Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Grizzly 45

There is something interesting in what BC,RG and Alan just posted .

Fit and very healthy young[ish] people seem to be more susceptible to getting this worse in many cases than normal or average middle age.
Even people with great age, or terminal diseases like my better half dad, who has now got stage 4 cancer in the jaw and metastasising into his neck and is in UL hospital.Where he promptly got Covid this January!!! Has recovered from it. He is still under observation,but it has been declared as gone. We thought that would have been the end of him, with the cancer being too weak at the moment even for radium treatment,and being a lifetime nictione addict, but he is still here.

So I'm wondring does being aerobically fit make you more susceptible?

Meantime India, with its vast and crowded population,is seemingly getting back to normal,as they dose with hydorcoloxine and zinc in as early as possible after diagnosing COVID. Remember that stuff that the WHO and big pharma poo-poohed as quackery? Seems they are having to have a 2nd look at this again.

https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/

Swedens death rate doesn't seem to be any way worse than its average over the last decade with its' herd immunity.https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/

Grizzly 45

From the ORC FB page
50 years ago in the UK...
The 50-year "war on drugs" here in Britain. May 27th this year marks 50 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Did it work? Is this the reason why so few people do drugs in 2021? There are parallels between this and the inefficacy of UK Firearms Acts, where there seems to be a never-ending source of illegal firearms for the criminals. Whether it's drugs or firearms, no matter how much they seize, the criminals always manage to procure more.
Another thing to note is the strong connection between the 1971 MODA and gun & knife crime in the UK. It was 'sold' to the British public by the British establishment that the 1971 MODA and 1968 Firearms Act would reduce the criminal use of drugs and firearms respectively. It didn't quite go like that. The 1971 MODA essentially just pushed the control and distribution of illicit drugs into the influence of organised crime groups. These organised crime groups then needed weapons to settle disputes, assert power and control and intimidate rival dealers. Hence, the increase in gang violence in the 1980s and 1990s, often involving guns. It is said that the vast majority of gun and knife crime today is linked to drugs, or more correctly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

BattleCorp

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Grizzly 45

For those of us who want a differing opinion on Covid,lockdowns and all the rest.
https://lockdownsceptics.org/

Rows Grower

Worse day on record for Ireland since this pandemic hit us...

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/covid-19-101-further-deaths-879-additional-cases-1074633.html

BattleCorp

Rows Grower wrote: »

Worse day on record for Ireland since this pandemic hit us...

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/covid-19-101-further-deaths-879-additional-cases-1074633.html

The headline is very misleading.

83 of these deaths were some time in January. 18 were in February. So it is probably more accurate to say 18 dead so far in February.

Rows Grower

BattleCorp wrote: »

The headline is very misleading.

83 of these deaths were some time in January. 18 were in February. So it is probably more accurate to say 18 dead so far in February.

There still "new" deaths though that are added to the total and we were warned that this was on the way.

Feisar

To be honest when my wife said 101 dead I asked was that up or down on yesterday. I’m in no ways flippant about this virus but I’m not on the hype bandwagon, updates are the new religion for some.

Victor

What the best way to shoot a ballerina?

With a tou-tou (22).

Munsterlad102

Has anyone heard about HR127 in the States? Seems absolutely brutal for them, especially coming from no licensing or magazine limits.

BattleCorp

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Has anyone heard about HR127 in the States? Seems absolutely brutal for them, especially coming from no licensing or magazine limits.

Not a chance that will be brought in as it stands.

A federal register of all firearms that is open to the public? Not a chance.

There isn't the capability to do the psyc evaluation either. It's a non-runner.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Does the flu test the same as covid? What i mean by that is can someone have the flu, be tested and show positive for covid? Given the problems with testing?

I doubt that's possible. Entirely different substances being tested for.
Would be like having a common cold, and a test saying you got HIV.

Is that not just America? I was thinking Ireland only.

It's just America. But I was looking at the % rates not total.
I would find it hard to believe that Flu kills 0.1% in the US (CDC) and 0.1% Globally (WHO). But somehow is killing 2-3% in Ireland.

Its possible. More than possible actually.

As I said, it's completely understandable. There is no number for total cases in the HSPC report, so one can easily assume "notified cases" refers to a total. But if that were true, hospitalisation rates for flu would be 50%, obviously not the case.
Basically if you're a notified cases of the flu, the GP thinks your at risk and are likely to require hospitalisation. Almost all the deaths from flu come from this subgroup which is why it's a better metric to track than trying to estimate how many people are suffering from the flu in silence at home.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Not a chance that will be brought in as it stands.

A federal register of all firearms that is open to the public? Not a chance.

There isn't the capability to do the psyc evaluation either. It's a non-runner.

Along with registering "antique weapons" IE muzzleloaders and pre 1885 guns.Which arent even considered firearms. Along with more looney tunes stuff like annual liscenses and 200dollar mag registrations etc
Its a "Throw a bucket of sht and see what sticks" legislation, but with an anti-gun president an anti-gun VP,and anti-gun Congress and half a Senate being anti-gun,and the antis threatening to stuff the supreme court, remove the filibuster in Congress to remove any further checks,dont be surprised if alot of this DOES get thru,
And then watch the fireworks REALLY start over there.:mad:

Uinseann_16

There wont be any compliance over there if that does get through and theyll probably follow the old proverb of " as well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb" and start drilling third pin holes like like nobodies business :pac:

civdef

This HR127 is a dead duck, the only reason it's getting shouted about so loud is to increase fundraising for lobbyists.

Democrats have a very thin majority in the House, the Senate depends on the VP for casting vote.
There are enough democrats sympathetic to gun owners in both to ensure nothing too fundamentally restrictive will go through (stuff like background checks at gun shows is more likely). The huge increase in gun ownership last year alone will ensure that.

I don't think they have the strength to remove the filibuster (much as I think as it would be a good thing), can't see them stuffing the SC, DC / PR statehood might be a better tactic...

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

This HR127 is a dead duck, the only reason it's getting shouted about so loud is to increase fundraising for lobbyists.

Democrats have a very thin majority in the House, the Senate depends on the VP for casting vote.
There are enough democrats sympathetic to gun owners in both to ensure nothing too fundamentally restrictive will go through (stuff like background checks at gun shows is more likely). The huge increase in gun ownership last year alone will ensure that.

I don't think they have the strength to remove the filibuster (much as I think as it would be a good thing), can't see them stuffing the SC, DC / PR statehood might be a better tactic...

Don't be surprised if Sleepy signs another executive order on this one.
Or rather gets Jill to sign for him, apparently his signatures are getting rather doddery on the EO's and are starting to look a lot like his wives according to handwriting experts...
The only good thing is that this bill has no co-signatories to it, as no one
bar maybe AOC is mad enough to put their name to it...Sofar.

PS the background check at gun shows has been there for yonks.Its still being beaten to death as a thing,which it isn't

alan0387

Cass wrote: »

Did you ever have a cigarette and no lighter so you want it more? How about seeing adverts on Tv for take away and want it even though you've just eaten.

Some of that behaviour is responsible for the current trends. I've never seen anyone walking or exercising in my area. Its fairly rural and the roads are not suitable for walkers, etc. Yet in the last, especially, 6 months i cannot drive 100 yards without finding some twat in the middle of the road with their "i'm walking" shorts on even though its -2.

You tell someone not to do something and you'll find a percentage will automatically want to do it. On the other end o the spectrum you have the ignorant moaners. I see it on other social media. People bitching and moaning about the amount of people in McDonalds or a coffee shop and they fail to realise that the kind of people they are giving out about includes them for being there too.

Some don't do the right thing out of apathy, some out of an incorrect sense of moral superiority. The majority will comply but can only go so far before being broke financially or mentally. We don't know what is going on with people or their circumstances so if you take away the ones that break the lockdown restrictions just to break them, those that are left could be in a position where they have to do what they're doing.

Like me they may not see the "real face" of this so start to think, "it's not that bad".

Hey look id like to think I can see both sides of a debate, try understand both points of view, the eternal on the fencer here I suppose with my job only being closed 8 weeks in the last year of lockdowns I've been luckier than a lot of people so maybe my views are more biased than I think!

I do get your points however. Maybe I should worry less about what others are doing!

And on the later posts, sh1t will hit the fan if that bill passes. The amount of American YouTube channels freaking over it! But I do think they don't have the infrastructure in place to make any of it stick. They are very paranoid about the 2a and it being taken from them.

On one hand you kinda agree with them, and to be fair if Biden pushed through all his legislation, does he not account for the millions of people in the various sectors of the industry, direct and indirect? Think from the steel production, all the way down to transport companies. Even so far as butchers and taxidermists. It will have a wider effect than most realise.

civdef

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Don't be surprised if Sleepy signs another executive order on this one.

Executive orders are a thing allright, but they're very limited constitutionally. He can't just ban "assault rifles", for example - but he could limit imports or ammo from Russia, to pick one - maybe no more Tula or Wolf for people to mag dump into trash.

Russia or China are easy enough targets for this kind of thing, (it's already happened for most firearms from there for that reason), but if he went to extend Bush 41's 1989 assault rifle import ban, he'd get pushback on trade from the likes of Germany. He is very limited as to what he can do to US produced firearms - which is why Century Arms stay in business!

PS the background check at gun shows has been there for yonks.Its still being beaten to death as a thing,which it isn't

In about half the states a private seller (i.e. not a FFL) at a gun show or anywhere else still doesn't need to do a background check, which does make it hard to stop convicted felons or the like from buying privately.

Rows Grower

I wonder how long it will take for Trump supporters to realise President Biden is a lot more experienced in politics than Trump was and he is not as impetuous or prone to stupid decisions?

Munsterlad102

Rows Grower wrote: »

I wonder how long it will take for Trump supporters to realise President Biden is a lot more experienced in politics than Trump was and he is not as impetuous or prone to stupid decisions?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Sleepy Joe isn’t running anything and is signing anything out infront of him. Like seriously, watch him try to make a speech without messing up, even when he has a Telerompter. Let’s also not forget him flip flopping on fracking and oil piping.

Rosahane

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Sleepy Joe isn’t running anything and is signing anything out infront of him. Like seriously, watch him try to make a speech without messing up, even when he has a Telerompter. Let’s also not forget him flip flopping on fracking and oil piping.

https://youtu.be/c9jMZsGJ56s

I think his meds need to be adjusted.

Mellor

civdef wrote: »

In about half the states a private seller (i.e. not a FFL) at a gun show or anywhere else still doesn't need to do a background check, which does make it hard to stop convicted felons or the like from buying privately.

I've made this point in the past. Talking about how the US actually does robust background checks is pointless, when they are essentially optional.

There's certain aspects of US gun law that I'm envious of. Basically the ease at which law abiding shooters can go about their hobby.
But I think the above is one aspect that is really damaging to shooters collectively.

tudderone

Biden said he would ban "Assault weapons" on day one of his presidency, it'd be the first thing he would do. So he is already in breach of his promises.

civdef

tudderone wrote: »

Biden said he would ban "Assault weapons" on day one of his presidency, it'd be the first thing he would do. So he is already in breach of his promises.

When did he say that?

tudderone

civdef wrote: »

When did he say that?

In the run up to the election.

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

In the run up to the election.

He definitely made it clear it was an area he was interested in legislating.
But I didn't see any reference to day one. He specifically said it wouldn't be an EO at one pont.

“No one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me, me, but you can’t do it by executive order. We do that, next guy comes along and says, Well, guess what? By executive order, I guess everybody can have machine guns again.”

tudderone

I've tried to find it online, but he has said so much about gun control, most of it pure piffle, its difficult to find. He has signed EO's already, so i am surprised he hasn't done it already.

I pity anyone who owns one of those ar 14 rifles with the 100 round clips.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

Executive orders are a thing allright, but they're very limited constitutionally. He can't just ban "assault rifles", for example -

but he could limit imports or ammo from Russia, to pick one - maybe no more Tula or Wolf for people to mag dump into trash.

Ahem...Clinton Assault weapons import ban 1998??? Does ithat exactly...Go read up on it. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/06/us/clinton-to-impose-a-ban-on-58-types-of-imported-guns.html

Russia or China are easy enough targets for this kind of thing, (it's already happened for most firearms from there for that reason), but if he went to extend Bush 41's 1989 assault rifle ban
he'd get pushback on trade from the likes of Germany. He is very limited as to what he can do to US-produced firearms - which is why Century Arms stay in business!

Errr...That's WHY there companies like HK USA or Glock USA or SIG/Sauer USA or even Klashinikov USA exist...:) They are independent companies and not controlled by their European namesakes,so they are subject to US gun laws and trade regulations.

I

n about half the states a private seller (i.e. not a FFL) at a gun show or anywhere else still doesn't need to do a background check, which does make it hard to stop convicted felons or the like from buying privatel

y.

Which 25 states exactly?? ATFE, Feds and local LE would want to know?
If you are selling at a gun show or its grounds, where it is being held,it is considered a dealer transaction irrespective, and it still must go thru the Brady instant check, which you can run at any dealers stand who is selling firearms.At least that was my experience on buying both long and short firearms in CA and AZ in the 1990s...

It's also why most "Buy a gun quick to protect ourselves and our toilet paper stash" newbies were woken up to the "gun-show loophole "MYTH last year:eek: Couldnt belive they were on a state waiting period from 5to 14 days depending,even with the instant check.

Grizzly 45

civdef wrote: »

When did he say that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8

and
https://twitter.com/i/status/1237387463246708736

and an article on his record on gun control
https://www.mic.com/p/joe-bidens-record-on-gun-control-from-his-early-senate-days-to-the-2020-race-32647292

And lets not forget his introduction of "Unarmed target rich environment" AKA GUN FREE ZONES legislation in 1994!! Which has probably killed more people than anything else in mass shootings

I think we can take the man at his word!

Grizzly 45

Rosahane wrote: »

https://youtu.be/c9jMZsGJ56s

I think his meds need to be adjusted.

Even better.
Don't forget 400 billion Americans can get a "Badachare" under Joe's health plans.:D:D

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/biden-stumbles-over-words-michigan-003658508.html