you guys are adorable.
love when middle aged men get all defensive about a music genre.
because if you aint listening to sabbath-------------fuck you.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/teen-family-covers-black-sabbath-heaven-and-hell

someone over 30 rapping? Not even vaguely unusual. Dre, Snoop, Chuck D, Ice Cube... these guys are over 40.

But a middle aged blonde english woman rapping? Yeah, that's something you don't see everyday.

/off-topic & longish

I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, so please don't misinterpret the things I'm about to talk about. Regarding your supernatural experiences (which to be perfectly honest IF they do exist, and that is a big if) there are a few problems with them or rather that type of "belief". If it really did happen to you, then it wouldn't be very hard to see why you would believe in religion or be spiritual in a very strong sense of the word (though it depends I suppose on just what you experienced, or what "they" experience).

But, if your faith can be helped along by these type of events, then it would be the type of thing that science should be exploring. I know people will clearly state that you just "can't catch these events", but to be honest, if your body is able to see, hear, smell, or sense it...any number of scientific tests could as well. But, the problem is: when do they happen, how do they happen (by what mechanism, i.e. sound, smell, sight, etc...), and to whom will it occur (and even where will it occur might be a justified question too).

Eventually this should become something, even if on the "fringe" of science or rational belief, should become a real talking point...recognized by all. Simply because, eventually scientists must experience them too, or those with no faith or belief at all...

But, this is why I ask what kind of "event" did you experience?

I suffer from Narcolepsy. With this, I suffer nightly from huge attacks (around 3-15) sleep paralysis events. These events come in ALL sorts of flavors, and since it is from Narcolepsy it doesn't necessarily have to happen at night--like ghosts, or alien abductions (I mean, is it not a good question to wonder why these things almost always happen at night--oh, and the animals don't seem to be involved too much in this stuff for some reason as well). I also (and this is the real winner right here) suffer from, more or less, permanent bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations (typically they happen just as you are about to fall asleep or as you are waking up--with me, they can occur as soon as I'm getting tired). I also have severe Sleep Apnea, just to make all of this more "grandiose"...

Sleep Paralysis is something that was reported constantly even in the Middle Ages; a great painting named "The Nightmare" depicts someone that is actually going through one of these events. This is the actual foundation for succubi, demons, and even angels that visit people in their sleep--these people will feel unbelievable things, things you simply do NOT feel in normal day life...thus many believe a supernatural event has just occurred. The first one I had was when I was just waking up, for some reason I was petrified, couldn't move (and barely breath). Then I looked around my room. It was early morning so I could see in my room, in the corner of my room sat a dark humanoid "solid" shadow. From it emanated a feeling of pure, utter evil (which is were you get a supernatural feeling to this; because for one you do not see "humanoid shadows", nor is it possible to "feel" evil). Eventually I snapped myself out of it and later woke up. It left a stark impression upon me. Later my mind figured out somehow that if I relaxed in these moments, it ended immediately--meaning that I started o become somewhat lucid during the majority of these. I remember my friends and family always saying I was weird or that I scared them sometimes, because I would sleep with my eyes opened--well, this is part of that problem (like I said, I could see my room...everything seemed for the most part, real; it's like being awake and partially asleep--in a dream--at the same time).

Onto my real problem: Hypnagogic Hallucinations. I have no doubt whatsoever that EVERYONE that believes or rather has experienced ghosts/haunting(s), alien abductions, angels, demons, people yelling outside, dogs barking, your phone ringing when it hasn't, and "you name it, because EVERYTHING can happen in this category"... I suffer from this so much that the things I experience now are just a joke to me. Things grabbing me, my body changing shape (and YES you do "feel" the change), all manner of sounds (which is the most annoying; sometimes it sounds like someone has called my name...so I have to go check, it's very frustrating). Then combine this WITH a Sleep Paralysis event (and trust me, it does happen, but it it rare), you get an epic "light show".

So, this is why I asked you what type of supernatural event did you experience. Because, you may want to remember (this is JUST some things Narcolepsy can cause; other medical issues, medications, etc... can cause the same issues if not worse, more pronounced in certain ways and even causing certain changes in behavior, sensations, and feelings) that just with Narcolepsy I run into these issues--sleeping disorders are possibly responsible for a LARGE assortment of the "supernatural" issues you see out there. Then add in the countless number of other things that also affect our bodies and it isn't far fetched to soon realize that you just may have to hold onto what science has proven--only--or you may get lost.

I cannot say that this is you. I will not either. I don't pretend to know your experiences. But, I can share mine... The first Sleep Paralysis and or Hypnagogic Hallucination (as I have been able to move in a few Sleep Paralysis events...but very rarely; if I can though I move slowly) event I had, believe it or not, was when I was around 8 or 9. I imagined that I woke up in the night, turned and looked under my bed (it was a sleepover, so I was on the floor that night) and I saw a pair of red glowing lights, shaped vaguely like eyes looking at me. I kept looking at it, trying to figure out what it was, but very quickly it "blinked" and I knew it was alive. I was scared enough that I simply turned my back from it and tried to go back to sleep. The fact that I simply just turned my back to it and went back to sleep...is proof that it simply wasn't even real.

Had that BEEN real, I would've jumped up, flipped the light on; told everyone in the room and gotten my parents in the next room... But, it felt extremely real. Even to this day, the only thing that makes me realize it was fake was HOW I handled the situation...that is it. In fact that is usually the best way to tell reality apart from a dream (or hallucinations caused by enhanced REM cycles--REM cycles that start even while you are awake). You simply do not act like yourself in a dream, period.

I'll agree with you otherwise. I was definitely smothered by religion and it "stunted" me. It didn't cause me to hate it as much as many might think, but I became extremely wary of anything to do with it.

Oh thats pretty crazy.
Elks Lodge* so ill assume a bunch of old white people.
Also Glendale Calif. which I think is pretty damn conservative.

-edit-
*although non-Elks Lodge function (an important distinction) may be middle age white people also . Thanks @lv_hunter

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

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. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

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, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? 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? 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?

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. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

What a terrible, trerrible load of shit!
By your logic, the middle ages must've been free of any crime. You know, the time where we did chop off hands of thieves, where we executed people real quick for all kinds of offenses.
You can argue for executions all you want but the terrible truth is that it never worked as a deterrent. When every country in the world had the death penality, people still got murdered and raped. And guess what, today you are less likely to get murdered or raped than in the good old days.
That shit never worked and it doesn't work today.
The only thing you'll achieve by making prison a worse place is making sure you'll release more broken, antisocial individuals into society. I guess that'll make everything better. I don't see how it can backfire to throw people into a terrible place where they'll be traumatized and abused, hammering home the message they're not a part of our civilized society, and then releasing them back into our communities. I mean, surely, they'll be model citizens then.

Why don't you just say it, man? You'd like to have Judge Dredd patroling the streets. If we'd just shoot everybody who might commit a crime, nobody will ever commit one. Right?

Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, not because they think they can do the time. A lot of people commit crimes without thinking about the consequences or simply not caring about them.

A lot of these (the Iron Maiden in particular) were actually just made up in later years by people who wanted to do exactly what we're doing now.

There definitely was torture in the middle ages, but they generally weren't quite as gleefully inventive about it.

More than likely it means that once you reach late middle age you'll need to get one or two growths taken off every other year.

Two words: Vanilla Ice.

How much worse could it be? Well, okay, the first one was alright. It would be cool if they went further back to their roots and they were more like real teenagers instead of a middle-aged focus group's opinion of what adolescents associate with being a teenager. Hint: it's beer, not pizza.

edit: Full disclosure, when I was 12, I waited in line for an hour to get tickets when the first TMNT movie opened.

That would have been a worthy diatribe in, say, the middle ages or even up to the early 20th century. But now? Now we have access to unparalleled knowledge, an abundance of consumer goods and better health care than ever in history. Yes it is far from equal to all. Yes it has room for improvement. But we are getting there.

It is true that MMA is not the be-all end-all of martial arts,and in fact "two persons of equivalent weight competing willingly on neutral ground" is quite far removed from "actual trouble" (key words: "two", "willingly").

That being said, two things:
1) There have been 'no-hold-barred' fights / underground duels recorded since at least the 1920s, some of them very violent and bone-splitting (famously: Kimura Vs Gracie), and 'soft' aikido-style systems never won anything.

2) More importantly, systema does claim a number of things, including being a martial art in the military sense, and being the product of an elite military force, to which it was reserved (i.e. it was secret). It also claims to have semi-mystical roots dating from the middle ages, and bonker stuff like 'paralyzing soft punch' and 'healing punch' (this is claimed by its actual founder - you can look it up). Of course none of those claims have been substantiated.

So systema is either:
- An elite martial art with Fist-Of-The-North-Star like powers, yet no one heard of it before or beside (not pre-USSR historians, not recognized Russian martial artists, and not actual Russian elite military officers), and was/is super-secret, yet can be somehow taught to anyone.

Or:
- Stuff made up by two guys out of the army.

You decide.

If your goal is "studying" and "bettering yourself", shouldn't that involve something that's honest with its claims?

I agree with Velocity5, it is, indeed, self-deception.

Man, whenever I think of the woes of the lower-middle income, middle-aged straight white American man, I think of Sam Kinison and Ed O'Neil. They might not represent the same suffering as the rest of the fucks on this miserable planet, but the perks of their demographic do not outweigh the absolute nihilism of this way of being.

The middle ground of being everyone's bitch and not having a platform to ethically state your woes. Black man has a bigger dick, Asians are smarter than you, Hispanics breed faster, foreigners believe you're a moron, children are disgusted by you, young adults mock you, women think you're pathetic, homosexuals demand they suffer more, and everything you do is meaningless consumerism and menial labor leading to the happiness of everyone else but yourself.

And you're forced to salute a flag and think God every day for your happiness. I love you big brother as the bullet passes through your fucking head. A bullet through your fucking head.

This is essentially a repeat of the same, shortsighted, ignorant mistake humankind made in the middle ages by locking up anyone with a mental disability or significant lifestyle difference.

And in an unrelated story, all flights to Yemeni have been booked solid for three years by middle aged western women.

Don't be a dickhead. The guy was holding his small child in front of him.

That noise was the result of a young child playing (okay, pounding) on the keys, not some middle-aged man trying to play Stairway to Heaven.