search results matching tag: one handed
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.008 seconds
Videos (88) | Sift Talk (12) | Blogs (9) | Comments (664) |
Videos (88) | Sift Talk (12) | Blogs (9) | Comments (664) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
CNN: Guns In Japan
Sorry, that's pretty culturally-ignorant thinking right there.
Japanese people are not "meek" or "inhibited" any more so than Americans are. There are different cultural rules about self-expression but there are most certainly loud, aggressive, and flamboyant people here. They just express themselves in different ways than your typically loud, aggressive, and flamboyant American would.
You might think socioeconomic factors were a reason for the lack of crime, but you'd be wrong there too. Japan has a higher poverty rate and lower median income than the U.S.
The low crime rates here can much better be attributed to cultural factors. Every Japanese person is raised with the belief that it is shameful cause problems to the people around them, whether that be family, schoolmates, or co-workers. Getting arrested is about the most shameful thing you could do here. Just being suspected of a crime will likely get you fired from your job, before you are even tried.
And let's not forget the role the justice system here plays. If you get arrested you are almost 100% going to get convicted because the odds are massively stacked against you in the court system. You are basically guilty until proven innocent. Read this for more info about it.
And people here know this. They also know that Japanese prison is hellish. You won't be raped or assaulted there like in the U.S. but you will know exactly what is like to have all of your freedom stripped completely away.
You add to all of this the low unemployment rate of Japan, the high regulation of all weapons (including knives), a robust social system for helping the unemployed (although unfortunately lately a lot of people seem to be falling through the cracks), a nationalized health insurance plan (I pay a $1 co-pay to take my daughter to the doctor and all prescribed medicines are free), a strong social stigma against drug use, and the ability as an island nation to strictly police the borders to prevent the influx of illegal goods (i.e. drugs/guns) and you get the low crime rates in Japan.
tl;dr
There is little incentive to commit crime in Japan because the both social and legal repercussions are extremely severe, and there is little need to resort to crime to survive (plentiful jobs and robust social security). Likewise the opportunity to commit crime is lessened because of the strict regulation of weapons, drugs, and borders.
EDIT: I will say that on more than one occasion I've thought that a career criminal in the U.S. who suddenly found himself in Japan would feel like a kid in a candy store. Because of the lack of crime, people here don't take precautions against it--some people leave doors and windows unlocked when leaving the house, you'll see laptops or iPads left in cars in plain view, and people carry ridiculous amounts of cash on them (I'm talking like on the order of $1000 or more in some cases). On the one hand it can be reassuring but on the other hand I seriously worry about these people when they travel overseas.
Even the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is 5 times that of Japan. Japanese gun control can't take credit for all that. Personality is more than 50% heritable, and by extension, so is violent behavior. (Case in point: the vegas killer's father was on the FBI most wanted list). Personalitywise, Japanese tend to be relatively meek and inhibited. Even if every one of them owned a gun, their murder rate would probably still be a fraction of the US murder rate.
Vox explains bump stocks
I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.
I shoot regularly (often multiple times per week). My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute.
An AR-15 on full auto fires at approximately 600 rounds per minute - twice what I can do on semi-auto. Using a competitive shooter as an example, and taking into account magazine changes (which with training are done much quicker than any of the operators in AR-15 to failure tests I've seen), and assuming lazy splits of 0.30 seconds, a competitive shooter can probably fire at a faster rate per minute than a novice can on full auto (i.e. well more than the approximately 150 rounds per minute a novice shooter achieves when taking into account magazine changes).
The thing is, it is well known in military and firearm enthusiast circles that the massive reduction in accuracy when shooting on full auto does not give the perceived payoff. You have much less control when firing a fully automatic firearm. You hit your target less often. Semi auto plus aiming = hits on target. At the range he was shooting (300 to 350 meters), the same lunatic deciding to aim his firearm would have resulted in less wounding and more fatalities.
Any ex-military here? Chime in.
Zombie Octopus Hates Soy Sauce
Living in Japan, I get to eat octopus pretty frequently and I'm always so conflicted about it. On the one hand, I really admire them as they're such smart creatures. On the other hand, they are damned tasty when prepared right (great takoyaki, for instance).
Still, there is no way I would eat this. I prefer my food 100% dead. I had the same problem at a sushi place once where they took the fish out of the tank and sliced it up right in front of us. The fish slices were still wiggling ever so slightly when the chef handed them to us. I couldn't eat it and my friend wound up eating my share.
Is There an Alternative to Political Correctness?
@Diogenes
I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:
I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.
Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.
Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.
I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?
eric3579
(Member Profile)
I have mixed feelings about dogs on trails.

On one hand, I love dogs and seeing one running alongside his owner clearly enjoying themselves is awesome.
On the other hand, I've had several really close calls with trail dogs not under their owners' control, which nearly resulted in serious injury to me, the dog or both of us. Obviously, I don't want to get injured, but I'd feel REALLY bad if I ended up hurting or even killing a dog by hitting it at speed.
My general feeling is that they're fine on family tracks or on flat easy stuff, but they really shouldn't be on downhill trails.
Dogs in the snow, on the other hand, are just pure win.
Very cool https://vimeo.com/220441294
Boxer Demonstrates Hand-Eye Coordination
I used to do this. But I was only good with one hand and I had to use a wooden paddle.
Coach explains that there is more to life than the game
On the one hand. the birth of a kid is far more important than a sports event. On the other hand, many things are more important than a sports event.
Sushi 101 with Andy Milonakis
On the one hand, having a guided experience like that from somebody that knows the "proper" way of doing things is a very good thing.
On the other hand, I hate snobbery when it becomes sort of evangelical to the point of "saving people from ruining their meal". Maybe they like "candy sushi" rolls, dipped into soy sauce mixed with wasabi to the point of being salt bombs. I do. AND I like good nagiri the "proper" way also.
tomi lahren from the blaze goes full blown snowflake
Arrgh, conflicted.
On one hand, she's the worst. Everything wrong with right wing media neatly tied up in the only kind of pretty blond package that women are allowed to be on these things.
On the other (and I can't believe I'm about to say this), it's a pretty shitty way to treat an employee. If they don't want her anymore, they should release her from her contract.
If the same thing happened to a good journalist, we'd all be annoyed about it.
But, on the other other hand, a) she's an idiot for signing the contract and b) again she's the WORST, so I can't really bring myself to care.
this article sums up my feelings nicely (written about Bin Laden, but still applies)
No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list
@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.
i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.
are you a neo-conservative?
because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."
is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.
and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.
ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.
so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.
now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."
if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?
anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?
well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.
this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.
in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.
so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.
so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.
is bullshit.
it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.
mission accomplished.
but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?
i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.
and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.
it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.
all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.
i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.
because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".
the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.
tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.
in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.
akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.
he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".
now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?
because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.
i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.
is wrong.
i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.
because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).
which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.
i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.
but i tried dude...i really did try.
GUARDIANS Final TRAILER (2017) - Russian Superhero Movie
What a load of shit.
There's a spindly tower, somewhere in Russia, without one single teenager dangling by one hand off the top? Complete load of shit. Where's the dash cam shots? So un-Russian.
blade runner-2049-sneak peek
I'm torn.
On the one hand, more Blade Runner would be awesome.
On the other hand, these god damn member berries keep getting their disgusting sticky juice all over my childhood memories.
I'll reserve judgement on this particular nostalgic 'redux', but I really fear that's all it will be. Hollywood is completely devoid of independent thought or original storytelling these days. Part of me hopes this movie loses $200000000 so they'll quit rehashing classics.
I totally expect another Treasure of the Sierra Madre to come out in the next few years with way more explosions, more grisly deaths and action, and everything that made the original great missing.
Understanding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's Tax Plans
The thing is, people still believe that Obama is the Antichrist and that he is destroying America. On one hand, I don't understand at all where that sentiment comes from as he obviously has done a great deal of good in his time in office. On the other hand Faux News and their surrogates (like Winstonfield, BobKnight33, etc.) have been having a histrionic shitfit over nothing for 8 years. They're not interested in facts, but in making people 'feel' like Obama is hurting them. It was like this even before Obama was elected with the Birther and ObamaMuslim movement. Feels before reals for the right, remember.

And on the third hand, I'm Canadian and Obama personally came by my house the other day to give me the guns he took from you so... Thanks, Obama!
well it's looking more and more like we're going to find out.
assuming you're Republican, did all the bad stuff that was going to happen because of Obama come true? he stopped by my house the other day and took away all my guns
ASAP Science- Are Good-Looking People Jerks?
The flaw I also see is with the "distribution". I question the equal spread of good-looking & nice, good-looking & jerky, etc...I think on one hand, we would qualify more people as jerks, while on the other hand every one of us has adequately qualified as a jerk in someones eyes at some point.
Also, we tend to over-emphasize the negative with the less-than intimate/familiar, much like how 99% of the News is really sucky stuff.
AT&T It Can Wait
It may sound exaggerating, but it really is an epidemic. I walk down the street near a university every day, and 8 out of 10 cars that drive by have their phones up in one hand, and driving with the other. And like the video shows so well, it may not be you that is the cause...but just the victim. Its scary. Always be alert and watching around you...tho there may be nothing you can do if someone else is 'texting' and driving. My son is 4, and hopefully by the time he start driving, there will be something in place to prevent this careless behavior.