search results matching tag: fun facts

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (63)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (4)     Comments (242)   

All About That Bass - Postmodern Jukebox European Tour

Payback says...

Fun fact: the singer on the left, Ariana Savalas, shares the same last name as Telly Savalas, "Kojack".

...actually, she's his daughter. So I guess having the same last name isn't that odd. Sorry.

Jet powered flying motorcycle from the film MegaForce (1982)

Cross section of a wasp nest seen through a window

Jon Stewart Goes After Fox in Ferguson Monologue

Lawdeedaw says...

The only problem I have here newtboy is the concept of escalation. You are obviously not in Law, so here is a bit of schooling. Ever wonder why cops use tazers on people who just passively resist (Like holding or bracing to prevent cuffs from being applied?) Or how it "takes" seven cops to "subdue" someone? It's actually practical and less violent. 1-A fun fact is that the longer a confrontation goes on for the further it escalates. By doing nothing you are letting it get further than by doing something. This means that there is a definitive time to stop trying to talk and start acting. 2-Those "escalated" methods are really lessor force than others. The more a body moves the greater the chance someone gets hurt. That means you A-Place someone on the ground as soon as possible, B-Immobilize him as prudently as possible, C-Get him in cuffs.

Don't get me wrong, abuse is abuse. But if you see a cop punching a person's ass to get him to let up on his grip, for example, that's not brutality. If you see a cop curbstomping someone, yeah, that is. Because more movement is involved.

newtboy said:

If you have no reason to believe they may be corrupt, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
For the action of the cop to be self defense, you must take his word as truth and ignore the witnesses (granted, they have not been consistent) and you must accept that it's the right method to attempt to manhandle a person for jaywalking (the reason for the stop in the first place) and that it's the right thing to do to escalate a confrontation from a fist fight directly to firearms, ignoring the other options made available like pepper spray, tasers, batons, and backup. If the officer was truly in fear, he only needed to shut and lock his door to be safe, how is that hard?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. He said clearly that it's NOT reasonable or condonable, but is understandable as a misguided attempt to 'lash out' at the system that keeps you down.

I saw lots of white people on TV rioting and looting too, but they don't count because they don't further your (seemingly racist) theories, right?

It seems you've ignored the majority of the protests that have been responsible, civil, and peaceful in favor of focusing on the minority of trouble makers (that insert themselves into ANY mass protest these days) and blame their actions on the entire community (while knowing that most of the rioters are not from the community but have traveled there in order to riot and loot).

As the one's in 'charge', is it not the police that have the responsibility to display 'responsible behavior'? I thought it was your position that behavior works on a trickle down system, where the behavior of the top is emulated all the way down...does that not make this the police chief's fault?

Doctor Disobeys Gun Free Zone -- Saves Lives Because of It

modulous says...

" 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.

Doom - Did You Know Gaming?

9547bis says...

Missed musical rip-off/homage: 'Rise' by Pantera (E1M4).

Bonus fun fact: the main level designer for Doom 1 and Doom 2 was Sandy Petersen, the author of the classic Chaosium RPG "Call Of Chulhu" (which is a pretty big deal if you're into that sort of thing, as I was back then.)

Olavsky - Korobeiniki (Tetris Theme)

Shift change at a French lighthouse

Payback says...

The rock it is on is like, within a couple feet of the surface at low tide.

FUN FACT: This is the same lighthouse that everyone has seen, with the monster wave crashing around the keeper standing in the doorway. Which was a real photo btw, not faked in any way.

http://beingsakin.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/on-reality-iv/

ForgedReality said:

How did they ever build that? That's crazy. Does the tide go out enough to allow a small piece of land to poke out or what?

Bloodworm Shows Its Teeth

Understanding Ukraine: Problems Today & Historical Context

RedSky says...

Fun fact, Khrushchev reportedly transferred sovereignty of Crimea to Ukraine while drunk. Although back then it was more an administrative change than a material one of state borders.

African aircraft test flight

Payback says...

Fun Fact: This aircraft weighs 800kg, over twice what a Piper Cub weighs, and 300kg more than a Piper's MAX take-off weight.

Maybe next time, he should try materials lighter than mild steel pipe and angle iron...

15-Month-Old Baby Girl Kayden's Very First Rain Experience

BoneRemake says...

@ant
@lucky760

It is flat out fact that colds are caused by virus.

Being cold IE not wearing a jacket out in winter might knock your immune system down two power points but the cause of cold and flu are virus and bacteria not because you got some chilly goosey bumps on your hair follicle.

I love the fact this baby is embracing an atmosphere I once participated in, this is wonderful. The baby has no harm of getting sick.

Unless the water is laced with that drug/substance they are saying was in the non burning snow ! !

FUn fact 245: When I was around that age, I "swam" in our newly built houses gravel driveway, the ruts were a fair size and I was a wee size. Many front and back and splishy splash strokes where made, No sniffles were consequential. A mommies Txt proves it so.

Guys Reaction to Justin Bieber Getting Arrested

Payback says...

The sad thing is, the Beebs probably hates himself more than his Haters do. Sure has no self respect whatsoever.

Fun Fact: The car rental company has GPS tracking and says he never got over low 50s, mostly doing low 30s. I did more "racing" in my 1969 bone-stock Ford Cortina.

Doug Stanhope - The Oklahoma Atheist

xxovercastxx says...

Atheism is a spectrum, though. At one end you have people who outright deny the existence of gods and, at the other, perhaps you have people who are completely unaware of the god concept and have never given it a thought. These people are still 'without gods'.

Agnosticism, however, is not much of a spectrum. The agnostic believes that the truth about existence of deities is unknown and/or unknowable. It is not a position of uncertainty; it is a definitive claim about the limits of human knowledge/understanding.

They are not mutually exclusive as they are addressing different questions. You can simultaneously be an atheist or theist as well as a gnostic or agnostic. Fun fact: Most existing Christian churches are officially agnostic; gnosticism is considered blasphemous. Most Gnostic Churches were declared heretical and destroyed centuries ago.

Mordhaus said:

If anyone is confused about the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, it is certainly not me or the widely accepted delineation between the two. By your statements, you are by far more of an agnostic than an atheist. The literal meaning of Atheism is without gods, you do not believe in them. If, however, you believe there 'could' be something like a supreme being but are skeptical due to lack of hard evidence, you are an Agnostic.

12 Year Old Publicy Schools NC Governor

Lawdeedaw says...

I wish the old had some common sense the young possesses. It seems to me bob that we just gravitate towards a different common sense, not a better. We become jaded and wiser.

Another fun fact, the older one gets the less right they get, past their 30s. This is because we stop caring about petty shit like the war on pot, women's right to choose and such. We get "wiser" as you say and stop frothing every time someone brings it up. (The only reason the elderly are more conservative than the young is that they come from an era that was more conservative. I am just pointing out that they lose it as they go, even if they have more of it to go with. Like heavy set people losing weight.)

bobknight33 said:

A nice smiling puppet for the left. In NC they do have the right to vote so what this child is spewing is propaganda that her mother wrote.


Everyone knows that young people are lacking in wisdom and that is only gained through time and experience.

That lack of wisdom helped put the utter disaster of a president that we have now. How is that unemployment doing for you?

And to top that off the youth will be paying around 300$/month for the PONZI insurance scheme that you cried for. The Un-afforadable care act.

Just like Social Security you will pay into it and by the time you get of age to use it it will be gone. Used up older people. Rob from the poor to give to the rich.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon