Your video, The precision repair of a wooden boat, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 12 Badge!

That's horrible. I hope he didn't have any long-lasting suffering. I'm sure it's unlikely, but were the attackers ever caught?

Totally not the same thing, but I relate in a mild way to the horror of a senseless attack. On Halloween when we were teenagers a friend and I were just walking down the street when a group of Asian guys [nationality excluded intentionally] came up behind us and cracked my friend over the head with a wooden club presumably for not being Asian.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, on some other occasion we were walking down a busy street minding our own business when another Asian guy walked up to us and delivered a hard leg kick to him without saying a word.

That friend of mine was a big target for some reason, maybe because he's a ginger. (He's married to an Asian woman of the same nationality now. Actually so am I.)

TL:RD: Flush mix tap for few seconds after not being used for hours. Count to three.

I would say that it is still advisable to flush out the stagnant water from pipes before drinking the water. Not a lot, until you feel the temperature to change. Reason is that while the warm water is now sanitary, it is still warm. Warm stagnant water goes bad pretty quickly, the pipes are NOT clean on the inside. If you have ever seen water mains pipes, you would probably boil your water, brit filter it and most likely perform an exorcision. It's bad, it is really really bad.. The main reason why the water stays drinkable is movement. Moving water is safe, the bacteria that lives on moving water is mostly harmless to us. But 15C to 22C is called "the death zone"; bacteria that thrives on moist conditions, between those temps is the most deadly we can find. E.Coli, Botulinum etc. all explode with those condition. So you take warm water to wash up that last tea, it stays in the pipes and you get a nice shot of bacteria first thing in the morning. Or you keep the tap on for ten seconds, flush out the main colony and then drink a fresh cold water; i'm sure this little trick will add years in to your life (just the fresh glass of water and the feeling we get from that should do the trick..)

But the days of flushing the whole length of pipe several times a day is unnecessary. Only important when it has sit for hours after running hot water thru that particular piece of pipe, maybe just few meters or few seconds. And even then most likely it's 100% safe but the gunk that sits in the pipes is DIRTY.. ffs, we got some wooden main lines still in use in the old town (built around circa 1600).. BTW, the water from those wooden pipes.. excellent, specially in the winter as it is just super cold, totally clear of all bacteria, it's like spring water. But that is mostly because they have been in use for hundreds of year, all the time with moving, cold, clean water running thru them. It's bacterial colonies work with us cleaning it.

Compare that to the other pipe system running thru our homes here: the main heating water that heats our homes, that water is so toxic that every cut you have while working with them, just a drop and you will get infected. It takes minutes and the cut will swell up. And the only really difference is that the heating system is on closed loop, with warm water and it sits for half a year stagnated.. It is still "clean" water, looks clean, doesn't smell. But that stuff is equal to biological warfare..

Why i know this? Well, i'm ex-junkie. Knowing what kind of water you inject to your veins is pretty fucking important if you wanna stay alive.

I am often befuddled by the logic of what's allowed and what's not, and the seemingly arbitrary choice of same by different TSA employees... The cane that Ms. Robotcow is holding in the opening sequence looks like it might be able to inflict some serious damage by anyone skilled in the art of baseball. On a flight to Canada three weeks ago, we were not allowed to carry on a short (fits in the measuring device) 4 piece fishing rod with spinning reel attached, in a soft sided, zippered travel bag. Seemed they thought it could be weaponized. Thankfully, our driver was close enough to retrieve the offending package and take it back home. Oddly, on the return to USA, my fingernail clippers were confiscated as they had a fold out file - these were just good old Walgreen's, have carried them for 7 years and approx. 100 flights. I could do more damage with a key, a pen, a plastic knife or a wooden pencil. I also carry a beautiful blue machined aluminum pen/kubaton from Smith & Wesson, which is pointy, but hey, it's just a pen. I do give the TSA high marks for consistency in the application of inconsistent policies. Well done everybody.

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

He's not holding the tubes, they are attached to a wooden stock & fore grip. Worst he'd get is maybe a nastyish burn & he is wearing gloves which would help a lot.

They are Roman candles not high explosives, people blow off hands and fingers because they are physically holding them thus making their hands the chamber to to a small bomb. These guys actually demonstrated a decent degree of foresight and awareness. He's wearing safety goggles and everything .

Don't get me wrong short sleeves are maybe not ideal but compared to what many idiots do this seems relatively safe (& awesome).

My grandmother had a neighbor who made wooden toys for children in his garage. On his left hand he didn't have a single finger that was full length.

I learned a few important things from this video:

1) I definitely should pour gas from a can directly onto an open flame.
2) If the gas can catches fire, I should throw it at the nearest wooden structure, such as a gate or house.
3) In order to put out a flame, I should fan it as much as possible.

Or just replace all others with a simple catch-all: Don't ever let a moron man the grill.

Let's not forget the fact that Hawaii was a colony, not exactly our mainland but taken by us. And that we were threatening Japan daily with talk of how our planes would burn down the wooden villages of the Japanese easily.

Does that justify a strike before an attack, a preventative response? No not in my view. It does in Bush and Cheneys view, they would think that Pearl Harbor committed by the US would be great.

Edward Snowden did something I am grateful for, I hope one day he can come back to the US. In fact I say the next Democratic candidate we require them to sign a promise that they'll give Edward Snowden a full Presidential Pardon.

I'm far from an expert, but I've spent a lot of time practicing with a bokken (wooden training sword) and the technique he shows here (control/pivot with the right hand, cut with the left) is pretty much identical to a Japanese sword cut (at least as practiced in Aikido and Iaido).

Of course, we all know that Katanas are crap the BEST SOWARD EVAAR!

I had a neighbor with a 6 foot wooden fence and an electric wire on top. His Jack Russel Terrier would climb over it. He whimpered and cried all the way, but he got out, again and again.

And one day, he got out and a pack of coyotes ate him.

Not sure of the moral of this story.

I think Luc Besson is amazing but god this looks like shit. The 10% nonsense is the main thing but the unimaginative casting is the nail in the coffin. Johansson is wooden and Morgan "dial it in" Freeman isn't much better. There should be some sort of law that prevents him from playing the avuncular professor type in every bloody film.

This one is hilarious! *related= http://videosift.com/video/Wooden-Spoon-Prank-1

Wooden Spoon Prank has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.