I'm quite pro gun rights generally, but to me it seems insane that "self defense" is the #1 stated reason for owning a gun in the US now.

Jim Jeffries' bit on self defense covers my concerns in a pretty funny but honest way. In your home, keeping your guns in an accessible place where they could easily be used in a self-defense situation makes them not safe. Much more likely to have accidents, or have a criminal end up with them and using them on you. Securely storing them away from ammo to prevent those issues precludes using them for self defense. Catch-22.

For concealed carry, that's a bit different. With the right kind of setup, I suppose that I must admit that the risks of accidents could be low, the chances of needing to use the weapon low, but some real potential for situations where some people would be better off having a weapon than not.

...There are some *major* caveats to that, though. For example, if I was black, I'd never concealed carry because that seems like a recipe for disaster. Is that fair, or reasonable? Fuck no. But it is reality.

I think personally as a white country-bumpkin dude, if I was going to carry semi-frequently, I'd go with the old redneck standby of a shotgun or hunting rifle on a rack in the back window of my pickup. Lock it to the rack with a combination lock, and keep ammo separately in a glove compartment or something with another combination lock. If I actually needed it, it would be there.


One thing I do agree with @Mordhaus 100% on is that suicides should NOT be considered, or at the very least should be specifically denoted as suicides, when showing numbers for "gun violence" or "gun crimes".

Intense! Something they didn't address, though, was how that six-wheel sixteen-letter combination lock was set properly. I need to know!

I'm so glad we don't (really) need to think about this stuff in this day and age...

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Your-combination-lock-can-be-opened-with-different-numbers-1

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Your-combination-lock-can-be-opened-with-different-numbers

>> ^jimnms:
That is quality. I'm sure it's an over simplified model, but seeing the way it works, it looks like it limits the 2nd and 3rd numbers to a certain range of the 1st number to prevent the little tab thing from going too far and catching the previous tab again.


Not really, the extra turns you make are for catching the tabs in the other direction for each cam. Once the tab has come around to say, your first combo of 12, you have all the way around past 0 back to 12 or 13. The wood version has large tabs and slots for effect and strength, a steel one would have far smaller parts allowing for all numbers to be available. I have seen a test combo lock that was 5-5-5, which shouldn't be possible given your assumption.

Thanks for the *quality!

In reply to this comment by jimnms:
That is *quality. I'm sure it's an over simplified model, but seeing the way it works, it looks like it limits the 2nd and 3rd numbers to a certain range of the 1st number to prevent the little tab thing from going too far and catching the previous tab again.

Your video, How combination locks work, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

indeed - nice post
>> ^MilkmanDan:
Cool!

Are you sure you didn't mean semantics instead of syntax? Okay, that was a dig. The truth is I wasn't angry at you - there's no reason to be angry on a silly blog page. Sorry if it sounded like an attack - it probably was to some degree, so I apologize.

You're right, it was irreducible complexity I was thinking of. Richard Dawkins explains irreducible complexity in his book The God Delusion as a creationist way of disassembling biological adaptation based on a "jackpot or nothing" fallacy. Either a wing flies or not. Either an eye sees or not. All or nothing. In other words (and to continue to paraphrase Dawkins) it's like a large bank combination. If a burglar spins that tumbler, there is a chance he could luckily and randomly hit the correct combination, though the odds are stacked against him greatly. That's the jackpot or nothing fallacy that creationists term irreducible complexity. They claim evolutionist's explain biological adaptation as randomly spinning the combination lock and coming up with the winning combination for every species.

But, imagine if it was more as a "you're getting warmer, you're getting colder" type of process. Imagine that burglar (here we go with Dakwins again) spinning the tumbler and as he gets closer to the correct number bits of money fall out. The burglar would easily be able to hone in on the right combination in no time. Your explanation could be that God gave that burglar the nudge, or in this case, the bits of money. I think it has more to do with what you conceded earlier by saying "selected by advantage to the organism". The bits of money falling from the combination lock, in this analogy, would be triggers the species would find advantageous to the survival of its species.

I do believe genes mutate randomly and that there's no intelligence behind biological adaptation from a genetic perspective. So, here I agree with you. I think it's arguing semantics (not syntax to say I was wrong in pointing out evolution as not being random, because I was speaking about creationists' deploying the "jackpot or nothing" argument, not that genes mutate with an intelligence or not. My point was it's not random like the combination lock, and I think you know that's what I meant, right?

I do know (or I believe I know) species pick mates based on what's best for survival. If a species lives in an extremely frigid environment, they would probably be more attracted to a furrier mate than one with less fur. Though, if that same species were in a tropical environment, the opposite would probably be true. Still, through this selection process, it is clear to me biological adaptation is not random but instead a very calculated process. The wing didn't appear overnight by chance (randomly), it was carefully selected, most likely.

And, I'm both atheist and agnostic. I tend to believe there is absolutely no personal god or no intelligent creator, and I'd say I'm about as close to believing that as any human is possible of knowing anything. I remain agnostic only because I cannot absolutely disprove the presence of a Abrahamic God anymore than I can disprove there's a tea cup orbiting the Sun right now. But, I'll save you that tangent.

I'm not quite sure what to make of your theist/atheist knowledge philosophy just yet. I think I'll need more of an explanation to understand exactly what you mean by that. That was the part in particular that sounds like doublespeak, but I don't think I can say that without sounding offensive, so I'll wait to hear more of an explanation from you, if you would offer one. Anyhow, I really enjoyed reading your rant, Doc_M. I like a nice dose of cold philosophy every now and again.

Another problem with Break and Metacafe, for most of thier videos I can only see about half of it 'til it just stops playing. Of the GTA player hit by plane I can only see it up to the driving part, no plane smash
And on How to crack a combination lock it cuts off at around 5:20

This is very annoying, they seem like good videos

Combination locks are not just queer, they are queerer than we can suppose.