing is fuelled by the NRA (now a gun-manufacturer's lobby) who have a good propaganda message: "Make it a little bit harder for nutters to own killing machines = the government are going to put all gun-owners into Auschwitz". Don't buy the propaganda.

Vin
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Helen, thereisonlyoneno7, ImpSaint and 6 others
benditlikeabanana said:
I am surprised that these rifles have been used in massed shootings, I would have thought that a semi auto shotgun with 16 shot mag would make more sense- cheaper, less likely to jam, more likely to hit the target and the shells are much easier to buy with less red flags.
Click to expand...
I may be going mad but this seems like advice on what gun to use to kill children in a school? must be reading it wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7, Whiteley Saint, It'sOnlyAGame and 2 others
Onionman said:
Yes the auto switch is indeed what makes full auto guns illegal (i.e. it's written in the law) but so what? I've explained very clearly that even without that switch you are left with the rifle that armies use in 99.9% of situations. It's a distinction only ever made by gun apologists.

As for "trained teachers" having guns, no. Just no. After several days of specific house-clearance training, knowing I was going to be up against non-lethal fire, wearing protective gear for pretty much every part of my body, fully prepared for what was coming, the adrenaline when we entered houses was fearsome. I'm prepared to bet that a week or a month later and unprepared, I'd have been lucky to hit the house if I'd been shooting at it from the inside in a room with no windows.

You do realise that under gunfire people don't react at all like it is depicted in films? Calm and collected they are not.

This whole thing is fuelled by the NRA (now a gun-manufacturer's lobby) who have a good propaganda message: "Make it a little bit harder for nutters to own killing machines = the government are going to put all gun-owners into Auschwitz". Don't buy the propaganda.

Vin
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that the idea for arming certain teachers is not so that they can run after a shooter, all *pretty sure that's correct but happy to be wrong* school shootings are carried out by ex pupils, if they knew there were concealed weapons on school this may be a deterrent. If a shooter had to break into a classroom not knowing if he would be confronted by a trained teacher looking after his/her pupils, it may put them off in the first place . As you mentioned every bullet fired at a shooter is a possible life saved as it draws his attention and throws his aim.
Schools will have to have different alarms, one for fire, one for earth quakes, one for nutter with a gun and one for all clear. But its so tricky as ex pupils know when kids will be on break time and away from classes and more vulnerable Some thing has to be done as 98% of school shootings are on gun free zones, sorry but a gun free zone is an open invite to a would be shooter
 
SaintinSerbia said:
I may be going mad but this seems like advice on what gun to use to kill children in a school? must be reading it wrong
Click to expand...

Just trying to point that going after semi auto rifles is not the way to go. These weapons account for less than 2% of gun fatalities. hand guns are mainly semi auto, with extended mag capability and account for 85% of gun fatalities. If you take away a shooters weapon of choice, he will go for another option and there would probably be no difference in the outcome
 
Archers Road said:
I think you probably are a bit Imps, yes. So let me clear it up if I can;

Corbyn recommending talking to terrorists = an absolute no brainer
Thatcher's Govt doing the same = ditto
The Mail, Express etc accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathiser = Shameless hypocrisy on their part
Trump talking to anyone = a disaster waiting to happen. Someone should gag that lunatic.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

1,2,3 I agree. 4 = me thinks you are saying it is ok if it is x person but not if it is Y??? So as long as it isn't Trump or Boris then all is good? I think we should all use Gove to charm the pants of the dictators.
 
VocalMinority said:
Next you'll be blaming rape victims for wearing skimpy clothes.

He shouldn't even need to be added to a banned list ffs. Should need to earn a licence like any other dangerous piece of equipment.
Click to expand...

This sort of thinking put me out of business (nearly) because it is used to assist the "big business."

Imagine I as a small scale fertiliser maker (and I mean cottage industry) that uses less than 100g of potassium nitrate per mix. Because pot nit can be dangerous in the wrong hands they made it only purchasable in even single 25kg bag quantities if you have a licence. Which they wouldn't give me because I don;t have dedicated this and that so I couldn't make my fertiliser anymore.

Now I know guns are different but you are saying that to address the problem they should ban guns. In my case they banned all sorts of chemicals, except they didn't. They used it to wipe out all the small sellers. The bomber can still get it if he can get a licence or knows someone who can. But most of those small scale operations are wiped out because "the powers that be" won't give them the licence (conveniently.)

Ban knives and put small chefs without inspected knife lock ups out of business.

Ban mini skirts. Ban eyes or brains.

I do agree with the blanket ban in the UK. I don;t agree with all these partial bans because people will just adapt what is not banned.

Amazing is that guns are banned yet there is an abundance of more dealy things that people can do. I would support a car ban because they are dirty nasty things anyway so we would win twice on that one.
 
Saint Helen said:
Oh come off it :mad: There are thousands of children "teased and tormented" every day in the world, hundreds just in the UK. The difference? Children in this country (and elsewhere) don't think, "I'm going to get my own back on that girl who wouldn't smile at me and that boy who laughed at me and get myself a gun and kill them all." Next you're going to say that a woman deserves to be raped just because she didn't want to dance with a man or didn't want to have sex. Victim-blaming is disgusting and shameful. I'm surprised at you.
Click to expand...

The reverse is true in this country. People are genuinely describing someone "chatting them up" as being sexual harrassment. I agree with the "teased and tormented" bit though. Lots of people have been teased or tormented yet it didn't used to conclude in this way. Kids didn't commit suicide (at the rates they do now) because they were bullied or treated bad. These days it has been brought out so much in the open that is has become much more the the bullying itself. A kid that gets half the bullying I/we did back then thinks it is such a vast thing and everyone in the world is telling them they are right.

I'm not condoning bullying or teasing or tormenting at all. Just that skins have got thinner and in a country rife with guns it is obvious what happens there. Over here I guess it is a bit of retribution in a dark ally with a bloody nose etc. A bit like it was in my day.

I think a lot of this has to do with thinner skins though where people think they are hard done by for much much smaller things and everything is unjustified, offence is seen everywhere now etc.
 
benditlikeabanana said:
Sorry Helen, the rape comment is comparing apples and oranges and there is no way to say a woman deserves to be raped. In schools across the UK cases of knife attacks are on the increase, guns are harder to get hold of in the UK and I'm pretty sure that some knife attacks would have been with a hand gun if the attacker could have got one, the question is why are kids now becoming more aggressive and twisted in the last 10 years
Click to expand...

Because they are taught that they should be offended by everything and they are entitled to be offended by everything. That is the problem. That people are not able to "turn the other cheek" or ignore things anymore.

The whole gang culture is no different that from through the ages. Wanting to impress your peers, being one of the gang? This has gone on since the dawn of time. However nowadays everything is offensive, everything is an insult "AND YOU SHOULD BE ANGRY" (says the middle class TV presenter.) Send the multi million investigative quango in, there's money to be made here.
 
Puck said:
I think the reality is that while Australia managed it (or something similar) it seems pretty clear to me that American society isn't ready for a total ban on guns or any other single measure that would entirely resolve the situation. Any changes will need to be made step by step. Banning semi automatic rifles might not stop that many deaths but it would establish/entrench the principle that Americans don't have an entirely unfettered right to guns and pave the way for further changes in future.
Click to expand...

Very sensible post. Have to agree. This is exactly what politicians should be doing on all policies. Go at a pace you can take the people with you. And it would work. stage by stage. catchy monkey.
 
Whiteley Saint said:
136 Russian diplomats expelled from 21 countries (inc UK). An impressive response.
Click to expand...

BS response for the show of it. Keep the money, pretend to be bothered and expel some diplomats. Big deal. When they finally go after the money then they will be serious, however they aren't. They are happy to take the Russia money and that is why Russia is doing what it is, because so much money has gone abroad, a lot that shouldn't have, and a lot not legally.

However we didn't vote to be poorer so "Hurrah the Russia money." (and Saudi and .............)
 
ImpSaint said:
This sort of thinking put me out of business (nearly) because it is used to assist the "big business."

Imagine I as a small scale fertiliser maker (and I mean cottage industry) that uses less than 100g of potassium nitrate per mix. Because pot nit can be dangerous in the wrong hands they made it only purchasable in even single 25kg bag quantities if you have a licence. Which they wouldn't give me because I don;t have dedicated this and that so I couldn't make my fertiliser anymore.

Now I know guns are different but you are saying that to address the problem they should ban guns. In my case they banned all sorts of chemicals, except they didn't. They used it to wipe out all the small sellers. The bomber can still get it if he can get a licence or knows someone who can. But most of those small scale operations are wiped out because "the powers that be" won't give them the licence (conveniently.)

Ban knives and put small chefs without inspected knife lock ups out of business.

Ban mini skirts. Ban eyes or brains.

I do agree with the blanket ban in the UK. I don;t agree with all these partial bans because people will just adapt what is not banned.

Amazing is that guns are banned yet there is an abundance of more dealy things that people can do. I would support a car ban because they are dirty nasty things anyway so we would win twice on that one.
Click to expand...
There isn't a blanket ban in the UK. Over 3 million licenced guns. Its also illegal to carry a knife. not sure how a mini skirt is considered a lethal weapon.

edit: and of course cars require a licence too...
 
Last edited:
ImpSaint said:
BS response for the show of it. Keep the money, pretend to be bothered and expel some diplomats. Big deal. When they finally go after the money then they will be serious, however they aren't. They are happy to take the Russia money and that is why Russia is doing what it is, because so much money has gone abroad, a lot that shouldn't have, and a lot not legally.

However we didn't vote to be poorer so "Hurrah the Russia money." (and Saudi and .............)
Click to expand...
And we need their gas, just like we need the Saudi’s oil. It’s all a big show as you say. And they still haven’t come up with any hard evidence that the Novichok used in Salisbury was Russian. The other day a spokesman from Porton Down said words to the effect of: “We don’t have any Novichok, and even if we did, which we haven’t, there is no way anyone could take it out of the building it’s in. Not that it’s in any building here.”
 
VocalMinority said:
There isn't a blanket ban in the UK. Over 3 million licenced guns. Its also illegal to carry a knife. not sure how a mini skirt is considered a lethal weapon.

edit: and of course cars require a licence too...
Click to expand...

Cars require a licence? But you can drive up the pavement if it pleases your mindset? I don;t see the argument there. Test on gun (can you use it? Yes. Pass the safety written test? Yes. Her's your gun. That is the car licence equated to guns.) My argument was that while I do agree with banning guns (not just some) you can't ban everything. Mini skirts? Phwooar. Deadly mate.

It isn't illegal to carry a knife. You cancarry a folding knife (not locking) with a blade under 3". So that should let the scouts off with their swiss army knives :) Might not be a flick knife but they can do damage, and not hard to make them lock when you want them to (like for whittling kindling)
 
ChilcoSaint said:
And we need their gas, just like we need the Saudi’s oil. It’s all a big show as you say. And they still haven’t come up with any hard evidence that the Novichok used in Salisbury was Russian. The other day a spokesman from Porton Down said words to the effect of: “We don’t have any Novichok, and even if we did, which we haven’t, there is no way anyone could take it out of the building it’s in. Not that it’s in any building here.”
Click to expand...

We don't need their gas. We're going to blow up Lancashire and get our own.

Don;t get me wrong. I am pretty much amazed at the media angle which is backing the Tories and Blairite centrists in this whole (ignore the evidence aspect) debacle. Corbyn has looked like the only adult in the room but the media have decided so he is in the wrong. Maybe they realised that and thought the public might agree so the Jewish groups have been sent to go after him today because the Russia plot wasn't working.

And even then the media think we will buy that this isn't really something other than Labour and anti-semitism?
 
ChilcoSaint said:
And we need their gas, just like we need the Saudi’s oil. It’s all a big show as you say. And they still haven’t come up with any hard evidence that the Novichok used in Salisbury was Russian. The other day a spokesman from Porton Down said words to the effect of: “We don’t have any Novichok, and even if we did, which we haven’t, there is no way anyone could take it out of the building it’s in. Not that it’s in any building here.”
Click to expand...
The biggest proof pretty much is that the only person this benefits is Putin. UK can't really do anything substantial as a response and we don't want to worsen tie with anybody right now with the situation we're in. It would be pretty much shooting ourselves in the foot. I would have taken my time to investigate and tried to downplay it but i guess Theresa thinks that would make her look even more weak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back