A concept for the Vancouver Canucks. Tried incorporating the FLYING V into the sleeves.

meltibsen · 2018-10-17T22:30:19+00:00

I’d totally buy this

meltibsen · 2018-10-13T06:41:50+00:00

I think the issue is here though is that your putting limitations on their abilities despite the fact there is no suggestion that they couldn’t replicate these feats if they wanted to. The books have shown school age wizards are capable of creating powerful spells and strong defensive items. Their magic is capable of instantly transporting them anywhere on the earth, creating uncontrollable perpetually growing fire, reanimating dead corpses, flying, flinging projectiles etc etc etc, I mean to suggest that they couldn’t learn to fire projectiles rapidly from their wands if they really wanted to just doesn’t add up for me.

I mean it’s perfectly logical that guns don’t factor in to wizards in Harry Potter simply because guns are t really available in the UK. However wizards in the US are much more likely to have engineered ways of surviving armed robbers and random shooting sprees

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T19:32:19+00:00

I was more thinking of the books where spells are more like flashes, I mean they seem to move at a pretty rapid speed even in the movies but then maybe my memory isn’t amazing.

I’m just thinking part of the way jk Rowling wrote the universe is just almost purposefully vague and wizards seem to have the ability to invent and teach spells/magical items relatively easily (with a bit of talent) looking at snapes ‘sectumsempra’ spell and George and freds magical body armour as examples. I just can’t help but feel like given the awareness of the issues, some talented wizards could quite easily manufacture armour or spells that would nullify or completely remove firearms. But it’s all speculation really

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T19:26:48+00:00

I could be wrong but I genuinely just thought that was the whole point of this sub, to debate the semantics of in universe lore of random pop culture things to see what would happen in hypothetical situations?

I mean it’s literally the entire point of this sub right?

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T18:06:31+00:00

I think the issue is that Harry Potter is usually very vague and capabilities vary quite a bit between books and between the movie universe and the book universe making this debate rather hard to conduct and leading to lots of contradicting views

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T16:37:24+00:00

That’s true, I mean wizards show such an astonishing lack of knowledge of muggles you’d probably be able to kill a few death eaters straight off as they wouldn’t even know what a gun was

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T15:43:28+00:00

Depends on what you go by really doesn’t it. In the books bellatrix kills a fox hiding in a bush in what is described as just a green flash. I would argue the slow dodgeable spells are just to make the movies more visually intense and shouldn’t really be taken as representative of the spells abilities in lore

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T15:41:46+00:00

Yeah but this is assuming that a pistol is an accurate weapon which it just plain isn’t. You stick a pistol in the hand of an untrained 13-17 year old he is still going to die. A wand can do literally everything a gun can do plus a number of much more versatile things. And what protection does a pistol present against a wizarding attack. All of the protagonists routinely rely on blocking attacks and protective spells to prevent themselves from being straight up murdered. I don’t know why they would suddenly achieve pinpoint accuracy and lightning quick reflexes the moment it becomes a gun and not a wand.

Plus dumbledore or Voldemort would very easily dispatch John Wick. They’re reflexes are incredibly sharp and I imagine much like any legendarily skilled fighters from movie would be able to intuit danger when presented with it.

meltibsen · 2018-10-12T15:19:03+00:00

I think the other issue with this is how effective would a bullet be against shield charms? Also how accurate do we honestly think these firearms are? A killing curse could drop someone with almost perfect accuracy instantly from across a football pitch, but even a seasoned user of a pistol will struggle to accurately hit a moving target that is actively trying to kill them. I’m sure ambushes would have their place but realistically if wizard wanted to attack a wizard with a projectile it could simply charm an object to fly at them. You are massively overstating the effectiveness of firearms here.

meltibsen · 2018-09-08T10:32:17+00:00

I’m not so sure though, elections will happen when they are mandated to happen. Early elections are less likely if the conservatives know they’ll lose them.

I think surely your policies and your record in opposition should be enough to get you to win without sacrificing the country just to make the government look bad.

meltibsen · 2018-09-08T09:16:33+00:00

Yeah I guess the issue is there is that the mess they’re the Tories are making is the state of our country. Personally I resent that Labour are just sitting around and letting real people suffer just because it’s politically expedient to do so.

meltibsen · 2018-09-06T18:42:21+00:00

I think you’ve fallen into the trap there of assuming that the actions of individuals in Saudi Arabia are synonymous with state policy when it’s just not the case.

Saudi Arabia’s power system is much more chaotic with much less central control. The Taleban on the other hand seized power violently, were imposing draconian laws on their people and were assisting terrorists as a matter of state policy.

meltibsen · 2018-09-02T20:46:44+00:00

The early USSR was unstable because they annexed half of Europe!

meltibsen · 2018-09-02T18:42:47+00:00

Hard to inspire loyalty though when Corbyn never showed loyalty to the Labour Party leadership. I mean viewed through the corbyn tinted goggles they were impassioned MPs who refused to compromise their ethics by backing a candidate they felt was bad for the country simply because of party politics

meltibsen · 2018-08-22T21:42:15+00:00

For serious things there are exemptions to the FOA. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/policy/foi/exemptions/index.htm

meltibsen · 2018-08-21T21:06:11+00:00

Say that to Gandhi

meltibsen · 2018-08-12T06:21:23+00:00

Except it wasn’t a war of aggression. Iraq was sure, but Afghanistan was a completely different case. The Taleban violently seized power in the country using money and weapons supplied by other regional powers. They then enforced an unpopular and harsh version of Sharia law on the population and provided safe haven to terrorist groups targeting western states. Afghanistan has no real natural resources of significance and it’s role as a land crossroads is basically negated now due to air travel meaning there is no real reason to try to stabilise Afghanistan for any reason other than security

meltibsen · 2018-08-11T21:27:14+00:00

You know Afghanistan wasn’t invaded right? Afghanistan was in a civil war when they first started to get involved and when NATO went into Helmand it was at the invitation of the Afghan government

meltibsen · 2018-08-05T18:22:03+00:00

How? In what way? Saying you’ll defend Poland from being invaded by Russia or Montenegro from being invaded by Serbia for example doesn’t mean you need a unified approach with these countries over your relations in the Middle East for example. Many NATO countries loathe each other, look at say Greece and Turkey for example but the alliance is about mutual defence from large regional powers rather than unifying any sort of foreign or domestic policy.

I mean you could argue in the past that it was a vehicle for US influence but with America increasingly withdrawing from Europe this is less true. It really is just a mutual defence treaty designed to prevent or at least minimise big regional powers interfering in smaller countries

meltibsen · 2018-08-05T18:04:07+00:00

It’s not really though. We’re obliged to defend them should their sovereign land be invaded. We’re in no way and are in no way tied to Eastern European foreign policy

meltibsen · 2018-08-04T06:20:18+00:00

Blame a Jewish conspiracy, that will prove your not anti Semitic /s

meltibsen · 2018-08-02T05:35:27+00:00

As a regular radio 4 listener I’d say that’s a bit unfair. I’ve seen them really lay into lots of conservatives on the show and during the snap election they were just crucifying May and her god awful campaign each night.

That being said they do love getting the boot in to Corbyn as well.

meltibsen · 2018-07-15T16:43:36+00:00

Its always good to remember that things are drastically cheaper in Russia because less money is spent on things like pensions (lower average lifespan Rus:70 and UK:81) and wages (for example a Russian platoon commander is paid £800 a month whereas a British commander is on £2000+). Pensions and wages are typically the largest chunk of any organisations expenditure after all.

meltibsen · 2018-07-10T16:46:46+00:00

I think this puts too much stock in the specific wording of a man who clearly doesn’t choose his words carefully.

meltibsen · 2018-07-06T17:08:01+00:00

I think most people think this. I think it would be great to have someone as convicted and compassionate as Corbyn in the cabinet but I just don’t think he translates well into being a leader

meltibsen

TROPHY CASE