The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#541

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Brive1987 wrote: My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences.
That's a retreat to your bailey from your original statements.

The video was an objectively negative consequence.
All three of them were complete idiots. Pretty much, whatever you put into the hand of an idiot, they will do something idiotic with it. Since the overwhelming majority of the 100,000,000 gun owners in America don't act like idiots, it's specious to argue that incident was the product of 'gun culture.'

Besides, maybe the rest of the street is quietly relieved that their most annoying neighbors did the matter/anti-matter dance.

The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.
What features or properties constitute a "military styled weapon"?

What number of rounds do you consider "high capacity", and why that particular number?

What benefit does limiting magazine capacity serve?

Can you conceive of any drawbacks to limiting magazine capacity? (Isandlwana excepted.)

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5386
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#542

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote: snip

My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences. The video was an objectively negative consequence. The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.

The statistics you rolled out to knock down your strawman merely make my original point. Thank you.
Yep. Matt can't see how weird it looks to someone looking in from the outside.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#543

Post by Brive1987 »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences.
That's a retreat to your bailey from your original statements.

The video was an objectively negative consequence.
All three of them were complete idiots. Pretty much, whatever you put into the hand of an idiot, they will do something idiotic with it. Since the overwhelming majority of the 100,000,000 gun owners in America don't act like idiots, it's specious to argue that incident was the product of 'gun culture.'

Besides, maybe the rest of the street is quietly relieved that their most annoying neighbors did the matter/anti-matter dance.

The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.
What features or properties constitute a "military styled weapon"?

What number of rounds do you consider "high capacity", and why that particular number?

What benefit does limiting magazine capacity serve?

Can you conceive of any drawbacks to limiting magazine capacity? (Isandlwana excepted.)

A retreat "to" eh? Here let me provide you with my original statement:

At its simplest, American gun culture is just the normalisation of weapons (and their possession) by the ‘every-man’.

Believe it or not, this is not considered typical, sane or desirable by pretty much every other western society. Now that doesn’t mean guns have to be 100% banned. They are simply regarded as exotic and un-necessary by most and a risk to-boot.


That sir is my argument and my answer to the base query of "what is gun culture". It is no bailey or moat.

It is not a faussebraie nor a redan, glacis, demi-lune or lunette.

It is simply my base point. The fact gun culture comes with baggage is a secondary and self evident sub-point.

________________

Gun culture, as defined here as the relative normalization of weapons, is why dickhead had an arsenal in his domestic castle. In Australia this would not be typical - instead dickhead would be more likely to be waving his pecker about.
________________

The very fact 'high capacity' exists as a term in domestic conversations of weaponry is a QED.

I recall in the Reserves our M16s started with 20 round magazines and then went to 30 round high(er) capacity options. So a reasonable definition is any magazine larger than that originally envisaged by the designer.

In any case, like pornography I know it when I see it.



________________


I never proposed an argument to the efficacy of limiting magazines within a gun culture bubble. Another strawman. I doubt magazine size is a core issue to resolve. Rather its illustrative of said culture.

Limitations in having smaller magazines around the house? Well the Brits defended their mealie fort at Rourke's Drift with single shot short lever rifles. But given the American predilection for firepower over aimed fire, I can see why (once a weapon is introduced) you'd need a drum-mag.

________________

What is a military style rifle? One that is styled to replicate the aesthetics and some of the benefits of military issue. Generally these are black in colour to guarantee tiny little erections.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#544

Post by Brive1987 »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: To be fair, there’s no evidence the Russkies were fuck ups - or out of their depth - which makes the incident all the more interesting.

These expeditions were considered normal rites of passage at the time. This party’s specific progress to date had been 100%. The diary records a strong group dynamic. They were on course and on track to their destination. They had, the day before, cached a good supply for the return trip. Their tent was effectively erected and positioned on a marginal-risk slope in reasonable weather. They were in the process of “boots off and eating” when the event occurred.
Their equipment was inadequate. Clothing was piecemeal mufti. Tent was two surplus army tents stitched together. The stove was cumbersome, jury-rigged and unsafe. Placed in the center of the long tent, those next to it roasted while those at the fard ends shivered.

They forgot to pack important supplies they meant to bring.

They ran out of food and money, so had to go hat-in-hand at a train station. As a result, one of them was detained by police for panhandling, delaying them by several hours.

That delay forced them to hitch. First an open-air ride in the back of a GAZ, during which several of them fell ill, then on a woodcutter's mule-drawn cart, though most of them had to trudge alongside.

They planned on staying in a remote mining camp and there restock supplies, only to find on arrival it was abandoned, with only a single, unheated building suitable for shelter.

The day before the incident, they encountered deep snow on the ground, which exhausted them and left them behind schedule. Instead of bivouacking in the woods with more snowfall threatening, they pressed on up the slope. Exhausted, they decided leave the stove behind.

Faulty orientation led them along the wrong path, which, on top of the day's slow progress, left them partway up the barren slope at dusk. Hastily, they had to shovel out a nook for the tent, which surely further exhausted them. With no stove that night, not only would they have been physically compromised, their outer garments would not have dried.

The prevailing theory is that cut in the snow on the slope directly led to the disaster.
I will come back to this, given every point made here is wrong.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#545

Post by Brive1987 »

Brive1987 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: To be fair, there’s no evidence the Russkies were fuck ups - or out of their depth - which makes the incident all the more interesting.

These expeditions were considered normal rites of passage at the time. This party’s specific progress to date had been 100%. The diary records a strong group dynamic. They were on course and on track to their destination. They had, the day before, cached a good supply for the return trip. Their tent was effectively erected and positioned on a marginal-risk slope in reasonable weather. They were in the process of “boots off and eating” when the event occurred.
Their equipment was inadequate. Clothing was piecemeal mufti. Tent was two surplus army tents stitched together. The stove was cumbersome, jury-rigged and unsafe. Placed in the center of the long tent, those next to it roasted while those at the fard ends shivered.

They forgot to pack important supplies they meant to bring.

They ran out of food and money, so had to go hat-in-hand at a train station. As a result, one of them was detained by police for panhandling, delaying them by several hours.

That delay forced them to hitch. First an open-air ride in the back of a GAZ, during which several of them fell ill, then on a woodcutter's mule-drawn cart, though most of them had to trudge alongside.

They planned on staying in a remote mining camp and there restock supplies, only to find on arrival it was abandoned, with only a single, unheated building suitable for shelter.

The day before the incident, they encountered deep snow on the ground, which exhausted them and left them behind schedule. Instead of bivouacking in the woods with more snowfall threatening, they pressed on up the slope. Exhausted, they decided leave the stove behind.

Faulty orientation led them along the wrong path, which, on top of the day's slow progress, left them partway up the barren slope at dusk. Hastily, they had to shovel out a nook for the tent, which surely further exhausted them. With no stove that night, not only would they have been physically compromised, their outer garments would not have dried.

The prevailing theory is that cut in the snow on the slope directly led to the disaster.
I will come back to this, given every point made here is wrong.

The fundamental error in your approach is that even if granted, none of these points make a case for why the group left the safety and security of camp to die in the snow. Being fully “North-Faced” up, is of little use when you find yourself more than 500 metres down slope of your kit.
You would need to demonstrate their lack of preparedness indicated underlying ineptitude made manifest in their decision to leave. Or it made them exhausted and likely to make poor decisions. However, you fail to meet either of these two conditions.
Let’s consider some salient point.

Firstly, you need to be clear about your benchmarks. in 1959, winter sports tourism in Russia was not common. You need to be careful in applying qualitative hurdles for the group to meet. Your complaint is just as relevant to Mallory and (Edmund) Hillary

Secondly the group was not inexperienced. Dyatlov was one hike short of his Masters certificate, had participated in (and headed some) 9 expeditions. Lyuda had led a winter hike in the Northern Urals in 1958. Aleksandr was a tourism instructor in the Urals and had won 4 combat awards during the Second World War.

Thirdly, The group were provided detailed maps by the local head of an Exploration Company. They knew where they were going (Mt Otorton) and how to get there.

Matt Error #1 You say “They ran out of food and money, so had to go hat-in-hand at a train station. As a result, one of them was detained by police for panhandling, delaying them by several hours.”

The account I have (based on their diaries) states they arrived on Day 1 at Serov at 7:00am, the next train to Ivdel was in 12 hours, the stations sitting room was locked and George struck up a panhandling song, a silly waste of time. He was detained for disturbing the peace. No money was raised nor was it required. They were on the train at 6:30pm


Matt Error #2 You say “That delay forced them to hitch. First an open-air ride in the back of a GAZ, during which several of them fell ill, then on a woodcutter's mule-drawn cart, though most of them had to trudge alongside.”

There was no delay, they arrived in Ivdel at midnight and slept in the train station as the bus to Vizhai left in the morning. They caught a bus to Vizhai which was an off-shoot of the Stalin Gulag system and in the boon-docks. They got there at 2:00pm and stayed in a Guest House. And watched a movie.

Their next goal was the 41st Site – used by loggers and geologists. The only way there was an open truck and yes Yuri caught a cold. "Several didn't get sick". And Yuri was keen to proceed. The party commented favourably on the hospitality shown to them at 41st Site.



Their next stop was the 2nd Northern – an abandoned labour camp used by geologists. 24 km away and in the absolute middle of no-where. The weather was described as warm and they enjoyed the trip as their packs were in the horse cart.

Matt Error #3 You say “They planned on staying in a remote mining camp and there restock supplies, only to find on arrival it was abandoned, with only a single, unheated building suitable for shelter.”

There’s no indication they expected to restock or enjoy any luxury at this point! They found a house with windows, a roof, and a stove. They cooked dinner and chatted till 3:00am.

Now they left (less one member who dropped out with back pain) to go overland.

Matt Omissions You miss out the trip, pre disaster, I suspect because it challenges your thesis of incompetence.

Day 1 they left at noon, followed the Lozva River and made 15 km despite -8 temperatures. They lit the stove that night and slept “almost like at home”.

Day 2 they reached the Auspiya River and went upstream 3km

Matt Error #4 You say “The day before the incident, they encountered deep snow on the ground, which exhausted them and left them behind schedule. Instead of bivouacking in the woods with more snowfall threatening, they pressed on up the slope. Exhausted, they decided leave the stove behind."

On Day 3 (heavy snow along the Auspiya) they still made 17 km despite -13 degrees. Its not clear they were off any schedule. Yet.

Day 4 they left the river and went through forest towards the heights – again making 14 km. Here they ascended the wrong spur but came back down as it wasn’t practical to cache. Yes they fucked up but no, here they retreated to forest and rested.

Day 5 they cached 6 days of supplies for the return trip lightening their packs. They were in good cheer, taking time to create and leave a humorous newspaper behind. They only left at noon or later. The ascent was 30 degrees and weather was typically windy and possibly blizzarding. They were south of the pass but in any case had no time to descend to the forest and camp due to weather and time. The chosen camp spot was protected from the west winds by the NE spur of 1079. The tent was described as “pitched soundly and skillfully”. The stove was left in its case in the tent – not left behind. It wasn’t used because there was no wood. They had each brought 2 sticks of wood with which to boil tea. This was consistent with the previous evening.

The inside of the tent indicated they were well organised and in the process of having a meal when whatever happened happened.

________________________________

tl/dr – you mix inaccuracy with mis-characterisation to produce a narrative which doesn’t address the actual cause of the disaster – the leaving behind of perfectly good kit for raw snow.

The group had experience and executed a well done route march in. They were in good cheer the day of ascent.

You end with “The prevailing theory is that cut in the snow on the slope directly led to the disaster.”

Well, that competes with 64 increasingly loony theories – but there is little to no evidence its correct and it doesn’t address many of the WTF elements of the case. So case open.

__________________________________

Their route - not sure whether they were going for Mt Otorton by valley or heights.



Marginally south of the Pass and clearly able to get to the forest.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#546

Post by fafnir »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:20 pm
Brive1987 wrote: snip

My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences. The video was an objectively negative consequence. The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.

The statistics you rolled out to knock down your strawman merely make my original point. Thank you.
Yep. Matt can't see how weird it looks to someone looking in from the outside.
It could be that it is weird, or it could be that it just seems that way because you are ignorant and don't understand it. It seems to make sense to quite a lot of people. Maybe you just don't understand it?

I don't come from a gun culture and it seemed obviously weird to me. It took me a long time interacting with people from that culture to start looking at them as just coming from a different culture with different assumptions, and priorities. I don't pretend to fully get it. One of the key divides seems to be, should my freedom to do X be restricted based on the fact that a tiny number of people, given that freedom, will abuse it? There doesn't seem to me to be a right answer to that question. As with so many other questions, there is a push on to mandate an answer from the same group of people who always think they have access to absolute Truth.

The same logic of attempting to child proof everything so we have a managed world of minimized harms applies well beyond guns. Personally, I'm inclined to see gun rights as a line in the sand. Whether it's the right line, I don't know... but I'm glad there is one.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#547

Post by Brive1987 »

Maybe it was a very little ice slip.

Like an ice cube.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#548

Post by Brive1987 »

fafnir wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:20 pm
Brive1987 wrote: snip

My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences. The video was an objectively negative consequence. The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.

The statistics you rolled out to knock down your strawman merely make my original point. Thank you.
Yep. Matt can't see how weird it looks to someone looking in from the outside.
It could be that it is weird, or it could be that it just seems that way because you are ignorant and don't understand it. It seems to make sense to quite a lot of people. Maybe you just don't understand it?

I don't come from a gun culture and it seemed obviously weird to me. It took me a long time interacting with people from that culture to start looking at them as just coming from a different culture with different assumptions, and priorities. I don't pretend to fully get it. One of the key divides seems to be, should my freedom to do X be restricted based on the fact that a tiny number of people, given that freedom, will abuse it? There doesn't seem to me to be a right answer to that question. As with so many other questions, there is a push on to mandate an answer from the same group of people who always think they have access to absolute Truth.

The same logic of attempting to child proof everything so we have a managed world of minimized harms applies well beyond guns. Personally, I'm inclined to see gun rights as a line in the sand. Whether it's the right line, I don't know... but I'm glad there is one.
Largely unfettered gun rights are a remarkably dangerous benchmark by which to measure “freedom”. I guess we should be relived we are not expected to accommodate the tiny number of people who would abuse an open season on the use of dynamite or hunting with light anti tank weapons. Flame throwers could be effective on burrowing critters. Worked on the Japs.

I mean why not?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#549

Post by Brive1987 »

Some info on the libelled tent.




Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 4421
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#550

Post by Bhurzum »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: What benefit does limiting magazine capacity serve?
Instructor: The rifle fires, rifle stops!

Student: Tilts the body of the rifle to the left and looks at the position of the cocking-lever.

Instructor: The cocking-lever is fully to the rear.

Student: Looks inside the body of the weapon (exaggerated motion to demonstrate element of IA drill)

Instructor: You can see no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber.

Student: "Magazine!" (alerting battle-partner of empty magazine drill)
Student: Tilts body of weapon fully to right (ease of access to magazine release catch), with left hand opens up ammunition pouch of PLCE/webbing, with left hand operates the magazine release catch then removes and stows empty magazine. With left hand, removes fresh magazine, carries out visual inspection of top 2-3 rounds (making sure they're seated correctly and won't cause a stoppage drill) then pushes the magazine firmly home in the magazine housing. With left hand, firmly pushes base of magazine until a loud "click" is heard (the magazine locking mechanism asserting itself) - under no circumstances will the student "slap" the bottom of the magazine (as seen in Hollywood movies and TV shows) as this can "unseat" rounds within the magazine and cause stoppage drills.

Student: tilts weapon to the upright position, leans across the body of the rifle and with the thumb of the left hand operates the bolt-release catch. Once the bolt slides fully-forward (chambering the top-most round), a light "tap/forward assist" is given to the cocking handle* then using the left hand, the student closes and secures the magazine pouch of his/her PLCE/webbing.

Student: Returns left hand to handguard. Picks up point of aim upon target (key-points check-list), settles breathing, continues to engage target. After 2-3 rounds have been released, student yells "back in" to inform battle partner of weapon functionality and that covering fire is once again being given by student.

End.

* Forward assist "tap" (phased out by H&K upgrade of SA80) was carried out to assist the "locking splines" (part of the bolt-carrier assembly) fully locking within the barrel extension and thus ensuring obturation takes place.

The above, summoned from memory, is the "magazine changing drill" (instructor with student(s)) practice "script" used to teach, train and practice the empty magazine drill. It might seem like a lot of information/movements and yes, new recruits tend to struggle with it at first, but with practice (and after being yelled at for the slightest error in drills), a mag-change can be carried out so quickly, a good instructor will struggle to "fault check" more than two or three students at once. After roughly a year of frequent "hands on" practice, even an average shooter can mag-change (fully, no corner-cutting) in the blink of an eye.

If you know your drills and practice them, any side-arm magazine can be changed so quickly (and without thinking), it's silly to think smaller magazines will have much of an impact upon a shooters effectiveness. Sure, if you're unfamiliar with the system and/or flustered, it might have a noticeable effect. Might.

Note: I've taken part in countless "Firepower demonstrations" for serving units, recruits and a few Army "open days" for civilian observers (The MOD have a hard-on for SAA instructors - slick 'n' quick drills look flashy) but I'd often get gripped and told to slow down my drills. One of my civvy mates brought his family to an open day but complained about the handling drills because they were a flurry of twitches, clicks and pouches being opened and closed. Fucking fat civvy bastard wouldn't recognize an artist at work if his life depended upon it.

Just to illustrate my point, watch this absolute shit-gibbon fucking around with an SA80 and waving the rifle around as he conducts a magazine change. If he was on my range, he'd be losing a shit-ton of weight!



The number of bad-drills on display is infuriating!

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#551

Post by Brive1987 »

I recall watching the Christchurch shooter in action. From memory he fucked up his magazine changes and was nearly taken down during one such fumble.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#552

Post by Brive1987 »

WHO (wang wong) has finished its investigation into their Chinese mates.

Amazingly they believe there was no bat to person transfer of COVID.

This can only strengthen the American origin theory.

It’s probably Trumps fault. He should be impeached. For a third time.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#553

Post by fafnir »

Brive1987 wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:09 am
fafnir wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:20 pm
Brive1987 wrote: snip

My point was that American gun culture is defined by the heightened normalisation of weapons relative to other western societies. This comes with a range of positive, negative and neutral consequences. The video was an objectively negative consequence. The presence in society of high capacity magazines servicing rapid fire (no not auto) military styled weapons is to me a subjectively negative thing.

The statistics you rolled out to knock down your strawman merely make my original point. Thank you.
Yep. Matt can't see how weird it looks to someone looking in from the outside.
It could be that it is weird, or it could be that it just seems that way because you are ignorant and don't understand it. It seems to make sense to quite a lot of people. Maybe you just don't understand it?

I don't come from a gun culture and it seemed obviously weird to me. It took me a long time interacting with people from that culture to start looking at them as just coming from a different culture with different assumptions, and priorities. I don't pretend to fully get it. One of the key divides seems to be, should my freedom to do X be restricted based on the fact that a tiny number of people, given that freedom, will abuse it? There doesn't seem to me to be a right answer to that question. As with so many other questions, there is a push on to mandate an answer from the same group of people who always think they have access to absolute Truth.

The same logic of attempting to child proof everything so we have a managed world of minimized harms applies well beyond guns. Personally, I'm inclined to see gun rights as a line in the sand. Whether it's the right line, I don't know... but I'm glad there is one.
Largely unfettered gun rights are a remarkably dangerous benchmark by which to measure “freedom”. I guess we should be relived we are not expected to accommodate the tiny number of people who would abuse an open season on the use of dynamite or hunting with light anti tank weapons. Flame throwers could be effective on burrowing critters. Worked on the Japs.

I mean why not?
Sure, potentially. Pointing out that it clashes with the assumptions of a safety over freedom cultural perspective takes us nowhere. Any culture will have its limits and those limits are necessarily arbitrary. Your culture presumably tolerates some behaviours that an even more risk averse culture would not.

Another aspect of this that I hadn't mentioned is the tension between personal responsibility for one's safety and well being vs reliance on the state. Again this is key to the issue of guns, but goes well beyond them. It's a question of does one want individual responsibility and freedom, or to have the state protect you by restricting everybody's freedom.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3977
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#554

Post by Pitchguest »

Brive1987 wrote: WHO (wang wong) has finished its investigation into their Chinese mates.

Amazingly they believe there was no bat to person transfer of COVID.

This can only strengthen the American origin theory.

It’s probably Trumps fault. He should be impeached. For a third time.
I suppose it must have come from the lab after all, then. I'm sure the WHO will want to investigate this possibility with all haste. I mean, it couldn't have just materialised from thin air, now could it?

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#555

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Brive1987 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:40 pm
If you are after a tactical, detailed and engaging analysis of Isandlwana - try this one.



Very strong on terrain and tactical reconstruction of the various manoeuvres and final collapse. Weaker on personal bias - very pro 24th and anti Durnford.

At a higher operation level, he never really explains why Pulleine thought a 900m long extended line with open flank and rear was a great idea.

The right may have been originally anchored on a small hill. But that hill was an island on the plain. It was dumb luck that Durnford withdrew to the creek line and held the flank for as long as he did.
Haven't looked at it in much detail but the usual explanation is that Pulleine had two objectives which where mutually compromising. He needed to defend his camp and support Durnford at the same time.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#556

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

"were mutually compromising".

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 4421
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#557

Post by Bhurzum »

Brive1987 wrote: I recall watching the Christchurch shooter in action. From memory he fucked up his magazine changes and was nearly taken down during one such fumble.
Practice...that's how you clear-out Carnegie Hall.


ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#559

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

2020 was the year when the lid was really lifted on the system. There are of course still many fooled by the fig leaf of impartiality and integrity clamped onto it's privates by the judiciary and political system. Those same dupes are ironically the same people who tend to turn a blind eye to the expedient abuse of power. The subject is a bit of a hobbyhorse with Barnes. Here he talks about the cowardly deference to power by the courts.


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#561

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

The very fact 'high capacity' exists as a term in domestic conversations of weaponry is a QED.

I recall in the Reserves our M16s started with 20 round magazines and then went to 30 round high(er) capacity options. So a reasonable definition is any magazine larger than that originally envisaged by the designer.
My Ruger Mini-14 is designed to take either factory 5- or 20-round, my Beretta 92A1, 17 round mags. Both are designed to accept factory or third-party mags of greater capacity. Yet the nanny-staters of California in their wisdom have determined I’d pose a grave danger to others with those "high capacity" abominations, so have limited both to 10 rds.

I doubt magazine size is a core issue to resolve.
After their apoplexy over those inchoate “assault weapons”, the number one obsession of anti-gun activists is magazine size.

Here’s Uncle Joe:
There’s no rationale whatsoever to have more than 10 rounds in a magazine, and even that is too much in my view.
The idea that we don’t have elimination of … magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them, it's absolutely mindless.
I promise to … get those clips that have multiple bullets in them not for sale.
Biden's current proposal is to require owners of >10 rd mags to license them at $200 each, or have them confiscated.


As Bhurzum notes, and the video below demonstrates, reloads can be performed quite quickly with practice. To avoid tedium, I'll only note that legitimate reasons and benefits do exist for >10 rd mags.

And, while a few mass shooters have used drum mags, most bring an assortment of weapons with a wide range of capacities -- including revolvers and shotguns. They also typically just drop the emptied gun and grab the next one. And crooks, of course, have no hesitation to use banned mags.

In short, no legitimate reason exists to ban standard capacity magazines, not even if sophists mislabel them "high capacity". Nor has anyone ever explained why ten is the magic number. It's just a round number they pulled out of their asses. The real motivation is to creep into a complete gun ban, and just to punish law-abiding gun owners for being different.

But given the American predilection for firepower over aimed fire, I can see why (once a weapon is introduced) you'd need a drum-mag.
Everyone I know is really into tightening their groups. But, then again, I actually know real-life American gun owners.

In contrast, you’ve surfed youtube and found some yahoos getting their jollies by spraying lead, and decided that’s American Gun Culture™. For real Lulz, you can also find morons shooting at home appliances filled with tannerite. All fun for the feeble-minded, and not indicative of the vast majority of gun owners.




Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#562

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

fafnir wrote: Another aspect of this that I hadn't mentioned is the tension between personal responsibility for one's safety and well being vs reliance on the state. Again this is key to the issue of guns, but goes well beyond them. It's a question of does one want individual responsibility and freedom, or to have the state protect you by restricting everybody's freedom.
Excessive gun control is part and parcel with the elites' arrogant assumption of intellectual and moral superiority over hoi polloi, and their consequent noblesse oblige to micro-manage the peasantry's every step. This hubris is elevated by the assumption that only a morally or mentally-deficient person would want a gun. It manifests most egregiously in needless gun safety restrictions, particularly wrt children. When already, despite c. 400 million firearms, in 4 in 10 homes, only c. 400 accidental deaths occur each year, only about a dozen of those. [Figures Brive somehow thinks underscore his point.] In contrast, around 700 children drown each year, 1200 die of poisoning. So where are the calls for "common sense" limits on 'high-capacity" wading pools, or requirements that all household cleaners be stored at all times in a safe?

In America, either everyone you know owns a gun, or no one you know does. The latter universe [in which I once existed] for the most part hasn't the slightest fucking clue why the other universe might want or need guns, and can't be bothered to suss why. Gun control isn't about safety or crime or mass murder. It's part cultural disdain, part an ideological clash between libertarianism/personal responsibility vs. authoritarianism/group conformity.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#563

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Edit: two to three dozen children p/a are killed by accidental discharges. To combat that 'epidemic', for example in CA, every gun must be sold with a trigger lock, and now, the serial number of that lock must be registered with the state. When we transferred ownership of the rifle I'd been shooting for a month, I had to sign and thumbprint an affidavit stating I owned a home safe, listing the make and model, else the gun shop would have been required to sell us a second trigger lock. CA law also requires that, if children are present in the house, or any child might "conceivably" get access to your gun, it must be locked inside a safe with the trigger guard also on it at all times.

So again, while nearly all gun owners with children are exceedingly careful, the elite, despite their gross ignorance of firearms, believe they know better and must direct the state to assume responsibility for people's safety by intervening in their private affairs.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#564

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

KiwiInOz wrote: Matt can't see how weird it looks to someone looking in from the outside.
I'm sure it does. But it's none of your damn business.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#565

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Brive1987 wrote: Matt Error #1
Matt Error #2
Matt Error #3
Matt Omissions
Matt Error #4
I'm working off memory, whereas you've got this huge display on one of your walls. I've replied in a sub-thread

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=559

given this ground has been trod over quite enough in the main thread. Otherwise, I refer you to Mykeru's many comments on the subject.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#566

Post by Brive1987 »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:40 pm
If you are after a tactical, detailed and engaging analysis of Isandlwana - try this one.



Very strong on terrain and tactical reconstruction of the various manoeuvres and final collapse. Weaker on personal bias - very pro 24th and anti Durnford.

At a higher operation level, he never really explains why Pulleine thought a 900m long extended line with open flank and rear was a great idea.

The right may have been originally anchored on a small hill. But that hill was an island on the plain. It was dumb luck that Durnford withdrew to the creek line and held the flank for as long as he did.
Haven't looked at it in much detail but the usual explanation is that Pulleine had two objectives which where mutually compromising. He needed to defend his camp and support Durnford at the same time.
Durnford’s command was 100 fully mounted natives men who deployed way out in the Qwabe Valley. They were well placed to extricate themselves as needed - and did so. Pulleine’s orders from Chelmsford were to defend the camp.

This was not best accomplished by apparently trying to cover the width of the plain with arrow of companies.

Below - Durnford on the right - retiring. Zulus were almost immediately well behind the camp left. Exposed British right had to refuse and was briefly supported by Durnford in the Donga before it wasn’t. British enveloped on the right and rear.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#567

Post by Brive1987 »

Auto complete. “A row” of companies.

My diagram doesn’t emphasis enough the weight of the Zulu left sweeping behind Durnford

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#568

Post by Brive1987 »

That’s a better representation. The British had seen the zulus deploy right to far left in the morning and knew there were more than local troops ie saw >4000 - ie the main impi. The battle really started when 1 and then two British companies on piquet were engaged by the right horn on the plateau to the WNW. The British also had scouting parties in the main plateau top of picture. They bumped the Zulu centre and left horn. These attacked over the plateau and to the east against Durnsford who started a fighting withdrawal. The camp would have seen the centre and heard the battle the left.

The British line had no depth or reserves. It went from the camp to the conical hill in the plain. When the British realised the extent of the Zulu left horn they refused two companies back up the rocky ridge. And hoped Durnford could hold the flank somehow. When he couldn’t their right and right rear was in the air. G Coy was destroyed and the line withdrew to the camp where it was surrounded and destroyed largely in the saddle area as discrete blobs of men - “squares”.

The commander would have known from his piquets that the Zulus were to the WNW behind his camp. But he had no men there and didn’t immediately attempt to adjust his line accordingly.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#569

Post by Brive1987 »

Durnfords position is shown slightly right and forward of where it was - in the riverbed just below the current road crossing.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 6079
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#570

Post by Service Dog »

I hope you grognards are play testing John D's tank game.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#571

Post by Brive1987 »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: Matt Error #1
Matt Error #2
Matt Error #3
Matt Omissions
Matt Error #4
I'm working off memory, whereas you've got this huge display on one of your walls. I've replied in a sub-thread

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=559

given this ground has been trod over quite enough in the main thread. Otherwise, I refer you to Mykeru's many comments on the subject.
Mykeru was no better informed while falling into the trap of self assumed subject-master arrogance. Like Gallipoli, much has been written, little - if any - adds additional value. I prefer finding the four corners of the puzzle and gingerly working my way into the story.

But given the way the main thread is overwhelmed at the moment, it’s probably best to free it up for more Q Conspiracy

🤨 ... 🤣

The solution to Dayatlov is currently unavailable. If it arrives, it will have to accomodate 5 points.

1. Whatever happened didn’t destroy the tent in any meaningful fashion. Ie it was a perceived rather than actual threat.
2. Whatever was perceived demanded an expedited withdrawal out of and away from the tent. Danger was thought to be immediate.
3. Whatever was perceived was also persistent. After the flight from the tent an ordered long march to the valley followed.
4. Whatever was perceived didn’t leave any trace even as their footprints remained in place for weeks.

If the endless theories don’t address these points then yes. They are a waste of time. And your preferred ice shelf approach fails on just this criteria.

A big avalanche or local collapse would impact the tent and leave evidence. A small shift wouldn’t justify a withdrawal to the valley. A general perception of danger is inconsistent with an interrupted dinner, a 30 degree slope and the hurried evac.

🤷‍♂️

But cheers. Back to the ‘Matt and Dog conspiracy thread’. I’ll check out your earlier response too.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#572

Post by Brive1987 »

“The fifth point is unknown”

Channeling Sucker Punch.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5386
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#573

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote: WHO (wang wong) has finished its investigation into their Chinese mates.

Amazingly they believe there was no bat to person transfer of COVID.

This can only strengthen the American origin theory.

It’s probably Trumps fault. He should be impeached. For a third time.
That, or freezepeached.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5386
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#574

Post by KiwiInOz »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote: Matt can't see how weird it looks to someone looking in from the outside.
I'm sure it does. But it's none of your damn business.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5386
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#575

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote: That’s a better representation. The British had seen the zulus deploy right to far left in the morning and knew there were more than local troops ie saw >4000 - ie the main impi. The battle really started when 1 and then two British companies on piquet were engaged by the right horn on the plateau to the WNW. The British also had scouting parties in the main plateau top of picture. They bumped the Zulu centre and left horn. These attacked over the plateau and to the east against Durnsford who started a fighting withdrawal. The camp would have seen the centre and heard the battle the left.

The British line had no depth or reserves. It went from the camp to the conical hill in the plain. When the British realised the extent of the Zulu left horn they refused two companies back up the rocky ridge. And hoped Durnford could hold the flank somehow. When he couldn’t their right and right rear was in the air. G Coy was destroyed and the line withdrew to the camp where it was surrounded and destroyed largely in the saddle area as discrete blobs of men - “squares”.

The commander would have known from his piquets that the Zulus were to the WNW behind his camp. But he had no men there and didn’t immediately attempt to adjust his line accordingly.

And this explains Dayatlov Pass? I get it now.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#576

Post by Brive1987 »

It’s hard to fly like an eagle when ...

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#577

Post by fafnir »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: In short, no legitimate reason exists to ban standard capacity magazines, not even if sophists mislabel them "high capacity". Nor has anyone ever explained why ten is the magic number. It's just a round number they pulled out of their asses. The real motivation is to creep into a complete gun ban, and just to punish law-abiding gun owners for being different.
Isn't any limit necessarily somewhat arbitrary? If the limit is X, why isn't it X+1 or X-1? Why is the limit on gun Y the same as gun Z when the risks they pose is so different? If one really cared about reducing the arbitrariness, then I wonder if you wouldn't disappear off down a rabbit hole of having different limits on different guns and the whole things getting very complicated and subject to change as the data justifying the less arbitrary limit changed.

I agree with the rest of what you say. I only mention this because it is the same "but this category that I don't like is arbitrary" argument that you get trying to make gender and sex not exist.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#578

Post by Brive1987 »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: That’s a better representation. The British had seen the zulus deploy right to far left in the morning and knew there were more than local troops ie saw >4000 - ie the main impi. The battle really started when 1 and then two British companies on piquet were engaged by the right horn on the plateau to the WNW. The British also had scouting parties in the main plateau top of picture. They bumped the Zulu centre and left horn. These attacked over the plateau and to the east against Durnsford who started a fighting withdrawal. The camp would have seen the centre and heard the battle the left.

The British line had no depth or reserves. It went from the camp to the conical hill in the plain. When the British realised the extent of the Zulu left horn they refused two companies back up the rocky ridge. And hoped Durnford could hold the flank somehow. When he couldn’t their right and right rear was in the air. G Coy was destroyed and the line withdrew to the camp where it was surrounded and destroyed largely in the saddle area as discrete blobs of men - “squares”.

The commander would have known from his piquets that the Zulus were to the WNW behind his camp. But he had no men there and didn’t immediately attempt to adjust his line accordingly.

[img]ht://i.imgur.com/bbSigFX.jpg[/img]
And this explains Dayatlov Pass? I get it now.
If anything remains unclear, I just happened to have prepared a slide deck.

😉


KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5386
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#579

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: That’s a better representation. The British had seen the zulus deploy right to far left in the morning and knew there were more than local troops ie saw >4000 - ie the main impi. The battle really started when 1 and then two British companies on piquet were engaged by the right horn on the plateau to the WNW. The British also had scouting parties in the main plateau top of picture. They bumped the Zulu centre and left horn. These attacked over the plateau and to the east against Durnsford who started a fighting withdrawal. The camp would have seen the centre and heard the battle the left.

The British line had no depth or reserves. It went from the camp to the conical hill in the plain. When the British realised the extent of the Zulu left horn they refused two companies back up the rocky ridge. And hoped Durnford could hold the flank somehow. When he couldn’t their right and right rear was in the air. G Coy was destroyed and the line withdrew to the camp where it was surrounded and destroyed largely in the saddle area as discrete blobs of men - “squares”.

The commander would have known from his piquets that the Zulus were to the WNW behind his camp. But he had no men there and didn’t immediately attempt to adjust his line accordingly.

[img]ht://i.imgur.com/bbSigFX.jpg[/img]
And this explains Dayatlov Pass? I get it now.
If anything remains unclear, I just happened to have prepared a slide deck.

😉

Yeah, but were you there?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#580

Post by Brive1987 »

:snooty: a
KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: That’s a better representation. The British had seen the zulus deploy right to far left in the morning and knew there were more than local troops ie saw >4000 - ie the main impi. The battle really started when 1 and then two British companies on piquet were engaged by the right horn on the plateau to the WNW. The British also had scouting parties in the main plateau top of picture. They bumped the Zulu centre and left horn. These attacked over the plateau and to the east against Durnsford who started a fighting withdrawal. The camp would have seen the centre and heard the battle the left.

The British line had no depth or reserves. It went from the camp to the conical hill in the plain. When the British realised the extent of the Zulu left horn they refused two companies back up the rocky ridge. And hoped Durnford could hold the flank somehow. When he couldn’t their right and right rear was in the air. G Coy was destroyed and the line withdrew to the camp where it was surrounded and destroyed largely in the saddle area as discrete blobs of men - “squares”.

The commander would have known from his piquets that the Zulus were to the WNW behind his camp. But he had no men there and didn’t immediately attempt to adjust his line accordingly.

[img]ht://i.imgur.com/bbSigFX.jpg[/img]
And this explains Dayatlov Pass? I get it now.
If anything remains unclear, I just happened to have prepared a slide deck.

😉

Yeah, but were you there?



In Feb 1991 I was in Durban with my South African born wife on honeymoon.

We had a hire car. We had a day spare. I lobbied for the Zulu battlefields. Hard. She agreed.

The relatives said it was fine. No problems. They told us to take this road, not that one as there had been “necklacing” along that stretch.

My wife recoiled. We spent the day in a shopping centre with Auntie Doris. We have never been closer to divorce than then.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4995
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#581

Post by John D »

I little gift from John Prine.

John D
.
.
Posts: 4995
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#582

Post by John D »

Much of politics is based on fear. Few people are good at risk assessment, They rely on their gut to guide them regarding what is dangerous.

Also, a risk that is caused by a person (such as murder) is far scarier for most people than a risk from nature or accident (lightning or car accidents).

and so... weird engineer types such as myself go through life like a stranger in a strange land. I know that I have nothing to fear from my guns since I know how to keep them safe. Guns don't scare me except when pointed at me (or others).

Many politicians prey on fear... and this is common in both parties. This is partly why I don't belong to a party. They are both fear mongers.... and the media is full of fear mongers.

Leftists who want to ban guns or add more gun control actually think it will help. They think this because they have irrational fear. By screaming to do everything possible to thwart their fear they feel like they are being vigilant and virtuous.

So... my daughter and I had a convo once (back when she would talk to me) about a waiting period for gun purchases. She thought that it would be a good idea to make people wait 90 days before they could complete their gun purchase. It would stop a crazy person from going out one day, buying a gun, and using it. Perhaps the 90 days was long enough to get them to calm down. Ok. I agree. A waiting period could help in this case. But how common is this? Not very. So I explained that this restriction can really hurt people who need protection. How about the woman whose ex has threatened to kill her and her children. She has a restraining order, but the cops are usually 15 minutes away. In my view, she should be able to buy a gun that day, if she wants, to try to protect herself. By the time she waits 90 days she could be dead. My daughter agreed that my scenario could happen.... and that it could be more common than her worst case scenario...but... she still wanted a 90 day waiting period. It is just fear driven bs. Some people can't control themselves. They just can't do it. They are too afraid and use too many rationalizations to make it through the day.

One more story. You may find it boring so skip it if you want. A good friend of mine is a smart and accomplished woman. She is educated and has kids. So... haha... when she goes camping with her kids in a tent or pop-up trailer she always has to sleep to the outside of the tent. I thought that it may be to prevent a bear or something from getting to her kids... but no... it is to prevent a kidnapper from cutting the canvas and stealing her child. Haha. I confess that I laughed at her. Has this ever happened in all of history? Really? She did admit that it was pretty stupid... but she couldn't stop herself from doing it.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#583

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

fafnir wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: In short, no legitimate reason exists to ban standard capacity magazines, not even if sophists mislabel them "high capacity". Nor has anyone ever explained why ten is the magic number. It's just a round number they pulled out of their asses. The real motivation is to creep into a complete gun ban, and just to punish law-abiding gun owners for being different.
Isn't any limit necessarily somewhat arbitrary? If the limit is X, why isn't it X+1 or X-1? Why is the limit on gun Y the same as gun Z when the risks they pose is so different? If one really cared about reducing the arbitrariness, then I wonder if you wouldn't disappear off down a rabbit hole of having different limits on different guns and the whole things getting very complicated and subject to change as the data justifying the less arbitrary limit changed.

I agree with the rest of what you say. I only mention this because it is the same "but this category that I don't like is arbitrary" argument that you get trying to make gender and sex not exist.
True, to place a limit on any scalar quantity, you have 'take one and look at the rest'. But mag limits are truly arbitrary per the legal definition:
Irrational; capricious.
The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.

An arbitrary decision is one made without regard for the facts and circumstances presented, and it connotes a disregard of the evidence.

In many instances, the term implies an element of bad faith, and it may be used synonymously with tyrannical or despotic.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... /arbitrary

They don't even bother putting forth a putative benefit; if pressed, they simply assert 'nobody needs (n) rounds', conflate standard mags with exotic drum feeds, or mutter something about mass shootings. Actually showing a correlation between reduced capacity and reduced deaths would be beyond them. Still, before confiscating hundreds of millions of magazines, they should be required to explain precisely how replacing 15-rd pistol magazines with 10-rd ones will make the world a better place.

Why is the limit on gun Y the same as gun Z when the risks they pose is so different?
The nuances of ammo -- bullet weight & caliber, pressure, muzzle velocity, etc. -- are a mystery to them. Biden thinks 9mm can "blow the lungs right out of a person." That my .22 Short/LR rifle, my 5.56 NATO rifle, and my 9mm handguns (6" & 3" barrels) all fall under the same blanket mag limit, makes it all the more senseless. Further, they're fine -- for the moment -- with my 12 gauge, which can fire a total of 60 projectiles of .33 caliber without reloading.


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 6079
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#585

Post by Service Dog »

Messy, decade-long, conflict-of-interest scandal:

Joe Biden did favors for his daughter's husband's medical company,
from weeks after company was founded in 2011-- when Joe was Obama's VP--

thru 2021-- as son-in-law now advises Biden Admin on Covid-$19, while his company invests million$ in Covid venture capital game.

Biden Family Profits From Covid. Biden lied about keeping his family out of government business.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... ard-krein/

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#586

Post by Brive1987 »

Brive1987 wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=559

But cheers. Back to the ‘Matt and Dog conspiracy thread’. I’ll check out your earlier response too.
Well that was disappointing. 🙄

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17374
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#587

Post by Brive1987 »

Anyone know of an application that supports animation, timelines and is designed for animating map overlays?

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2180
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#588

Post by Keating »

I'm completely lost. How did Biden steel Dayatlov Pass?

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#589

Post by fafnir »

Keating wrote: I'm completely lost. How did Biden steel Dayatlov Pass?
The Zulus were unequipped for the Russian winter which is known for its disproportionate impact on half naked african warriors.


Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 6079
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#591

Post by Service Dog »

https://media.patriots.win/post/osoctikB.jpeg
Among the measures introduced is for midwives to refer to breastfeeding as 'chestfeeding' where relevant, while breastmilk could now also be called 'human milk', 'chest milk' or 'milk from the feeding mother/parent'.

The policy, introduced at the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, also stipulates that maternity care should now be 'perinatal services'.

In an effort to be more inclusive towards non-traditional families, the term 'woman' has been expanded to include 'woman or person' and 'father' now 'parent', 'co-parent' or 'second biological parent'.
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/news/cu ... 210-h1tvrg

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#592

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Brive1987 wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=559

But cheers. Back to the ‘Matt and Dog conspiracy thread’. I’ll check out your earlier response too.
Well that was disappointing. 🙄
C'mon, man! I'm the guy who solved Mazel'tov, err Daly .. Dat uhh, Dalek tov Pass!

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 13504
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#593

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote: https://media.patriots.win/post/osoctikB.jpeg
Among the measures introduced is for midwives to refer to breastfeeding as 'chestfeeding' where relevant, while breastmilk could now also be called 'human milk', 'chest milk' or 'milk from the feeding mother/parent'.

The policy, introduced at the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, also stipulates that maternity care should now be 'perinatal services'.

In an effort to be more inclusive towards non-traditional families, the term 'woman' has been expanded to include 'woman or person' and 'father' now 'parent', 'co-parent' or 'second biological parent'.
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/news/cu ... 210-h1tvrg
What a bunch of front holes.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11029
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#594

Post by Lsuoma »

Brive1987 wrote: Anyone know of an application that supports animation, timelines and is designed for animating map overlays?
I believe you need a zoom filter.


fafnir
.
.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#596

Post by fafnir »

The French concerned that other nations ideas will tear their culture apart.... that's a reversal.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#597

Post by mordacious1 »

Macron states that the woke nonsense is indigenous to the US and originates on American university campuses. Is this true? Or are these ideas brought into US universities through external actors? There are many global entities that push the latest agenda. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when your opponent is too strong militarily, you must corrupt them from within.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#598

Post by fafnir »

mordacious1 wrote:
Macron states that the woke nonsense is indigenous to the US and originates on American university campuses. Is this true? Or are these ideas brought into US universities through external actors? There are many global entities that push the latest agenda. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when your opponent is too strong militarily, you must corrupt them from within.
Many of the ideas started with French intellectuals who infected the US with them.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 6079
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#599

Post by Service Dog »

mordacious1 wrote: Is this true?
Paul-Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida

Gilles Deleuze, François Châtelet, Guy DeBord

and Jerry Lewis.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 6079
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The 3FJ, Matt, & Dog Conspiracy Show

#600

Post by Service Dog »

The New York Times reports the Woke France story as-if they're a neutral observer.

But the NYT gives 2 examples of French racism, treating them as roughly-equivalent: France's role in the slave trade. And white french ballet dancers wearing Chinese costumes while performing the Chinese Dance portion of The Nutcracker.

You're a foreign woke problem, NYT.

Post Reply