Rationally, no, but my lizard brain sure does.

In reality, I don't want prison to be about revenge, I believe it works much better if it's about rehabilitation, no matter who the prisoner is. Also, I understand that prisoners lives and safety are the responsibility of the jailers (us) and I don't want to pay their survivors for their deaths or injuries.

That said, it is a satisfying fantasy to think about racist murderous cops at the mercy of a gang of pumped up vengeful Crips, but no, I don't really want that.

Cassowary attacks

Cassowaries have a reputation in folklore for being dangerous to people and domestic animals. During World War II American and Australian troops stationed in New Guinea were warned to steer clear of them. In his book Living Birds of the World from 1958, ornithologist Ernest Thomas Gilliard wrote:

The inner or second of the three toes is fitted with a long, straight, murderous nail which can sever an arm or eviscerate an abdomen with ease. There are many records of natives being killed by this bird.

This assessment of the danger posed by cassowaries has been repeated in print by authors including Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Jared Diamond (1997). A 2003 historical study of 221 cassowary attacks showed that 150 had been against humans. 75% of these had been from cassowaries that had been fed by people. 71% of the time the bird had chased or charged the victim. 15% of the time they kicked. Of the attacks, 73% involved the birds expecting or snatching food, 5% involved defending natural food sources, 15% involved defending themselves from attack, and 7% involved defending their chicks or eggs. The 150 attacks included only one human death.

The one documented human death was caused by a cassowary on 6 April 1926. 16-year-old Phillip McClean and his brother, aged 13, came across a cassowary on their property and decided to try to kill it by striking it with clubs. The bird kicked the younger boy, who fell and ran away as his older brother struck the bird. The older McClean then tripped and fell to the ground. While he was on the ground the cassowary kicked him in the neck, opening a 1.25 cm (0.49 in) wound which may have severed his jugular vein. The boy died of his injuries shortly afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

He's a [street (NYC)] performance artist, but I do think he had some sort of head injury or something in his youth.

Goddamn, my nuts retracted just from the sound that kick made.

Had a friend in high school who skateboarded and messed up a rail slide. Landed square on the rail on his nuts and blew out one of his testicles. Before the doctors removed it, it had swollen to the size of a grapefruit. I imagine the guy here probably sustained a similar injury and had to have at least one testicle removed.

Good news is you can still have kids with only one testicle--my friend has two daughters. But damn, if that isn't one of the most painful things to experience I don't know what is.

@jwray

*facepalm*

You realize the link you just posted is titled "IQ dominates socioeconomic background data for white men" (my emphasis).

Sure, there is a correlation between IQ and crime and it is hotly contested to what that actually means.

To some, that means only dumb criminals actually get caught (meaning we don't know the true average IQ of criminals because the smart ones get away with it).

To others, it reflects the socioeconomic status of the people most likely to commit crimes (i.e. likely grew up poor in a neighborhood without strong educational opportunities and therefore does not share the cultural values that IQ tests inherently load into the questions and furthermore the test-taker may be openly hostile to standardized test-taking).

To still others it reflects the RESULTS of crime (i.e. leading a criminal lifestyle makes it more likely that you are going to suffer traumatic physical injuries to the head that literally make you dumber).

The 7-8 point difference you quoted is not nearly enough to make a difference on the crime rates. 100 IQ is the normally distributed mean and Japanese people on average, score around 106. For reference, a standard deviation on the IQ test is 15 points, meaning that for all intents and purposes Japanese people are still roughly in the same ballpark as Americans with their 98-point average.

And literally the first Google search result when I looked up Japanese IQ scores was this one, explaining how national average IQ scores correlate with the per capita income and national rates of economic development.

In other words, economic factors correlate with IQ, which correlates with negatively with crime, which seems to further reinforce the idea that socioeconomic forces are a key factor in criminal behavior.

Look, we're getting really far afield of what the video is about. I think it is a no-brainer that few gun crimes are committed in Japan because guns are so heavily regulated. We do have stabbings, in fact we have mass stabbings (which is something you don't see so often in the U.S.). The thing we both agree on is that it is impossible for the U.S. to replicate these crime statistic results, whether that be for cultural reasons or whatever other cause you want to throw out there.

America. I really don't know that they've made any meaningful changes to rentals, but I recall they made some. I don't rent semi trucks to know what. I do know they now surround crowds with dump trucks full of sand to block trucks. Those bollards, they're regulators too of a sort, regulating vehicular access to certain areas at certain times.

If systems were designed that way, sure public transport could do it all, but ours aren't....and to make that work outside of metropolitan areas gets prohibitively expensive.

Including all the negatives (economic detriment, need for protection from others that have them, injuries and deaths, property damage, lead pollution, mitigation programs, etc), I doubt guns are a net gain....all depends on what you value though. They are mostly considered essential to protect from other guns, without other guns it's really hard to make the case that they're essential if you don't hunt to eat.

Civilization could work fine without autos, but it would require a revamp of all transportation systems. Revamping police to deal with an unarmed populace seems far easier to me.

Sticks? You've heard of swords, right? ;-)

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Fighting on the street isn't even comparable to MMA. Not to take away from the hardness of any MMA fighter, but MMA is a sport. There are rules, and it's a safe environment (as safe as can be considering what happens in the octagon). You don't have to worry about the other guy poking your eye out or biting you, you probably won't die, etc.

The best thing for self defense is to be able to identify a dangerous situation, and get away from it using any means necessary, before it escalates. Getting into your car and driving away is the best thing you can do.

The other part of it is not looking like a victim, it's a body language thing.

And in these cases, Aikido is as good as any other martial art.


Having said that I'd still love to see someone use Aikido in an MMA match just for entertainment, because the only videos I've ever seen are ones like this, where the partner is going with the flow to avoid injury.


Actually now that I think about it, are you allowed to dislocate/break joints in MMA? Because the damage is likely to be permanent.

Yeah, he isn't resisting much and it does make her look stronger and the throws look cleaner than they really would in reality... there is an element of choreography, but in most cases it's for practical purposes, to avoid unnecessary injury, not for aesthetics.

But then i quite like the aesthetics too. It's dancing. I think I always enjoyed Ju Jitsu more for the workout, history and artistry of it than for actual self defence.

It wouldn’t look much like that. The guy DOES know what’s coming and he’s moving like that to avoid serious injury.

In general, when training with a beginner, much less force is applied to avoid harming them.

It’s kinda hard to demo this stuff with people who can’t “receive” the technique safely.

Serious *fail
Somehow I feel the "no injuries or deaths" is going to change.
Yikes!

I live in Toronto, Canada... I can imagine the same thing CAN happen here with likely similar outcome. But, the potential risk great bodily injuries is not unimaginable either.

When you live in a big city, anything, good or bad, can happen with a roll of the dice.

Is it really smart PR?

@bobknight33, because you probably don't know, none of those listed was pardoned before sentencing, or without accepting their guilt and being publicly remorseful.

Arpaio has been defiant from day one when he decided to ignore a federal judge who told him to stop using his office to harass Latinos, violating their civil rights by stopping them for illegal illegal immigration status checks (most were citizens, btw, not immigrants). Arpaio called his own prison a concentration camp, proudly, where the ratio of prisoner death and injury are the highest in the nation, as are suicides and undetermined/uninvestigated deaths. At least 160 have died under Arpaio's supervision, and over $140 million paid to his victims so far, with dozens of lawsuits still pending.
If ever there was a person who deserves prison, and to have to live on rancid balogna in a 115 degree tent, it's Joe.

Didn't call for censorship. I just find little benefit in singling out an individual with a very tiny platform for saying something dumb. The idea that her being singled out online to be inundated with death threats and vitriol for her and her family (her and her family were doxxed over this) seems to far outweigh the benefit of "stopping this woman going around the country"... seeing as how she's one woman with basically no following and little influence. I doubt she's done many of these talks at all or will do more. (Looked it up. This talk was the only one she'd given all year. Only one on a different subject the year before. Both locally in her area.)

Spreading videos like this after someone has already been doxxed and threatened only seem to help compound the injury. And it's not ideological to me. Justine Sacco said something stupid online and got a crazy amount of blowback and lost her job for it- I don't agree with that either.

If you want to call out what you view as racism, going after the little guys for saying something a little off isn't the way. Go after people with influence. Hell, a police chief in Oklahoma was just caught running a white supremacist website and record label. That guy has direct impact on the rest of people's lives and even if they get to keep their lives in some situations.

Ashleigh is an unemployed recent college grad. The most influence she has are the 15 or 20 people who were all adults that signed up for this particular seminar. I imagine they either agreed with or are old enough to make up their own mind on what was said.

I certainly see the artistic sensibility there. It's cool and unique, but in the end it left me feeling disturbed. Modifications to public infrastructure should be strictly discouraged.

Yes, I understand that a handful of 3" lag bolts to hold up your shelf and table are unlikely to affect the structural integrity of the bridge, but bridges and supports span the gamut from earthquake-ready to collapsing under their own poor construction.

This guy's modifications are unlikely to cause a serious problem, but what about the next guy who decides to make more serious alterations? The potential risk for serious cost and injury aren't worth the coolness factor.