-
We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you
Politics Gun laws and news around the world
- Thread starter HisRoyalHighness
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 15,273
- Points
- 293
How can a Sig M18 discharge while sitting on a table unattended?
Yeah, it can't. Of course virtually all of Gov, GunTube and the other "experts" were quick to throw Sig under the bus for this one.
Besides the striker spring failing I don't see how such a thing could ever happen. And even then this would have violated one of the four rules of gun safety.
"Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction"
taskandpurpose.com
Yeah, it can't. Of course virtually all of Gov, GunTube and the other "experts" were quick to throw Sig under the bus for this one.
Besides the striker spring failing I don't see how such a thing could ever happen. And even then this would have violated one of the four rules of gun safety.
"Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction"
Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18
Airman Brayden Lovan, 21, died on July 20, 2025 at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. His death remains under investigation.
taskandpurpose.com
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 16,064
- Points
- 338
Though one could say that, yes, the gun wasn't pointed in a safe direction, and that, yes, carrying with a round in the chamber wasn't necessary in that situation; it does not change the countless reports of the gun acting of its own accord when it comes to firing a shot.
Memes about the 320 have been going around since 2017 and to this day the allegations remain undefeated. Even more so when they are consistently repeatable.
Last time SIG went on a full blown gaslighting PR campaign.
So, did that guy do something? Well, he his "suspected" of having done something, so it has yet to be proven.
But considering what has been done in the past by SIG, it could very well be some kind of retaliation against some SOB. It's cheap but it sends a message.
Who knows.
Memes about the 320 have been going around since 2017 and to this day the allegations remain undefeated. Even more so when they are consistently repeatable.
Last time SIG went on a full blown gaslighting PR campaign.
So, did that guy do something? Well, he his "suspected" of having done something, so it has yet to be proven.
But considering what has been done in the past by SIG, it could very well be some kind of retaliation against some SOB. It's cheap but it sends a message.
Who knows.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 15,273
- Points
- 293
Always with someone's hands on the gun or as a result of an impact, not while a well maintained and not worn out gun is sitting motionless unattended.
Hitting the top of the slide can cause it to fire and there was the drop safety which Sig fixed.
Then there's the ridiculous where they "prove" the gun is unsafe by prying something inside to trip the sear. Which proves nothing since that's part of the normal operation of a forearm while prying something inside is not, hence the furniture to keep stuff out. And it also bypasses several safety mechanisms.
- Joined
- May 1, 2020
- Messages
- 1,502
- Points
- 318
The hitting the top of the slide thing is troubling, although not a definitive finding. Certainly merits proper testing at scale.
Every service pistol is guaranteed to go through rough and tumble during service life. And that means millions of units.
I do not know what is the truth of the matter. But at this point the question is raised.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 15,273
- Points
- 293
Yes, but my point was that the airman-table-miraculous-discharge story was bogus which is now playing out with LE poking holes in the original statement(s) of those involved. Clearly needed a minimal amount of input in manipulation, user error or malicious intent to happen.
Anything else and we're talking Agatha Christie level murder mystery. And the design isn't exactly revolutionary to the point you could expect a technical phenomenon previously completely unknown to science to occur.
Someone must have been playing with the gun, slamming it (whilst) on the table, jokingly pointing the gun at the victim and accidentally pulling the trigger or shot with intent. And lied about it because hey it's a Sig, easy target.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 16,064
- Points
- 338
I am more referring to the various discharges caught on tape while the gun was holstered either on ranges or being carried by a LEO.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 15,273
- Points
- 293
I know.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 5,301
- Points
- 274
@Mike1976
Here's the problem with that analogy: The German population (including the Jews) was heavily armed during the interwar years, both legally and illegally. Knowing the restrictions imposed on the army by the Treaty of Versailles would make Germany vulnerable to attack, the Weimar government encouraged firearm ownership and turned a blind eye to the illegal weapons owned by the right and the Reichsbanner (a centrist anti-Communist and anti-Nazi defence organization).
Only the Communists were actively disarmed by both the Weimar government and the Nazi regime.
But what exactly were the people who your meme wrongly suggests boarded those trains willingly supposed to do, facing a majority hostile to them and the risk of provoking retribution to their entire community if they offered resistance?
I do like the idea of America's Second Amendment; but must admit I believe the way it protects democracy is widely misunderstood. A tyrannical government will not be stopped by an armed populace if the armed populace sides with the government—a very real possibility which the Founding Fathers (in an era preceding the dawn of ideology) could not foresee.
But tyranny doesn't begin with the government turning against the populace.
It begins with the government turning against members of the populace who criticise it.
Think of people like Anna Politkovskaya, who could still be alive had they been armed to defend themselves.
Here's the problem with that analogy: The German population (including the Jews) was heavily armed during the interwar years, both legally and illegally. Knowing the restrictions imposed on the army by the Treaty of Versailles would make Germany vulnerable to attack, the Weimar government encouraged firearm ownership and turned a blind eye to the illegal weapons owned by the right and the Reichsbanner (a centrist anti-Communist and anti-Nazi defence organization).
Only the Communists were actively disarmed by both the Weimar government and the Nazi regime.
But what exactly were the people who your meme wrongly suggests boarded those trains willingly supposed to do, facing a majority hostile to them and the risk of provoking retribution to their entire community if they offered resistance?
I do like the idea of America's Second Amendment; but must admit I believe the way it protects democracy is widely misunderstood. A tyrannical government will not be stopped by an armed populace if the armed populace sides with the government—a very real possibility which the Founding Fathers (in an era preceding the dawn of ideology) could not foresee.
But tyranny doesn't begin with the government turning against the populace.
It begins with the government turning against members of the populace who criticise it.
Think of people like Anna Politkovskaya, who could still be alive had they been armed to defend themselves.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 16,064
- Points
- 338
Even once disarmed, during WW2, this used to be a heated debate among those who were targeted by the Nazis; notably the Jews and all those sent to the ghettos prior to being sent to camps.
"There is more of us than them", "they can't kill all of us", etc... though true, it also relies on the premise that a portion of the population rising up against the oppressor will have to sacrifice itself for the greater good. Thing is, in a fight for survival, everybody is kind of fighting for his own personal survival and isn't going in as a willing sacrifice (that is, outside of very specific instances).
As Muck said, fear of reprisal played a huge role; however not reprisals themselves, but rather the scale of said reprisals. In and of itself, their persecution was a form a reprisal for merely existing, resisting would only make things worse. Yes, one can ask "how can there be anything worse than being sent to an extermination camp". Considering the outcome... okay... but in that case it isn't so much the outcome but how it is reached. In the end it goes down to the strength of the Human mind to see how much one is willing to endure.
So, considering theoretical and practical aspects, that debate is still open to conclusion, even in retrospect.
However, a point can be made that an armed population is "harder to oppress" than an unarmed one, but also that even in a case where the State has the monopoly on violence "those trusted to enforce laws and order won't do so if they are asked to enforce such laws and order on their own".
In the first case there would be the need to define what "oppress" is and means. From systemic, systematic and targeted attacks on a specific group of people to an hyperbolic "tsunami in a glass of water" scenario. There is real oppression (Nazi Germany, violent and repressive dictatorships, genocidal civil-wars) and then there perceived oppression (thinking about the trantifa and all of these women dressing as characters from the handmaid-tales). And though it is established the last ones are a minority, if a majority "felt oppressed" by whatever unpopular political decision and decided to go against said political apparatus, it would then end up being a mob-rule.
All is fine until you end up on the wrong side of the mob.
That's, perhaps, where I would disagree with Muck, in the sense I believe tyranny can go both ways and isn't just the appanage of the government. A government can be tyrannical, a leader can be tyrannical, a majority can be tyrannical and a minority can also be tyrannical.
The second case is something we see being brought forth quite a lot when it comes to the US, especially with regards to "the State coming to take out guns" or "your militia is no match for our military, you have rifles, we have F16". That argument, absurd and grotesque, is usually countered with "who do you think is manning the military? where do you think we live nextdoor to?"; implying "your militia" and "our military" are basically the same thing when considered down to the core: these groups are made of people who interact with one another, live close to one another, go to the same church, have kids going to the same schools, etc...
In other words relying on empathy and fear of a possible backlash to influence the moral compass of "the person in position of power, threatening to use their gun to enforce the established laws and order".
Thing is, and we keep on seeing this even today, some of these people are perfectly fine with "following orders", because they are indeed fine with said orders. Others could be reluctant, but the fact they are "following orders" means they did what they were supposed to do (don't question).
And then there are those who don't even need to be given orders. "Your honor, I didn't just follow orders, I also made a few of my own along the way."
"There is more of us than them", "they can't kill all of us", etc... though true, it also relies on the premise that a portion of the population rising up against the oppressor will have to sacrifice itself for the greater good. Thing is, in a fight for survival, everybody is kind of fighting for his own personal survival and isn't going in as a willing sacrifice (that is, outside of very specific instances).
As Muck said, fear of reprisal played a huge role; however not reprisals themselves, but rather the scale of said reprisals. In and of itself, their persecution was a form a reprisal for merely existing, resisting would only make things worse. Yes, one can ask "how can there be anything worse than being sent to an extermination camp". Considering the outcome... okay... but in that case it isn't so much the outcome but how it is reached. In the end it goes down to the strength of the Human mind to see how much one is willing to endure.
So, considering theoretical and practical aspects, that debate is still open to conclusion, even in retrospect.
However, a point can be made that an armed population is "harder to oppress" than an unarmed one, but also that even in a case where the State has the monopoly on violence "those trusted to enforce laws and order won't do so if they are asked to enforce such laws and order on their own".
In the first case there would be the need to define what "oppress" is and means. From systemic, systematic and targeted attacks on a specific group of people to an hyperbolic "tsunami in a glass of water" scenario. There is real oppression (Nazi Germany, violent and repressive dictatorships, genocidal civil-wars) and then there perceived oppression (thinking about the trantifa and all of these women dressing as characters from the handmaid-tales). And though it is established the last ones are a minority, if a majority "felt oppressed" by whatever unpopular political decision and decided to go against said political apparatus, it would then end up being a mob-rule.
All is fine until you end up on the wrong side of the mob.
That's, perhaps, where I would disagree with Muck, in the sense I believe tyranny can go both ways and isn't just the appanage of the government. A government can be tyrannical, a leader can be tyrannical, a majority can be tyrannical and a minority can also be tyrannical.
The second case is something we see being brought forth quite a lot when it comes to the US, especially with regards to "the State coming to take out guns" or "your militia is no match for our military, you have rifles, we have F16". That argument, absurd and grotesque, is usually countered with "who do you think is manning the military? where do you think we live nextdoor to?"; implying "your militia" and "our military" are basically the same thing when considered down to the core: these groups are made of people who interact with one another, live close to one another, go to the same church, have kids going to the same schools, etc...
In other words relying on empathy and fear of a possible backlash to influence the moral compass of "the person in position of power, threatening to use their gun to enforce the established laws and order".
Thing is, and we keep on seeing this even today, some of these people are perfectly fine with "following orders", because they are indeed fine with said orders. Others could be reluctant, but the fact they are "following orders" means they did what they were supposed to do (don't question).
And then there are those who don't even need to be given orders. "Your honor, I didn't just follow orders, I also made a few of my own along the way."
Last edited:
Funny side of it its more like the gun owners into box cars parody..started in the UK (reaally funny side of it) then spread...of course where would be a statement without a little evidence
Western austraalia, got more balls than the rest apparently.
Nz there was not a single polititian willing to simply vote no.
Western austraalia, got more balls than the rest apparently.
Nz there was not a single polititian willing to simply vote no.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 16,064
- Points
- 338
he Police Commissioner was one of three people to be gifted 3D-printed guns from the director of the FBI. The guns were later destroyed because they could have been made operable. Richard Chambers said he received a “challenge coin” display stand, featuring an inoperable plastic replica pistol, from Kash Patel in July.
The lads are stlill mad keen on the idea of controlling the 3d printer...its their nature. 5 axis cnc? The kids computor? How about files and drills?
Another world first nuke moment from NZ aided and abetted by the idiots in parliament and actually egged on by Patel. Why else did he make the gesture along with an FBI office in NZ... Which they liked a bit too obviously.
The lads are stlill mad keen on the idea of controlling the 3d printer...its their nature. 5 axis cnc? The kids computor? How about files and drills?
Another world first nuke moment from NZ aided and abetted by the idiots in parliament and actually egged on by Patel. Why else did he make the gesture along with an FBI office in NZ... Which they liked a bit too obviously.
Australia
abcnews.go.com
The NWO, you will unarmed and at the mercy of criminals. Machetes however, are fine though.
Police in Australia seize guns from dozens of owners who hold views rejecting government authority
Police in Western Australia have seized guns and suspended or cancelled permits for dozens of gun owners who are linked to sovereign citizen ideologies, which reject government authority
Actually they banned Machetes in Victoria (just the start). Police state.
Picking off small groups like a bully is their typical mode.
Duh If the CCP was the govt what would remain to protest about? A camper who does videos observed for camping the impliment is banned. Try and explain a track needs to be cleared with a machete to them shows how stupid they have become.
Picking off small groups like a bully is their typical mode.
Last edited:
A worker at the Firearms Safety Authority claimed she had been asked to do things that were "completely against the Policing Act, employment law and the Public Service Act".
She claimed this included covering up an affair between a senior and junior staff member and helping to ensure a favoured contractor got a job even though they weren't the best candidate. RNZ earlier revealed a comprehensive review of the police agency had begun following concerns over its workplace culture, including intimate relationships as well as financial practices.
Discovered after an internal employment process. Grievance in other words. Just the tip the rest is behind the wall.
She claimed this included covering up an affair between a senior and junior staff member and helping to ensure a favoured contractor got a job even though they weren't the best candidate. RNZ earlier revealed a comprehensive review of the police agency had begun following concerns over its workplace culture, including intimate relationships as well as financial practices.
Discovered after an internal employment process. Grievance in other words. Just the tip the rest is behind the wall.
Similar threads
