q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9736ur | how are the trees on hills in northern california still green? | Driving along 5 in Northern California you see nothing but brown grass. Yet the trees are green, and it won't rain until winter. Even on hills, you see green trees. I suppose it could be underground water, but even in hills? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9736ur/eli5_how_are_the_trees_on_hills_in_northern/ | {
"a_id": [
"e455u0g"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Tree roots go deep enough to get water even in a drought. If the dry conditions continue for long enough, the ground water level will drop below even tree roots and the tres will die."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3ggz5i | is russia technically under a dictatorship and how did putin get there? | I am interested in Putin's rise to power, any book suggestions on this topic would be greatly appreciated. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ggz5i/eli5is_russia_technically_under_a_dictatorship/ | {
"a_id": [
"cty4m5l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is really no such thing as \"technically\" being under dictatorship, it works the other way around. You are a dictatorship, but are technically some other form of gov't. Even North Korea is technically a democracy, and has some vestigial democratic institutions to promote this fiction.\n\nRussia is probably more of a fledgling democracy with a large degree of corruption. Putin wields a lot of power without accountability or checks and balances. But he could be removed from office democratically without a coup."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7xrbu3 | why is it that sometimes original potato chips have a green shade to the chip? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7xrbu3/eli5_why_is_it_that_sometimes_original_potato/ | {
"a_id": [
"duahfaa"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"That's because the potato that the chip was made from was green. Potatoes are grown underground, but when they are exposed to light, chlorophyll is produced and they turn green. Usually, the green potatoes are removed from food production. However, they sometimes slip through. [Source](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://nowiknow.com/green-potato-chips"
]
]
|
||
1sq6wv | if it's true that the brain is very active while we sleep, why does it let my body sleep in painful, awkward positions? | I always find myself waking up with a pain in my neck, back or limbs where I've been sleeping in a strange position. The pain doesn't wake me and my brain doesn't force me to change position to something comfier. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sq6wv/eli5_if_its_true_that_the_brain_is_very_active/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce02yt5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes you do move while you sleep. While you're dreaming (in REM sleep), though, your body's actually paralyzed to prevent you from 'acting out' your dreams. Your brain sends the signals to walk when you walk in a dream, but they can't cause the muscle to actually move. REM sleep occurs late in a night's sleep, so it's possible you're waking relatively quickly from it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
60qu7o | what is a patent? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60qu7o/eli5what_is_a_patent/ | {
"a_id": [
"df8jvzs"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Basically, if you invent something the government gives you temporary exclusive rights to produce that thing, in exchange for telling the public exactly how it works.\n\nBasically, they exist to promote innovation. Inventors are motivated by the prospect of having a monopoly on their product (and not having their idea stolen by someone else) and future inventors can improve upon the designs that are now public information."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6sbbx2 | as you enter your adult age and older, does your body stop absorbing calcium and other important nutrients from milk? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sbbx2/eli5_as_you_enter_your_adult_age_and_older_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlbgbyr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No, you still absorb it, but as your body grows the hormone composition changes, and you don't use it as much to grow bones etc. however, even if your bones stop growing size wise with age, there's still some remodeling going on. \nCalcium excess goes out with your pee. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
afmqvr | how come in many cases, when a program crashes, it will not close even after clicking "end process" when prompted. however, it closes instantly when ended through task manager. | I never quite understood this. When a program crashes and the PC prompts the user whether they would like to terminate the program or wait for it to respond, it often times will not close even when the option is selected. However, when using task manager to end the process, it closes instantly. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/afmqvr/eli5_how_come_in_many_cases_when_a_program/ | {
"a_id": [
"edzuq75"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Programs are managed by the operating system. Clicking the red x or using the prompt asks the program to close itself, but the program is stuck and cannot respond to the request. Using the task manager tells the operating system to just kill the process."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
41457q | how do services that are free, but do not have ads monetize me? | Example: Discord's game chat service.
Edit: Apparently it isn't really monetized yet. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41457q/eli5_how_do_services_that_are_free_but_do_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyzf60m",
"cyzf72v"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Says right on the front page of their site: \n\n\"Wondering how we’ll make money? In the future there will be optional cosmetics like themes, sticker packs, and sound packs available for purchase. We’ll never charge for Discord’s core functionality.\"",
"Discord is still very new and have decent funding, right now they are using that to improve the service and get people using it. Their plan to monetize later afaik (when the have a decently sized user base) is to sell themes / emotes etc. \nIn general I guess it depends on the company but you gave discord as an example so replied purely on that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
xkb1h | "selling out" and army commissions in the united kingdom/britain/commonwealth circa 1800s. | Background, I was watching a BBC show about the 1800s and a character was going to "sell out", so I started investigating the terminology. I've looked up a lot of references but I don't understand how the British Army worked back then, and exactly what a "commission" was at that time. Currently it just seems to mean your duty, or a piece of paper from the Queen. What I'd like to know is how you bought one, why you would buy one, and how you sold one. And what it meant at the time. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xkb1h/eli5_selling_out_and_army_commissions_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5n4xbt",
"c5n51vp"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"I am in no way an expert on this but, if the movies and shows I've watched and books (historical fiction) I've read about it are accurate enough, the British upper class would be able to buy commissioned army rankings (Major, Lieutenant Colonel, etc.) and, when promoted, would have to pay for the new rank. When they retired from the army, they were then able to sell their commission. In one of the Richard Sharpe novels, he is trying to retire from the army and selling his rank, but is refused since he never actually paid for the ranking in the first place.\n\nI could be completely wrong about this though as I've usually focused more on the naval side during this era.\n\nEdit: Found the wikipedia article on it: _URL_0_",
"If you were rich, you could essentially send a check out to the Army to purchase an army commission as an Ensign, a sort of trainee officer who walked behind the line and learned how the army works. Many families of old money would buy their son a commissions in this positions on their sixteenth birthday. You could resign that commission pretty much at any time providing somebody wasn't actively shooting at you, and you could even sell it to somebody else to take your spot, within reason.\n\nAfter a set amount of time past, you could buy your way into the next position, and then next one, all the way up to Lt. Colonel, leader of a regiment. Of course, you could also get promoted by merit or to replace losses, which was a more common way of advancement as you got up in the ranks, but paying your way was an important army institution. In fact, not having bought your commission (being \"jumped up\" from the ranks) was seen as somewhat shameful, as you are something of an upstart.\n\nThe reason this was done was because the army was continuously snubbed for funding in favour of the navy, so the army needed every penny it could get and was downright infamous for their many creative ways of getting capital in order to keep the army marching.\n\nBONUS INFORMATION TIME\n\nThis was both at the very top and at the level of individual soldiers. Generals in the British Army personally took out loans to fund battles with the promise that the Crown would foot the bill if they won, they arranged entire campaigns to acquire stocks of gold, used insider trading from the results of battles and the effects they'd have on certain industries to play the stock market, and when Wellington invaded France he had all the soldiers who had been pressed into his army as counterfeiters make up fake French coin to pay the locals with for food and shelter. \n\nMeanwhile, while other armies tried to teach their armies to stand disciplined and act with dignity on the field, not that it ever worked, British soldiers were trained to stand in a big line, shoot as fast as they could, and then when they enemy ran away steal everything not nailed down. By encouraging them to wantonly loot the enemy at first opportunity, it kept their mind off the fact they were inevitably owed back pay that had been spent on desperately needed food, weapons, or equipment by the higher-ups. Additionally, the British Army passionately reused everything they could get their hands on. They couldn't really use French muskets because they were the wrong barrel size, but they stole their ammunition and recast it on the field, stole their gunpowder and used it, if it was good, and sold it to hunters if it was bad (and it usually was, French powder was considered atrocious next to the stuff the British got from India), stole their backpacks, because they were more comfortable, stole their coat buttons and cut their shoes apart for the leather, heck, they would rip the teeth straight out of the head of enemy dead and sell them to dentists to make realistic dentures. The french habit of giving medals to common soldiers backfired as British soldiers pawned them by the thousands. After the Battle of Victoria, the British looted over a million pounds worth of stuff off the french wagons bogged down on the road.\n\nIn other words, the British won wars by being really good at snatching shit, the greedy gits."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_commissions"
],
[]
]
|
|
5i4azm | explain me how a clock work in terms of it internal gears. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5i4azm/eli5_explain_me_how_a_clock_work_in_terms_of_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"db5aer2",
"db5am4d"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"So first you need power. A spring, a weight, a motor etc. This tries to turn a gear but the gear has essentially a ratchet on it. This ratchet is attached to some timing mechanism such as a pendum or another motor on a timer circuit. This moves back and forth and allows the gear to move forward once a second we'll say. This gears onto your second hand which turns the little hand on the clock face. From there it's a lot of gear ratios that move your minute hand and then your hour hand after so many turns of the second hand gear. So your minute gear will turn once every 60 turns of the second hand. Then 1 in 60 again for hours and minutes. ",
"When the main spring is tightened it stores energy, and the release of this energy is regulated by a pendulum or escapement. This slow release of energy sets into motion the separate gears that have been designed to rotate at a certain rate. From this you get seconds, minutes, and hours."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
57hzfd | why do some large military planes use propellers instead of jet engines? | I though that jet engines are more powerful and more fuel efficient? How come we don't see any smaller military applications using props? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57hzfd/eli5_why_do_some_large_military_planes_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8s5h0r",
"d8s5l1m",
"d8s6j6z",
"d8s6m5c",
"d8sobnp",
"d8spqii",
"d8sstzx",
"d8svxsr",
"d8t1pl8"
],
"score": [
34,
253,
177,
2,
6,
6,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Propellers are more rugged, provide better power at low speeds and low altitudes, and are generally easier to operate and maintain.\n\nFor a fast attack aircraft you want a jet. High, fast, and supremely nimble.\n\nFor a cargo aircraft that has to lug five humvees to a makeshift runway in rural Afghanistan you want the reliable grunt of a propeller.",
"Jet engines are more fuel efficient at high altitudes and speeds. Propellers are more fuel efficient at lower altitudes and speeds. Giant transport aircraft aren't generally going to be flying at high altitude, nor are they designed for supersonic flight.\n\nThe high power-to-weight ratio of turboprop engines at low speed allows these planes to take off from land on runways that are much shorter than if they used turbojets, as when you're bring supplies or troops to the front line you probably won't have a long paved runway.\n\n",
"It lets them do additional maneuvers and are more efficient at some things, namely low speed and short maneuvers. For example, the C-130 has a Props and it helps allow it to land/takeoff in a short unimproved runway that a craft without props would be unable to land in. It also lets it do cool things, like fly at minimum speed to allow helos to draft off of it in formation and increase the max speed/range of the helos.",
"Well, the Prop engines are Turbine as well a the TurboJet and Turbofan type engines. You get more bang for your buck with a TurboProp and then next it would be TurboFan and least performing is a TurboJet engine. However, the TurboProp doesn't do so well at highspeeds, the turbine does just fine, the prop blades do not. Imagine it, you have a giant spinning wing traveling perpendicular to your path of travel, not good. TurboFan engine is a compromise. And the TurboJet style is obviously best at high speeds because it has a more aerodynamic design.\n\nEdit: fixed typo!",
"Old propeller planes used piston engines. Modern propeller planes use turboprops. Turboprops are jet engines, except instead of shooting gas out the back really fast, they give torque to a drive shaft.\n\nEdit: By the way, all modern military helicopters function this way too, as far as I know. Also, gas turbines are basically jet engines too. The M1 Abrams tank is powered by a gas turbine. There are also locomotives, power plants, and ships that use gas turbines. For example, the two main power plants of the new Zumwalt class destroyers are pretty much Boeing 777 engines.",
"Turboprops are more efficient for fuel economy and that helps long range, but the propellers have a lower top-speed than a pure jet. Jets have a harder acceleration and a higher top speed. \n\nThere are several jobs that work better at the lower speeds. Because of the high speed that a pure jet is capable of, the planes that have them typically have low-drag wings to enhance their top-speed. However, doing that means they have a long takeoff, and they need to attain a high speed to lift off...plus they must land at a fairly high speed, requiring long runways.\n\nThe F-111, and the B-1 bomber both tried to have both by having a \"swing-wing\", which are outstretched for lower speeds, and swept back for a higher top speed. Only the military would pay for a heavier and more complex/expensive system in order to have a wider range of capability in one aircraft. \n\nThe F-111 did it for the Navy so that a very large craft could still be launched from a \"fairly short\" aircraft carrier, and yet attain a very high speed after it had accelerated to a speed where the swept back position was workable.\n\nThe Air Force did it on the B-1 because it needed to fly \"low and slow\" between hills to avoid radar when it was penetrating enemy defenses to knock out anti-aircraft missile sites, radar stations, power stations, etc. Once it was back in it's own airspace and could be supported by fighter-jets, the wings would sweep back so it could return to fast mode.\n\nThe C-130 can land and take off from short \"unimproved\" airstrips (no asphalt) due to its high lift. It can use jato rockets to help get it up if it has a heavy load. However, the high lift wings negate a fast top-speed, so the fuel economy of the turboprops was a better fit compared to the jets of the slightly larger C-141. The C-17 has \"blown flaps\" with a titanium skin to help it have both a reasonably high top speed and a reasonably higher-lift capability (jet exhaust blows directly onto the flaps, which deflect the blast downwards).\n\nAnother vital job for the slower C-130 is as an aerial refueler for large helicopters. If the chopper is going as fast as it can, and the C-130 is flying as slow as it can, they can be at the same speed...because of the propellers and high-lift wings. The fueling version of the C-141 (with jets), can't fly slow enough.\n\nA pure jet engine can also have an after-burner, which is spraying raw fuel into the exhaust for a boost. You can't do that to a turbo-prop. After-burners are a horrific consumer of fuel, but there are situations where a fighter can make good use of the added boost.\n\nTurbo-props are much better in many ways over a piston-drive prop aircraft, and increasingly smaller turbo-props are being developed to slowly take over the small craft engine world. Turbo-props are more expensive to buy, but they have a much longer TBO (Time Before Overhaul) compared to pistons. So small planes that log a LOT of hours will benefit from crunching the numbers over the planned life of the craft.\n\nA 4-seat / 4-cylinder private plane that is rarely flown will likely continue as a piston-engined craft. The owner of a turbocharged 6-cylinder aircraft that hauls 8 people, might benefit from a switch to a plane with a turbo-prop if he starts a business that will end up with him regularly flying a lot more hours.\n\nNeither jets or turboprops are \"best\", but both have strengths and weaknesses, depending on the job you want to do.",
"Technically, a turboprop (e.g. on a C130) and turbofan (e.g. on a 787) are jet engines. The only difference is we strap a propeller or fan to the front. These types of engines use the jet as more of a generator of (rotational kinetic) energy than as a way to push the plane, though it does produce some thrust. The engine choice depends on how fast you want to go (efficiently) all the time. In general: piston prop=slow, turboprop=decent, turbofan=kinda fast, pure jet=really fast.\n\n[You can see how the turbofan uses the jet as a generator very clearly when planes with reverse thrust land \\(Warning: jets are loud\\)](_URL_0_). You can hear them speed up because they are redirecting the fan air forward out the sides of the engine instead of letting it just flow out the back. Despite being at full power, the jet engine itself produces less thrust than the redirected fan air, even though a lot of that air is just pushing sideways, having no effect on the plane's speed.",
"It should be noted that the propeller engines you see on military cargo craft like the C-130 Hercules or the Airbus A400M are not the same sort of propeller engines you see in small aircraft like a Cessna 172.\n\nThe military cargo aircraft actually use something called a turboprop engine which uses a turbine similar to the one used in turbojet engines and turbofan engines.\n\nThey just use the turbine to drive the propellers instead of trying to create thrust with it.\n\nAll different types have their own advantages and disadvantages including how high up they can go, how fast they can go and how much fuel they consume. One of the most important advantages of the turboprop engines is that it gives planes the ability to take of from much shorter runways.",
"All aircraft engines work by taking a chunk of air in front of the airplane and pushing it behind the airplane. By pushing the air backwards, the engines pull the airplane forward. Think of paddling a canoe. This pulling force is called \"thrust\". \n\nPushing air is hard, and it happens to work out that it takes much less energy to give a little push to a lot of air than it does to give a lot of push to only a little air. This is where propellers benefit. Propellers move large volumes of air at once, and are therefore more efficient than jet engines. \n\nBut propellers have an important limitation: the speed of their tips cannot exceed the speed of sound. Doing so would cause the blades to break because of shockwave formation, and the noise level would be too high. This limitation prevents propeller aircraft from being able to push enough air to go past a certain speed and altitude. To go past the limit, you need a jet engine (and have to stomach the reduced efficiency). \n\nIf you don't need to go too high or too fast, a propeller helps you fly efficiently. If you need to go high and fast, you have to use a jet. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/GNRXAHasFvk?t=55"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6efdsl | would it be possible to use very cold gas liquids like liquid nitrogen to cool a computer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6efdsl/eli5_would_it_be_possible_to_use_very_cold_gas/ | {
"a_id": [
"di9tula"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, and people that overclock competitively (yes that's a thing) use liquid nitrogen or liquid helium to cool components. Example: _URL_0_\n\nFor any sort of continuous use, it's not practical at all. Safe storage, needing to replace the liquid routinely, cost, and the relatively minimal benefit you'd get from overclocking to that extreme doesn't make it worth it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKN4VMOenNM"
]
]
|
||
2quchl | what are stores doing when they accept other store's gift cards for equal or less value? | I saw the other day that Walmart will allow you to exchange Target, bestbuy, etc... for ~90%. I've seen a few stores addvertise they will exchange 100% the value of a starbucks giftcard.
Do these places have a deal with the other company to basically exchange some of the value back? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2quchl/eli5_what_are_stores_doing_when_they_accept_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn9leg3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The actual value stored by a stored value card (gift cards, return/store credit, etc) is handled by a third party. One of the more popular ones is called \"ValueLink.\" \n\nSince Wal Mart and Starbucks both use ValueLink to back end their \"stored value cards,\" it's easy for them to make arrangements to \"buy\" the value off of a Starbucks card and place it instead in their Wal Mart card. It makes no bones to ValueLink, since they're still holding on to the money. It makes to difference to Starbucks, because they're getting released from the value they \"owe\" on that SVC, and it benefits Wal-Mart because they get the \"customer service\" benefit of the exchange, and they still get to upsell the consumer on their products. \n\nTheoretically this could be done with a competing SVC backend, too... but since ValueLink would be surrendering the money they're holding to this competitor, they're not going to offer a dollar for dollar exchange. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3f76o2 | inflation target and inflation over time? | Why is it that we are striving for an inflation rate of around 2%? Wouldn't it make more sense and be easier if money always was worth exactly the same forever? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f76o2/eli5_inflation_target_and_inflation_over_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctlx2gq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Not at all.\n\nFirst off, having an inflation target helps to ensure the deflation doesn't happen. Deflation means that money actually gets more valuable over time. This discourages investment and spending, since goods will get cheaper the longer you wait to spend and money gains value just by sitting around. Deflation can cause the death of an economy, so its worth a little inflation to ensure it doesn't happen.\n\nSecond, moderate inflation is very good for an economy. You want people to know that goods will get more expensive over time, as this encourages people to spend money now, when they have it - consumer spending is a big part of the economy. It also punishes \"stagnant\" money - money just sitting around will lose value, so you need to invest it to prevent this - which is very good for an economy. Finally, inflation also helps reduce the burden of debt, as the debts you owe lose value over time.\n\nAll in all, a small bit of inflation is very good."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
bxoa44 | why do our bodies hold on to excess water? | When trying to lose weight, we lose water weight first. I’m wondering why we hold excess water to begin with. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bxoa44/elif_why_do_our_bodies_hold_on_to_excess_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"eq8lfbd",
"eq8nbw6"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The answer is pretty simple. \n\nWater is essential to being alive and you wanna have it stored in case you need it.",
"The \"water weight\" you lose is usually from depleting glycogen.\n\nGlycogen is stored in your liver and muscles. It's basically sugar that is packed up very tightly in storage. When you need energy, you break it down for sugar. It also happens to make you retain a bit of water. Something like 1 gram of glycogen makes you hold onto 3 grams of water, or some ratio like that. When you start eating less food, or switch to a keto diet, your glycogen stores go down, and you retain less water. This is why people will lose like 5 lbs in the first few days of keto. People also use this effect if they compete in weight class sports, to shed a few more pounds so they can make their weight class."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2znbux | why is using gimp or photoshop for new users so frustratingly complicated? | Why can't microsft just update paint with a few features but stay simple? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2znbux/eli5_why_is_using_gimp_or_photoshop_for_new_users/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpkic8n",
"cpkiwzv",
"cpkjmoq"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Photoshop is a professional tool meant for people doing serious work; it's not unreasonable to require a few hours or days to get comfortable in a professional tool, and require weeks or months to get really well acquainted and at-home if it means the tool is more efficient for the intermediate to advanced users. Plenty of tools are made with the idea that they shouldn't cater to beginners because people are only beginners for a small subset of the time of their use of the tool.\n\nMS doesn't want to spend time or money on paint given it's good enough for what it was made to be.\n\nThere already exist image editing software in between the extremes. _URL_0_ is a decent and free somewhat advanced editor. ",
"The more things a tool can do, the more complicated it is to use. And you could compare it with other professional tools. For example you wouldn't expect to just jump in to a digger and use it perfectly the first time without instruction.",
"I think of them as a well fitted garage rather than a single tool. It makes it much easier to learn useful things starting to learn one tool at a time. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"Paint.net"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5wjkt6 | how white supremacist groups like the kkk and alt-right find ways to recruit people despite being banned on social media | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wjkt6/eli5_how_white_supremacist_groups_like_the_kkk/ | {
"a_id": [
"deam58u",
"deami8r",
"deanv32"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they aren't banned on social media? Or because groups have been recruiting people for all of history without social media. ",
"Reddit and 4Chan are key platforms for such recruitment, as well as a slew of dedicated websites.",
"When banned, they come back to social media, dance just behind the line of acceptability, and use code words like \"urban\", \"immigrants\" and \"banking establishment\" to allude to specific races.\n\nAlso, they do a lot of JAQing (\"Just Asking Questions\") off. Why are so many criminals black? Oh, no, I'm not racist, I'm Just Asking Questions."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
23kpu6 | how damaging are tsunamis to farmlands? | Besides the obvious temporary physical destruction, do tsunamis "salt" agricultural land and make them unusable? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23kpu6/eli5_how_damaging_are_tsunamis_to_farmlands/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgxyn2c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Generally no. Much of the salt is going to wash back out to sea with the receding waves, many plants can tolerate elevated saline conditions as long as they have plenty of water - different crops and different plants would have different tolerances to salt, however the bulk of sea salt is terrestrial in origin and a concentration of 3.5% is a lot less than some plants typically survive in when water tables are modified, for example. \n\nIf an area has poor drainage its usually poor farmland as well, so salt from tsunami's is not generally a problem. Mangroves also provide natural defense against flooding waves, so any region that had intact mangroves is going to see much better resistance to freak occurrences such as a tsunami. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5a7zq2 | why are birds so "twitchy"? | They can't seem to go more than half a second without moving or looking. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5a7zq2/eli5_why_are_birds_so_twitchy/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9egle9",
"d9ej3gf"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"They're extremely small and extremely easy to kill. Survival of the fittest makes this twitchy.\n\nThe ones that weren't twitchy get killed and eaten.",
"Birds don't have muscles in there eyes like humans have. \n\nI can look left, right, up, and down without moving my head or neck. Birds don't have the appropriate muscles so they need to move in quick twitching motions to see their surroundings "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
qk6d5 | why do people defend illegal file sharing? | I know it is easy and free, but other than the obvious, how can people not only justify it, but defend it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qk6d5/eli5_why_do_people_defend_illegal_file_sharing/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3y7ta2",
"c3y7xnb",
"c3y84va",
"c3y87fe",
"c3y89st",
"c3y92zu",
"c3y9dmc",
"c3yab4n",
"c3yakyd",
"c3ybqwl"
],
"score": [
16,
8,
8,
21,
3,
5,
6,
3,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Money paid to buy it does not go to the artist, record companies are huge corporations with a lot of money. Starving artists are usually that. If a band sells 10000 CDs, they are still sleeping in their mom's basement. (And probably still owing money to the record company for printing costs / studio time.)\n\nWouldn't have gotten it if it wasn't free. \n\nEasy way to gain awareness and promotion of a work without a cost of entry.\n\nA way to retain control. When you buy a work, you don't buy the work, you buy the right to enjoy the work. You are subject to whatever whims of the distributor. \n\nBut mostly cause I'm a cheapass. \n\n",
"Sometimes the pirated version is better than the purchased one. For example it might be DRM free (can be used in more ways) or have annoyances removed (like non-skippable commercials or anti-piracy warnings).\n\n",
"I steal music so I can preview it. If I like it I purchase it on vinyl.\n\nMedia pirates on average spend more on media than non-pirates.",
"Personally, I think there are 2 main schools of thought:\n\n1. All information should be free and accessible. Information cannot be owned and it is in the interest of society for it to be free. (This is the Pirate Party)\n\n2. While pirating is wrong, it is \n\na) fundamentally impossible to stop pirating\n\nb) the controls that try to stop pirating hurt consumers more than they hurt pirates\n\nc) prevent legitimate forms of file sharing\n\nd) provide controls to corporations and governments that are too easily abused\n\n(Supported by websites like _URL_0_)",
"I pirate because the music shops in my area dont carry what I want to hear, they carry what will sell the best.\n\nA lot of what I pirate is out of print, limited release, or otherwise hard to come across.\n\nAs a test, I'm not sure if I'll like a band, so I'll find it online, listen, then decide if I'm going to go see them when they tour. Most of the smaller artists make their money off of tours, not media.\n\nI can honestly say I would not have listened to some of my favorite bands if I only shopped in brick and mortar establishments.",
"Coz the business model is outdated for most content. Take movies for example, to download a movie, it costs an average of £10 (~$15). Now if you are a movie geek then you will end up spending nearly £50 pounds a week just for movies. Most people can't afford that. \n\nBetter, more fair business models have emerged like Netflix where you pay a monthly fixed fee and you get to stream unlimited movies. Thanks to hollywood's greed, these services have really shit movies which only gives me piracy as an option. \n\nNow for iphone apps, I usually pirate apps to see if I would like them, if I do, then I would download it from the app store.\n\n",
"Banning Bittorrent because some people use it to pirate music is like banning wine because some people get drunk. \n\nYou might be able to demonstrate that it reduces the problem, but the people who really want to misbehave will find another way to do it while the people who were using it for a legitimate purpose are unfairly harmed.",
"1. Because people don't believe in that phrase itself \"Illegal file sharing\". A lot of people don't think it should be illegal because you are just sharing what you have, it is just a lot easier with our technology\n2. It's a good way to get new music when you are not sure if you will like it or not. Yeah sure there is youtube, but sometimes they only have so many songs. \n\nFor me, typically I will buy a physical copy of a CD that I enjoy. The other music on my library which I listen to occasionally but don't own, well either I don't have enough money so I wouldn't listen to them anyways, or I just don't care enough to buy the CD. Either way the record companies would not be benefiting from me not file sharing ",
"The real ELI5 answer for you here: \n\nThey disagree with the laws against it and feel that since the laws do not match their personal morality, they are not obligated to follow those laws. ",
"A few reasons people defend it:\n\n1. Laws preventing file sharing are invasive, equivalent to Walmart being able to search you house just in case you stole something\n2. There is such a thing as legal file sharing, which would be blocked by many of the laws that would block illegal sharing\n2. Copying a file is different than stealing it, laws that try to treat them as the same are unfair\n3. Copyright enforcement groups have used harsh and often illegal tactics, threatening to bury people in legal bills if they don't pay up, even without proof\n4. Copyright enforcement groups often assess ridiculous damages, sometimes as much as hundreds of dollars per song\n5. Copyright owners often place cumbersome and even damaging DRM on their media, burdening legitimate users and treating them like criminals "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"techdirt.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
88l6mu | why every social media is moving away from chronological order for its feeds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88l6mu/eli5_why_every_social_media_is_moving_away_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwlspru",
"dwlx11n",
"dwly4sn",
"dwlyxah",
"dwlz86y",
"dwlzbnb",
"dwm0kcc",
"dwm1o98",
"dwm1sw3",
"dwm235e",
"dwm2dv6",
"dwm2lyh",
"dwm381z",
"dwm3zcz",
"dwm41y7",
"dwm4eu5",
"dwm76yi",
"dwle3ed",
"dwleo0f",
"dwlfzsl",
"dwlgxqu",
"dwlha6j",
"dwlkyez",
"dwlqcvx"
],
"score": [
69,
8768,
4,
4,
31,
130,
4,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
37,
4,
1458,
6,
35,
22,
222,
24,
2
],
"text": [
"Every time I jump on the ol FB at my computer I have to change it to chronological, and it always changes back, so infuriating. I switched it because that’s how I like it!!!",
"If your feed is in chronological order, it’s easier to feel like you’ve seen everything and can therefore leave the site without missing anything. If they jumble it all up, you don’t get the feeling of “completing” an action, so you continue scrolling and scrolling, seeing more and more ads. ",
"Two reasons.\n\n1) It’s actually a hard thing to implement now. As large social media sites got to be as ludicrously large as they are now, serving *billions* of users, they made astounding leaps in terms of the technologies they used to chase efficiency and performance at all cost. Some of these leaps involved moving to technologies that distribute your data and the processing necessary to display useful pages for you across large numbers of systems across the world. Some of these technologies make it hard to do operations that used to be very easy, and some of them get harder and harder the more the system grows and gets distributed across more and more locations. \n\nThink about the volumes of users, every single one having a unique collection of connected friends, each requiring a unique ordered listing of posts, with each request having a very short time frame that needs to be repeated very quickly, and with the data necessary for it being distributed over a huge number of systems. It’s really hard to do all that quickly. Hell, with the sorts of architectures necessary for such large systems to work, it’s still pretty hard to do that even for a small set of users.\n\n2) Engagement. A chronological timeline lists things based solely upon the order they were posted rather than on any other metric the companies behind these sites want to encourage. Maybe they want to encourage popular posts that might go viral, or they want to encourage posts that are likely to push advertising or sales, or maybe they actually want to do a public service and encourage posts covering news events or important health information, or maybe they just want you to engage more with your closer friends, or people more like you, or with posts that align to your interests, to keep you engaged in the community.\n\nWhatever behaviours they want to encourage on their platforms, good or bad, it’s hard to do so with a chronological timeline.",
"Go to any subreddit and sort by new. Then sort by best/top. Clearly non-chronological is better if you're trying to sort by quality, and that's what social media companies are trying to do to increase engagement the same way that a link aggregator attempts to here. ",
"I may be late to the party but what the hell -- sites like Facebook and Twitter have algorithms that sort posts based on the interactions they get from users both in your network and outside of it. If you notice, some people's posts don't appear in your timeline even if you are friends. That is because you and those people do not interact much online. Now say your friend -- let's call her Susan -- and you tag each other in posts or whatnot, you would then see that Susan's posts have more traction in your feed, because, as FB/Twitter determines it, you are likely to be interested to find out what's up with Susan, and therefore be likely to want to see what she posts. \n\nMultiply this effect by a couple of times and the chronological order of posts quickly become in disarray. Your feed is now a compilation of the posts you are most likely to be interested in, hence the Top Stories feature of Facebook and ICYMI of Twitter. ",
"I noticed that content providers stopped dating their articles a while ago. Not what you're referring to, but annoying, as you never know how current the information is...",
"Because screw you, that's why. \n\nOr at least, that's the impression I get. \"What? You wanted to see this yesterday? PFFFFFT, NERD!\" - Zucc",
"Most people follow too many sources for them to be able to see all the content. Ranking attempts to show you the most important stuff without scrolling through everything. \n\nIf you have 1200 pieces of eligible content, you are likely to only see a couple hundred. There is a very high likelihood that in that remaining 1000 there is stuff you would want to see.",
"Much easier to justify boosting promoted and paid posts if you have accepted that it is already not in chronological order",
"Social media sites make money based off ads. Their ads are worth more when their users are more engaged and they can display more ads when you spend more time on the site. They've done internal testing showing people stay longer and click on more links and ads when feeds aren't in chronological order.",
"I'm on mobile so I'm not going to link the articles but this [video](_URL_0_) does a good job getting the point across.\n\nTL;DW - the expectation of reward creates a better addiction feedback loop than receiving the award itself. This means it's possible to get the news feed to time awards and the expectation of reward to be tailored perfectly for you as the algorithms behind them understand you more and more with the ultimate goal of keeping you on the platform.",
"SM core metics are daily active users followed by engagement. if they serve you what they believe you'll engage with first, they have better metrics to present to advertisers",
"Pay to play with Facebook and Twitter. But Reddit is the more important contributions done more and first ",
"Instagram has mentioned they will bring back a chronological option, this could be seen as a way to become the more popular option for viewing content",
"It also benefits social media sites to create ideological echo chambers.\n\nThey can feed you what you want to hear and see based on previous activities which strengthens any bias you have and makes you feel good and \"right\"\n\nThis is also unfortunately what breeds tribalism and extremism of thought and groups.\n\nMost non essential services and goods base their businesses around dopamine triggers and making people feel good.",
"There's something called [operant conditioning](_URL_1_). This is a psychological behaviour mechanism in humans (as well as many animals) that causes us to do certain behaviours. The algorithms used in social media websites with scrollable newsfeeds are built upon this knowledge.\n\nA researcher named B. F. Skinner examined behaviour motivation in animals. For a long time, people believed that animals (and humans) would only learn to reliable perform an action for a reward (usually food), and this is known as [classical conditioning](_URL_2_). [He had this \"box\" where he would test pigeons and rats](_URL_1__chamber), with a switch inside that the animal would press to get food. Now, when the food morsel would always come every single time the animal pressed the switch, or at regular intervals, the animal would learn this and press it enough times to eat their fill, and then leave the switch alone.\n\nThe most interesting thing that Skinner found, however, was that **if the food only came at *random* intervals, the animal would press the thing forever, even past the point that they were full.** It was then learned that animals (and humans) would more reliably perform an action in response to a stimulus if the reward was **unreliable**, not always good. Operant conditioning has been used in things like slot machines to keep players playing even when there's nothing left to gamble.\n\n**Now how does this relate to social media?** Every time you open the site to scroll, you may see something that really interests you, so you say, \"Ok, let's keep scrolling.\" You might scroll past two boring posts before seeing another interesting one. Your brain then wants to keep scrolling, waiting for the next interesting one. You will constantly think \"just one more, maybe this next one will be good,\" even if you're way past the point of being entertained, and are now just bored. [Social media newsfeed algorithms are specifically designed to manipulate human psychology to get you to keep scrolling](_URL_0_), because the longer you're on the site, the more likely you'll run into ads.",
"My Facebook notifications being in whatever crazy order they're giving me now sure isn't improving my engagement. \n\nI was already getting annoyed with how the app is super unreliable in showing what I've checked. I'll tap it, check the thread, notification gets unhighlighted, refresh my notifications, same notification is highlighted again.\n\nFor a while, Facebook was successful in these notification shenanigans driving up my notification as I tapped pointlessly at shit I've already checked. But this new weird notification ordering is legit making me close the app faster than I used to, as I check my notifications and think, \"Oh, fuck this mess.\" I'm not ready to give up Facebook because I do have a pretty big gaming group I've been in for years and a lot of the people there I consider good friends, but it's damn frustrating my interactions with them recently have been hampered by these bogus notifications.",
"It gives the social media companies more control over what content their users are exposed to. More control over the content means more control over the experience, which they tailor to a user so that their social media platform gets used more regularly. ",
"Because time is a static relationship. When a company pays the social media company for more exposure, they need to get more exposure - without regard for things the social media company can't control, like time.",
"If they go purely chronological, then you see what happened most recently, not what is most interesting to you.\n\nThe social media platform has significant data on what you find interesting, and by serving up what you find interesting, spaced appropriately to keep you on the page, they get you on the page longer and more frequently. This integrates the social media platform into your life more deeply, and ensures you continue to use the platform, and hopefully contribute to it (and by using and contributing, provide more data for them).\n\nSomeone who has followed a bunch of pages because of promotional deals or games or other semi-forced pulls, but is only interested in finding out what their family members and actual friends are up to, their feed is SLAMMED with game/advertisement material. Pure chronological means they will not see the people they want to see, and so they will just ignore the feed.\n\nSo, if their data indicates you want to see information from family, they make sure you see that. Just like Pandora, there will be some random elements tossed in there to see if you engage with them as well, thus feeding more information on what you like to ensure the feed becomes even more addictive for you.",
"They want you to stay on the service for as long as possible for each visit, so they can get more advertising dollars through exposure. By putting all of the \"very best\" content at the top of your page, they think you'll have a more enjoyable experience during your browsing session, and you're more likely to keep scrolling. \n\nThey also use this as a way to present a more varied experience if you log on multiple times in a short amount of time. If it's chronological, then when you log in a 2nd time after 10 minutes, you see the same stuff, and leave again. But if they don't have to be chronological, when you log back in, they can re-sort and show you the stuff you didn't see last time, and you then stay longer on your return visit as well. \n\n",
"If something benefits the owner of a platform the platform owner will do that thing.\n\nWithout looking at the data, I'd guess that non-linear feeds result in more positive metrics for the platform owners. Probably more engagement, longer time in app etc.\n\nAlso keep in mind that user preferences are only considered when they lead to increased conversion, leads, etc.\n\nTldr: apps do whatever makes you click more. Even if users *say* a thing makes them *like* the app more, if that thing makes them engage less, the app won't do it.\n\nTldrtldr: what makes people convert is considered over what people say they like.\n\nSource: I'm in marketing and data from user surveys often doesn't correspond with analytics data about what actually results in higher conversion.",
"Because chronological feeds are worthless as shit as soon as you have any commercial participants at all, since those are incentivized to post more to increase their visibility. That results in an arms race of posting as often as they can get away with, which drowns out all the non-commerical content, which in turn makes the platform unattractive to end users.",
"Simple, chronological is good if you follow just a few people. If you follow hundreds of them, you'll only see posts from the people who post the most, less active ones being buried so much that you'll never see them at all."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/8UsI9CXHm6o"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-sean-parker-vulnerability-brain-psychology",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
cirwh9 | why are auroras mostly seen in high northern and southern latitudes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cirwh9/eli5_why_are_auroras_mostly_seen_in_high_northern/ | {
"a_id": [
"ev8tkdw",
"ev8z04l"
],
"score": [
14,
11
],
"text": [
"The Earth is a big 'ol magnet. In space, there is a constant onslaught of charged particles (often electrons and protons) coming from the sun, other stars, and pretty much everything in space. These particles are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and due to some weird physics stuff, often find themselves bouncing between the north and south poles at high speeds. This means that they travel in these huge arcs over most of the Earth, and are lowest at the poles. Sometimes, these particles are low enough to hit the atmosphere. When they do this, they generate light due to the immense energy that is released in the impact. This light is the aurora.",
"As other have mentioned Earth is basically a gigantic magnet. Earths magnetic field looks a bit like this-\n\n __ __ \n / \\/ \\ \n [ / \\ ] \n [ \\ / ] \n \\ __ /\\ __ / \n\n < edit1: dang it Reddits autoformating is destroying my ascii art > \n < edit2: Yay! fixed it i think. > \n\nMagnetic Field lines emerge out of the pole, arc out into space, and loop back in, returning to earth at the opposite pole. Charged particles from the sun upon entering the field get channelled along these field lines (the direction depending on the charge they have) and due to the shape of the field, get funnelled down towards one of the earths poles. When they strike molecules in the upper atmosphere, it's a high energy collision that produces light which we call the Aurora"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
cu9t89 | how do airplanes navigate when going through dense clouds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cu9t89/eli5_how_do_airplanes_navigate_when_going_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"exsd7hy",
"exsdq0o",
"exsi6fh",
"exski18"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"I mean they dont fly by looking out the window. They use gps and other forms of highly technical equipment to navigate",
"Small planes like a single-engine Cessna generally aren't allowed to fly in these conditions if they don't have the proper instrument navigation equipment like GPS or radio-navigation aids. Commercial planes aren't using visual navigation in the first place, they're almost always using GPS and radio navigation. In addition, all planes have basic things like altimeters to measure altitude, bank indicators to measure whether the plane is turning, heading indicators or compasses to track the plane's heading, and an attitude indicator to measure the plane's orientation relative to the horizon.",
"There are two ways pilots can fly. VFR, or Visual Flight Rules, is when a pilot navigates using mainly what they can see. VFR flight cannot be done in bad weather, such as rain or snow, with low cloud levels, or by airlines*.\n\nThe other way pilots can fly is IFR, or Instrument Flight Rules. This allows pilots to use ground radar, radio frequencies, and GPS to fly, and requires the pilot to file a flight plan with the authority (FAA in the US).\n\nFlying IFR has the advantage of allowing a plane to fly in all but the worst of weather, but the plane is under the strict direction of ATC (Air Traffic Control) for the duration of the flight.\n\nAircraft without proper radar and radio systems cannot fly IFR, nor can a pilot without the proper training to do so.\n\n*to the best of my knowledge.\nSource: worked in general aviation for 2 years, airlines for 2.5 years.",
"There are many methods planes can use to navigate without external reference. This is called instrument flight rules (IFR) as it is flying using solely instruments. The majority of commercial aircraft will fly IFR even in clear weather, as the flight paths are very predictable, like a series of roads. As mountains don’t move, there is a minimum altitude that planes can fly that route on safely (called an MSA).\n\nThese “roads” or airways as they are called, as usually straight lines, between two points which are commonly airports (which contain navigation equipment) or a “waypoint” an imaginary point with a name. Planes can pinpoint (or “fix) their position on these routes using various equipment. “Traditional” navigation aids are ground based, using radio waves. Directional beacons like VOR or (ww2 era) NDB can give aircraft direction information from the station while DME equipment can give distance from that point. This equipment is frequently combined to form a VOR/DME station. If an aircraft knows how far from a fixed point (eg a DME) and what direction (from a VOR) you can deduce your exact location.\n\nINS (inertial reference system) was common in the past, and worked on the principle that if you know your starting location (exactly) like an airport departure gate, and you can measure every movement than happens from then, you can find your location. This has generally been replaced by GNSS (global navigation satellite system) today.\n\nGNSS can accurately detect how far a receiver is from a “constellation “ of satellites, which follow a very specific set of orbits around the earth. \n\nAircraft will also want to fly other various stages of flight like a departure, arrival or approach, which link the runway, to the airways I mentioned.\n\nTL:DR there are maps, with lines on them that aircraft follow. Equipment that planes carry and stuff on the ground and satellites in space tell them where they are using maths to make sure that they follow their lines, and stop them from flying into the ground. Air traffic control tells the planes where to go so they don’t hit one another."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5chmwm | how do people with massive student loans pay them off and how do they get them in the first place? | It has been stated that the average American college student graduates with around 25k in student debt after a 4-year degree. That is considered alarming by many and some say that there is a student debt crisis in the U.S.
But I can see people paying off 25k. It's about the cost of a car. It may be burdensome or unfair, but anybody can be reasonably expected to pay that off.
Then there are people who have 100k-200k in student debt. How do they pay that off? With amounts that massive, at least half of the amount must have come from private lenders. I can understand a doctor or an engineer paying that off as these career paths lead to high salaries. But what about those who take out such loans for less lucrative degrees?
Moreover, how does it work from a lender's perspective? I can understand doctors since they can expect a high salary and medical school have a very high graduation and job placement rate. But why would a lender risk 6 figures on a law or engineering student who is much more likely to drop out and, in the case of a law student, much less likely to find a high-paying job? That goes double for courses of study where high compensation isn't even on the table. How do they figure they will get their money back? When it gets to a point that the debt is as large as mortgage, do lenders not fear that it would be an economically sound decision for debtors to simply start over in a different country? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5chmwm/eli5_how_do_people_with_massive_student_loans_pay/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9wiv8f",
"d9wjk4d",
"d9wjrvn",
"d9wk8v1",
"d9woqvf"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Who takes out > 100K in student loans to get a degree that isn't in a field that has high job demand? It would be much better to go cheaper school and get your degree there. If you rack up 100K as an English major, you are gonna have a hard time.",
"Well, medical school is notoriously expensive, and oftentimes when you hear about people with that much student debt that's why.\n\n > Moreover, how does it work from a lender's perspective?\n\nThe federal government offers subsidized student loans. They're not trying to make money off of them, so they make loans that private lenders would consider too risky",
"Because even if they drop out, you're still held to pay the loan. Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. So if you know the person is on the hook for paying you back 100k plus interest no matter what, why wouldn't you? Profit to be made. Even if he flips burgers for rest of his life, he still has to make the payments.\n\n\n100k isn't end of the world. I am currently 400k in mortgage debt. It'll be 30 years before I finish paying it off",
"They pay them off monthly. Its just as it sounds yes they sign for massive loans in a career field that doesnt always pay what they expected. I know many people who are near 40 yrs old and still paying student loan debt ",
"I disagree with your premise that a law student is less likely to find a high paying career than a doctor or engineer. A lot of law students taking on that much debt are going to top law schools, where they go on to make $180k their first year in big law. Not all entry level legal jobs are low paying."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cg4u8j | what makes certain clothing materials be able to be classed as 'antibacterial'? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cg4u8j/eli5_what_makes_certain_clothing_materials_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"euelrr1",
"euf27ry"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking they're impregnated with some kind of chemical complex that resists being washed away (at least in theory), chlorine can be added, or certain metals such as silver and brass. Generally speaking none of these things stand up to a lot of runs through a washer, but there's no FDA for clothing claims so they get away with it. Even with hand washing the silver threads/coating or whatever else will break down and wash away. \n\nThe whole concept is... probably not too sound.",
"Wool has some amazing and natural antibacterial properties. I understand there are two things that help wool resist bacteria build up. Firstly, the fibers have a rough texture on a microscopic level that, unlike smooth synthetic fibers, keep bacterial from sticking. Secondly the lanolin, which is a waxy substance sheep produce in their wool keeps moisture out and keeps the fibers clean. If you have a really old pair of synthetic long johns or something the chemicals they use to inhibit bacteria growth can wear away, making it so you can never really wash out their smell..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
7kdby2 | why does a li-ion/lipo battery explode when shorted out? | Explode is probably the worst case scenario; catch fire or even just puff up and smoke. Why do these rechargeable batteries react so violently when the old alkaline (disposable) batteries didn't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7kdby2/eli5_why_does_a_liionlipo_battery_explode_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"drdfgf3",
"drdgewh"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"The lithium atoms can crystallise and form a chain, that chain can short circuit the poles and it is this short circuit which can cause a fire. - _URL_0_",
"They have much higher energy density (meaning there is more energy stored in the same mass/size) than other batteries. All that energy has to go somewhere when a battery is shorted - it just turns into heat. Then the heat damages the mechanical structure of battery by burning off the layers of protective materials and exposes the chemicals inside which can now continue burning even after the electrical energy is exhausted.\n\nThis is one of the reasons that electric vehicles will not get much better than they are now. The energy stored in batteries is very dangerous because it is easily released when shorted. Petrol, on the other hand, will not explode or burn unless mixed with oxygen. Lots and lots of oxygen. Therefore, it's much safer.\n\nWe think of petrol as dangerous and batteries as safe but that's only because petrol energy density is much higher than batteries and we usually deal with much larger quantities of it. For batteries to be as effective in cars they need to have similar energy densities and similar size (actually, more size, because they can't use the oxygen from the air in the reaction) which pretty much turns them into bombs ready to explode and burn when shorted. And you can't just douse the flames because they don't need oxygen to keep going - all the usual firefighting techniques are less effective and you treat it as metal fire which requires specialist equipment to deal with."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://youtu.be/d401zH0UaOY"
],
[]
]
|
|
6sykj9 | why is/was snitching discouraged in american schools when as adults we are expected to "snitch" to the police and not try and take matters in our own hands? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sykj9/eli5_why_iswas_snitching_discouraged_in_american/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlgju1h",
"dlgrwe5"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"In school, it wasn't about discouraging snitching on bullies or on vandals or thiefs. It was about discouraging tattletales who would earn themselves zero friends by telling teachers on every little wrongdoing of every party. That's part of your social development in school, creating a good balance between submission to authority and defiance, and teachers recognize the best is not all the way towards submission.",
"Because in school, the snitching is usually about something petty. I.e.: pulled Deborah's hair, took a bite out of Eddy's apple, etc. Whereas snitching as an adult to the police, it's about a felony; stealing, threats, harassment etc. Acts of men which actually hurt the community. \nEdit: grammar "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1e7c2n | what's all this talk about impeaching obama? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e7c2n/eli5_whats_all_this_talk_about_impeaching_obama/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9xiib4",
"c9xoxoe"
],
"score": [
18,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, Conservatives have a meme that Obama is not just a president that they disagree with, but illegitimate. That's why there was all that consternation about ACORN and election rigging, that's why they were so fascinated about the birth certificate, and that's why they call for impeachment every time he hiccoughs. \n\nThe origins of the meme are debatable. Maybe it's racism, maybe it's culture shock, maybe it's the right wing echo chamber that is Fox News. I think it's a combination of several. Conservatives are statistically older, whiter, and more male than the average voter. As for racism, it's not true that all or even most Conservatives are racist, but it is true that most racists are conservative; and they tend to live in rural areas where the population is more homogeneous, and when there's less exposure to other races and ideologies then people are less apt to change their outlook, even over generations. \n\nAs for culture shock, the generation that makes up a large part of the Republican party has a kind of nostalgia for the good ol' days, which usually correspond to the days when these conservatives, mostly older, were children. They have a rosier outlook on their youth and watched a great deal of social upheaval since then- from racial equality to the rise of modern modern feminism. Consequently, it might be that their older memories \"of a better time\" were clouded by their relative youth so that they were simply less aware of the myriad problems of the eras mostly because there was less social activism to bring it to the forefront. So the 50's seem like this great period of American wealth and prosperity and family values that we've since lost. But the uglier reasons why that era seemed so good to those voters are lost. Much higher taxes fueling government programs that created a middle class, gender repression, and systemic racism. Nevertheless, they still have it in their heads that those were good times and these are bad times, so we need to go back to then. Barack Obama is so flagrantly an artifact of the changing times that it's terrifying to them. It's becoming very obvious that white males are no longer a dominant, necessary group to have behind you, and that's scary, because to those white males, many of whom are conservatives, the very identity of this country is white males, and now they see themselves as an increasingly marginalized group. \n\nFinally, the echo chamber. Fox News is a paragon of narrowcasting; they have a very specific strain of viewer who respond very well to a specific idea presented in their news. Conservatives watch Fox, so if Fox gives them news that makes the Conservatives happy, then Fox gets more Conservatives. Within that there's a race among the various pundits to attract more attention and viewers by saying more extreme and outrageous things. When a conservative pundit says Obama should be impeached, so long as it's with their ideology, Conservatives are somewhat pleased by it. When a Liberal reacts strongly, it provokes an even stronger response in favor of that pundit and what he said. When it works for him, all his Conservative competitors have to ramp up their rhetoric, so \"impeach Obama\" quickly becomes a universal outcry. \n\nBasically, for whatever reason, the Conservatives dislike Obama so strongly that him being president is utterly unacceptable, and it's comforting to think that either he's not the real president (Acorn, birthers, even the wackos who were complaining about the flubbed oath of office) or that something can be done to fix it (impeach him). This brain bug having infected most of the Conservatives, Fox News and other conservative leaning news and opinion sources elevate the rhetoric to say that Obama isn't just pursuing a liberal agenda, but stomping on the Constitution while he does it. The internet has helped this meme survive very well. So when Obama comes out in support of gun control, he's violating the second amendment IMPEACH. When Obama proposes health care reform he's taking over healthcare and creating death panels he's going to kill grandma somehow that violates the constitution IMPEACH!!!. When Obama yells at Congress for its failings or does something through executive action he's ignoring the constitution and acting like a king IMPEACH!!! And on and on it goes, every time Obama does something that Conservatives disagree with, it's not just liberal, it's actively unconstitutional, and by doing it he's violating his oath of office and should therefore be impeached. \n\nIt's absurd, of course, but it makes them feel better. Whenever it starts to bother me I just remember a monologue from Sidney Poitier: \" You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!\" They're very old, and very tired. There aren't many of them left, and very soon their population will begin to fade away. Their children, even when they're conservative, are much more liberal than their parents, and much of the younger generation is very liberal. Demographics are destiny, so we'll be able to actually get things done in a few years when they all die off, and as a liberal atheist, I say good riddance. The hope is simply that they don't ruin the country and the planet beyond repair before they keel over.",
"Death rattle of a tired old idiology. Unable to garner rral votes, unable to show tranparency in their actual party position. The GOP have 5 year to turn it around and fear mongerying is the tool they are using. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
b9ukm8 | if the tectonic plates are always moving, how do locations stay at the same coordinates? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b9ukm8/eli5_if_the_tectonic_plates_are_always_moving_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek6zbrt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Moving slowly.\n\nIn California, an active area, the plate motion is 35 ± 2 millimeters (1.3 to 1.5 in) per year. Each degree of latitude is 111 km (69 miles), so it will take many years to change a geographic coordinate. The accuracy of ordinary GPS (like in your smartphone) is 4.9 m (16 ft.) so it takes a lifetime to for a plate to move enough the GPS in your phone could detect it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2a5pey | why is every known tax higher in california yet the state is having a financial crisis and provides very little to no extra service to their citizens? | Examples of shitty taxes: Highest state income tax rate in the country. Highest fuel tax in the country. Extremely high sales tax. Taxes on stupid shit like bottles and bags.
Examples of shitty service: Not managing the water crisis by building pipelines to places with surplus water or desal-plants in the ocean? Not managing public transportation so that of of the auto commuters would have a viable option? Not managing regional development so that high density housing could be constructed in areas where home/rental prices far outstrips median income?
Please help me understand what I'm missing about California government. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a5pey/eli5why_is_every_known_tax_higher_in_california/ | {
"a_id": [
"cirqaiv",
"cirqkdi",
"cirr8wf",
"cis7xxl"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Simple, Prop 13, which severely limited Property Taxes and killed a major vein of cash to every local government in California:\n_URL_0_\n\nSadly, the way it is written it is unlikely to change anytime soon.\n\n",
"Oh, and high tax rates does not equal high tax revenues. People can shield their income from taxes.",
"It's because of several propositions that changed the way the financials worked for the gov't... There's a very heavy emphasis (more than half the budget) on education spending, so a lot of the revenue goes into the K-12, UC, and Cal-State and other state education systems. (keep in mind the UC system is phenomenal compared to some other states' school systems). And another 9-10% on state jails/prisons (which is an incredible waste if you ask me). And almost another third of the budget on \"health and human services\"... so providing for health care and social welfare, etc. \n\nUnfortunately, that doesn't leave much revenue for other projects like infrastructure or developments (less than a quarter of the budget). To add to the mess, California is a bit divided in terms of how the government should function: a lot of Californians want the government to keep increasing social services and social welfare programs, while a lot of Californians want a stop to that. So this process keeps the small budget that can be changed or diverted always at play and never fixed year to year.\n\nTake a look at the governor's 2013-2014 budget proposal summary for more info: _URL_0_\n\nThe governor won't get what he wants, and the state assembly won't agree on a set budget, so this budget battle will keep getting drawn on for another year, and the year after that. ",
"ELI5: Why do people editorialize with their ELI5 questions?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2013-14/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf"
],
[]
]
|
|
b3qxbd | what makes dollar store headphones sound so cheap and muffled? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3qxbd/eli5_what_makes_dollar_store_headphones_sound_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ej1ghn7",
"ej1gofa",
"ej20uor"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Their components and assembly, a little extra solder on a wire can effect quality of sound positively. Low quality speakers will always not sound so great. When the price point is that low, the key point on the product is that they work not that they work well.",
"Low quality components.\n\nSpeakers work by having a small magnet attached to a membrane. When electricity is pushed through the wires to a coil around the magnet, the magnet pulls back on the membrane. When the current cuts off the magnet is pulled forward by the membrane. This shaking is what created the sound you hear.\n\nIf the coil is poorly made, magnet offset, or too weak, membrane to stuff or soft, glued together poorly, etc the sound quality suffers",
"They're made using the cheapest possible drivers, and the body is designed with little attention to acoustics. The result is that they cannot reproduce high or low frequencies, and the frequencies that they can reproduce sound muddy and bad."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
ehobr3 | why are pistachios generally sold shelled? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ehobr3/eli5_why_are_pistachios_generally_sold_shelled/ | {
"a_id": [
"fckfmf6",
"fckfuey",
"fclkcrz"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I see them sold both with and without shells nowadays. I've only seen that in the last few years, though. It used to be that I only saw them with the shells on. \n \nIt's cheaper to produce them with the shells on. But a lot of people enjoy not having to mess with the shells themselves.",
"Even though they're sold in both varieties, the pre-shelled variety can be almost twice as expensive because of the extra cost required to do so (purchasing and running the machinery). There's also no downside to leaving the shell on for the manufacturer. Since they usually develop a crack, you can salt them without taking the shell off.",
"Personally, I prefer them shelled. It slows down how fast you eat them, and given how expensive they are that's a good thing. Plus they are satisfying to crack open.\n\nBut would demand from people like me be enough to cause them to be sold shelled? I don't know. Maybe?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2n6mrn | the process of becoming the president of the u.s. | Was just told individual votes don't matter and state delegates can vote however they want, and I was wondering how true that is. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n6mrn/eli5the_process_of_becoming_the_president_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmass77"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Technically yes. CGP Grey explains the voting process [in this post and video](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/how-the-electoral-college-works.html"
]
]
|
|
1v4hxe | why do many americans identify themselves as being from the places of their ancestry, instead of just "americans"? | I've been thinking about this, and how almost everyone I know will say, "I'm Irish" or "I'm Polish" (can you tell I'm from Chicago?); however, many of our families have been in America for hundreds of years. Shouldn't we be saying we're just "American"? Can anyone explain this phenomenon? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v4hxe/eli5why_do_many_americans_identify_themselves_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceomb6k",
"ceomhvm",
"ceonjfc",
"ceoo4o3"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I've thought about this a lot, and have a couple theories bouncing around my head.\n\n1. because race is such a broad category and any one race encompasses many different experiences (German, Polish and Irish; Africans from Africa, black people from the Carribbean, and African-Americans, etc etc), people may find more compelling and relevant narratives in ethnic identities than racial ones.\n\n2. a lot of these people seem to be WASPS searching for a cultural identity that is more interesting than \"white\" < - me\n\n3. this happens in the states a ton because we are highly ethnically diverse.\n\n4. part of American national identity is the melting pot tradition; ironically, by highlighting our non-American heritage, we reinforce our Americanism (also ironically, or perhaps pointedly, we tend to group all Native Americans in one category, though their traditions were diverse)\n\nEdits: formatting (sorry guys I'm a baby redditor)",
"What other people said, but also consider the context in which you're having the discussion. If you were in Europe, most of your Chicago friends would probably respond with \"American\" if asked their ancestry. But if you're in the Midwest and talking with American accents, that's sort of a no-brainer answer - of course you're American. The more interesting answer is the one that's got some variation to it, the one that goes further back.",
"**Canadian's take on this**\n\nIf I could offer my own two cents, Canadians don't really do this. Some have started...but I feel this is more latching on to Americanism then anything. As Canadians, the answer is simply - I'm from Toronto, or Vancouver, or I used to live in Edmonton. You might ask someone where their family is from but that is a more of a specific question. \n\nI rarely if ever here my friends (especially of European descent) describe themselves as \"German-Canadian\" or \"African-Canadian\" or \"Columbian-Canadian\". The only alternatives we really have are: First Nations, Inuit, Metis or French-Canadian (as opposed to \"France-Canadian\"). \n\nThat is not to say that people whose families have immigrated (recently or in the distant past) don't identify with those cultures. We have lots of multicultural celebrations, community centres, festivals, etc. But when I see people walking down the street (and I think this is probably the mentality for many Canadians) we don't think \"is that person/their family from Mexico, China or Russia?\" In other words \"what type of Canadian are they?\". I just think \"Canadian\". Perhaps, that is where the difference lies between our American brethren.\n\nFor example, my family emigrated from France in the early 1600's with [Champlain](_URL_0_). I do not describe myself as French (from France) - I don't identify with their culture or their ethnicity or even their version of the french language. I do however identify as a French-Canadian and I specifically identify to the French-Canadian culture of Manitoba. Some of my other friends celebrate their respective cultures traditions and customs through what they eat, how they dress, their second language (or first language at home), or what they celebrate and so on. But by-and-large they identify as Canadian first, an exception might be someone who was born elsewhere and recently moved to Canada.\n\n**Edit:** I am describing my situation, and those experiences I have had as a Canadian living in Canada with friends whose families (including my own) have immigrated (recently or in the past) from all over the world. This post should not and does not describe everyones experiences.\n\n",
"I hate this. \n\nIf you can't stay at anyone's house for free, visit the school you went to, you need a passport to get there, you don't speak the language, YOU AREN'T IRISH!\n\nYou're from fucking Baltimore."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_de_Champlain"
],
[]
]
|
|
4j7s1p | what is the difference between a scripting language, markup language, and a compiled language? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j7s1p/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_scripting/ | {
"a_id": [
"d34dtj9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The difference between compoled and scripting language is much smaller than between those and a markup language. \n\nSo scripting languages are interpreted and executed on the fly every time you execute your script. \n\nA compiled language is prepared for execution once (compiled) and then just run every time you use it. \n\nMarkup languages (HTML for instance but also docx, pdfs and whatnot. though docx are actually xml iirc) are not a program. they do not say do this, do that to your pc. they are a way to structurally describe data. in html for instance you describe what bit of a website sjould go where. \n\nThats the gist of it. wanna know more? ask away! "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6kih6k | why do some people have anxiety disorders and others don't? / what factors create anxiety disorders? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6kih6k/eli5_why_do_some_people_have_anxiety_disorders/ | {
"a_id": [
"djmbjr0",
"djme5bq",
"djme5gh",
"djmfrdx",
"djmgeh9",
"djmi53o",
"djmi6g1",
"djmijzk",
"djmilh0",
"djmj202",
"djmji50",
"djmjlm6",
"djml9v3",
"djmlgjr",
"djmlh32",
"djmmyoe",
"djmo8ut",
"djmoank"
],
"score": [
108,
1525,
41,
13,
33,
541,
29,
25,
11,
19,
26,
2,
10,
2,
2,
2,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"Mental disorders can happen for (edit: at least) two reasons. They can happen naturally or be created.\n\nFrom the natural standpoint, it's because people's brains are different. One brain might make too much of some hormone and get an anxiety disorder. Another brain doesn't make too much of the hormone. \n\nAnxiety disorders can also be created in a person. Very generally speaking, bad situations can cause this. Things like abuse or stress can fuck with our brains, producing disorders.",
"Some people can have experiences growing up that \"teach\" them to be wary of situations that ohers haven't had a lot of bad experiences with so they don't think twice about it. Stuff as simple as having discussions -- if someone grew up in a place where they'd get treated badly if they said the wrong thing the wrong way then once they're an adult it will be stressful to be presented with situtions where the have to converse, and the stress might even make them say something strangely so even people who aren't trying to be abusive can perpetuate the defense with their normal reactions. And then where one person might see a harmless disagreement that people deal with fine all the time the other person perceives a stressful attack building up that they've been kinda trained to avoid as much as possible.\n\nThere's a lot of factors for sure (like just natural genetic or hormonal stuff) but that's just one way I've seen it. People adapt to growing up in certain environments, they have subtle techniques (without even trying) for avoiding situations that caused them pain before, and those adaptations don't always carry over to the larger world where those situations don't lead to the same things they've come to expect. And it can be hard for a person to separate their learned defenses from normal socialization and cues. Plus they can already be preparing defenses subconsciously before they're even aware of it consciously.\n\nI have some mild anxiety that used to be a lot worse because my family moved around a lot and I got picked on pretty bad at one school at the start of freshman year (I had just arrived so I had no friends or anything yet). Eventually I moved from that school too but I had already \"learned\" to just stay out of peoples' ways and they wouldn't bother me as much. So through the rest of high school, even though I didn't get picked on very much again, I never made any friends or anything. So I didn't date either. Eventually I ended up just thinking I was ugly and weird and deserved to be by myself and the thought of having to have even a passing interaction with another human being made me sweaty and shakey. On top of home issues, I started developing a serious fear of people and having to interact/be judged by them. It wasn't until college, I was 20, that I started getting the sense that maybe I was kind of attractive and maybe I was smart enough to have conversations after all and maybe I shouldn't be so afraid of people. 4 years later and I have some solid friends and an amazing girlfriend (after a couple not so amazing ones lol) and I finally feel like how I think I SHOULD have felt years ago.\n\nLol I didn't mean to turn this into a life story, but it's a part of my views on anxiety. It also took me meeting people with anxiety worse than me (for way better reasons too...) to start examining my own issues\n\nBut also note that people can have anxiety over other things too. Someone can have all sorts of friends but still have massive anxiety about how to behave or what's expected of them. ",
"tl;dr: people are different and some just handle it better than others\n\nThere's a lot of different factors that combine to ultimately determine it. There are three big ones though.\n\nGenetics is one of them. This is the \"some people are born this way\" part of it. This one can't be changed and may make it physically impossible for someone to get over a mental problem. It could also simply make someone more predisposed to developing a problem however and not actually cause the problem itself.\n\nThe second is environment. This is the \"this is how they were raised\" part of it. It also includes traumatic events that have psychological impacts on individuals.\n\nThe third, and probably most determining factor, is an individuals [psychological resilience](_URL_0_). This section is probably going to get me down voted as Reddit is big on mental health but it is an actual psychological factor in determining how well someone responds to a mental issue. Psychological resilience is literally just how well an individual responds to a trauma. While there is not a formula to determine how resilient someone is, it usually is determined by taking the good parts of genetics and upbringing. \n\nThese three factors determine whether or not someone will develop a psychological problem. If someone survived the murder of their entire family but has a super high resilience, they may not develop psychological problems. On the other hand if someone didn't get a gift for Christmas from their parents and had a super low resilience, they could develop psychological problems. \n\n",
"It depends on people's coping skills. Anybody, no matter who they are, no matter how strong & resilient they are, no matter how well trained, can only handle a certain amount of stress.\n\nIf the amount of stress you are dealing with exceeds your ability to cope, you will develop psychiatric symptoms of one kind or another.\n\nPeople who develop anxiety have reached their limit of ability to cope and even the *prospect* of having to deal with more stress overwhelms them, and they exhibit anxiety.",
"People are giving the obvious nature/nurture answer, but there is more to it. Current lifestyle (as well as prior/childhood lifestyle) and environment matter too. Poverty is strongly tied to anxiety and depression for example. ",
"I'm an early childhood teacher (specialise in understanding birth-5 years) and my husband's a clinical psychologist (across the lifespan). We talk a lot about the theory and research behind this and there is considerable overlap in our work. In a nutshell, a lot of stems down to the attachment you formed with your caregivers in early childhood, particularly from the age of 0-2. This is backed up by the work of John Bowlby, [Harry Harlow's experiments] (_URL_2_), (very distressing to watch), and the people who have extended and expanded Bowlby's work [Circle of Security] (_URL_3_), [Strange Situation experiment] (_URL_0_), [Still Face experiment] (_URL_1_)\n\nEveryone develops an attachment to their caregivers. 1) Secure (60% of people) or one of the three insecure versions (the other 40% of people): 2) Anxious-ambivalent 3) Avoidant-dismissive. 4) Disorganised. \n\nAnxious-ambivalent attachment is what makes you more susceptible to anxiety disorders. It is characterised by a caregiver who is inconsistent in their approach - sometimes they are loving and responsive to your cues, othertimes they are emotionally unavailable (might have PND or are preoccupied with their own problems) and will respond in a harsh, unloving manner to your cues. The child at this young age has not yet developed the understanding of theory of mind, so they are very sensitive to the parent's emotions, they believe that they are the one and the same person as their caregiver. They cannot understand that a caregiver is a separate entity to themselves. If a parent is constantly sad, they will be sad. If a parent is constantly angry, they will be angry. If a parent is constantly anxious, they will be anxious. They internalise the parent's emotional state and it becomes their own. In infancy, they are also developing Mirror Neurons, where they imitate their caregivers behaviours. So if a parent has an anxious face, the child will mirror it (and feel that way). The Still Face experiment is a good one to watch on youtube to see this in action. \n\nGood news, is that attachment can change when you're an adult. It's called an earned secure attachment. Adult attachment styles in romantic relationships correspond with the one you developed with your caregiver (hence why you might always go for a certain type of person). You can change this by becoming aware of your own mental health and changing that by doing therapy to change these patterns of interaction. Medication will help with stabilising mood, but it's a bandaid, it won't fix the underlying wound.\n\nTLDR; If your parent is/was anxious in your infancy, you probably developed it too. You can undo it and develop an earned secure attachment as an adult to prevent the cycle reoccuring. ",
"Social worker therapist here with thirty years counseling anxious people. I think Temple Grandin nailed it when she compared anxiety to intelligence. On one end of the spectrum there are people who would hardly react to a bomb go off; and, at the other end of the spectrum, there are sensitive souls who feel pain when an ant is hurt or emotion as a leaf falls. \n\nThese are sensitive people who by their avoidance of overstimulation become more sensitized and often picked upon by others. So the condition reinforces itself.\n\nLikewise early trauma drives people into more awareness and avoidance of trauma related events. If a person is already on the sensitive side of the spectrum, their reactivity is made worse.\n\nShort answer, anxious people are more sensitive to stimulation, this also makes them more intelligent. Getting back to Temple Grandin and her experiments with cattle, it was the more timid animals who investigated things. It was these timid animals who found the way to unlock the gates. Anxious people are sensitive people, they are observant people.",
"Think of psychological disorders like anxiety on a sliding scale from 1-10. With 10 being unable to do anything because of a psychological disorder and 1 being that a person may occasionally feel a certain way. \n\n\"Normal\" people still experience many of the same symptoms as people with psychological disorders just not the the extent that it interferes with our day to day lives. The only time something becomes a disorder is when it begins to interfere with a persons ability to lead a productive happy life. \n\nThere are many reasons for humans to feel anxious, however under the right circumstances these feelings may develop into a more chronic feeling of which may limit the person from doing things they normally would. At this point it can be considered a disorder. \n\nIT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL TO FEEL ANXIOUS. If you don't feel even a little bit anxious when doing things that are out of your comfort zone you should probably go seek professional help because you may be a psycho. That being said just remember that it is perfectly human to experience extreme feelings, just not all the time. \n\n",
"Since apparently no one on ELI5 actually explains like someone is five.\n\nSometimes we are born with a brain that makes us worried more than other people.\n\nSometimes things happen that make us scared. We dont want them to happen again, so we get scared if anything similar happens.",
"I have severe ptsd and anxiety disorder. and this is how my psycgologist explained anxiety disorder to me (to pursuade me to do physical therapy):\n\"People have a fright and fight mode, and a usual relaxed mode. In fright and fight mode you are alert and ready for a bad situation to occur any moment, where as when you feel safe, you usually are in the relaxed mode. \n\nThey trigger different areas of the brain. Most people can switch modes according to situation. Some people though, have trouble switching. They are always on a fright and fight mode and it becomes a disorder as you lost functionality to switch back according to situation. This can be hormonal, or in your (my) case, habitual.\n\nMedication is less effective on you (knocks me out 20 hours a day without an effect that worths it) as it is not hormonal. Physical therapy would help better as it is an exercise to train your body to find ways to control the modes. It helps you to actually re-evaluate the situation instead of straight up panicking, so you can recognize that you are safe and helps you to have better access to your relax-mode self.\"",
"Step 1: get chased by predators for thousands of years \n\nStep 2: become a civilization with advanced technology where no one has to worry about getting eaten alive \n\nStep 3: Suffer from the genetic aftermath of anxiety that never went away, even when there is seemingly nothing to be anxious about \n\nOn a serious note, it all depends! Some people are genetically predispositioned to have anxiety. You have to remember, every animal in the wild has some form of anxiety at all times. It's how they survive. We have just slowly over time gotten rid of the need to be anxious about stuff without actually getting rid of the anxiety part. Evolution is a slow son of a bitch! Other reasons are man made! Getting picked on in school, not having a stable home life, etc can all lead to anxiety in social settings or anxiety in any setting. It all depends! Bottom line is, you're lucky if you have no form of anxiety whatsoever. ",
"For GAD and hypervigilence, pure genetics. We evolved as nomadic tribes on the African savanna, and having 1 out of every 10 people be anxious enough to look up every 5 seconds and spot the tiger hunting everyone is advantageous to the survival of everyone. Heritability of certain forms of anxiety is very high. \n\nFor PTSD and other disorders, no idea. Probably nurture, and also an interaction between genes and the environment together. ",
"Some people are tall, some people are short. Some people are nearsighted, some people have good eyesight. I personally have one calf slightly longer than the other, and one thighbone slightly longer than the other, so that it causes my back to twist ever so slightly, and gives me some trouble running, but you can't easily notice it. \n\nOur brains deal with things in various different ways. Anxiety is a stress response. The way we feel is mostly moderated by regions in our midbrain. As animals and the structure of the brain evolved, the more developed parts kind of grew on top of what was already successful. The hindbrain is one of those early more successful bits, and its role is to coordinate some of the more complicated systems like motor control, our breathing, our sleep, autonomic behaviors. Having this lets you be a more complex organism that can do things like breathe instead of needing a way to passively absorb oxygen.\n\nPast that, one of the simpler successful structures that evolved was the Amygdala. This is in the midbrain, so after the hindbrain, as part of the system that influences your behavior. The midbrain does some more sensory processing, so it handles things like vision and hearing, alertness, motivation, sensitivity to temperature. The amygdala works in conjunction with your sensory perception does some processing and based on that processing, makes your body spit out hormones like adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol. These go to other parts of your midbrain and which activate parts that tell you to be alert, to be motivated, to be careful and to be distrustful (more or less). \n\nSo when you see something that the brain has evolved to treat as bad (like the color of blood, or something very large), or more advanced, if you see something that causes you to recall something that has caused you stress (like a clown after seeing IT), it responds by spitting out these hormones and making you feel stress, anxiety, motivation, anger.\n\nNext there's other parts of your midbrain that are a bit more advanced that have more to do with advanced planning in your limbic system, and they deal with hormones that moderate your feelings of satisfaction and drive to accomplish long-term goals, like seratonin and dopamine, or your feelings of attachment and family like oxytocin. These are less important for some animals, if an animal has to eat when it's hungry, run when it's hurt or being chased, mate when it's near a suitable mate, and ignore its babies, then you can get by without the energetically expensive parts of the brain.\n\nBut we're very social, and very smart, so we have the extended version. And they conflict, sometimes long term planning means needing to override a stress response, so they interact, one suppresses the other. \n\nNext there's the forebrain and this is where it gets really messy. This is the part where we think, and plan. While the midbrain gives us the motivation to go after longer-term goals, that's more in the Pavlovian sort of \"if I hit this button now, I'll get a treat soon\". The forebrain is what tells us \"If I take these seeds that I can eat and plant them, then in 6 months I can collect more seeds, and have a bunch of food to eat.\" and it needs to override the other parts of the brain that are saying that those seeds look good to eat right now.\n\nSo back to anxiety. Everyone's different. And just like some people have longer legs, some people have more or less receptors for some hormones, or more or less sensitivity to them, or they make them at different levels. Not too wildly different, but a little bit. I mean that's how we evolved to this point at all, our ancestors were a little bit different than them, and over millions of years, we're able to use our thinking to suppress our fear better than our ancestors of a million years ago could because that has been generally advantageous to our population.\n\nSo now fast forward to now, we're smart, we can think about a lot of things, understand things that are going on, we're asking questions about why people have anxiety disorders and others don't. We can recognize that there's a difference. At the same time, we have systems that allow different signals from different parts of the brain overriding eachother, but these systems are more or less sensitive from person to person because of just how they get put together. So for some people, it takes a lot more contribution from the anticipation of good results from whatever it is you're trying to do to override the fear of something bad happening while you do it than it does for other people. \n\nMost people are within a certain range. Not too anxious, and not too tolerant of risk. Some people fall a little further out so that it's noticable, and some people are so far out that it becomes obvious that it affects their ability to function. \n\nThen you have the fact that our forebrain still goes and messes things up. A big part of how we handle fear, stress, anxiety is based on how we recall memories. When we associate something with a stressful memory or conceptualization, it triggers that stress response, which then becomes a memory itself. You can start to become anxious about becoming anxious essentially. So not only do we have the \"how your brain happened to grow?\" part of the equation, we have the \"what have you learned?\" part of the equation as well, and I think the majority of people can develop anxiety issues through experience. Those that can't would be the ones whose brains are the most resilient to that, and who might start to have problems with ignoring risks.\n\nBut essentially, some people are going to have anxiety disorders no matter what they do because that's the way they're wired. Many more people will have anxiety disorders through a combination of experience that triggers a sort of self-perpetuating effect and possibly a minor predisposition to it based on their neurology. Many people will have no anxiety disorder because they've not been exposed to that sort of experience that triggers them, but could develop it under other circumstances, and few others might be very unlikely to experience anxiety, even under circumstances where it would be expected or beneficial. \n\nIf you do suffer from anxiety disorders, you can manage it with drugs that affect the way your brain handles those hormones in your brain, or you can learn how to break that self-feeding cycle and learn how to avoid triggering it. However, depending on what's the cause, one or the other might be a better or worse choice. If your issue is primarily related to an issue with neurotransmitters or receptors, it might be not enough to just learn to avoid triggers. \n\nBut despite all of this, we're still really not very good at understanding or manipulating our brains. It's hard to tell whether it's one thing or another that's causing it in any person, and treatment is often a bit of trial and error and going with the least worst solution. \n\nBut when we label something as \"anxiety disorder\" it sounds like it's some kind of problem like chicken pox with an obvious cause. But in reality it's more like asking why some people have height deficiency disorder and others don't, where you define \"height deficiency disorder\" as when a man is shorter than 5'8\". The reality is that everyone's just a different height, some people are 5'6\", some are 5'7\", some are 5'8\", some are 5'9\". Some people are 4 feet tall, and some people are 7. Some people are short because of malnutrition, and some people are very tall because of a hormonal problem. Sometimes it's genetics. Some are tall with long legs, some are tall with a long back. But in the end, regardless of the cause, some people hit their heads on door frames. \n\nPeople have an anxiety disorder for different reasons. Unreasonable anxiety comes from the interplay of numerous systems, including your experiences. It's really hard to tell specifically why in any individual.",
"As somebody who has anxiety, depression, and PTST, there are two separate issues. Anxiety, depression, and stress are closely related.\n\nThere are two related but distinct phases. You have a mind AND a brain.\n\nFirst, there is a \"fight or flight\" response which everybody experiences at some time. You have have this for a few months and can recover.\n\nIn the longer term, excess neurotoxins cause damage to the brain This may cause permanent damage long after the stressors are gone. [Chronic anxiety can damage the brain](_URL_1_) [Here's a picture](_URL_2_) of some of the processes.\n\n- chronic stress releases [brain-derived neurotrophic factor](_URL_0_) (BDNF), which is a toxin that causes brain impairment\n\n- a part of the brain called the hippocampus actually shrinks. This has been measured in animals at about 20% shrinkage with long term stress.\n\nPersonally, I can watch a tv program, be fine at the beginning and highly anxious at the end. There is no logic or reason to it. For me its brain damage from chronic anxiety and depression.",
"I represent people filing for Social Security Disability. I would estimate at least 50% of my clients that have a truly disabling mental disorder were sexually or physically abused as a child before the age of about 12. That is not only about the most horrible thing I can imagine being done, but the fact that it's likely to ruin someone's life forever makes it even more tragic",
"Genetic predisposition and environmental triggers that have a profound affect on your mental health in regards to a particular stressor. ",
"I never had any anxiety at all until one night my \"friend\" spiked my drink with around 10 hits of liquid LSD. I left pretty soon after because I wasn't feeling right and it hit me full in the face driving down the road. Heart was racing, hands and arms pins and needles, vision was blurry, mind was a mess trying to figure out what was going on. That's when I had my first panic attack; I was sure I was having some sort of cardiac episode. I'm much better now than I used to be but I know it's right there around the corner if the right circumstances come along. It's almost as if my mind and body sorta learned how it happens and once it gets going it's very difficult if nearly impossible to stop.",
"Every question about why some people have/like/can do/etc always boils down to one or more of the following. Interest, training, life experience and genetics.\n\nFor specifics on a certain mental disorder try r/askscience"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsewNrHUHU",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0&spfreload=10",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O60TYAIgC4",
"https://www.circleofsecurityinternational.com/animations"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-derived_neurotrophic_factor#Depression",
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160121121818.htm",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC60045/figure/F1/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
17u0ch | why apple can trademark a name that is basically a fruit, eaten by everyone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17u0ch/eli5_why_apple_can_trademark_a_name_that_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c88t9qm",
"c88uat1",
"c88v969"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"When a company or person trademarks a word or term they have to decide in what class of business this mark will be used. For example, Apple certainly has the trademark for their name in the class of computers, but not for groceries. As another example, Dove is owned by Unilever when referring to soap but by Mars when referring to chocolate.",
"Because they promised the Beatles that they wouldn't go into music.",
"Theres actually a case like that here in Spain,\n\nSince donut wasnt in the Spanish dictionary the baking company Panrico trademarked the word. \n\nWhen dunking donuts came to Spain they found themselfs having to pay a royalty fee to use the word donuts both to describe their product and in the actual name of their stores. \n\nThey did for a while but now they sell rosquillas (the proper spanish name for doughnuts) and are called dunking coffee. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5jjybu | how can amazon afford to have amazon original programming, free shipping, free music, and free movies all on a $99 a year membership? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jjybu/eli5_how_can_amazon_afford_to_have_amazon/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbgoyjx",
"dbgrac8",
"dbgrf6g",
"dbgrm8s",
"dbgt5ai",
"dbgtyu4",
"dbguqdt",
"dbgvzdo",
"dbh11by",
"dbh387k",
"dbh66gs",
"dbhbv7e",
"dbhcb4n",
"dbhqeyz"
],
"score": [
49,
241,
58,
149,
4,
3,
9,
17,
9,
2,
4,
56,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"The United States has 54 million Amazon Prime members, so you have to consider just how massive that scale is. HBO, by comparison gets about 45 million. They charge more though, around $180 a year, but at the same time HBO puts out a lot more original content than Amazon.\n\nAs for free shipping, it really depends. Some stuff is very cheap to ship, so what happens is it just eats into their profit margin a bit. If on a $40 item they'd usually get $20 markup (typical retail markup), and they spend $4 to ship, then they still get $16. For a brick and mortar retailer this could be disaster, but Amazon makes up for it, again, but having massive scale. They go for quantity sales rather than high markup on each unit.\n\nAlso, sometimes Amazon's prices are higher to make up for shipping costs. You might see something for $40 with free shipping on Prime, but a 3rd party seller has it for $36 +$4 shipping. In these instances, the shipping isn't free, it's build into the price.",
"It's been reported that the very act of paying for Prime makes a customer spend significantly more on Amazon.\n\n\"Customers double the amount they spend on Amazon after becoming a member of Amazon's subscription service Amazon Prime, according to a new research note published by Deutsche Bank.\"\n_URL_0_",
"The other answers are a good try, but no one has actually offered the real reason. \n\nAmazon operates on a deficit with most of their business units in the name of aggressive expansion. Many of these ventures are funded by their Amazon Web Service (AWS) revenue, which they make money hand over fist from. ",
" > **free** shipping, **free** music, and **free** movies all on a **$99 a year membership**?\n\nYou keep using that word...\n\nIt's not free if it costs money to get it.",
"Nothing is for free. You are paying for it through the prime subscription and indirectly by buying more stuff from amazon.",
"Prime members buy way, way more stuff on Amazon than non prime. So they end up spending thousands, not just 99.",
"Amazon actually just sent me a pretty extensive survey about how I would feel about Prime benefits changing or the price going up. There were probably around 50 different pricing / benefit matrixes I had to rate. The one theme that kept coming up is if you want Prime Video, you will either lose an existing benefit, or the price is going to increase.",
"Amazon is a volume business. Its profit margin is roughly 1.5% which means it sees very little profit from each item or service that is sold.\nBy offering the prime membership people are more likely to purchase the item they need on Amazon which increases the volume. The higher volume makes it so most fixed costs, such as equipment, have their cost spread over many items.\nWe also live in a world of \"big data\". Amazon uses all the information you give it about TV shows, music, items, and more to be able to guess what you will want to buy next. Even better they can use the data of others to help understand what your future interests will be, again this helps increase the volume.",
"one way they save costs is through non traditional methods of advertisement, its surprisingly cost effective to buy reddit accounts and do your advertising here. ",
"The costs are all hidden in. \n\nFor the shows directly, they'll get revenue from advertising during the shows using product placements. What kind of car does the hero of the show drive? Someone's willing to sponsor that decision. \n\nOr an industry or political movement will throw some money at a show to further their efforts. TransParent is a good case here, as it's a successful well-written show that is also helping the Trans community. Kids shows are another easy target here. If Little Bill likes Legos, so will your kid. Who sells Legos? Amazon! Click right here!\n\nIf a show is successful in the right ways, they can also make money off of merchandising and licensing. Another season of The Man in the High Castle and we'll probably have some T-Shirts. \n\nAs for free shipping, it's not really \"Free\", it's just baked into the price. Go shopping for parallel items from 3rd party resellers and you'll see a $20 amazon item selling for $9.99+9.99 S & H. It all ends up being the same. \n\n",
"Amazon prime what's called a \"loss leader\". You see this sort of thing in all sorts of businesses. The idea is that you sell a service or product you lose money on. But with this service or product people buy more of your *other* products. So much so that it makes up for the loss your taking. \n\nWith Amazon prime Amazon loses money. But according to some sources, Prime customers spend almost 2.5x as much at Amazon as non-prime customers. Or in absolute terms a non-prime customer spends about $500 at Amazon, a prime customer spends about $1200, that's $700 more. So the money they lose on prime is more than made up for by money they make elsewhere. \n\nYou also see this in the Video games industry. Both the Xbox and the PlayStation consoles sell at a loss. They make up the difference because once you buy one you have to buy the games, and the games are more expensive than their PC counterparts where they don't have to make up the loss. That's also why Nintendo tends to make money even when they have a dud. They always make money, or at least break even, on their hardware.",
"ELI5: How can Burger King's® original Wopper™ be so mouth-wateringly delicious and so few calories? ",
"It is what is called a loss leader. Imagine if everyone sold cookies for $1 - $2 per cookie (in order to make a profit). You sell your cookies for $0.5. You build up brand loyalty and people will love the taste of your cookies. Imagine if you put your cookies in a store. Now people will simply drive to the store to go buy your cookies since they are so much cheaper than the other ones. \n\nLet's say that you are not making a profit from selling those cookies. In fact, you are losing 10 cents for every cookie sold. However, when people come to buy your cookies, they aren't just buying your cookies and leaving. While buying your cookies, they may see brownies that are for sale, or sandwiches for $5, something like that. While your cookies don't make you money, the store, with its increased amount of customers, can make money from customers buying other products.\n\nThis is the same as Amazon. Their loss leader, instead of cookies, is Amazon Prime. For $99 you get free shipping and more incentives to visit their site. With their clever marketing (spying) tactics, they can find out what exactly you want, and make you more prone to buying it. For example, I don't go to the amazon website unless there's a sale happening or if I'm looking for something very specific. If you go to the amazon website every day for movies, then you might see \"$3 for 500 cookies! buy now!\" while opening the page. Then you might get interested in something you would've never seen.",
"In part because they use fake viral marketing on social networks like reddit to keep advertising costs down. They might pay someone like you tens of dollars per hour to do what thousands on a tv commercial can't. \n\nNothing is free from amazon, not shipping, not music, not movies... you're using that word wrong. It costs $100 a year, that's not free.\n\nAmazon is a $350 billion company that sells everything. So, spending some of that on \"original programming\" just makes sense. People need content for their devices and amazon sells lots of devices.\n\nIt's a self reinforcing cycle, an ouroboros, of using amazon more for one thing often means you use amazon more for other things. Sometimes they sell you goods, sometimes you watch their programs, either way you pay. \n\nFrom Amazon's perspective it's just diversification of income sources. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/how-much-amazon-prime-customers-spend-every-year-after-they-become-members-2016-6"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2fbein | why does reddits karma system not add up? | I have noticed this for months. So this is an example of what happens: I have 542 link karma, then make a post that generates 477 link karma. 542+477=1019, but my karma in the top right next to my name is only 979. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fbein/eli5_why_does_reddits_karma_system_not_add_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck7svno"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm fairly sure that for posts that get a fair amount of votes, each vote is not necessarily counted as +1 or -1 on the total."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
55qr9x | what the fck is r/subredditsimulator? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55qr9x/eli5_what_the_fck_is_rsubredditsimulator/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8cupj5",
"d8cur3b"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Some people coded a bunch of bots that take pieces of peoples messages in a bunch of different subreddits and try to make new posts out of them. \n\nNormal users then vote on the posts there and some of them end up ridiculous.",
"It's a bunch of robots trying to learn from posts in a particular subreddit and replicate a similar post, they aren't very good at it yet so most of the posts make no sense, every now and then they come up with something that makes (limited) sense though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
g2634t | can a private citizen sue the president? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g2634t/eli5_can_a_private_citizen_sue_the_president/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnjopt5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The President has immunity against suit regarding official actions taken while in office. The President does not have immunity against suits regarding actions taken before their tenure. Other than that, any potential immunity has not been tested.\n\n\"Gross negligence\" requires some established duty to care. This necessarily would therefore relate to his position and therefore make him immune."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
bhvpgd | why can't we just scoop up the trash floating on the top of the ocean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhvpgd/eli5_why_cant_we_just_scoop_up_the_trash_floating/ | {
"a_id": [
"elw5t1i",
"elwboo4"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"We can. It's just costly, and not enough big organizations are putting enough money into it. There are a lot of small organizations, but they can't do it all. But, for example, the money donated to the notre dame cathedral would be way more than enough to do it.",
"Most of the garbage patch by weight is actually trillions of tiny tiny flecks of plastic floating in the top few metres of the water column. Yes, there are really big bits (even entire shopping containers) and we could get all of those but they’re generally not the issue because they’re too big for sea creatures to ingest."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5ubvuy | why are we so amazed at what past civilizations created (pyramids, temples, etc) how did we lose the way these types of mega structures were created? | I can't figure out how word it better hopefully someone understands what I'm asking. Thank you ! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ubvuy/eli5_why_are_we_so_amazed_at_what_past/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddsvxds",
"ddsvy07",
"ddsxsdi",
"ddt3lhf",
"ddt3z3v",
"ddt4wkl",
"ddt6rdb",
"ddtx7vw"
],
"score": [
87,
196,
3,
3,
4,
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The simple answer is we sorta didn't. When people say we don't know how they built the pyramids, it's more about us not knowing their exact methods, not about how they were so advanced and we could never do it today. We do have plenty of plausible theories but we can't say we know exactly for all of them. The amazement is about what they managed to achieve with what they had, not about us not being capable of replicating it at all.\n\nAlso keep in mind the amount of time and effort that was put into some of these megastructures. They took many decades to build and were huge efforts that often took the resources of powerful kingdoms/states/empires. I'd say it's better to compare the building of the pyramids to something like the Space Race and moon landing rather than to buildings today.\n\nAlso note that it's not as if these megastructures somehow prove that ancient peoples had better building technology. They would've found it impossible to build the skyscrapers we can put up in a few short years. The Roman ancient roads were an amazing achievement at the time, but they would not have found it possible to build the US highway system. And just because stone tablets will last hundreds of more years than paper doesn't mean that they are somehow more advanced to develop.",
"We are amazed because building massive structures without sophisticated machines and tools seems amazing to us today. We haven't \"lost\" anything though. People kept right on building amazing structures right the way through history. The pyramids, the Acropolis, the Aqueducts, hundreds of amazing Cathedrals, etc.",
"We can still build these structures, the thing that amazes people is the way we would do it today didn't exist back then. I suspect that amazes people primarily because it's so disjointed from the current reality.",
"Omg I've been Binge Playing Civ 6 and my shallow knowledge of history thinks I have the answer to this.",
"I often hear amazement specifically for the size of stones used in ancient structures. As far as I know, the ancients haven't been surpassed in that regard. We could surpass them if we wanted to, but we have modern materials that are easier to build with. So, we don't surpass the massive stones, and we remain awed by the real achievements of engineering that used them.\nSimilarly, entering a structure made all of wood with no nails can impress us for achievements that we do not emulate today. The examples abound of architectural practices that awe is that are out of vogue: gargoyles, stained glass, spires, even large scale brickwork is not seen so much and impresses me when I see the beautiful rows of bricks, and the devil's bridges, and the mud skyscrapers of Yemen, and so on.",
"We could probably build the Pyramids today if we had the motive. It would probably be cheaper than the border wall.",
"I've heard \"how did they get so many people to build that?\" on more than one occasion for an ancient structure that would've taken hundreds or even thousands to assemble.\n\nWell, to not be to blunt...slavery or forced servitude or conscripted labor. Many of the marvels of ancient times--like the pyramids--were heavily built by ~~slave~~ conscripted labor.\n\n**some structures like the Colosseum used slave labor**\n\nWith slavery now much less prominent, and considered by most modernized civilizations to be barbaric and cruel, we rely on the heavy work to be done with engineering and usually individuals on risk-pay (relatively high pay for unskilled labor based on very high risk of injury or death).\n\nEven very large tasks in the last couple centuries utilized a good amount of forced or slave labor until we developed machines to expedite the work. Like the Railroad system of the US.\n\nDon't know if that was what you were asking.\n\nEdit: pyramids were a bad example, as some pointed out they didn't use a lot of slaves, but conscripted labor. Added the Colosseum example, as everyone will know that, and slaves were definitely utilized.\n\nI'm also not saying there wasn't technique involved, but the actual workload used a good amount of forced human effort.",
"1. We didn't lose the way these were created.\n\n2. We can and do make much more amazing things today. The typical office building is a more complex feat than a pyramid and something completely impossible for an ancient civilization to achieve.\n\n3. People are only amazed because they don't know 1 and 2."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
36avpz | how the view system in youtube works, and how can some websites exploit this? | I searched through, never found any ELIF yet. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36avpz/eli5how_the_view_system_in_youtube_works_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"crcbjgf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The easiest way would simply make a script and visit the video over and over and over again. You could also get a bunch of computers and do the same thing. Views are not how many unique visits occur and anyone person can visit any number of times and it would still count. So long as the visits where not so quick as to warrant anti-cheat systems from activating."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
98ctpg | how do they make flavoured drinks that are clear? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/98ctpg/eli5_how_do_they_make_flavoured_drinks_that_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4ez8ta"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Most artificial - and even natural - flavorings don’t actually have any coloring to them. The color you see in most sodas and sports drinks comes from artificial food coloring. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ym80j | what makes bach's music so mathematical? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ym80j/eli5_what_makes_bachs_music_so_mathematical/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5wvjq2",
"c5wxeik",
"c5wzix2",
"c5x23rh"
],
"score": [
43,
15,
5,
10
],
"text": [
"Counterpoint can be described as the art of managing simultaneous melodic lines so that they maintain, at the same time, independence and perfect harmonic conduction; at the same time, things are happening horizontally (melody) and vertically (harmony), and everything is under control.\n\nWell, Bach was very, very good at counterpoint, to a sort of ridiculous extent. To me he was such a genius that I can tell his music from other composers of the same period easily—because it sounds to me as clearly \"flawless\"; Bach combines artistry and technical execution so well it sets him apart from all other musicians, and that is the reason he is the cornerstone of music education until nowadays.",
"As indrablandine said, counterpoint is Bach's greatest accomplishment in the musical world looking back. He did so many things right and stayed so consistent in the rules that he followed without actually having written or intentionally followed any rules that, by looking back through his music, we are now able to construct rules by which great music can be created. It's like having a kid in kindergarten learn big kid math and then teach the rest of the class before they even get out of kindergarten. \n\nBach also used his thumbs on the keyboard which was a very new practice at the time. Because he used all ten fingers he was able to reach more notes more fluidly than other composers and performers had ever tried before. \n\nBach was also a pioneer in using new keys as well as modulations. Prior to Bach, composers stayed in just a handful of keys or wrote primarily modal music. Bach used all twenty-four keys and did it well. ",
"You know how when we made that domino rally? Well, Bach did something like that with music. He was really good at taking music sounds, and working with the rules to make really big fancy domino rallies. He would make them fall down and start new rows when people though there was no way he could do it. He could make them fall, and somehow travel back up using fun tricks people thought he could not use.\n\nBut remember how you and your friend _____ made those rules when you were playing last week, well, he did all that without breaking the rules too. Neat huh?",
"OP, I'm going to blow your mind:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o"
]
]
|
||
4guz3z | why does it take time for some people to have an appetite in the morning? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4guz3z/eli5_why_does_it_take_time_for_some_people_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2kz7a6",
"d2kzx3r",
"d2l5jf0",
"d2lp6n6"
],
"score": [
2,
39,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"I also feel hungry when I have eaten before going to bed. But when I didn't I'm not hungry in the morning?\nWhat gives?",
"I remember seeing this somewhere else, so let me do my best to recall the information:\n\nAfter not eating for a certain amount of time your body produces (or stops producing, this is the hazy part) a hormone that controls your hunger response. This is to keep your stomach from waking you up in the middle of the night to go find something to eat. When you wake up in the morning your hunger response is still off, and so you don't develop an appetite right away. After some time being wakeful or stimulating your appetite (thinking about or smelling food, or even just eating something) it will eventually turn back on.\n\nIf you eat right before bed you will often wake up hungry because your stomach never got the message that you were sleeping, because it spent most of the night digesting anyway, and so your hunger response is still on when you wake up.",
"Your stomach shuts down during sleep for your body to be more efficient, you no longer produce saliva, swallow, produce less urine and digest less food in the intestine at a much slower rate. When you wake up, your digestive system turns on again. But it's not instant, so sometimes you don't feel hunger for a while after you wake. But when you do, your stomach is usually empty and the hunger pangs are pretty strong.",
"Does that explain why I sort of feel nauseous in the morning? I'll get up and not feel hungry at all and sort of a nauseous feeling if I think about eating. I get in the shower right away when I wake up and when I get out, I'm usually hungry and not nauseous. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4c6yz0 | why must i boil my water before cooking anything? can't i just dump my dumplings into the cold water and just start from there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c6yz0/eli5why_must_i_boil_my_water_before_cooking/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1fjq9x",
"d1fjzh7",
"d1fjzlo",
"d1fl6zi",
"d1fl9uo",
"d1fnjxu",
"d1fr3yd"
],
"score": [
54,
11,
8,
6,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
" No you absolutely cannot because of the dumplings gradually reach the temperature of the water and that will be all soft and mushy and you will not be able to enjoy the food as you creators had expected you to do it so just follow the damn instructions and pour the dumplings in boiling water dammit ",
"Letting the dumplings soak in cold water will mean they are submerged for much longer before they even start to cook. The result is that they become waterlogged, mushy, and gross.",
"Water boils at the same temperature*, no matter whose kitchen its in. Also, that the temperature will not increase when additional heat is added, so it always stays at that temperature. This allows writers of recipes to create guidelines that will give the same result for each person. That wouldn't be possible any other way, since people's stoves will heat water at different rates.\n\n*This is somewhat affected by altitude. That is why recipes will often come with high-altitude cooking instructions.",
"The primary reason is for accuracy and reliability in cooking times. Boiling water is guaranteed (not accounting for altitude) to be at 212 F (100 C). With a set temperature you can then say things like \"boil X for 9 minutes\" with a very high measure of confidence.\n\nYou certainly can cook things in the water as you go, but it's going to be a lot more hit-and-miss. Pasta, for example, will begin to cook before it reaches the boiling point. You would need to measure the temperature, and check the pasta regularly to determine when it was done. You can't give someone an accurate cooking time with this method either. The time it takes for water to boil will vary greatly with stove heat output, pot size & shape, and the amount of water.\n\nsource:_URL_0_",
"It also has to do with time. The makers may know it takes 5 minutes to cook in boiling water but if you start from cold they have no way of knowing when the water will be hot enough or how long it will take.",
"Ever sit a dirty casserole dish in water? Room temp water can break up the material because your food is water permeable. \n\nBut introduce your food to extreme heat and it cooks before the water can damage the food. But you can only take it so far before water does its damage. \n\nThe same principle works for tritip. I throw it on the grill, both sides at 500 or so for 10 minutes. It creates a 'container' and the cooking takes place inside for the 30 min on an open grill. ",
"Of course you can do that. They will probably taste like shit, but they probably won't give you dysentery.\n\nSome people want their food to be both taste good, and also not give them dysentery. We all make our choices."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6638/why-wait-for-water-to-boil"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3x3amq | why when my ssd has a "transfer rate" of 550mb/s, do files only ever transfer at a maximum of about 30mb/s? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x3amq/eli5_why_when_my_ssd_has_a_transfer_rate_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy13aao",
"cy1436l",
"cy16dax",
"cy16zmh",
"cy17uh6",
"cy18hrl",
"cy18lu1",
"cy19e1a"
],
"score": [
59,
4,
5,
9,
4,
18,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The question I would ask is, what are you transferring to/from? The transfer can only be as fast as the *slowest* device/link.",
"The CPU and or the raid controller and motherboard are all factors that can slow it down. Only having sata 2 not sata3 will half the max speed to 200+ ",
"Are you sure it's connected to SATA3? Also if you read and write simultaneously it can only work at half the speed.",
"I transfer between my 3 samsung 850 pros at 500ish/sec.... like the top comment says ..only as fast as slowest device",
"The maximum transfer rate of 550MBps is only achievable with one single large file doing a sequential write to disk. If you are transferring lots of little files (4k writes) your disk will slow down considerably due to that fact that every write requires many KB of meta data to be written as well. This takes time and so slows down the transfer rate.\n\nTL:DR - the smaller the file the larger the overhead. \n\n\n",
"30MB/sec is the usual top speed of USB 2.0... so just out of curiosity, are you by any chance connecting it to (or transfering to/from) a USB port? If not, then one of your storage devices is likely faulty, or there is a problem with Sata controller on your motherboard...\n\nFor transfers between an SSD and a normal HDD on Sata 3 interface you should be seeing speeds around 100-110 MB/sec. Try introducing another storage device into the equation (for example an external USB 3.0 drive could serve well for this purpose, if you can get your hands on one and have a USB 3 port handy; or another Sata HDD), and try making transfers between this, and your various other devices. This way you should be able to isolate which device is faulty, or if it is an issue with motherboard itself.\n\nI've also heard of certain SATA AHCI drivers sometimes causing trouble with write speeds on SSDs, might want to check that out as well (update the driver, or roll back to an older one if you've recently updated it).",
"Stated transfer rates are widely understood to be theoretical maximums under ideal conditions. Real-world transfer rates in actual use situations can be assumed to be substantially less than that. There are a variety of reasons this could be happening, including:\n\n1. You're reading/writing to the same drive. A drive cannot both read and write at the same time. It can switch back and forth between reading and writing *really* quickly, but it's only ever going to be doing one of them in any given moment. So if you're reading and writing to the same drive, you'll never get more than 50% of the entire transfer rate.\n\n2. Another component in your computer is acting as a bottleneck. Just because the drive is theoretically capable of transferring 550MB/s doesn't mean a thing if it's connected to a data port that's not capable of those speeds. There are several different components that could be the weakest link, but the long and short of it is that you're never going to transfer data faster than the slowest applicable component.\n\n3. Moving lots of small files is slower than moving a single large one, or even several large ones. When the manufacturer tests its transfer rates for specification purposes, they basically use a single huge file. But there's something of a base cost in terms of time as to how long it takes to move a single file, so (1) moving files smaller than a certain size is always going to take at least so long, regardless of what the transfer rate would suggest, and (2) moving two 500MB files is going to take longer than one 1GB files, and moving four 250MB files will take even longer. Not *much* longer, but drop the file size down to single-digit MB and it really starts to add up.\n\n4. Your CPU is thrashing around with a background task. This is related to point 2, but not entirely the same thing. Even if your drive is the slowest part of the system, if your CPU is doing something else, everything is going to be slower. It can be difficult to predict what processes are going to do this, but anti-virus and security software are frequent culprits.",
"30MB/s is typical for lots of really small files - like a folder full of Word documents. \n\nTry copying over a compressed movie or any other single file with a size of 1GB+ and see your speeds. They should be closer to 500 MB/s."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
31c5kr | why are most people ok with banning discrimination based on race, gender, etc. but not ok with banning discrimination based on religious beliefs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31c5kr/eli5_why_are_most_people_ok_with_banning/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq079z1",
"cq093gi",
"cq0940j",
"cq0aab2",
"cq0c0y7"
],
"score": [
17,
3,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Discrimination based on religious beliefs is almost invariably banned in any anti-discrimination statute. \n\nFor instance, here's text from Indiana's anti-discrimination statute:\n\n > (l) \"Discriminatory practice\" means:\n > (1) the exclusion of a person from equal opportunities because of race, **religion**, color, sex, disability, national origin, or ancestry;\n\n > --_URL_0_\n\n\n",
"Legally religious beliefs are included in the CRA alongside color and ethnicity. In practice I agree that they seem to be treated a bit differently. In part because there is an issue with how we handle positive vs negative rights.\n\nThere are lots of positive rights associated with race/gender, that require that existing behaviors must be changed to make things equal.\n\nHowever most reactions to religious rights are thought of as negative rights (the right to practice a belief in private without interference).\n\nWhen the negative and positive meet there seems to be some confusion, about what to do.\n\n----------\n\nFor example consider a gay wedding and the religious wedding photographer. The gay couple claims that the photographer must be forced to offer services, while the photographer wants to avoid involvement. Does the positive right to participate in the economy on equal terms (and hire the photographer) outweigh the negative right to avoid interactions with others (and not provide services for the wedding).\n\nMost courts find that in this case the positive secular rights win over negative religious rights.\n\nBut here is a similar instance with a positive religious right, and a negative secular right. I don't believe I have ever heard a case on this, but I would be surprised if the religious side didn't lose here as well:\n\nConsider a secular grocery store, and a Jewish or Muslim customer. Does the customer have the right to force the business to carry Kosher or Halal items? Does the business owner have the right to avoid the demands of other religious groups in making his purchasing decisions?\n\n-------------\n\nI think it is an interesting question.",
"A deeper point that might be missed when discussing prejudice and discrimination is that religion is a choice. Similarly, nationality can be changed. Race, colour, disability, gender, sexual persuasion etc cannot easily be changed; discriminating against factors that are randomly decided through birth is a greater failing than by factors that can be changed",
"I can't help wondering how many Arkansas Muslims will be hired — \"I'll need several periods of time for prayer during the day; I'll bring my own prayer mat but I'd like to use a private room.\"\n\nThe other thing is that some religious beliefs are truly objectionable to certain people. I get the feeling that these laws are specifically designed with vanilla Christians in mind but wouldn't Satanists be covered as well? ",
"On the one hand, your question confuses elements of the legal battle over RFRA. On the other, it cuts straight to the core of the issue lying underneath that battle. \n\n**(1)** So, the legal battle, first. People, generally, are against all of those kinds of discrimination. \n\nAs your question is probably asked in the context of recent news coverage concerning Indiana's RFRA, my answer is given in that context: \n\nThe debate is not whether we ought to have protections against discrimination based on gender **or** discrimination based on religious beliefs. Rather, it is whether this specific *kind* of protection against religious discrimination in fact enables legal discrimination based on gender, **and further** whether such legalized discrimination would be right, or constitutional.\n\n**(2)** Now, the more complicated issue of conflicting rights. Many opponents of Indiana's RFRA (probably) correctly point out that one of the intended purposes of the law is to allow people to discriminate on the basis of gender, if their discrimination is based on religious beliefs. Supporters, on the otherhand, say that if their religious beliefs compel them to act in a certain way towards people of a particular gender identity, then their right to religious freedom gives them the freedom to do so.\n\nThe central question, then, is, how much does the right not to be discriminated against based on gender identity supersede freedom of religion, **if, indeed, the conflict is of religious freedom**?\n\nThe two sides of the above legal battle are motivated by different answers to this question.\n\nedit: These answers are important, because some people hold religious views which prejudice them against people who are not traditionally heterosexual, and sometimes those people discriminate against people of other gender identities. Very common examples include judges who refuse to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, and business owners who refuse to provide goods or services to gay couples. From the view of those religious people, being forced to treat queer people as they would anyone else is a violation of their religious beliefs. From the view of those who can't get the same rights/services/goods because of their gender identity, those religious beliefs, when enacted, constitute discrimination against them. So, how we as a society end up answering that question will have some implications for those with 'nontraditional' gender identities, for particular religious groups, and very likely for the standards by which we evaluate our legal and ethical obligations to protect religious freedoms. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/archive/2012/ic/2012/title22/ar9/ch1.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3wutzj | why do doctors during a childbirth tell women to keep breathing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wutzj/eli5_why_do_doctors_during_a_childbirth_tell/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxz97aq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's to get you focused on something other than the pain. At ante-natal classes you are taught special breathing exercises to keep you calm, and to get your body ready to push the baby out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3g8kmc | why were some very toxic substances formerly thought of as medicinal? | This question was inspired by [this](_URL_0_) post, which included information on the rock [stibnite](_URL_1_) which is toxic but was formerly used as medicine and material for utensils.
I understand that even now many medicines have terrible side effects but how were substances like mercury ever thought of as good medicine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g8kmc/eli5why_were_some_very_toxic_substances_formerly/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctvumv7",
"ctw0z7d",
"ctw13rf",
"ctw1jqd",
"ctw4kea"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Most of the \"medicine\" back then worked by trial and error. If your medicine \"cured\" the sickness by placebo effect without poisoning the patient that was a success (there is a reason most doctors had a seriously bad rep in the old days).",
"Every substance known to man is 'toxic'. It's just a matter of the dosage required to have an effect.",
"Mercury, radium. Mercury was used to treat almost anything before modern medicine and antibiotics. Radium and radiation was used for quack remedies in the early 20th century _URL_0_",
"Kinda in reverse here.. \nthalidomide used a few decades ago to treat nausea in pregnant women, causing shocking side effects (limbs missing and more) is now being used in some cancer patients. Over the last 17 years that I am aware of.. \nSource: child of a deceased parent who trialled it to no avail. ",
"IIRC I read about some ancient chinese statues containing high levels of arsenic, which were believed to cure certain health issues. The article stated that it is likely that the small amounts of As absorbed through the skin, when touching said healing statues, might have killed parasites, while not severly harming the host."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/3g7689/deadliest_rocks_in_the_world/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stibnite"
]
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://files.umwblogs.org/blogs.dir/4618/files/2010/10/Really.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1omp6o | where do pigeons come from? | A most simple and possibly amusing question perhaps,
Though in a moment of brief honesty, how is it possible that pigeons can be discovered all across the globe (And mostly In Cities). How are they able to be found in all these massive human "colonies". When they are so rarely seen in the countryside and wild. I mean, pigeons are practically synonymous with cities everywhere after all. And how is such a feat even possible. Where on earth do all these weight concerningly chubby disease-ridden rats-with-wings come from, and how do they get about? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1omp6o/eli5_where_do_pigeons_come_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"cctg8w3",
"cctgom0"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It's called a rock dove the old feral pigeon. Just an adaptable bird that has spread across the globe. \n\nRarely seen in the wild as the majority of people are perhaps rarely in 'the wild' \n\nI think in their natural environment they are still around in good numbers ",
"Originally pigeons lived in the mountains, and cities are kind of like mountains except with lots of more food for them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
as75vq | why do planes have doors to their left? | I've never seen a plane that has doors to its right. I'm curious why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/as75vq/eli5_why_do_planes_have_doors_to_their_left/ | {
"a_id": [
"egs9ezl",
"egsc1av",
"egsdjpi"
],
"score": [
7,
29,
4
],
"text": [
"The passengers board on the left. The maintenance crew comes in on the right for food deliveries and cleaning crews",
"Having passengers board on the left is probably a continuation of the nautical practice, where the left is the port side of the ship. In old ships, the steering paddle was on the right (starboard), because most sailors were right-handed. As a result, they had to dock on the left side.",
"Imagine if different planes have the door in different spots. The gates at the airport would be facing the wrong way for a lot of them so they'd have to have left side and right side gates. Then all the airplanes would have to have a little arrow on the dashboard like cars do to show what side the gas tank is on."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2z37xv | with the national debt climbing as fast as it is (usa), how is giving massive tax breaks to the top brackets helping anything? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z37xv/eli5_with_the_national_debt_climbing_as_fast_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpf9wla",
"cpfajd6",
"cpfc09s"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"its absolutely not going to help .\n\nbut getting reelected saying your are going to tax more is unpopular \n\nand with taxing the 1% is taking your own money away as those people are the most contributing donors of your campaign. cause its cheaper to buy off the politician then its to pay higher taxes\n\n\n\n\n",
"The way I always understood economics is if the people have more money to spend, they will. Which will help boost the economy, which will encourage more people to spend, which will help the economy, etc.",
"This seems like a straw man argument more than a legitimate question. Who is giving massive tax breaks to the top brackets? \n\nYes, the Bush tax cuts did help the top income earners more than lower income earners, but that's mainly because lower income earners already pay little to nothing in income taxes. If you have 47% of the country paying nothing in income taxes and you give an across the board 1% tax cut, those 47% are going to see no change in their income taxes while the top 1% will see a change. But demagogues would claim that that tax cut only helped the rich while the poor got nothing. \n\nAs it stands, the rich are paying the vast majority of taxes already. The top 10% (those making $116k a year or higher) made 45% of the nations income and paid over 70% of all taxes paid. Contrast that to the bottom 50% who made 11.73% of the nation's income and paid a whopping 2.36% of all taxes paid. \n\nSo my question for you would be this. How much more should the rich be paying in taxes? What is a satisfactory percentage of the over all tax burden should the top 10% pay? What percent should the bottom 50% be paying?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
19qdc1 | what is a meta-narrative? | As far as I can see it's essentially a story/mythology created to explain something; be it Marxism, Christianity or Prometheus stealing fire from the Gods in ancient Greece.
I need to write a 1,500 word report from a sociological stand-point and I'm not entirely sure where to start. I have Lyotard's 'The Post-Modern Condition' open in front of me, but it's abstruse language is causing me more problems than solutions. WHAT DO?
Any help will be greeted with open arms. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19qdc1/elif_what_is_a_metanarrative/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8qdtow"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's not *just* a story/myth created to explain something. It's a story that claims to justify/prove itself through universal Reason/Science. The question for Lyotard was what makes a story a *legitimate* story ... what legitimizes it? He calls this the \"problem of legitimation\" (I don't have a copy in front of me but he first mentions this early on in the book). Lyotard says that big stories can't legitimize/justify themselves by appealing to some sort of Universal Reason (something outside itself). Rather they are only legitimized based on the inner logic/rules of their own story/language game. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2alhrp | how do female athletes participate in sports when they're on their menstrual cycle? | I know that it's painful and the hormones fluctuate a lot, so I'm guessing menstruation will weaken body fitness as well.
Let's assume there is a women's soccer tournament and right on that day a player or two are on their periods. Will this not drastically affect the game?
Do women in sports take some sort of medication to lessen the effect or postpone the periods? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2alhrp/eli5_how_do_female_athletes_participate_in_sports/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciwc4yi",
"ciwcc7c",
"ciwcgn9",
"ciwcp54",
"ciwcwff",
"ciwd0je",
"ciwd4qh",
"ciweii4",
"ciwgi77",
"ciwh29r",
"ciwiavc",
"ciwij7w",
"ciwx8cx"
],
"score": [
41,
2,
214,
108,
30,
11,
7,
29,
3,
2,
4,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"we suck it up. by which i mean get over the fact that we are in pain and compeat. also pads, tampons, and pain releivers such as Advil Tylonal and Midol",
"Really?!\n\nAt my school half the class didn't do sports when on their period. However, some girls seemed to be on a permanent period... This was really just because those girls didn't like sport and didn't want to do it.\n\nI used to get bad period pain but getting on the right contraception can help with that. I don't even have periods any more because of my contraception, and if I did I'd just use a tampon.\n\nPlus exercise can help with period pain.\n\nThere really isn't a reason not to do sport while menstruating.",
"The same way women go on with their lives once a month. It's not like we hide out in a cave till it's over. ",
"a lot of women athletes get to a point where their level of body fat drops below normal levels during intense training times and menstruation stops all together. It is called exercise associated amenorrhea. It is not really a good thing because it really means the level of nutrition is not meeting the needs of the body. However symptoms of PMS and duration of cycle can be lessened by being physically active and healthy.",
"Yeah, I was a swimmer in college. You just do it. ",
"My ex used her birth control pills to alter her cycle when an event was coming up.",
"When you exercise a lot you actually get less of a heavy flow of menstruation. It also tends to last shorter. This probably has to do with the cocktail of hormones you get from exercising which basically tells your body to not shed liberally and use energy on other processes than the reproductive system.\n\nOverall, menstruation is never an excuse to not exercise for me. It's really not the biggest deal in the world.",
"I saw this question and just laughed. Are you serious? \n\nWomen have their periods once a month but life doesn't stop. They don't get a day off work because of their period. Why would it be any different for athletes? ",
"I compete in a contact sport(amateur level) that requires me to weigh in before fights. I can only speak on my personal experience as every girl is affected differently from periods. For me, it's most difficult because periods affect me emotionally, they also make me crave certain foods and eat more than i need to, and it makes me retain water which makes weight cutting difficult. To get past the emotional issues, you simply manage the mental side. You have to want it more than your opponent (or opposing team) and shut off the mental voice telling you that you feel shitty and you're on your period. The cravings and food are the worst because i'll cave and eat chocolate. The water retention? Nothing you can do about it except continue to eat and train as normal. I do get more tired and lethargic. You can combat this by taking iron pills or eating a little more red meat since you're losing blood. When it comes down to it, you're an athlete. No excuses for not training as hard as you possibly can. And tampons.",
"Tampons are a gift from God. You cannot feel a tampon inside of you and it stops fluids from flowing out. Yes, we can take Midol or pamprin (Acetaminophen) or tylenol to stop the pain. Other than that, a menstrual cycle should not effect a woman so much that she cannot get herself up off the ground. \nAlso- usually women who are athletic and slim usually have little to no period. Usually quite pain free as well. ",
"You just put on your big girl panties and power through. Most often exercise will decrease or control menstrual symptoms anyway.",
"Perhaps the women who have difficult menstrual cycles are noticed more often because they are suffering and making more noise, but most woman are not suffering during their cycles at all. Men also have hormone cycles that rise and fall during the month with some lessening of strength and stamina but no visible signs like mensies. Other posters have mentioned that being physically fit helps lessen uncomfortable symptoms. We really aren't \"disabled\" by being female. ",
"Who the heck is downvoting this? This seems like a genuine and legitimate question to me. In fact, after reading it I was quite curious to know the answer. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
aoy0sh | why do humans feel the need to record concerts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aoy0sh/eli5_why_do_humans_feel_the_need_to_record/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg4ced7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"To share with others or so that they can relive it later. Plus, recording a min or so of the concert isn’t going to stop someone from “living in the moment” considering the shows typically last much longer than that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
99t99b | why do joints ache when a storm is coming and how can people and animals feel it so surely? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99t99b/eli5_why_do_joints_ache_when_a_storm_is_coming/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4qcs2r"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Joints are actually an enclosed capsule filled with something called synovial fluid. As you may know, the weather changes mainly because of pressure changes in the atmosphere. When the barometric pressure changes, it affects things like.... closed capsules that happen to contain joints. \n\nAt least, that’s the prevailing theory. Some still say it’s all hokum. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5j7rmq | why do different spirits get you differing amounts of drunk when the alcohol content is always 40%? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j7rmq/eli5_why_do_different_spirits_get_you_differing/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbe0l0d",
"dbe1j87"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It's all about amount of alcohol taken in and speed of drinking. Drinking a 350ml bottle of vodka takes time, a double shot (in the US, 80ml) takes less than a second. \n\n80ml of 40% alcohol should NOT prevent a person from walking in a straight line, even a \"light weight\". A 150lb male non-drinker would be right around 0.04 after 30 minutes, which is just into the \"slightly tipsy\" range. ",
"There is different explanation.\n\n1) Most people tend to mix alcohol with something else. Rum with coke, Vodka with red bull. Different mix mean different amount of ethanol. But if you drink your Vodka and your Whisky straight then it's not the reason for you.\n\n2) There is byproduct of fermentation. Usually when you talk about alcohols in liquor you talk about ethanol. But there is other chemical like methanol, acetone, esters, etc that can after you. Btw there is more of those in tan liquor like Whiskey. That could explain your situation.\n\n3) Social/Psychological aspect. Basically a placebo effect. We have a certain image of different alcohols and our brain can react different just because it think it suppose to react differently. The other aspect is how the speed and your metabolism. If you like the taste of whiskey better than the taste of Vodka, maybe you gonna drink it faster or wait less time in-between drink. Also, maybe you drink specific drink in different setting. For example you can drink Vodka on saturday when you are well rested and your body is in better shape to metabolise the alcohol, while you drink whiskey after work with friends when you are tired."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
aivyji | why does foreign television look so much different than us broadcasts? | I'm American and my only exposure to foreign media is new clips and Top Gear.
Why does it look so "wierd" to me? It looks like a soap opera.
I've heard maybe it's that foreign media is recorded at 25fps and my tv/phone is made for 24/30/48/60?
Thanks in advance! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aivyji/eli5_why_does_foreign_television_look_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"eeqvww2",
"eer55qz"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"That and many other factors. Lighting, color grading etc. Also, i remember back in the day when TV was still analog, there’s a certain kind of feel to each channel. ",
"It's a side effect of motion interpolation. It's called [The Soap Opera Effect ](_URL_0_). "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation"
]
]
|
|
cyd5un | how were hurricanes measured/tracked before planes and satellites | Or did they just come ashore without warning? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyd5un/eli5_how_were_hurricanes_measuredtracked_before/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyrfy0b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Ship captains reported weather. This is still somewhat common; radar and satellites can't always tell the full story. Before those, the people actually out there in the storms would report in via radio or even before that, they'd come ashore and give a warning of a few days."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4m4a7j | how do you get reliable witness testimony in cases that go to trial years or decades after the crime was committed? | Some crimes like rape or murder have no statute of limitations, and from time to time you hear of people getting tried for crimes they committed decades ago. How can you rely on witness testimony of events that happened so long ago? Some days I can't remember what I ate for lunch an hour ago. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4m4a7j/eli5_how_do_you_get_reliable_witness_testimony_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3sgw6d",
"d3sj9r7",
"d3sn1gf",
"d3sv93i"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's harder, but there are ways of dealing with it. If people recorded what they saw soon after the crime, those notes can help them remember. Other evidence can also prompt memories. Which restaurant is labeled on your credit card statement for lunch might help you remember what you ate.",
"Often you can't.\n\nThey will definitely be an issue raised by the defense when they cross examine witnesses. Practically speaking, it will be more difficult to convict, so the prosecution will likely only bring charges if they have a rock solid case, or are bowing to public pressure.",
"Honestly, you can't. Which is why many of those cases bank on DNA/fingerprint/forensic evidence instead of eyewitnesses. They still use eyewitnesses, but their testimony is not focused on as heavily as the testimony of expert witnesses explaining the crime scene, evidence, and investigative steps.\n\nThe first thing that you learn in any criminal justice course is that witness testimony is inherently flawed simply due to the fact that, like OP mentioned, human memory is faulty at best (watch the witness examination montage from My Cousin Vinny for a great example of this).\n\nOf course, it's also important to note that for many victims and witnesses of crimes, especially violent ones, the events of the crime are burned into their memories for a very long time. Not to mention that if they were on site when police arrived or reported the crime to the police, they had witness statements taken that are included in the case documentation and read to them when they are on the stand in court for them to corroborate.",
"You often can't. However it is also important to not that eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of testimony to begin with, even when the crime was recent. People's memories are incredible malleable, people often convince themselves they saw something for various reasons. \n\nEyewitness testimony should not, and is not, ever be the sole basis of a conviction. That's why we always try to find other physical evidence that supports a testimony. This can be anything from DNA evidence, video evidence (images from a CC-tv, for example) or stuff like a receipt from a store if the witness claims to have visited it. This stuff is far easier to gather when the crime is recent (no store is going to keep their security footage for years and years), which is also the reason the statute of limitations exists. \n\nIf you want an interesting case on how unreliable eyewitness testimony is (especially in children), look up the [McMartin Preschool trial] (_URL_0_). This shows very clearly that eyewitness testimony, especially in children, should not be the basis of a conviction without supporting evidence as investigators will, sub-consciously, give signals which witnesses do pick up on. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial"
]
]
|
|
9pl98s | why is exercise healthy for you when your body is screaming not to do it, ie if you feel like crap and are depressed and exhausted, isn't then massive amounts of sedentary rest better - listening to your body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9pl98s/eli5_why_is_exercise_healthy_for_you_when_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"e82htc0",
"e82k7ra",
"e82kd1a"
],
"score": [
14,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body doesn't \"know\" what is good and what is healthy, it has just simply evolved some rudimentary methods of getting what it needs to keep going in the short term. But if you have a disorder or condition, such as clinical depression, then by definition your body (on the whole) isn't working correctly.",
" > isn't then massive amounts of sedentary rest better - listening to your body?\n\nYour body evolved in conditions where you *had no choice.*\n\nHard work was the order of the day, and rest occurred when all other more immediate needs (and the mental/physical protests they cause, hunger, thirst, etc) were sated. \n\nAs a result, your body doesn't really have a good 'read' on exercise being healthy. Exercise is what it expects to be the normal state of being. \n\nMuch like our body doesn't have a great mechanism that says \"we've got enough fats, its time to eat healthy/fast,\" but instead says \"we should eat whenever we can, because we never know when we might starve,\" our body doesn't have a strong mechanism that says \"we should work out in order to maintain our fitness,\" it says \"We should conserve our energy because we will need to struggle again soon.\"",
"That's just weakness leaving the body, it doesn't want to go and you gotta force it out. \n\nMore seriously, our bodily instincts are all focused on short-term survival. It's going to favor doing whatever gets you to bedtime with the least amount of pain or energy exerted. \n\nIt will not consider that chugging a 2L Dewrito smoothie for lunch everyday is going to trigger a heart attack by 30. It will not consider that pain today means a great many more tomorrows. It will not consider that running out of breath going up the stairs to lunch makes you less likely to reproduce. \n\nThat's for the long-term brain to force the body to do what needs done today. Train the mind to tell the body to quit bitching and get the work done. Then it can have a some Dewrito smoothie. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
24rkud | why is gun control such a controversial topic in the usa when the rest of the world sees it as a no-brainer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24rkud/eli5_why_is_gun_control_such_a_controversial/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch9ykrq",
"ch9ym2n",
"ch9ynil",
"ch9ywz1",
"ch9yxu5",
"ch9z0h3",
"ch9z2o0",
"ch9z3ib",
"ch9z94e",
"ch9zbkx",
"ch9zhzo",
"ch9zi4f",
"ch9zjql",
"ch9zl00",
"ch9zl17",
"ch9zmci",
"ch9zmfm",
"ch9zqgj",
"ch9zqyy",
"ch9zx9s",
"ch9zxgh",
"ch9zxkg",
"cha02ft",
"cha02uh",
"cha053c",
"cha06va",
"cha08ii",
"cha0a0s",
"cha0cu3",
"cha0f2q",
"cha0fyz",
"cha0ht9",
"cha0jge",
"cha0jlr",
"cha0ksw",
"cha0m2r",
"cha0oju",
"cha0qks",
"cha0v7y",
"cha0v84",
"cha0w0j",
"cha0ybn",
"cha0yc6",
"cha0z8g",
"cha0zav",
"cha13h4",
"cha14tc",
"cha1567",
"cha15bn",
"cha15rb",
"cha169q",
"cha174j",
"cha185p",
"cha1af4",
"cha1baz",
"cha1cbf",
"cha1cjj",
"cha1fgw",
"cha1fjd",
"cha1fod",
"cha1fsb",
"cha1gdn",
"cha1juv",
"cha1k3d",
"cha1k49",
"cha1kj1",
"cha1l6a",
"cha1lhs",
"cha1mz8",
"cha1n73",
"cha1nbe",
"cha1nko",
"cha1nwe",
"cha1o47",
"cha1o6v",
"cha1ptc",
"cha1pw4",
"cha1rju",
"cha1roy",
"cha1san",
"cha1tca",
"cha1tn2",
"cha1tsm",
"cha1wbm",
"cha1wxk",
"cha206e",
"cha20mo",
"cha20pr",
"cha2136",
"cha21la",
"cha21ok",
"cha22q3",
"cha231w",
"cha235v",
"cha23ae",
"cha23hc",
"cha24ft",
"cha24rx",
"cha25lj",
"cha25x8",
"cha26sl",
"cha2838",
"cha28eo",
"cha28y7",
"cha29xm",
"cha29yc",
"cha2asv",
"cha2b12",
"cha2beb",
"cha2bi2",
"cha2bk1",
"cha2bmx",
"cha2by8",
"cha2eo0",
"cha2g8u",
"cha2gwj",
"cha2he1",
"cha2hl6",
"cha2hq3",
"cha2hzc",
"cha2i9z",
"cha2inc",
"cha2kbf",
"cha2lqy",
"cha2ls1",
"cha2mo4",
"cha2pnv",
"cha2rcb",
"cha2re0",
"cha2rmw",
"cha2rq4",
"cha2s3v",
"cha2s9l",
"cha2t50",
"cha2vta",
"cha2w5a",
"cha2w6h",
"cha2wel",
"cha2x0a",
"cha2xqx",
"cha2z11",
"cha30n2",
"cha30uj",
"cha30z0",
"cha3206",
"cha32cy",
"cha32px",
"cha335f",
"cha362j",
"cha36sp",
"cha37f1",
"cha3ag2",
"cha3aiw",
"cha3b6h",
"cha3bep",
"cha3cu2",
"cha3e3d",
"cha3emq",
"cha3g65",
"cha3ge9",
"cha3gpd",
"cha3hpa",
"cha3kyo",
"cha3lel",
"cha3mkh",
"cha3mul",
"cha3ndu",
"cha3olw",
"cha3qs2",
"cha3rd6",
"cha3rlv",
"cha3rm8",
"cha3rv2",
"cha3rvg",
"cha3snp",
"cha3t03",
"cha3uux",
"cha3vru",
"cha3wdn",
"cha3xls",
"cha3y5o",
"cha48j1",
"cha4936",
"cha4bzf",
"cha4cga",
"cha4dpf",
"cha4dun",
"cha4fcc",
"cha4gq2",
"cha4hxb",
"cha4hy2",
"cha4loa",
"cha4m9e",
"cha4n0o",
"cha4nip",
"cha4nxs",
"cha4o51",
"cha4osi",
"cha4p81",
"cha4q2b",
"cha4r6k",
"cha4vmq",
"cha4xuf",
"cha507b",
"cha51ll",
"cha51qk",
"cha52ks",
"cha53gd",
"cha57gn",
"cha58h0",
"cha59kf",
"cha5b34",
"cha5sqp",
"cha6csp",
"cha6id1",
"cha6rx8",
"cha6uqd",
"cha840z",
"cha93sa",
"cha9dk8",
"cha9xdx",
"chai7om",
"chaju1d"
],
"score": [
93,
25,
2793,
273,
20,
5,
9,
49,
5,
5,
198,
10,
17,
6,
4,
3,
56,
22,
40,
5,
64,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
3,
3,
23,
3,
8,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
38,
2,
3,
105,
14,
48,
3,
2,
10,
4,
8,
3,
3,
4,
3,
5,
20,
2,
4,
8,
3,
2,
18,
5,
4,
4,
11,
3,
3,
4,
18,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
4,
4,
4,
3,
4,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
3,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
21,
5,
25,
2,
6,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
15,
2,
17,
2,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2,
3,
13,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
12,
3,
3,
9,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
7,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
9,
3,
3,
8,
3,
6,
3,
4,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We have a list of rights that the American people are entitled to. Owning a gun is the second one, so it's pretty important.",
"Part of this goes back to our constitution, and part of it is probably a product of our history. Many people in the US feel that gun ownership is a right that shouldn't be infringed, and others feel guns serve no purpose in a modern society. Differing views create intense debate.",
"It is because the 2nd amendment to our constitution says that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. \n\nThe controversy is in the exact wording of the amendment. Gun control activists think that it only applies to state militias, while gun groups say it is an individual right. \n\nThe supreme court has upheld that it is an individual right, but there is a point in which some guns are not allowed, such as the Firearms act of 1986 that stopped the sale of automatic weapons. \n\nAmerica's gun culture is quite a bit different than other countries due to how our country was formed. Citizen soldier's won our independence from the British, and our founding fathers wanted the citizens to be able to fight against tyranny even if it was their own government.\n\nEdit1: There are many replies that I am wrong on the firearms act of 1986. I oversimplified the act. It made it very difficult to buy a fully automatic weapon, in such that you could not buy one that was manufactured after 1986. You can legally own a fully automatic weapon if it was made before 1986 and you go through the ATF paperwork to get the $250 tax stamp and you had a local authority sign off on said paperwork. The cost of a fully automatic weapon and the hoops to jump through to get one, makes it very hard to own one, which is what I meant by stopping the sales of fully auto guns.",
"I think part of it is a fear that if the govt takes away one right, even if having that right causes extra deaths and danger, what's to start them from taking others like free speech or free religion. Taking the right to bear arms is viewed as the beginning to a slippery slope",
"As most people have already mentioned firearm ownership was established as a fundamental right to the American people during the revolutionary era. In the time of colonization following America establishing itself you needed firearms too hunt and defend yourself. The 2nd Amendment says that you should basically have guns to defend yourself and just in case the government becomes tyrannical you should form up and topple it and then restart. Now as time went on gun ownership became somewhat of a right of passage and a point of pride. Not too mention only 65 or so years after the United States became a country they became embroiled in one of the bloodiest civil wars ever. You had too have some form of weapon to defend yourself from outlaws, deserters, and one too join whichever side you fought for. as time progressed some parts of the country drifted away from firearms rights and the need for them, (Specifically the north-eastern regions; New York, Massachusetts, etc. as they were industrialized centers of commerce, and also the West coast since by the time it was heavily colonized it was almost the 20th century so firearms weren't really needed.) Where I'm from, the southern United State, the gun culture is heavy because we still hunt often, some type of game is in season all year so you always have something to hunt, and also because of that deep-seated rift caused by the civil war. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is something that they actually have down here. So honestly the gun control topic hits on several various topics about regionalism in the United States. The country in itself is so large its impossible not to be divided on several topics and this one strikes a nerve in a different way for every region.\nI hope you were able to understand what im trying to get at. Its pretty hard to state without giving you a history of the United States and its expansion and how that affected the way of life differently all over. Also Ive been up for 24 hours....",
"Because as one of our constitutional rights, it should not be changed by legislative decision, but rather by constitutional amendment. If congress passes legislation that bans or restricts private ownership of firearms, it would set a dangerous precedent that our legislative branch is above our own constitution. There is an amendment process, but it requires individual state votes rather than congressional support and I do not think that such an amendment would garner enough support throughout the nation to be ratified. \n\nTL;DR: Some see gun control as amendments to the constitution made without regard to the amendment process.",
"I dont' really understand how this can be a no brainer. Criminals and gangs will still have guns as they do have drugs or sell human slaves regardless of any regulation. It will only be common folk who will have nothing to protect themselves with if you'd really ban the guns making easy targets out of people living in remote locations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying _everyone_ should be able to own it, but it is really not that black or white as most people tend to think.",
"This is an excellent question and I really want to see a good answer. The responses so far fail to address OP's point though.\n\n'Why is gun control so controversial in the US?'\n\n'Because the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution.'\n\n'But **why** is it guaranteed in the constitution?'\n\n'Because this was necessary in the 1700s.'\n\n'But why do people care about that **today**?'\n\n'Because their right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution!'\n\n*Facepalm.*\n\nSo to phrase it another way: what is it about the US - politically, economically or culturally - that means that so many people today still attach so much significance to what otherwise might look to an uninformed observer like an archaic law, overdue for repeal, [similar to those existing in plenty of other countries.](_URL_0_)",
"We Americans like things that go boom-boom because our pea brains can't handle the vast intellect of Europeans and others. \n\nJust kidding you. \n\nIt's a tough topic to discuss rationally. I glanced through some of the comments--lol--sounds like some talk radio shows: in which loudness equals correctness [Edited a word for ambiguity].\n\nI suppose it would be like asking why Tibet favors Buddhism so much: history, culture, people accepting it for themselves due to exposure, \"echo\" effect (you stay in the places that accept what you accept), and so on. [Edit 2: Note: I'm not trying to look down on Buddhism as a religion/philosophy, or Tibet as a country. Please accept this inadequate analogy for what it is trying to do: draw an imperfect parallel to highlight that it is a complex of factors and they aren't easy to separate when trying to figure out why a country has characteristics]\n\nThe analogy breaks down though because we also have a hotly contested amendment to the Constitution that may or may not (oh boy) protect the rights of ordinary people to get guns. Or maybe its for a militia, and who knows what that means? \n\nIt's a politically convenient way of short-circuiting people's thinking and making them angry and riled up to vote for you, if you're on the \"correct\" side. \n\nGun control is a topic like altering social security benefits: a topic that guarantees you venomous debate and enraged Americans. Many of them have reasons for their anger: some have been raped and claim that having a gun would've helped; some have had family members shot and claim that gun control would've helped. Therefore, despite my flippancy, it's a topic that makes me sad. ",
"The right is explicitly outlined in the US constitution - encroachment on any of those rights tends to be a debate. The reason for permission of individual ownership of firearms is of course historical, related to the militias largely responsible for defeating the British colonial rule. Gun culture was of course big in the westward expansion of the US (the Wild West and all).\n\nNow? The debate is loud simply because the US is too large & diverse to come to a consensus. In a lot of ways, it's a rural vs. urban thing. Gun ownership is big in rural states whom tend to enjoy hunting / sport shooting and live in small communities where police response time is low, and everyone knows everyone... they're simply not a problem in that context. In larger cities, particularly ones with pockets of low-income / crime filled areas, they're a big problem.\n\nWhy we can't agree that hunting rifles are OK but concealable handguns are not is somewhat beyond me, but the two sides simply cannot understand each other's point of view. The NRA is a gigantic lobby that radicalizes its members, so there's just no rational discussion.\n\nDespite being a rather liberal urbanite in favor of gun control here in the US, I do find the UK's approach of removing firearms from citizens and installing surveillance cameras on every street corner a bit unnerving and slightly Orwellian. \n",
"The US Constitution was framed by those who envisioned an empowered citizenary with strong civil law. Our police are not responsible for our protection, rather they to enforce law. ",
"Why does the government need a monopoly on killing people at a distance? \n\nThe people who made the laws preventing you from owning a gun, do you believe they move around with unarmed guards? \n\nWhy are their lives worth defending but yours is not? ",
"On top of what's been mentioned, \"when the rest of the world sees it as a no-brainer\"? Because we're Americans. If you tell us we can't do something we're going to fucking do it. The gun liberated this country, and the gun won the West. \n\nWhen you're talking about gun control, it requires you to take away something that we already have. Other countries may have a more collectivist attitude and believe giving up privileges they've enjoyed is 'for the best' (not everyone, mind you - there's plenty of people in all these countries who are NOT happy with the firearm laws, especially in Australia), but America is a highly individualistic country. Self-reliance is prized here. And a gun is the strongest symbol of personal autonomy you can have. With a gun you can defend yourself. You can feed yourself. You can free yourself. If there is one thing you would take into the apocalypse it would be a gun.\n\nGuns are without a doubt ingrained into the very fabric of America. Gun control in America makes as much sense as trying to impose beer control in Germany. Which is an interesting comparison, because I'll bet you can't guess what cause of death is much higher in Germany than in the US :)\n\nWhat I find baffling is that the rest of the world finds diminishing their rights *to be* a 'no-brainer'. To what extent are you willing to push this? People on Reddit are upset about the UK's and Australia's censorship laws, but isn't that just an extension of gun control laws? That the need to 'protect society' outweighs your desire to look at porn and play violent video games? The UK has had an unhealthy obsession with CCTV and recording everything in public for a long time now - I thought it was very eerie when I lived there, having poles bristling with cameras in public spaces. Again, apparently the need to 'protect society' outweighs my desire for anonymity and privacy, even in a public space.",
"In America it has been proven that the areas with the most strict gun laws (Chicago) have been suffering from the highest gun violence. Criminals do not follow the laws only responsible citizens like myself do. The last few school/movie theatre/military base shooters went on their rampages until someone else with a gun showed up and then they took their own life. Your question....why is so controversial...simply put, the anti gun advocates never let a tragedy go to waste as they say...and when something bad happens usually they are out screaming from the rooftops ban guns ban guns before the bodies have even been buried which is shameful. It shows a type a faux compassion as if they are trying to save lives even though the statistics prove that high gun control areas suffer from more violence and gun deaths.",
"As mentioned ad nauseam, it is in our bill of rights as the second entry. The Supreme Court also upheld it as an individual right, as opposed to a collective right. \n\nGoing further, I've read some remarks here about how it is \"not applicable\" in the 21st century due presumably to how great things are and how powerful are own military is. First, things are not great in the United States. Our government is as terrible as it has ever been and considerably more oppressive (economic conditions they've engineered\\mismanaged for the benefit of the few notwithstanding), and this is observable simply through programs like PRISM and how much raw power the federal government has vis a vis the States- this was not \nhow our nation was ever meant to be structured. That much consolidated power would have made peoples head explode a few centuries ago. \n\nOur military is egregiously huge and sophisticated, I'll grant you that. Fun fact: Constitution only calls for a standing Navy during times of peace as a means to secure trade routes and protect our coasts. Yet, we have an enormous three branch military (Air Force came much later) that is armed to the teeth 24/7 and has constantly expanded. \n\nThe argument that gun owners would be stomped apart by the military, in the hypothetical event of a civil war, is an uneducated belief but an understandable one in my opinion. Somewhere around 43-55 million people in the United States own firearms. At present, our combined military might stands at 1.4 million servicemen (not all of which are combat capable but perform other duties). Even if just 10% of gun owners were to finally get fed up and \"go to war\" and the United States throws all of its man power at them, they would still be out numbered minimum 3:1. Further, the issue gets problematic because the same demographic that owns firearms and is big second amendment is often the very same as those who are in the military. In other words, defection would be rampant on ideological and personal grounds. Plus, how many military servicemen would be otherwise willing to kill their own people? Family? Friends? Neighbors? \n\nIf they called up the draft, how many would really go? How would they ensure loyalty within their own ranks at this point?\n\nThe whole thing is a logistical nightmare.\n\nAdditionally, many police agencies fall along similar lines and in this hypothetical I find it likely that quite a few States would endorse the separatist movement. If it were a full blown civil war, this would happen. Which also brings into play National Guard elements (which I'm not sure ARE counted in that above 1.4 million figure), which are fairly well armed and trained. \n\nLastly, the military would not bring to bear all its firepower. I cannot imagine them doing air strikes or lobbing cruise missiles at population centers- do you? \n\nSo it would be a fraction of military and federal agencies vs. A very well armed pissed off populace combined with defectors (and the ordinance they bring).\n\nAll you have to do is look at Afghanistan and all of the problems and losses both we and the Russians have suffered during our respective occupations. Given our easy access to materials, firearms and knowledge the result would be something many, many times worse than Afghanistan. Insane guerrilla warfare, which our military and its typical doctrine is not great at dealing with.\n\nForeign powers would probably be involved, and this is where I really cannot say how it would go. I could see NATO trying to step in to help the US Government while powers like China and Russia would attempt to aid rebels. US economy would collapse and take the world with it, which is something nobody wants. ",
"I think we should look at the primary use for most firearms in America. I own 14 guns, and never once have I been holding one and it decide that it needs to kill somebody. Crazy.....\nMost of the guns in America are used for recreation. Whether it be hunting, skeet shooting, shooting competitions, or just plinking around with the .22. If the need ever arises where I must defend my home, and use lethal force on a intruder, you better believe I'll do it. The founding fathers intent for guns was not so that the people could hunt, but rather to protect themselves from threats, both foreign and domestic. ",
"You realise that new zealands gun laws are extremely relaxed compared to most places for example Australia? You get semi autos, suppressors etcetc. And guess what the australian laws were stricter than New Zealands BEFORE the Port Arthur massacre and the subsequent law reforms and buy backs. We currently have more gun crime than we did then. Dodgy post office workers importing glock handguns for gangs. Sydney's gang voilence is out of control. Last week there was several shooting in launceston tasmania which is a small place and get this one of the shootings was a driveby with a semi auto rifle. These have been unobtainable under all but the strictest requirements for SEVENTEEN YEARS but hey looks like criminals can still get them. Anyway before you start making blanket statements about the entire world knowing gun control works and how your country is better off with it maybe you should actually check what your laws are like compared to others cos off the top of my head I cant think of many countries other than america that has as relaxed gun laws as yours! ",
"Being an owner saved my life when I had a guy break into my place. I'm not all gung-ho, I only own sidearms and a shotgun, but I'll be damned if I listen to someone who hasn't been in a life-or-death situation like I have to lecture me on what I do and don't need in terms of weapons. \n\nThere's guns everywhere. You won't be able to retrieve them all. That's the way it is here. Making them illegal won't prevent crime, no more than making drugs illegals has stopped consumption. If you don't want them, GREAT. Don't get them. Just be sure that you figure out some way to stop an armed intruder without one. I'll handle things my way.\n\nOther items:\n\n* I believe all potential owners should take a mandatory course\n* Felons caught with sidearms should do at least 5 years\n* I'm 100% fine with background checks",
"There is not just ONE simple answer to this question:\n1. Having a gun is not just about hunting and protection, it has become a symbolic gesture here in America.\n2. The increase in random shootings has meant that people have been forced to take sides on gun issues. (...is the answer more or less access to guns?)\n3. Gun control laws are politicized by lawmakers on both sides.\n4. The NRA, (a very powerful lobby with lots of $$$) has much influence over gun legislation.",
"I usually don't bother with these threads cause talking to people who want to control your life and think they know better than you is like talking to a wall, but I'll bite. This country was founded on the constitution all of our laws are based on it, new citizens have to pledge allegiance to it and public servants an oath to uphold it. The founding fathers were among the smartest men of their time and wrote it with the future of the u.s in mind. In its most basic form it is a means to keep the government in check, people will be like \"but how can you say that they have tanks and planes\" true enough but if we were to fight a tyrannical u.s government it would be an insurgency, which are incredibly affective against conventional forces (see Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan both the u.s and Russia). Gun deaths are high in the u.s but a lot of those gun deaths are from self defense as well as suicide. Not all, but some. Places like brazil and Mexico are amongst the highest with gun control and the highest with gun murders. I'd much rather be able to protect mine and my own with deadly force than cower and become a victim. To add another point, people saying the 2nd amendment only is for muskets, that must mean the first is only for the printing press and newspapers, murder is wrong, and any and all deaths from firearms are a tragedy, but in a day and age where the internet is watched over, the police are power hunger and criminals are persistent, I'll hold on to my firearms. You can give peace a chance, I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.",
"\"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\"\n\nWords do matter. Please stop saying that the Second Amendment gives us the right to guns. It assumes that we already have that right and that the right will not be infringed.",
"This is how my European brain sees it, I hope that I can do the oppinions justice:\n\nIn America, if it's one thing that everybody knows for sure, it's that freedom and democracy are unquestionable good entities. A pride for the country itself is also if not unquestionable, atleast almost so.\n\nIn the center of the freedom and democracy (and the country) there are the amendments of the constitution that was made 1789, and has later been added on to.\n\nThe lower number amendments came to place historically earlier, and the right to keep and bear arms is one of the original amendments.\n\nSo basically, you're questioning an item on a list that contains strictly good items, and that is central to their world veiw of freedom. Not only that, it is even one of the central items on this list. It could be likened with the right to vote, freedom of religion, or the right to be tried by a decent trial before punished.",
"It's because of Lobbyists, they're ruining our country...",
"People claim [The second amendment.]( _URL_0_)\n\nPersonally I think it's more down to the fact that some Americans really like their guns. I get it guns are cool, no doubt about it. Pull a trigger shit explodes. Problem is all the peoples faces and chest cavities that keep getting in the way.\n\nFirstly that document was written hundreds of years ago after a revolution. They feared the English would come back to spank them and they only had a rag tag armed force, so everyman was needed in defence and keeping order. It was a war time document.\n\nSecondly IT WAS A FUCKING AMENDMENT! Which means it was changed once already. But for some illogical reason it is now sanctified on a biblical level. So the wisdom of people who lived hundreds of years ago in a completely different world of flint lock rifles, that took about 3 minutes to reload one shitty ball bearing, is applied to high velocity assault rifles that fire hundreds of rounds a second and pistol rounds that explode on fucking impact!\n\nThey didn't write this in the hope that every private citizen carries an AR15 and for gun crime to become what it is. You think they'd stand by it looking at the stats today?\n\nIt's funny that American politicians and presidents can't seem to do anything right by Americans these days, but the founding fathers and their buddies nailed it first go around, no need for revision or interpretation of the spirit of the law.\n\nHow about this, try it out. Just for a year say. See how it works in a few states (don't worry southerners, not you). The cops can keep them to combat the inevitable bad eggs from trying to capitalise and I'll keep an eye on the Brits from over here and give you heads up if I notice anything shady. If you really don't like it you can have them back. But I think the stats would speak for themselves and you could have a reasonable debate then.\n\nEdit: Wasn't done bacon reader. Fuck you.",
"I dislike that almost no comments address the fact that Guns have been ingrained into American culture since our inception. There is a massive following for guns and weapons in the united states, with things like hunting and firing ranges being immensely popular over here. Hell, some people have rooms in their houses dedicated to just storing *guns*. Yeah, the consitutional right may come from our history, but the opposition nowadays comes from the fact that guns are considered an important part of American culture.",
"Apologies for incoming wall of text...\n\nFellow Kiwi here so I can't claim to be an expert on US law or culture but I might be able to offer a little explanation of what the main issue is from my perspective. Now while I agree that having stricter gun control laws like we have is probably better for a country in general and other people higher up in this thread have offered sources for stats on this. However I think the main issue that outsiders like us don't seem to realise is that even if you changed America's gun laws to what we have today, it probably would not help at all. Now many of those against gun control make arguments along the lines of 'If you take away a law abiding citizen's means of defense, you make it more likely they will get killed as criminals don't follow the law anyway so they will still have guns'. While I don't generally agree with this logic, I think in the specific case of the US it holds some truth. This is mainly due to the fact that there are so many guns in their country already. Having the government require you to register your guns and prove your proficiency with them (licensing) to be allowed to own and operate one does very little when many of the people who would commit gun crime already own their weapons and aren't inclined to play along... This type of gun control is very effective in a country where if you wanted a gun you would have to go out and buy it, it is designed to restrict access to guns if you have bad motives. However it does nothing to restrict access to guns that are already in circulation so to speak, which I believe is the main issue America faces. \nSo while it is all very well to sit here and be like 'oh they should just be more like us'. We have to realise that one solution does not necessarily work in all cases. While I would like to see a solution to the frankly scary approach to armaments currently in the US, I cannot personally think of a solution that fits the situation and if one is found I think it will be unique to them and probably not look anything like what we might imagine.\n\nTL;DR:\nThe US is in a fairly unique situation and will need a unique solution (if they decide they need a solution) and not our one :)\n ",
"Did you know that in the UK, it is illegal to carry a knife without \"good reason\"-and the court gets to decide, in hindsight apparently, if the reason was good enough. It's \"pound me in the ass prison\" illegal to carry a locking blade knife. As an American, that is fucking appalling. Are you kidding me? A locking blade knife? That's why we resist gun legislation-it is indeed a slippery slope to ridiculousness, and goddammit-it's our right to bear arms. It's not called the land of the free for nothin'. (Edit:spelling)",
"I'm not sure if it's a not brainer everywhere.\nPoliticians in most places see it as a no brainer, but not necessarily the population. \n\nFor example, here in Brazil we have strict prohibition not because of popular will but in spite of it.\nA few years ago we had a referendum on disarmament, and the anti-weapons side had all the famous politicians from all the major parties, the bulk of the media (TV, radio and newspapers) and pro-weapons had almost nobody defending its side.\nIn the end pro-armament won by 64% against 36% and despite that, weapons have been more and more controlled, to the point that people who really need* them can't get them and who shouldn't have them, buy assault rifles in Paraguai as easy as you can buy a banana.\n\n*by that I mean people who lives in the country, hours away from help and even telecom, where there are dangerous animals that commonly attack humans and similar cases.\n\nEdit: Not only anti-armament lost by far, they lost in all Brazilian states without exceptions.",
"We prefer to be citizens, not subjects.",
"I found this Episode of Penn and Teller To be Helpful.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Another issue that I haven't seen is that the US is very large geographically. Many citizens live in rural places where policing is hard to do because of how spread out everything is. In these areas, a person's first line of defense is themselves; even neighbors are sometimes too far away to help in the event of an emergency. Thus, these people believe a gun is necessary to protect your self and your family, even though there's very little chance you'll ever need to use it thusly.\n\nContrast this to guns in the cities where you have 14 year olds shooting at other 14 year olds, sometimes missing and killing 6 year olds. Not everyone in the US is pro gun. There's a lot of tension between the cities where gun violence makes places like Englewood in Chicago look like Baghdad in Iraq, and in rural areas where gun ownership is considered common and people aren't killing each other daily.\n\nThen there's the third group I'll call the crazies. They believe they need to own guns because a revolution in the US is imminent, and a few well-armed citizens can defeat the US military. These people hoard assault weapons, grenades, body armor, etc in hopes (yes, hope) of getting to use them in armed conflict against the US. A lot of these folk are brainwashed about the civil war and say things like it wasn't about slavery (it was) and call it the war of northern aggression. It wouldn't surprise me if they were bipolar, schizophrenic, or has some other mental illness, because their level of paranoia is remarkable, as is there delusion that 20 guys with assault weapons can overthrow the government. It's this group, led by the NRA that prevents open dialogue between the first two groups.\n\nObviously I'm a little biased, but that's the gist of it. Lots of other issues as well that others touched upon (culture, hunting, personal rights, etc).",
"America unlike most countries only exists because of guns. It won its independence via the gun, won more territory because of the gun. We're a country defined as much by the gun and the symbol of what it means, as Britain is by sword and long bow. Their is a old southern saying, \"As American as god and guns\".Historically speaking having the right to own guns was indicator of rights and status in America. Only whites and some natives we're allowed to own guns in some states. When blacks in certain states owned guns they could defend themselves from the Klan, when the police didn't . Its a important part of our history and culture.\n\nWe will have gun control in America but with time , I belive in the right to bear arms. But I'm practical person I think it can regulated without infringing on the peoples rights. And I hope that's the case. \n",
"I dont see the argument that guns are legal to protect the citizens from the government. Because lets be honest all the stories of the power hungry police officers who get away with everything. We americans never seem to stand up to them, or protest. We just bend over and let it happen.",
"The reason we have guns and it's a major issue is because of a few reasons.\n\nThe first one being that back when we were a British colony and started talking about wanting freedom, the Brits tried to take away our guns. Once we kicked them out, we made it a law that no one could take away our guns.\n\nFlash forward to today. Guns are big money, anytime there is big money, there is big political influence and anything that threatens the big money gets fierce opposition from the people making the money. Don't for a second believe that the NRA gives two shits about the law or freedom, it's about money. \n\nThe bottom line for me is simple, we have too many fucking guns and they are too easy to get. It's simple math really, if we had less guns and they were harder to get, it would lessen the chances of some crazy fuck getting a gun and shooting my kids. If there were less guns and they were harder to get, it would be harder for criminals to get guns so less people would need guns for protection. \n\nVery few people \"need\" a gun for protection. You're more likely to die from a meteor strike than you are from being shot by a stranger. Drive down the highway, get in the left hand lane and drive 5 MPH over the speed limit. In about 10 seconds, some guy in a giant pickup will be 10 inches from your bumper. What thought process says that piloting a 2 ton vehicle at 75 MPH and driving 10 inches from someone else going 75 MPH makes sense? Now, imagine that brain surgeon carrying a gun into a crowded room when a car backfires or someone drops a tray? \n\nLets address this whole defend against a government takeover thing. What good did all the guns do when the NSA started recording your phone calls? No gun nut I've ever talked to has an answer for that one. \n\nBefore someone brings it up, let's talk about Cliven Bundy. To start off with, the guy is breaking the law so all those nut jobs who showed up with their guns, stating that they were going to put their wives out in front so the big bad government could kill them first, were defending a criminal. Isn't it a bit ironic that they profess to need guns to protect themselves from criminals but yet they come out in support of a criminal? Yes, they made the government back down but make no mistake, if the government had decided to start shooting, all those idiots would be dead. \n\nMore importantly to me than all this silly rhetoric is that we had a period in American history when everyone walked around with a gun, it was called the Wild West. Then we grew up and became a civilized society, a place where you don't have to carry a gun all the time, where you can walk the streets without worrying about someone shooting you. Why do we want to go back to those times? Crimes rates are going down, not up, things aren't getting worse, they are better so why do we need all these guns?",
"Owning and using firearms for recreation and protection is a part of my heritage and it's protected by the United States constitution. \"...Shall not be infringed.\"\n\nYou're right, it is a no-brainer. ",
"A [brief history of gun control actions over time](_URL_0_) is pretty revealing. What is the obsession with banning guns? Hundreds of thousands more people die every year from obesity. If you're so intent on forcing others to live how you wish, why not force them to spend some time on the treadmill? That would save more lives.",
"A lot of people will say that it is because it is in the constitution, but I think this is misleading. \n\nProhibition was added, then removed from the constitution; the original constitution had nothing to say about slavery; there was no cap on presidential terms to begin with. The point being that the constitution can be changed to reflect the will of the people. In other words, if people wanted the guns removed, they would demand that the constitution be changed. People in the United States don't feel entitled to firearms because of a document... they feel entitled to firearms, and the document reflects it.\n\nThe truth is that the United States is a violent place that loves weaponry. There is no other first world nation that even approaches the United States in terms of murders per year, or people imprisoned. The popular entertainment of the culture is saturated with violence. The people of the US have an entirely different mindset on the issue of gun ownership than any other nation.\n\nThe country itself is well located, easy to defend, and bursting with agricultural and mineral wealth, and that has made the United States a rich nation, but the culture is nothing like that of other developed countries. People in other places will continue to struggle to understand the resistance to gun control in the United States because they don't fully understand how different the culture is on a level that goes much deeper than what Americans look like or what language they speak.\n\n\n\n\n",
"American here. \n\n1. The United States was born from armed revolution. American gun culture is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Since it's inception, there has been an omnipresent contention as to whether the Second Amendment applies to “the people” in a collectivist or individualistic way. One thing is for certain; the Founders along with both of the above camps agree that the right to bear arms is the people’s method of checking governmental tyranny. Today, many Americans own firearms for hunting, target shooting (sport), and home defense. \n\n2. In America, violent crime, including gun related crime, has been steadily declining and is currently at historic lows. Media sensationalize mass shootings and the like and often give the impression that firearm homicide is increasing, but that isn't supported by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. To demonstrate how sensationalized and politicized firearms have become in America, in particular the AR-15 rifle (aesthetically similar to the M-16: \n\nOf the 12,765 2012 UCR homicide victims, 8,855 were killed with firearms. 6,371 homicide victims were murdered with handguns, 322 with rifles, 303 with shotguns, 110 with other guns, and 1,749 firearms not stated. 1,589 homicide victims were murdered with knives, 518 with blunt objects, 678 with personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 12 with poison, 8 with explosives, 85 with fire, 35 with narcotics, 13 from drowning, 89 from strangulation, 105 from asphyxiation, and 778 from other weapons or weapons not stated. \nAs was previously mentioned, the AR-15 rifle has received a lot of attention lately due to mass murder offenders choosing to use the firearm is shootings such as Newtown and Aurora. However, rifles only accounted for 322 of the 8,855 total firearm deaths. According to the data, an American is almost five times more likely to die from a knife than a rifle and almost twice as likely to die from blunt objects or personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) An American citizen is almost 600 times more likely to die from medical malpractice than from firearms.\n\n3. Firearm violence is committed by and affects different racial demographics.\nFor example:\n\nIn 2012, there were 14,581 homicide offenders. Males comprised 9,425 (64.6%) of the total homicide offenders, females accounted for 1,098 (7.5%), and unknown homicide offenders represent 4,058 (27.8%). Regarding the racial breakdown of homicide offenders, whites accounted for 4,582 (31.4%), blacks for 5,531 (37.9%), other races for 240 (1.6%), and 4,228 (29%) for unknown. According to the Department of Justice, from 1980 to 2008, whites accounted for 45.3% of homicide offenders, blacks for 52.5%, and Native Americans and Asians for 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost eight times higher than whites and the victim rate was six times higher. The majority of homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by white homicide offenders, and 93% of black homicide victims murdered by black homicide offenders. The data appears unambiguous. With blacks making up around 13% of the United States’ population, the victimization and offender rate for blacks pertaining to homicide is an epidemic unseen in other racial demographics. \n\nAccording to the 2012 UCR, 12,765 Americans were the victims of homicide. Of those, 9,917 were male and 2,834 were female. Further, 5,855 were white, 6,454 were black, 326 were other race, and 130 were unknown race. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, during 1999-2002, among persons 10-19 years old, the homicide rate for blacks was estimated to be 17.8 per 100,000 population, a rate 10 times that of whites (1.8 per 100,000) and higher than the rates reported for American Indians/Alaska Natives (6.0 per 100,000) Asian/Pacific Islanders (2.9 per 100,000) and Hispanics (8.0 per 100,000). According to the 2012 UCR, of the 12,765 homicide victims, 7,651 were 34 years old or younger. In the absence of a major change in homicides amongst the various races, sexes, and age demographics, it is evident that young men are color are astronomically more likely to be victims of homicide. \n\nI am not, in any way shape or form, making an argument that blacks are more inclined for a life of crime. IMO, Black and Hispanic violent crime rates are more directly related to: (a) competing over scarce resources in an urban environment, (b) street gang culture, (c) the War on Drugs, (d) and the disintegration of the family (partially a product of the War on Drugs, as nearly 80% of black children are now born \"illegitimate.\" Because of the above, it becomes clear as to why different demographic groups have different views of firearms, and (e) America doesn't have the same degree of generous social welfare programs that many other countries have, thus increasing competition for resources.\n\nIt should also be noted, that the first major gun control legislations put in place were found in the Reconstruction Era South via the Black Codes. That's right, the first gun control pushes were to disarm newly freed slaves who had come back to their former masters for work after their service in the Union Army. \n\nI could go on and on, but I hope this post helps. \n\n\n\n",
"The way I like to describe it is that pro gun and anti gun activists argue at different points on a hypothetical timeline. This explains why they can't understand each other's points.\n\nAnti gun activists want to reduce access to guns. This should therefore decrease the amount of crimes committed with guns. This would basically stop the gun related crime incident before it happens. Statistically speaking you are safer because you are less likely to be a victim.\n\nPro gun activists argue from the perspective of currently being in a gun related crime incident. Just because you are statistically less likely to be a victim, that doesn't mean there won't still be victims. If they were a victim, they feel much safer having a gun to maintain control of that situation themselves, instead of taking solace in the fact that they are a statistical anomaly.",
"People can be convinced to give any right away in the name of safety. Americans won their independence from Britain with guns and the whole purpose of the second amendment is to give citizens the right to fight government tyranny. It doesn't matter how far guns have come, muskets were military weapons at that time and citizens were still allowed to use them. The argument that guns have advanced so much people shouldn't have them is a false argument. ",
"There are a ton of good points in this thread, but I think the one that is most often overlooked is the PRACTICALITY of sweeping gun control legislation in the U.S.\n\nLet's go to a world in which all of a sudden the U.S. doesn't have the 2nd Amendment. That's kind of absurd in and of itself, but for the sake of a mental exercise let's pretend it's true.\n\nThere are an estimated [270 million to 310 million guns in the U.S.](_URL_0_) Getting rid of them would be a logistical nightmare. How can you be sure you got them all? How can you keep track of that? More importantly...\n\nThe 4th Amendment. Protection against illegal search and seizure. Does the government now have the right to enter your home and search your premises looking for guns? Remember, there's an estimated 34% of households which own guns in the U.S. Stand in front of a suburban house. Look left and look right. One of them probably has a gun in there. Can the government find any justification for entering peoples' homes here?\n\nThe U.S. has simply gone too far in terms of gun ownership to turn back without violating serious privacy rights. Thus, if guns are going to be a part of the world people live in, you better make sure that law-abiding citizens have as much access to them as people desiring to do harm. If Joe Stickup can pick up a Saturday Night Special from his buddy on the corner, then Grandma should probably be able to acquire one too, if for no other reason than as a force equalizer.\n\nThis is the crux of the debate right now. Who should be able to own guns, what guns can they get, and how easily can they get them? It's extraordinarily complicated, and can't simply be boiled down to \"this is the way it *should* be.\"",
"I think the real question is, Why do europeans and oceanians seem to think they qualify as \"the rest of the world?\" so often. There are plenty of countries with gun control laws less restrictive than those of the US, and others where they are practically unenforceable. Hell even Switzerland has arguably more lax gun control laws. Perhaps give [this] (_URL_0_) a read. ",
"I think the real question is, Why do europeans and oceanians seem to think they qualify as \"the rest of the world?\" so often. There are plenty of countries with gun control laws less restrictive than those of the US, and others where they are practically unenforceable. Hell even Switzerland has arguably more lax gun control laws. Perhaps give [this] (_URL_0_) a read. ",
"There are a lot of reasons. For one thing most of the world's countries have been settled for a long time. But not the US. It wasn't really that long ago here that you needed a gun to be able to survive. \n\nAnother issue that nobody else in the world seems to understand is that our forefather's didn't trust governments. They knew that any government they created would likely become corrupt and inimical to the rights of the people. And boy were they right! That's why they made sure we stayed armed. An armed people are a free people. You guys in Europe will NEVER be able to free yourselves from your government again. But in the US we at least have a fighting chance against ours. Because of our guns.\n\n",
"I live in the Detroit area for the last 25 year. My thought about your civilized Europe was it was rampant with organized crime that came over from old Soviet union countries. History has really shown us that disarming citizens is the first step before dictatorship. Aka Hitler and Stalin. You think China or north Korea would get away with as much brutality against their own people if they were armed?",
"Simple. We don't trust our government, son. We don't trust that they would have our best interests in mind in case of civil war or societal collaspe. You see, lad... We aren't really a single entity but a grouping of 50 mostly-like-minded countries. If the state next to mine goes nuts (Florida, looking at you) we like to reserve the right to shoot them until they stop acting up. Likelwise, if I were a Floridian... And the government suddenly decided to clear the entire state for a military base or recreational water park for military elites... I would like to reserve the right to shoot those trying to take my land. \n \nA gun can prevent simple theft... But in this country it is. Ostly about protecting the people from theft of rights or property by government. Our society was born of this mistrust of government and it is our way of life.",
"The news in America only talks about how guns commit mass murders and never covers it when they save a life or stop a mugging/robbery/murder/etc from happening.\n\nThis is where the majority of anti-gun folk get their information. They just believe what they see on TV. ",
"Quite frankly, we need them. My house has been broken into a few times, as well as my garage and my car. I've also been jumped walking downtown for no reason other than they may have wanted to rob me and take my wallet and cell phone. In an immediate life or death situation, the police cannot help you. Response time at minimum would be around 8 minutes, maximum around 90 minutes in some places like Detroit. Personally, it's not even about \"defending myself from a possible tyrannical government.\" There are a lot of bad boys out there and I'm going to defend my house no matter what. I'm not bloodthirsty, paranoid, or a vigilante. I'm a normal American guy and if you come into my house and threaten my family I will have to put you down. \nWhy are attitudes like mine more prevalent in America? Most likely less crime in Europe and there's little need to defend yourselves from common criminals.",
"Because it's not a 'no brainer'. Everbody should have the right to self defense. You hear about all these gun related crimes and mass shootings, but all the locations of these shootings have one thing in common. They're *'gun free zones'*, schools, theaters, and airports are (for the most part) gun free zones. Take the New Town school shooting for example, if someone there had a firearm that mass shooting wouldn't have happened. It would have been stopped. You can't say \"Well if we take away guns that will stop gun crimes\" it won't. There are more firearms than people in the US. When gun laws were loosened about 10-12 years ago, gun related crimes *actual* went down. They continue to go down today as well.\n\nLets look at other countries for a minute. The UK basically has a gun ban for its citizens (I know it's possible to get a gun, but it's very hard). The UK has the highest crime rate in Europe, where as in Switzerland, where people can own guns, has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. Mexico, has a total gun ban for all its citizens, and look at the place! It's over run by drug cartel! Even if you look at the US, California has the strictest gun laws, but highest crime rate. I'm from NJ, again one of the strictest gun law states, and were home to Camden. The most violent city in the US for many years! Guns are banned in DC and it has a very high murder rate.\n\nThe media likes to use big numbers and false stats to trick you in to thinking guns are *'evil killing machines'* (they're not). The US has a population of 313.9 million people. The News will tell you that there was about 9,000 gun homicides in 2010 (I couldn't get more recent stats). What they don't tell you is that 75% are justifiable homicides. That leaves 2,250 murders, **BUT** only 4% of that 2k was done with rifles (which they are targeting to ban)! That's only 90 murders with so called '*assault wepons*'! That's nothing compared to the population of 313,900,000 people not including the 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the US, for a total of 325,300,000 people! 47% of Americans own firearms. That's half the population, if you take that into consideration there isn't really that big of a gun problem. Also the media never tells you about the millions of lives guns save everyday. More people are killed by cars, knives, hammers, drugs, baseball bats, and drunk drivers than guns.\n\nAlso, without guns we would have never broke free from the British expanded west, freed slaves, settled in Alaska the list goes on and on. Not to mention we have a ton of animals that will kill you! A almost stepped on a [Copperhead](_URL_0_) the other day! ",
"There are a handful of exceptions, but as a whole, gun control doesn't work. Criminals don't follow laws, so why punish the innocent?\nViolent crime normally increases in places where guns are taken away. ",
" > Why is gun control such a controversial topic in the USA when the rest of the world sees it as a no-brainer?\n\nWait? What? Since when?\n\n > I'm from New Zealand. \n\nWell of course you are, why in the world is it always British subjects that are prattling on about gun control? It's a no-brainer to the commonwealth since it is tradition for the British to disarm their citizens, look up what the Scottish had to do when they were banned from carrying swords around. Or what the British did to India when it effectively disarmed the country. It's your *tradition* to ban people to protect themselves and put their trust into their government? Why, fuck knows I'm not a member of the commonwealth and have no intention of ever being one. Maybe a commonwealth member can chime in.\n\n\nAs for America, it's very simple. You know where else in North America guns are 100% banned from civilian use?\n\nMexico. You think New Zealand gun laws are strict, go to Mexico.\n\n[Please tell the people of these massacres how well gun control worked for them.](_URL_0_)",
"America is based on personal liberty, not safety. The people are above the government. Also self defense is a really neat idea. ",
"There are a lot of good replies, so just something to add is that the USA shares an incredibly large border with Mexico, and have you looked up information about the Mexican cartels? That's some hunger games shit right there. (literally, at one point they captured a bunch of Mexican citizens and forced them to fight each other to the death)\n\nAlso, I'm in Canada and don't own a gun, but at multiple points I've had wolves or packs of coyotes in my back yard.",
"Police in the U.S. have **NO DUTY** to protect the citizens. It's the citizens own right to protect themselves.",
"isn't there more guns than people here? How could you honestly get rid of them all? Search every house?",
"Taking away people's right to self defense is a no-brainer? Wow, you're right! It really does require having no brain to think that's a good idea.",
"It's a bulwark against the tyranny of government, plain and simple. When the Constitution was written, we - that is, a band of upstart colonists - had just won a guerilla war against one of the mightiest empires - if not THE mightiest empire - on the face of the earth.\n\nIt was in this context and frame of mind that the founders of the newly-won United States enshrined the right of every citizen to both **keep** - that is, own and possess - and **bear** - to actually use - firearms. No ifs, ands, or buts. And it wasn't just for hunting, either. There were no Wal-Marts, Costcos, or whatever else back then. If you wanted food, you hunted or grew it. No one would need to tell anyone else that it was ok to kill a deer to feed their families. \n\nSo, then, what exactly is the deal with the 2^nd Amendment? As I said at the start, it makes sure that the electorate has one last-resort measure against a government grown too large in scope and scale and too intoxicated by its own power. It's no coincidence that other founding documents and writings of the Constitutional authors made it very plain that the people have an unquestionable right and duty to overthrow an oppressive government.\n\nNow let me just say something now for the NSA and the anti-gun crowd or whoever else: No one ***wants*** an armed revolution if it can be avoided. I know I don't! But sometimes it **can't** be avoided, and when those sad times come, everyone knows who wins in a fight between those with guns and those without.\n\nBeyond the need to keep government in check, there exists the need to protect yourself. The only solution to the problem of bad people with guns is a greater number of good people with guns. Stripping weapons from good, honest people won't stop the criminal element - it will only encourage it and make it stronger. It's like treating lung cancer with a prescription for cigarettes. \n\nNo government has any right to tell you, me, or anyone else that we can't protect ourselves from those who would do us harm given the opportunity, but you'll notice that the people who're trying to say just that have plenty of bodyguards. Three guesses what they're carrying... Are their lives worth more than yours or mine? They seem to think so. How about you? And what of the police, you ask? Well, I don't know how it is Down Under, but here in America, the police are often as bad as the criminals they're supposed to be locking up... and guess what they have strapped to their hips?\n\nThen there's the simple fact that some people like to shoot guns recreationally. Hunting, both for sport and for food, is big business, and if you're into it, big fun as well. Then there's competition shooting, and target shooting and all the rest of it. If you don't harm anyone in the process, what right has anyone got to tell you you can't do it?\n \n\nOP, the gun question is a simple one. It's as much a part of the American culture as the car or the cheeseburger or Mickey Mouse, and as simple as right and wrong. It's a cliché, but it's true - guns don't kill people, **people** kill people. By all means, punish gun-related crime, but don't invent a criminal act where it clearly doesn't exist and call it \"protection\", because as any sane person knows, it's anything but.",
"A couple of points:\n\n1. While the outlawing and forfeiture of guns reduced \"gun violence\" in Britain , \"violent crime\" is, by even the most conservative estimates, double that of the US. Less guns do not equal less crime. Ever heard of Chicago? They have the craziest gun control laws on the books, yet they are one of the most violent cities around. \n\n2. The US isn't the only country that realizes the merits of an armed citizenry. [Check out the Swiss for example](_URL_0_) \n\n3. Firearms are the great equalizer. Many self defense occurrences are peoples grandmothers who are victims of home invasions. Without a firearm, they would have been victims of more youthful, barbaric, criminals. Should we take away their ability to protect themselves? What about your wives, daughters, girlfriends, etc? Men inherently are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. In the event a lunatic wants to have their way with your loved one, wouldn't you like them to be able to protect themselves? Put them in that situation and I think they would choose to be empowered instead of being a victim. \n\n4. You might be asking, \"Well can't they just call the police?\" [The police are not liable for your safety](_URL_1_). Also, the national average of a police response is between 8 and 12 minutes depending on area, geography, size of force, etc. \"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away\".\n\n5. Yes, guns are dangerous if you are not versed in the proper use of these \"tools\". The same way a chainsaw, a car, or oven is dangerous without proper training. \n\n6. In the US, much of the media is controlled by an anti-gun sentiment. You are only going to hear about how bad guns are, and you are only going to be shown the destruction they can bring about. So, if you aren't in the US, I'm sure this type of media coverage from the US is only amplified.\n\n7. Even though the media would have you believe that the sky is falling and all guns need to be removed from the population, we should fact check and at least try to make up our own minds. Especially since you are more likely to die from a car wreck or accidental drowning than you are from a firearm. Do you see the media trying to outlaw cars or swimming pools? \n\n8. As we've learned before, removing guns, does not remove violent crime. So when all guns are gone, and people start using knives for violence and murder, should we ban them? Some would say yes, but let's keep going. Let's say all knives have been banned and then hammers, stones, bats, etc. Eventually we'll be killing people with our hands and fists. I guess we should just cut those off as well?\n\n9. Last but not least, our constitution dictates this right. It's how our forefathers defeated the tyranny they lived under, and it in a sense, protects all of our other liberties. Free speech that is protected from government backlash is the most important right and our founders understood that. They also understood that an armed citizenry was almost as important which is why it's the second amendment, not the 11th or 12th. \n\nGoing even further, the United States is NOT a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. That is not the United States. In this country the sheep is granted the right to protect himself :)",
"I had a good paragraph going, but my phone decided it wanted nothing with that. \n\nPolitics run by uneducated politicians on each side make it controversial. They make silly laws that don't work. Just look at chicago and los angeles. Areas with the strictest gun laws in our country yet widely known for gang crimes with guns.",
"Constitution this, Supreme Court that. You will see a lot of explanations surrounding this debate concerning legality, but at the real heart of the issue are the unchangeable facts:\n\n1) There are at least as many guns in this country as people. \n\n2) Guns are a durable good, lasting for scores of years in perfect operating order. \n\n3) There is no gun registry of all gun purchases ever made, and any attempt to start one now would be laughable since many of the guns are \"off the books\" at this point (obtained illegally or by individual-to-individual purchase).\n\nGiven these hard truths, any attempt to collect all the guns now would make things much worse--not better. Guns would be collected from law-abiding citizens and not from criminals, tipping the power balance heavily in criminals' favor. ",
"I think the 2nd amendment is a personal right and that the government is not meant to rule the people. \n\nEverywhere they have enacted tough gun laws and registration, it eventually lead to the taking of all weapons. This is actually punishing the law abiding and not the criminal - so we see this as stupid and not solving the problem. \n\nLook at cuba, venezuela etc - Gun Registration turned into a gun seisure and now they are unable to defend themselves from violence from the government. People are killed, tourtured, and jailed if they speak out against the government. \n\nDo you like freedom of speech and due process? It's really easy for the government to skip your rights when there is no one to put them in check.\n\n",
"Eli 5: how do I ask a pompous, loaded question to passive aggressively assert my superiority over an entire nation of people?",
"At the risk (or certainty) of over-generalizing:\n\n* We don't trust our government as much as you trust yours\n* The history of gun control in America is the history of racism:\n * Dred Scott: One of the reasons given by Justice Tanner for not granting Dred Scott citizenship was that it would give him the right to bear arms, and slaves would become unamanageable after seeing a free black man with a gun.\n * Gun Control Act of 1968: In response to the assassination of MLK Jr - not the shooting itself, but fear of unrest in the black community.\n * Many other examples (see [No Guns For Negroes](_URL_0_))\n* We believe that many of the statistics bandied about are misleading or wrong, and that if gun homicide rates are lower in your country it's because of the culture (especially if it's a monoculture); that you will find countries with lax gun control and low homicide rates and vice versa. Within the microcosm of the USA, we see a negative correlation: Vermont, the only state in which a gun permit is not required, has the lowest gun homicide rate (and this is not an anomaly).\n* Also going to throw in the fact that April 19th marked the 71st anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which started out with only ten pistols. \n\nFiinally, some quotes:\n\n\"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.\" - Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography, 1927)\n\n\"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.\" - Hitler (Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942, Picker, Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)\n\n“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn",
"I think Penn and Teller did a great job of covering our 2nd amendment. _URL_0_",
"The Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution didn't write the 2nd Amendment just as a way for the common people to protect themselves from other people; the 2nd Amendment was designed so that the people could protect themselves from their government. It's a heated topic because some people in America believe that limiting guns will stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. And, other people believe it's worth this price to keep our guns, so that we can protect ourselves from a bad government (and other people). ",
"Even if we in the USA took every firearm and gave them to Superman to toss into the sun, doesn't the Adam Lanzas still exist?\n\nSure, maybe without the firearms Adam Lanza may have only killed his mother, with his bare hands.\n\nMaybe.\n\nHe still could have showed up at the school with a knife and done some horrible damage. It's happened before.\n\nIsn't the real problem the Adam Lanzas, and not the firearms?\n\nIsn't even one murder victim unacceptable?",
"Most Americans believe they should have the right to effectively defend themselves when being threatened with death or serious bodily injury. The best tool to defend yourself with is a firearm. It is a force equalizer/multiplier and can be easily concealed. \n\nThe main reason that people living in countries like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc. don't feel the same way is because most of them have lived without firearms; that is what they are accustomed to. There are plenty of murders and violent crime in the countries listed above, but until you actually see it in front of you or it is directed at you, you choose to ignore it. After all, you may have gone your entire life living in a particular city without being a victim of violent crime; that doesn't mean there isn't violence occurring around you. However, when it comes to the U.S., that is something that those living overseas only see on the news (unless they choose to visit). With school shooting making headline news for weeks every time it occurs, it's no wonder that the entire world believes we have a firearm problem.\n\nThe truth of the matter is that yes, you could live in the U.S. without ever being a victim of violence (especially gun violence). The same as you could live in NZ, Australia, and the U.K. without being a victim. That doesn't mean it is not occurring all around you. There is plenty of violence in the three countries I mentioned, and plenty of times it involves firearms or knives. The U.K. and Australia have laws banning the carrying of a lock blade knife (I'm not sure about NZ), yet stabbings and knife attacks still occur all the time. The law has done nothing to prevent knife attacks, it has only made it illegal to carry one. Well, if somebody is going to stab you I doubt they will worry about breaking the law for carrying a pocketknife.\n\nIn my experience, people choose to ignore a lot of the violence in their home country and magnify the amount of violence that occurs in other countries. The media is the reason for this; bad news makes big money. If all I saw were news reports about school shootings, theater shootings, workplace shootings, etc. I would think Americans had a gun problem too. \n\n",
"Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said: \"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.\"",
"The Supreme Court of the Unites States has affirmed an individual's right to gun ownership. Of course the gun debate has been going on long before the Heller v DC case. That case did however reinforce what gun rights advocates already believed. Which is the reason the gun debate gets so heated, if law makers started talking about gutting the 1st(free speech), 6th(due process), 8th(cruel & unusual punishment), and 14th(equal protection) amendments, people might get a little upset.",
"Yesterday morning I hear my chickens screaming, I head out to the coop and there is a skunk in their eating one of my ducks, I leave the door open, run and get a gun and return and kill it to defend my other animals. That's my need for a gun, I don't know how I would manage that, or they coyotes chasing my free range turkeys if I didn't, so there is legitimate needs as well. I am not going to call a cop to come shoot the skunk, it will never work. I understand people wanting to take away the danger of one person shooting another. I don't consider self defense a reason for having a gun (for me), I also don't consider fighting a government a reason for me to have a gun. I do use guns to hunt and because I think they are very interesting machines and enjoy them for their mechanical purposes and its fun to shoot them. For those reasons I am thankful I have guns, but they aren't needs to me really, the defense of my livestock is.",
"I am not American, but a German currently living in the US. For me it comes down to the point that NOBODY wants to easily give up on a personal right (which I think is a good thing). Like you say, most people outside of the US think it is a no-brainer, and I keep hearing things like 'the Americans' are stupid to keep up with this. Than I usually compare it to the fact that Germany seems to be the only (one of the few?) countries with no general speed limit on highways. And even though most people in Germany might even agree that this could be good idea it would be political suicide by any politician that tries to bring up the topic. ",
"Because our right to have arms is into written into our Constitution. History shows once a right is taken away it is almost never taken back. The Constitution is based on the premise that all of our rights do not come from government, or man and are in alienable..this is why we fight tooth and nail over this..",
"I'd also like to point out that \"gun control\" is not a \"no brainer\" in other countries. Many nations have literally millions of guns in the hands of their citizens, and very little to no gun violence (the Scandinavian nations being one example). The way you worded your question, is somewhat of a leading question, implying that \"gun control\" is the destination for \"smart nations\".\n\nYou seem to be mistaking \"gun culture\" in some nations with \"gun control\" types of legislation. They are not the same and are not mutually exclusive.",
"To say that it's because of our Constitution or our emphasis on individual rights is pure malarkey. If static factors were the reason then it would have always been this way. It hasn't.\n\nSure there has always been a gun control debate, but it used to be primarily between people who wanted responsible regulation and people who wanted a different kind of responsible regulation. The NRA used to be primarily sportsmen who wanted to have the freedom to organize and share their enthusiasm for shooting. Up to around 1975 I'd say 95% of that shooting was skeet, and rifle shooting because those guys liked to hunt. Sure they might also have a hand gun, but that was because a bear could sneak up on you pretty quick and a handgun was quicker to use.\n\nOver time though, the actual members of the NRA had less and less influence over it's trajectory as they accepted more and more donations from gun producers. Comparing gun rights discussions now to those from 40 years ago it really strikes you how the tone has changed. There are a LOT of people in the United States who live day to day with the certain knowledge that a bunch of black guys are just waiting to break in and steal all their stuff and rape their dog and force their daughters to listen to The Black Eyed Peas. They didn't get there because crime went up. Indeed as the NRA is very fond of pointing out, gun deaths are going down. But while paranoia should also be going down, gun sales are through the roof. None of that is by accident. All of that is because of a carefully crafted propaganda campaign by gun producers using the NRA.\n\nI say this as someone who actually believes in the 2nd Amendment. I just wish I saw more rational arguments coming from the people who claim to want to protect it.",
"I'm a little late to the party, but I would like to provide my 2 cents. For me, the 2nd amendment is no longer about the ability to protect yourself from the government, but more about the ability to protect yourself and your family and your home. Criminals will always find ways to acquire guns. Thats been proven throughout history for a hundred years or more, almost since the invention of the firearm. To me, the ability to protect myself and my loved ones inside my own home, or on the streets, is incredibly important. Anyone who thinks they would stand a chance in a fight against the well armed American government, either individually or even with a city-wide militia, is gravely mistaken. But I think everyone should have the right to protect the family against night invaders, home invaders, or a threat to themselves or others in public. There are several examples of concealed carry members stopping firearm incidence in public, like shootings in malls and large public gatherings, and we have the ability to do that due to responsible citizens following the the Second Amendment. To me, at this point in history, the ability to protect myself in that fashion is more important than the original intention of the Second Amendment.",
"I think aside from the regular \"it's a right we're guaranteed\" argument, I think people are scared. They're scared because of the news. A lot of fearmongering happens. People are afraid of being broken into at night, being mugged on the street, and any other awful thing you can imagine. If it bleeds, it leads.\n\nThat said, who should they trust their safety to? The government? The police? Once again \"Florida cop shoots 3, put on administrative leave.\" Or how about this one I saw on /r/news 2 minutes ago: [Sober Woman Arrested for Drunk Driving When Deputy Crashes Into Her Car](_URL_0_)\n\nSo with all that in mind, put yourself in the average american's shoes. They have a gun for protection. They're scared of being raped or murdered by burglars, muggers, and even police officers. They don't trust the government to protect them or to keep their best interest at heart. The lobbyists who buy the congressmen are the ones who get them to vote on what, not the will of the people. And now all of a sudden the government wants to take your gun. \n\nWould you assume it's to keep the streets safer? No. It's another way to try to control the masses, not for our own protection.\n\nPlus consider that guns are definitely not illegal in Mexico where cartel and drug related violence is spiking like crazy. The influx of illegal firearms that would make their way to the US would be astronomical. Then who has the guns? Criminals. Law abiding citizens who turned in their guns? Defenseless.\n\nSo that, in short, is why there's a controversy.\n\n**TL;DR: Americans don't trust the police or the government, so giving up their guns, their only REAL form of protection, is out of the question.**",
"I believe that gun control laws in my country actually stem from a genuine disrespect of the people by the people. \nHistorically the first gun control was enacted under danish rule, and the reasoning behind it was that the danish monopolists felt threatened having icelanders with guns around.\nNowadays when people are asked about the issue, they will reply that you can't trust icelanders with guns. Like we're a special subspecies of human that can't be responsible with a gun.\nMy point is, that collonials who never won their freedom, often have residual self hatred from the time, when monopolist lords would enact laws to protect themselves from revolution, and justify it by disrespecting the populace.",
"Look at from this perspective. New Zealand was a former member of the British Empire. You enjoy similar life and freedoms as a result of the British. Just look at the contrast of Hong Kong and the mainland PRC. \n\nGo to mainland China and you will see that people do not see the reason to even discuss the freedom of speech or press or any numerous freedoms that you become accustomed to. They have filtered Internet and censored public speech.\nGo to Hong Kong and you will see that its citizens are refusing to adopt Beijing's oppression. Why? They experienced said Western freedoms already and realize that that is how life should be.\n\nHowever the Brits were never as big on firearm ownership as the Founding Fathers of America were. You have your freedoms thanks to the influences of the British empire. However you are simply less free than the USA.",
"To understand gun rights in America, I think you have to understand the core conflict here between self-governance versus centralized government. The underlying principle of the DoI and BoR is that governments can not be trusted because they have a tendency, historically, to oppress people. Americans reserve the right to commit violence against our government to stop tyranny through the right to bear arms. Whether you agree or whether we stand a chance or not that's how MANY here see it. Gun violence is a small price to pay for a government that respects/fears the populace and its right. Self governance and reliance was core founding principle of this country, and it is very quickly being replaced with federal obedience and dependance. If the NSA, TSA, DHS are not reigned in in the future then I can almost guarantee insurrection at some point. Its called the Declaration of Independence!",
"I think we should have gun control but in a limited degree. I don't think people need to have an Automatic gun to go hunting and or to protect themselves. I also think that people with felonies or with mental illness should not have access to weapons of that caliber.",
"Well, even if we make guns harder to get, or make certain kinds of guns illegal, people are still going to get their hands on them. Look at how many people are still able to get their hands on drugs that are illegal. Making the possession of something illegal does not stop someone from getting it here. To us, it makes more sense to regulate the industry, rather than leaving it up to the black market.\n\nIt might work in countries where most people don't own guns, but it would never work in America. There are simply already too many guns in the hands of private citizens to ever go away.",
"It also has to do with how the various nations came about. In Europe for example, the people had always been \"subjects\" under the feudal systems. They had no concept of personal liberty, citizenship, etc until relatively recently in history. America did not have this, we LEFT the nations because we didn't want to BE subjects. This is where the guns come in, the fundamental change in the relationship from lord to subject, to lord to citizen is only possible if the citizenry has the means to reject unjust rule and authority. \n\nSo yes in that respect it's uniquely American. ",
"Everyone who keeps talking about the lobbying power of the NRA is leaving out one simple yet very important fact. With or without the NRA guns would be as prevalent as they are now because most Americans want them available. \n\nLeft leaning microcosms such as Reddit and others across the internet would have you believing differently but most of the United States believes that the 2nd amendment means that the general public should be allowed to keep firearms.",
"For the most part, the US people are opposed to having tightened gun control laws because many leaders of other countries became bad people and did very bad things to the people. Since the people could not defend themselves or take back their country with force, the people just had to do what the bad government told them to. The people of those countries under the bad leaders then asked for governments with the tools, or guns, to help fight the bad government.\n\nSo, many people who live in the US are afraid that the US government are being lead by bad people who intend to do the US people harm, so they fight for the right to defend themselves from the bad government. \nThis will also allow the everyday US citizen the right to defend themselves from other, non-government, people who intend to do them or their families harm.\n\nBasically many people in the US want to be able to stand up to a government of bad people as well as other bad people who might want to hurt them.",
"Interesting you should mention the \"no-brainer\" aspect, which the Clintons agreed with. So they commissioned the CDC (? whatever), asking \"what form of gun control works best?\" The answer they got back was something unexpected (to them). \"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws\"\n_URL_0_\nSo, after 100 years and millions of dollars, they couldn't find any evidence to support your \"no-brainer\". Which, I suppose, is a \"no-brainer\", if it's been 100 years, too many studies/papers/rants to count, and not a single shred of evidence exists for your position.\nETA: thanks for the Fact Downvotes. I really appreciate them.",
"To say this issue is a \"no-brainer\" or \"rational\" is anything but. The best example of this is Mexico. The events of this country over the past several decades are such that they tend to be avoided in any discussion over gun rights. I don't want to out line the events that lead to the citizens being disarmed and allowing the criminal organizations to run wild, instead I would like your curiosity to seek out information on these events.",
"One thing I think that is frequently misunderstood is that the Constitution was written to restrain government itself. Think of it as laws that the government must abide by. \n\nBased on world history many of the founders viewed government like a huge monster, and each amendment of the Constitution a rope holding down that monster. When you start doing away, intentionally cutting, or ignoring those ropes (surveillance, weakening the 2nd, arresting or harassing people for recording police, etc.) the monster becomes more powerful because there is less holding it down. As the monster becomes more powerful the citizens become less powerful and can do less to stop it and reattaching the ropes is almost impossible. \n\nThe 2nd as well as the 1st, I think many would agree, are the probably the strongest ropes. ",
" Most people assume our right to bear arms is granted by the constitution. It really isn't. The constitution limits the power of the Govt, not the people. It acknowledges our right to bear arms as it does our right to free speech. It simply states our right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.You see, it simply puts restraints on the government. \n This seems to frighten some people, especially those who believe that they somehow need to be taken care of. Also the government may fear freedom , as it really gets in the way when you're trying to control people.\n To the OP...Consider this: Your strictest right wing nationalists might be liberals, just not as bat shit crazy liberal as the rest of your country and thus you only consider them to be conservative or right wing.\n \n",
"No one is for gun control. People are either for everyone being able to own guns, or just the government. I'd rather have equal rights.",
"Because even though the courts agree, your 2nd amendment rights can be infringed. Some Americans believe that any form of gun control is a slippery slope to a complete gun ban. Even though most Americans support a form of gun control, a vast majority do not agree with gun bans.",
"we like to hunt, and we think guns are cool. ",
"Read the United States Constitution.",
"Because the rest of the world is ignoring that as they restrict gun rights, violent crime is increasing. We see those facts and we don't want to be the victim of violent crime. ",
"One point that I don't think gets made often enough is the sheer ignorance of prominent gun control advocates in terms of how firearms actually work. When Bloomberg puts out [something like this]( _URL_0_) his argument loses all credibility. \n\nEdit: spelling. On mobile.",
"It's because the cats out of the bag in the usa. For example, if your town in new zealand had no gun control, and most of your neighbors had guns, along with all the criminals, and gangster teens and whatnot, you'd probably want a gun too. You might even demand your right to carry a gun in order to protect yourself and your family. Imagine your granny living in a bad part of LA. You'd want her to have some sort of protection too. \n\nHere in Canada is like New Zealand, nobody has guns, and nobody feels the need to, no politician would ever attempt to change this. However, change your environment to any bad area of the US, or South Africa or other area where guns are everywhere, and you'll change your tune.",
"Have you ever shot a gun? It's very fun. But the main reason it's so important to me is for the purpose of self defense. The United States has a higher crime rate than say, New Zealand, and in areas where there is a slower police response time like in large cities, having gun is a very valuable asset. Not to mention that some courts have ruled that it's not even the police's [responsibility to protect us.](_URL_0_)\n\nAnother thing to remember is that we have some very violent neighbors to the south, and they have gotten *really* *really* good at smuggling things over the years. Even if we passed all the same laws as your country, a funny things happens. Criminals just ignore them. Meaning a bigger market for gun smugglers. The only options left after that for people who want to protect themselves from the gun having criminals is to become a criminal themselves, by buying a gun. Or have the police arrive in 30 minutes and play the \"it's not our constitutional responsibility\" card after you died in a home invasion. \n\nFor any strict gun legislation to gain support, we need to address some other problems first. Stricter border control, longer jail sentences for illegal/unregistered firearms, and a better system to aid the mentally ill, just to name a few. Without attending to those problems first, any strict gun bill will continue to die in congress. Even then though, I don't think guns will ever be banned completely from the United States. They've become so ingrained into our identity. In our music, movies, cartoons, and our very history. Hell when I have a son, I'm probably going to name him Samuel, after Samuel colt. Plus I like the name sam. That's how much we love guns. ",
"I take some exception to \"the rest of the world\" in this topic. There are ample countries with more relaxed gun control laws, or no gun control laws whatsoever. Just look at the [flag of Mozambique](_URL_0_), there's an AK-47 right on there.",
"Just want to throw this out there we do have gun control. Not to the same level as other countries but as others have said we were founded by the gun. Also if all guns were banned or there were massive invasive background checks one could easily argue that criminals won't follow the laws and will still get weapons. Which is easily seen in cities such as Detroit. Miami. Chicago. NYC. And many other places. IAutomatic weapons are illegal since 86 but I've seen more ak47 in Miami than gators... No matter what laws are in place someone will always break them. My opinion. ",
"The United States is the largest market for firearms by a huge, huge margin. Like, ten times as much as any other country.\n\nThere are a lot of reasons why gun control has been controversial historically, and the laws and such have changed over time. But the reason it *stays* controversial, even as the politics change, is because there is a huge, huge shitton of money in it.\n\nIt is very much worth it to gun manufacturers to generously fund interest groups, political campaigns, media coverage, even entire political parties to make sure that market stays open.\n\nThere really aren't *that* many Americans who actually care that much about things like hunting. It's a popular hobby, but it's not *that* popular. And the number who actually give a shit about stuff like concealed carry is extremely small. But these folks have a lot more resources, better organization, and a taller soapbox than people with equivalent concerns, because the gun companies make sure of it. Their lobbying group, the NRA, is probably the best and most powerful in America. You don't get that way without a lot of money involved.",
"The US effectively has two populations; those who live in urban and suburban areas and those who live in rural areas. For those who live in urban or suburban area, guns are typically used for self defense, as a hobby, and occasionally for hunting.\n\nThose that live in rural areas typically use guns to hunt, kill vermin, and for self defense, often as part of daily life.\n\nThe two uses/needs are almost completely different.\n\nThe populations are split (in general) along liberal and conservative lines, often racial lines, and sometimes economic lines. Rural populations are typically conservative, white, and less likely to be receiving generally regarded public assistance to live.\n\nThis leads to the great debate about gun control. The problem is that trying to apply the same law in both areas is generally not a good solution for either or perceived as a 'slippery slope' en route to a loss of something considered to be essential.",
"How easy is it for the govt to tell you what to do if they are the only ones with a gun? \n\nHow easy is it for them to violate your rights if they are the only ones with a gun? \n\nHow easy is it for a criminal to invade your home take your shit and kill a loved one if you are unarmed? \nCriminals will keep their guns because they are criminals. \n\nWhat percentage of gun crimes are committed by owners of registered, legal firearms?",
"I'll offer up a non-theoretical explanation coming from an American firearm owner: I feel strongly about my right to keep and bear arms (or arm bears, I always forget which it is) because I don't trust our police force to protect me from the bad guys.\n\nThe US is a big country and mostly rural, by area, anyway. Our police forces are locally funded, for rural folks, that means at the county level. A county is much smaller than a state, typically. I don't know the NZ equivalent. What that means is that the quality and quantity of police protection varies quite a bit.\n\nFor better or worse, our bad guys are typically well-armed. I have some confidence that our local sheriff (county police) would be able to solve my murder. However, just given statistical probability, I have zero confidence that they would be able to prevent it. I feel like that's up to me.\n\nSo, for me, when the issue of gun control comes up, it translates to allowing the bad guys to have a free shot at me and trusting the government to catch them after they kill me. Speaking as an American, fuck that.\n\nEdit: This has probably been discussed quite a bit here and elsewhere, but [here's](_URL_0_) a link discussing exactly this problem in a neighboring state, Oregon.",
"\"The rest of the world\" meaning Europe.\n\nMuch of the world does not believe in the right of the government to seize weapons, nor do regimes have the capacity.",
"The second amendment is the teeth to the rest of the constitution.",
"Load your question more. I can't feel your bias enough.",
"USA: Guns are for fighting off the Brits and Alkida terrarists.\n\nNZ: Guns are for hunting deer and pigs. \n\n\nSwitzerland: High-powered machine guns are given to every male over 18. They are not used.",
"It's because most of the world has gotten used to gun control, and Americans haven't (yet).\n\nAnd forget self defense - it's simply fun to shoot a gun (not to mention it improves your hand-eye coordination, reaction time, lets you protect yourself if shit goes wrong like in Syria, and it's calming for a lot of people), and sadly most people won't experience it in their lives.",
"Okay, I'll try and keep this ELI5 and avoid taking sides.\n\nThe simplest reason for me is that taking something away from someone is harder than stopping someone wanting something.\n\nIf you've invested time and effort into something like a gun collection, then it's probably cost you money, you've sacrificed time and effort to get better at shooting. It's become a part of your life. \n\nNow you have a gun safe etc and take every precaution imaginable so it's hard to understand why someone wants to take this away from you because it's \"dangerous\". Any small chance of something going wrong is too negligible for you to think that it could happen \"to you\".\n\nIf you've become personally invested in something you don't want someone to take that away from you, especially when any downsides to gun ownership haven't effected you yet.\n\nElsewhere it's pretty easy to divorce yourself form the situation It's alot easier on someone to be told \"No, sorry, you can't do that\" than \"No, sorry you can't do that anymore\".\n\nI've worked in retail and customer service before and had customers get angry with me because I won't break rules for them/do something incorrectly. Simply because they've had in done for them before and already expect the same treatment again. And this is when people know that what happened in the past is \"wrong\" where as a gun owner has every reason to consider themselves to have been in the \"right\"",
"It is a slippery slope and the rational breaks down quickly. If the idea was to take away something that causes extra deaths, then the right to drive, be fat, smoke, exposure to petrol products, and exposure to the sun without spf500000 sunblock should be on the list as they both contribute to magnitudes more of unnecessary deaths than gun violence per year. \n\n > \n * [Heart disease](_URL_2_): 597,689\n * Cancer: 574,743\n * Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080\n * Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476\n * Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859\n * Alzheimer's disease: 83,494\n * Diabetes: 69,071\n * Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476\n * Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097\n * Intentional self-harm [Suicide] (Guns/other means): 19,392/18,972\n * [Automobile related deaths](_URL_1_): 34,080\n * [Gun Violence](_URL_0_): 11,078\n",
"It's only a controversial topic for those with their heads in the sand. \n\nOnce someone has first hand experience with a life threatening crime, and they wait...and wait....and wait for police to show up and help, and they really don't do anything because the crime is over, they learn. \n\nThey learn that the police can't save them, that if they want to live or protect their family it is up to them. \n\nTHEN they become pro-gun. \n\nSeen it first hand more times than I can count. \n\nWorked in an indoor gun range/store for years. Sales manager and director of training. Taught defensive pistol classes, CCW instructor, then went on to teach some military, police and SWAT guys stuff like room clearing and edged weapon defense. :)",
"I'll take a crack at it.\n\nFirst things first, when comparing countries we must first compare histories. Europe - I'm lumping all the individual nations as a whole - has had \"gun control\" for longer than we (the US) have existed. In that, citizens were not allowed firearms (en mass anyway) due to some previous real world rebellions/revolutions that took place. The British were keen on keeping their empire, and what better way to do it than by holding all the power in the military. So, the average citizen didn't grow up around, nor really have any experience with (aside from service) firearms.\n\nNow if we set the wayback machine to the early Colonial days, these guys grew up with guns. They were a necessity for survival - there was no standing army (more on that later...) and your food and livelihood came at the use of the tools you had available. The firearm was a big part of that. Fast forward a bit, and the militias were formed. Again, even under crown rule, the early colonists were still pretty much on their own. So the firearm again plays a central theme. Keep going forward and we get to several skirmishes in our early history, and of course the big one - US vs. the Crown. Now the firearm played a major role in the protection and liberation of the fledgling nation (much to the dismay of the British, who tried to choke off the supply of weapons but were late to the party). It was such a big deal that the founders wrote in a section explicitly outlining the validity of ownership. Even if they did not (and we'll just ignore any arguments on the impact in todays world) the firearm is woven into the very fabric of the country at this point.\n\nNow we're a nation. Expansion west ward into the wild. What did you need? Firearms. New nation, but still lacking in centralized control. We continue this expansion westward, with the firearm playing a daily role in most peoples lives. \n\nSo right there, we can see a huge contrast in culture. Firearms were viewed as the tool of the military by Europe, and by a tool for the common man by the US. If we keep moving forward in time, the number of firearms in private citizens hands continues to grow, while it remains relatively small in Europe. This of course comes back to bite parts of Europe in the ass during the World Wars, but that's another topic ;)\n\nNow let's come to this very moment in time. We've got a group of nations with one view of weapons, and the US with another. No one denies weapons are dangerous - that is their purpose. They are the great equalizer, the tool that allows a 90lb grandmother to fend off someone/something 3x her size. They can be used for good or for evil, the weapon itself is neutral. The problem is that, even if we set aside the emotional/cultural aspect of the firearm for a moment, we still can't really compare EU to US. EU doesn't have the vast amount of weapons *already in circulation* that the US does. Talking about \"gun control\" is easy when no one has them already. For the US, even if firearms were banned outright in every aspect in this country, there is there damn near insurmountable task of actually dealing with the vast amounts of material out there. And in reality, simply banning them would do no good due to that very problem, you would simply shift spectrum of who has them to the far less scrupulous side. And that is my biggest beef with gun control measures as outlined by most US anti-firearms folks. No one ever actually tackles the \"how\" aspect of implementation and the logic behind how it would actually change things.\n\nThe causes for gun violence are a much broader topic. But if we sweep all the variables away for a moment and do some raw number crunching, we find - shockingly right - most people are responsible. For every one person that does something stupid with a tool, 10000 didn't. If simply being in proximity to weapons somehow made a person that much more unstable or prone to violence, then Switzerland would have imploded by now ;) \n\nPersonally, I feel that there should be far more effort spent on addressing the core issues of violence than trying to remove the tool. \n",
"I once got shot at an ATM. I was with my cousin and we had just withdrawn some money when a robber came up to us. It was awful and lead to my cousin almost buying himself a gun to defend himself. \nGun ownership in America is such a hot button topic because even if the government cracked down on gun ownership, it would be impossible to get them out of the hands of criminals.",
"Also, it is not necessarily a \"no-brainer\" for Europe..._URL_0_\n\nStatistically, there are more shootings in the USA, but that is like saying there are more car accidents in countries that actually have cars. Violent crime rate is lower in the US on average than other gun-controlled first-world countries, or take Switzerland for an example.\n",
"Because of the fact that Americans may be the only people left in the world that understand governments have in the past turned against its people, and will probably again. With that in mind, we do not feel like relinquishing all power to government just in case someday we might have to defend ourselves against a tyrannical entity imposing itself more and more against the will of its citizens. (slowly the current situation btw)",
"The original wording of the Second Amendment is as follows: \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" The thinking here was that a militia essential to security. This is not the militia of today, with uniforms and official roles and such. This was the minutemen, the idea that the entire male populace of military age constituted \"the militia\". But what good is an on the spot militia if no one has any training at all? Not much. So in order to keep the male populace ready to fight it was decided that they should be allowed to have guns. And not just the militia boys of military age, but all people should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Grandpa and grandma and the whole family. This way Bill and Jim could be taught how to use the guns by relatives, practice their use through hunting and sport, and if the time should ever come they would at least know what end of the gun to point at the enemy. So while our founding fathers did see the right as adding to the effectiveness of a militia, they did not see it as inextricably linked to official military service, but rather a preparation for military service through everyday familiarity with firearms. ",
"There is a great deal of distrust for the government here in the US. The US was born, not all that long ago, on the ideas of individual liberty and self-reliance. We began with the smallest government and now have one of the largest and most invasive. Scandals, crime and corruption have defined our government for decades and yet we're expected to believe that the government is being honest and benevolent in it's intentions with gun control?",
"It is mostly about trust. The people of Japan trust the government and that it will take care of them. They will follow all instructions to the T. \n\nThe people of Korea trust the government and the ferry captain that told them not to worry and stay in your cabin. \n\nThe people of England trust their government and love the Queen. She would never do anything bad. \n\nHere we don't trust the government. Or the police. So we are armed.\n\n",
"I would challenge the assertion that its a \"No-brainer\" for the rest of the world. For instance, Sweden along with most other Nordic countries have very high rates of gun ownership. China, the UK, and New Zealand all have very strict laws prohibiting the ownership of guns. Every other country falls somewhere in the middle. Even in countries where guns are highly controlled, people still OWN guns. There are actually very few countries that prohibit gun ownership at all. \n\n Now, to your point about the United States. The USA has a federal government but each state is also governed by a state government and the balance between the two can be tricky. There may be some states where it makes sense to have tougher gun laws but that may not be the case elsewhere. New Zealand is the size of two average states put together, that means the United States possesses the size of about 25 New Zealand's and that area is divided into 50 state governments. \n\n For the states its not a \"no brainer.\" For instance, California has the toughest gun control laws in the country. Alabama has over twice as high a rate of gun ownership yet the gun murder rate in Alabama is significantly lower. Balancing the rights of civilians to own firearms and use them in personal protection and the possibility that more guns int the population will result in more crime is where the controversy comes from. In all 50 states firearm ownership is legal. In all 50 states you can acquire a conceal and carry permit (officially, now that the supreme court has ruled it unconstitutional to not allow citizens to apply for such permits). However, in some states thats a very simple process (Georgia, Alabama) and in other states it takes celebrity status to acquire a carry permit (New York). Laws regarding the usage of firearms in defense situations is also controversial. In some states, if you are attacked by a robber, you are under the obligation to first attempt to flee before using a firearms. In other states, no such obligation exists. \n\n Usually when we talk about \"Gun control laws\" we're talking about the control of the sale of guns. These are the laws governing the sale of guns, background checks, waiting periods, who can't own, etc. Again, all 50 states have different laws. For the most part, this state/federal system is pretty effective. In hot button issues like this though, there are those who believe that the federal government should step in and pass uniform laws over the states, which usually is frowned upon. \n\n In short, its complicated. ",
"We literally shot our way to freedom just about 250 years ago. \n\nAlso, because criminals, by their very nature, will ignore laws so why can't the law abiding have guns? Civilians with guns have stopped crimes before.",
"Showing up late, but here's my 2¢. \n\nThe American Revolution was a war fought by citizen soldiers. Without their arms, the revolution would not have been successful. So the 2nd amendment comes around to give us the right to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. \n\nFast forward to The War of 1812. Again, especially in areas of the Deep South, and most critically in the Battle of New Orleans, it wasn't professional soldiers fighting all of the battles. We had private citizens taking up arms against an invading hostile force. So the need was still there for Americans to own firearms. \n\nFast forward again, to our great expansion and the concept of Manifest Destiny. Such a large, diverse, and wild landscape as the continental U.S. would not have been settled anywhere close to the ease at which it was, without private ownership of firearms. \n\nInto the 20th century, America was still the new kid on the block, and WW2 made us realize that we are not completely invulnerable. Then comes the \"Red Scare\" in the mid 20th century, where we were told that \"the enemy\" could be lurking right next door. \n\nTL:dr: America was liberated by private gun ownership, defended by private gun ownership, and expanded to its current size by private gun ownership. ",
"Because America runs on anything that generates money. Anything.",
"This thread is full of political reasons, so I'll give a more personal reason. Having been on both sides of the law before, I'll say right now that cops can't come fast enough. I've fled a couple of scenes before they could get there, and as a victim, there were times I wish I had a gun on me, because calling the cops while trying to defend yourself with one hand just isn't feasible.",
"if i am allowed to bear arms, why not a nuclear bomb?\nthen, if im not allowed to carry that kind of stuff, why are automatic weapons allowed?",
"want to have the worst day on reddit? mention you're a feminist, point out it's weird how americans yell \"OH MY GOD\" in every video but find it scary when people yell about god in arabic, and finish with mentioning gun control. \n\n",
"Because our country wouldn't be here if the colonials couldn't defend themselves from an overzealous England with the guns that they owned. Firearms for hunting, personal defense and militia defense are fundamental to our existence and was written into our constitution to make sure a government, domestic or foreign, could never have too much power over the people again.",
"The way I see it, if your living in a country that tells you that you are not to be trusted with the ability to defend yourself and your family in a manner you sit fit... Your not living in a free country.",
"Historically, it really doesn't have that much to do with the revolution. Gun control was controversial before the revolution.\n\nThe original source of the second amendment is the way the British treated colonial militias during the wars with France. The European presence in North America was really spread out, and either European country was only going to have reasonable strength in a few places at once. But each side had lots of locals they could call upon to help out in the event of a battle -- colonists on both sides, and Native Americans on both sides.\n\nExcept when the European armies weren't around in any one place, especially out in the woods, which was most of the time, these folks tended to not get along with each other. There was a long, slow struggle for territory, and there was a lot of raiding and murder and rape on both sides -- and even more than the reality of these things, there was the perception of them -- propagandists were very good at portraying the Native Americans in particular as a threat to colonists -- that they were constantly going to come in and kill everybody. This was to polarize the colonists around the Native Americans who were allied with the European powers and make them more invested in the European conflicts.\n\nSo, in Colonial America, we had these militias -- groups of mostly untrained men who kept weapons on hand so that if raiders showed up to attack town, they could be driven away. Even if the actual threats were somewhat exaggerated, in remote areas where the European controlling power didn't actually stick around and keep the peace, it was a necessary thing.\n\nThe problem was that the European powers then kept forcing these militias to leave home and show up to forts or big battles where the regular armies against each other. If the English wanted more men in a fight against the French, they would force the American militias to come along. \n\nThis of course would lead to American towns being attacked, people being raped and killed, etc., because no one was at home to protect the town and the English and French didn't have the resources or interest to make a sustained peace on the frontier. Add that these men then weren't at home to work their farms and the government didn't compensate them for their lost crops (this specific abuse was continued under the American government during the revolution -- and resulted in a rebellion of veterans against the government in Massachusetts.).\n\nThis whole raw deal made militias generally unwilling and pissy participants in colonial government. They did not appreciate the European powers bossing them around, and they would sometimes not follow orders or make trouble for the commanders. It became clear that even bringing the militias around at all was usually a waste -- They were never all that effective, relative to actual soldiers, they didn't want to be there, and they weren't disciplined that well (this is of course making a distinction between the informal militia groups and more organized paramilitary groups that didn't report to the central government, like the Green Mountain Boys). George Washington was just one of the American commanders who found them really annoying and problematic.\n\nSo, there's this century-long conflict between the European powers mismanaging things on the American frontier because they don't really have the tools or interest to actually govern this place they claimed to own, and the local defense forces that didn't really have a place in any national government. And then during the revolution, contrary to popular belief, the militias didn't stand up to overthrow the British -- they continued to be an problem for the American Continental Army, too, as the Americans hadn't figured out that this whole system was dumb and imposed a lot of costs on people for relatively little benefit. \n\nThe threat the militias posed against the early American government was never that they were going to overthrow it by force -- the American government wasn't even in these places to be kicked out, it was also operating from the population centers farther away. It was that they self-governed, and they voted, and the new government needed to get these people on board with any sort of national state at all, or they would have to keep sending troops out to the boonies to pacify them. The militias were going to be politically problematic and make the already difficult to run country even more difficult to run (which they did a bunch of times, helping the Articles of Confederation to fail and the Constitution to be drafted in the first place).\n\nThe second amendment was a political concession to the militias saying they wouldn't be disbanded under the new government, even though a lot of the Founding Fathers didn't like them very much and wished they would go away -- even to the point of wanting to disband them altogether. And the British practice is was intended to end was not tyranny in a general sense or the abuse of rights like speech or religion or whatever, but the appropriation of civil defense for military reasons, which resulted in threats to public safety.\n\n(This sort of abuse was what part of what inspired the complaint about the King in the Declaration of Independence: \"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.\")\n\nIt's very similar to the third amendment, about not letting troops live in your house. It's a response to the government using the people as a military resource, which it had never demonstrated it was ever good at doing at all, under the British or the early Americans.\n\nThe subsequent culture around the second amendment -- that the main reason it exists is to enable violent overthrow of the government -- was imagined later. The militias of the revolutionary era, like the militias today, were never really in the position to overthrow the government -- though then, as now, they were definitely politically influential.",
"Because bringing a rock to a gun fight is worse than bringing a knife. What do we see everyday on our news feeds? Some poor shlub lobbing rocks at heavily armed government goons. If it hadn't been for the ready availability of arms, the people of Syria would have been steamrolled. ",
"\nMostly because we really don't trust our government",
"Its only a \"no brainer\" in the rest of the world because weapon control has been in place in those nations since before the USA existed. \n\nIn mid-evil times there was crossbow control, the crossbow is the modern equivalent of the much vaunted \"assault weapon\". Sure carry or a sword, axe, or even a longbow... but a crossbow? That just screams deadly force and peasant rebellions. \n\nThe US instead has the 2nd amendment, was founded by \"peasant rebels\" with guns, and doesn't have a history of weapon control to base it off of. Many also fight for \"weapon rights\" because its known that once they are gone they will never return. \n\nYou'll also notice gun control doesn't stop violent crimes. It doesn't even stop gun violence. It might shift the weapons used but murders still happen, violent crime still happens, and so on. \n\nA great example of this is Washington DC. It has some of the most strict gun laws of about any area in the US. Yet it also has the highest murder rate of any area in the US even though its not a state by tiny little territory thats more like a large city. Gun control completely failed to be relevant.\n\nThe history aspect is again important, even with tough gun laws in DC, the fact remains the US doesn't have a history of weapons control which means there are already metric fuck tons of guns already in personal ownership around the US. They are not just going to disappear, where as gun ownership in other nations was never a thing to begin with outside of very limited things to wealthy hunters and the like. ",
"It's controversial in the USA because the USA is a nation unlike any other on the planet, with a rich, dense population of highly diversified cultures from all walks of life. In a huge melting pot society it's virtually impossible to appease every group out there thus controversy is rampant across all social issues, not just gun control laws.\n\nNew Zealand like many countries its size, it's much simpler due to a largely homogenized society of people with similar backgrounds, life styles, etc.\n\nELI5: New Zealand is tiny compared to the USA so it's harder to make everyone happy about things.",
"I wasn't on board with the \"gun-culture\" of America during my younger years. I was actually for gun control back then. \n\nAs I got older, and married, I then saw the need for self protection. It may have been from my time as a paramedic, and seeing the brutal reality of people who cant defend themselves being the ones I was working on, and not working on the ones who were the perpetrators. Calling the police simply isnt a measure that is effective when the danger is right there. You literally have seconds before you are assaulted, and a good response from the police is 5 minutes. \n\nSo for the countries that see this as a \"no-brainer\", do they not have home invasions? Muggings? Rapes? Im curious as to how the people in these countries protect themselves from these assaults?\n\nI know that it can still happen if you own a gun, or even an armory of weapons. But your chances of defending from the attack if you are armed go up significantly I would imagine, than if you could not defend yourself. \n\nAm I wrong on this assumption? I know I feel safer when I have my gun with them, than I do when I don't have it with me. ",
"There is a lot to this debate. Both sides feel they have the facts on their side. Dan Kahan, a legal and psychology researcher terms this kind of problem \"Cultural Cognition\", and there's quite a bit of research around it now.\n\nThe phenomenon works like this: an individual's opinion hardly affects outcome either way, but changing your mind on this issue can have a large impact among your peer group - it can cost you their respect, friendship, what have you. As a result, when explicitly talking about this issue, people engage in many logical fallacies and otherwise take pains to emphasize their agreement with their cultural peers.\n\nIf you think this description only applies to your opponents, you're missing the point.\n\nThis kind of activity can be readily observed around discussions of climate change, GMO food, nuclear power, and gun control.\n\nSo people have a hard time being objective on this matter. Worse, these matters become a proxy for status conflicts which are very real.\n\nTo explain: here in the US, \"Stand Your Ground\" laws have recently come to broad attention. There are three broad categories of law here: \"duty to retreat\", \"castle doctrine\", and \"no duty to retreat.\" This has to do with answering the question \"if someone is attacking me and I have a gun, what am I allowed to do?\" The laws say either \"you need to run away\", \"you need to run away unless you're in a limited set of circumstances\", or \"you never have to run away\".\n\nWhat's interesting is that as a matter of how law is actually practiced, there is almost no difference between these laws! New York has a very strict \"duty to retreat\" law, but it can be better described as \"you have to run away if you believe you and your companions can do so safely\". As you may be able to imagine, this doesn't come up often.\n\nIn fact, in the average person's experience the difference never comes up! Even in the news, most stories around \"stand your ground\" do not involve duty to retreat at all.\n\nSo what's the point? Well. Some laws are expressive law: they're passed not to have an effect but show that your culture is superior to another culture.\n\nPicture the glee with which (your political opponent) would greet news that a federal (stand your ground/duty to retreat) law had been passed. How they could say - if only for a little while - that they had a majority and the country was clearly on a right course!\n\nNow consider that it would be utterly pointless. Yeah.\n\nGun control debates in the US have these properties. Luckily, we can all learn about cultural cognition and what to do about it. Kahan writes a fascinating blog called Cultural Cognition.\n\nIf you want to read more about expressive laws, read:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Because when the military loses a war, the citizens WILL protect American freedoms. But not without guns.",
"My question is: do people who support the 2nd amendment really think they could take on the US army if government did go tyrannical?\n\nI mean, the War of Independence was mostly won by the French anyway against a disinterested foreign power, a situation very different from the proposed notion that a couple of million untrained people could triumph over a government that spends more on its military than the next 21 countries combined?\n\nFurthermore, why do US citizens seem to have so little faith in their democratic system? Your system is excellent in terms of dividing power to prevent any kind of tyranny, far more so than in many other countries who have little fear of tyranny.\n\nThis is all sounding pretty anti-US but what I'm really trying to say is that your constitution pretty much kicks ass, so why don't people trust it more?",
"I'm all for gun ownership, but to the people saying \"It's to stop government tyranny!\" Please, you having a handgun won't stop a drone from wiping you out. Your personal defense weapons aren't going to do shit against a well armed and trained military. So the real reason people want their guns in the U.S. is because they are afraid Jamal down the street is going to rob them for no other reason than being black. It just sounds fancier to say that part about rights and tyranny. Of course there's no reason to assume making guns illegal will prevent gun related deaths. Criminals don't follow laws. So I think responsible gun owners will be the ones to get screwed in this case. Still, it's not really about rights or tyranny. It's about safety.",
"We could agree with the rest of the world, but then everyone would be wrong. ",
"I'm not sure that the rest of the world does see it as a \"no-brainer.\" Maybe you are talking about Europe? There are countries out there that do not even enforce the gun laws they have.",
"Because our founding charter, which gives legitimacy to our government, says in no uncertain terms that Congress shall not limit private ownership of guns.\n\nMore to the point, as has been shown time and time again (particularly in the 20th century, but also in the 19th, 18th, and so on), the greatest threat to personal rights is not from external nations, but from your own government. That being the case, ceding the fundamental right to defend oneself with lethal force to a government seems phenomenally dangerous.\n\nAs well, the idea of [Castle Doctrine](_URL_0_) seems to lose most of its force if you arent actually permitted to own lethal weapons with which to defend your home and family.\n\n\nYou are asking specifically about the US so I wont go further off on a tangent about all the reasons why the 2nd amendment is so vital. But the fact is that we DO have a 2nd amendment, and there is practically no chance that it will be repealed in the near future. Any attempt to circumvent it is DOUBLY dangerous because it erodes the legitimacy of the government; the only appropriate way to approach gun control from a federal level is to discuss the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and noone wants to do it because they all KNOW it wont happen.",
"What's funny and ridiculous about this subject is that we already have gun control, and have had gun control for many, many years. What most of the left wing wants is MORE gun control laws. Criminals tend to not follow laws, therefore it stands to reason that MORE gun control laws will not affect criminal actions where guns are involved.",
"I'm Canadian and although we border the states our views on guns are much different. People still have guns in Canada for hunting and I know lots of people who hunt and have some pretty serious collections but the mindset is totally different here. I don't believe Canadians think that if we don't have guns to protect ourselves then the 'bad guys' are the only ones with guns. Yes criminals have guns but they are few and far between on the streets because they are so difficult to acquire here and most people (from what I've gathered living here my whole life) consider them extremely dangerous and just don't want them around. The authorities have guns and that's good enough for me! If some lunatic is going to attack me if rather them have a knife than a gun...and more than likely that will be the case. But Canadians are much too friendly to do that anyways!! (Kidding)",
"Due to the sheer amount of guns in the US (I think FBI estimated 200+ million guns), we'll never see a US without them. Doesn't matter how many laws are passed, people who own guns will not give them up voluntarily. \n\nI don't know how to solve the gun violence issues, but banning guns won't solve a thing. People who want a gun, whether it's for hunting, or killing someone, will always find a way to get one.",
"Hey good question. But first there is a fundamental flaw in your question. Gun control may be a contentious issue in the U.S. but it is certainty no a \"no-brainer\" everywhere.\n\nNow as to my crackpot theory. It is because America is a world power and America is democratic. These things are sometimes in conflict. New Zealand has the New Zealand government. Which, no offense, is not anywhere near the U.S. government in the form of sheer power. The U.S. government could legitimately hold a monopoly of violence over the world, including U.S. citizens and so whatever it wanted within reason. This is a lot scarier than New Zealand controlling its populace and still not even being the most powerful nation in its subregion. \n\nSo why doesn't China and Russia have the same problem? They are two scary powerful governments with huge amounts of violence and power at hand. Simple answer, they do, but their people already lost to a degree. Gun control is a small but important piece of a collection of rights that allows a world power to remain accountable to its people. You need two sides to a debate for it to be heated and the other side lost.\n\nTL;DR: Gun control and powerful government make for a poor democracy.",
"Because the US didnt see the annihilation of ww2 up close and at home",
"because it's never \"gun control\" (sensible restrictions) these cocksuckers want, it's always some sort of gun grab as a knee-jerk reaction to something completely unrelated to the actual firearm or it's availability.\n\nwhen a mentally unstable person walks into a school and stabs a bunch of kids, we don't have politicians screaming on the news about forcing law abiding citizens to turn in their kitchen knives because they may have a black handle and therefor \"look scary\".\n\nor banning sales of knifes that are able to chop vegetables faster...\n\nmost of the proposed gun bans (what liberals like to call control because it sounds less oppressive-dictator-ish) make no fucking sense to anyone who owns and shoots guns. to tell someone that the same exact gun is legal with a wooden stock, but banned and can earn you time in jail if it has a black synthetic stock... is just flat out absurd.\n\na majority of gun grabber laws wash out that way and do nothing to stop the crimes they claim to stop.\n\nno criminal or mass murderer is going to say to himself \"if i load more than 7 rounds into this 10 round magazine it's against the law... so i better not\"\n\nall this does is screw law abiding citizens if they make the mistake.\n\nban a 30 round magazine? fine, i'll use 3 10 round mags... they jam less anyway.\n\nit's all just silly.",
"try taking a toy away from a child\n\nthis is america when it comes to guns. even if you explain why, they will cry about it.",
"Because half of america thinks about what can happen when you cant defend yourself against a government that is currently proven they are not trustworthy",
"Same goes for us in aus, guns sound pretty cool and stuff but I'm not fussed about not having them",
"Violent people want to do violent things. ",
"Beats me. Just moved to the US, and if someone gets all up in my face the power dynamics are MUCH different here since there's a significant chance they might be carrying.",
"there are some other countries similar to the US such as Iraq and Syria where you can walk down the street with guns etc..",
"We see guns as a means to protect us from crime, invasion, and tyranny. We've seen that countries where citizens had no guns have been conquered, gone through mass genocides, or been taken over by dictators. We've had them for hundreds of years and are suspicious of the motives of people that wants to take them away, and for good reason.\n\nSenator Diane Feinstein has a permit to carry a hidden gun and owns a huge military company that makes billions of dollars off of wars, which she supports. Senator Leland Yee was arrested for (allegedly) trafficking rocket launchers to terrorists. Both of these people are pushing for gun control for the average Joe.\n",
"If guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.\n\nAlso, \"the [entire] rest if the world\" doesn't see this issue as a no-brainier. Think about South Africa... You don't pull your gun on someone bc chances are they have a gun too.",
"\"The beauty of the second amendment is that you don't need it until they try to take it away\". One of our founding fathers said that. \n\nAlso because being able to own a gun is a symbol of freedom. I'm trusted to knw a weapon and I have a means to not only protect myself but also to provide for myself and recreate in a way that is fun. When the government says that you absolutely can not do this by implementing gun control than they have essentially taken away your freedom to do something that wasn't hurting anyone. \n\nIf you look at statistics gun violence is in a downward trend but news coverage of such instances is up. You also need to take into account who is commuting these crimes, especially the mass murder ones that have everyone's blood at a boil. It is mentally unhinged people and that dosnt speak to gun control because if they want to hurt someone so badly that they bring a fun to a school or a naval yard maybe they build a bomb if they can't get a gun. \n\nThere is still violent crime in New Zealand and Australia and England it just dosnt happen with guns, nothing changed except in the way that the violence is perpetrated. \n\nTaking away guns is only the answer if you are looking to take freedoms away because you are a power hungry government. Providing better mental care and inpatient treatment is a way to actually stop violent crime and better education but that dosnt look as good and it's harder to implement when you are running for a seat in congress or president or whatever. ",
"The Constitution and tradition. The Constitution can be amended, but it takes a lot of time to re-write tradition.\n\nIt's the equivalent of asking why bull fighting is tolerated in Spain when the rest of the world sees it as a \"no-brainer\".",
"its the gun industry pumping millions into politicians .....",
"It's just a cultural difference.\n\nA lot of people here are gun enthusiasts/hobbyists. If more people enjoyed guns as a hobby/sport in the NZ, then there'd be more debate. \n\nIf you tried banning or restricting penguin-juggling, wallaby wrestling, or sheep-chucking (or whatever is popular among you southern hemispherers over there), you'd get a similarly lively debate while we'd just yawn.\n\nPlus there's just a lot of people who don't trust the government for shit here.\n\nIt's not anymore complex than that. Cultural values are different therefore the debates are different.",
"All the Americans commenting about protecting themselves against crime. People please. Live in Canada, strict gun control and no one walks around afraid of getting murdered. Do you people live in a comic book? Come on.\n\nEdit: Bring on the downvotes\n\n",
"Most of the comments here are talking about guns being used by criminals to commit crimes or to defend against such criminals.\n\nWhat about the other reasons people may own guns?\n\n1. Hunting. A huge thing here, do other countries have hunters? If so what would they use to bring down large prey if not guns. Should all hunters be expected to learn to shoot with a bow and arrow? What stops the criminals from switching to bows as well? Should we just outlaw all deadly weapons?\n\n2. Apocalypse preparedness. A lot of people want to make sure they have a well protected house stocked with weapons in-case shit happens and some sort of apocalypse pops out of no-where. Not very likely to happen but if it does they will be the ones with the highest chance to survive. \n\n3. Collectors. This is particularity true for old guns. Some people collect guns just because they are cool to own even if they don't intend to use them. Guns are a huge part of our history. Also what about civil war reenactments. The participants bring in authentic guns from that time period to stage mock battles. Would these events get an exception to the rule, or would the soldiers have to use air soft rifles instead?\n\n4. Protection from the government. This is a big one, we founded our country with armed citizens fighting against a government they disliked. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out here, and the government taking our weapons in the name of \"safety\" can easily be seen a first strike to prepare the way for tighter control. People are getting frustrated about increased security in the name of preventing terrorists. Advanced technology that allows the government to spy on people in their own homes already exists. None of this is helping the trustworthiness of our government, people are already on edge and now the government wants to try and take away our security and peace of mind. Guns may not be that useful in protecting our rights, but it makes us feel safer anyway. The government won't try anything stupid if it know its citizens are armed.",
"The rest of the world is wrong.",
"Taking the second amendment out of the whole thing.... There are too many guns and bad guys in this country. Gun control will have no affect because the bad guys will get their hands on guns no matter what, which will leave honest, law abiding citizens defenseless in their own homes. There are people that don't like guns and are not comfortable around guns, and that's ok, they don't need to have a gun. but there are some people out there are comfortable with guns and are responsible enough to keep them away from kids and have them just in case a bad guy comes in their house to do bad things. having a bat or knife won't do you any good if the bad guy has a gun. and let's all agree if someone breaks into your house at night with you in the home they aren't there to say hi. so you need to be able to protect yourself and your family. \n\nnow you can make the argument that it's horrible that we live in a society that we have to worry about someone breaking in. you would say you would never live in a place like that, whatever... but let me ask you, do you lock the doors to your house? why? because you don't want people you don't know coming in to steal stuff or hurt you maybe? so if you are locking your doors why not take it a step further and have some protection, either a baseball bat or knife or even a gun because if someone breaks into your house and you are there you can't assume they will simply leave after giving them some money or whatever you think they want. maybe they want to rape and torture your wife in front of you. maybe they had their eye on your kids. maybe they are some crazy stalker that wants to kill you in front of your wife, whatever who fucking cares he's is not their to be your friend. so you need to ask yourself if you need something to protect yourself. if you are a trained fighter good for you, not all people are. if you don't like guns, good for you, you don't have to have one, but don't take that right away from someone who wants a gun. it is your choice how you want to protect yourself and your family, whether it's a baseball bat, knife, or gun, or your bare hands. I don't care how you do it just protect yourself please. There are too many truly evil people out there and I will do everything I can to shield my kids from that.",
"Because we like guns and if you take them away from us we are going to be mighty pisssed.",
"If you take away the second amendment you also take away the peoples ability to revolt in the event of a corrupt government, unless protests can change the private interests of the corporations that control America or you want to try fighting unmanned lazer tanks with thermal tracking with a peeshooter. If that happens, we might as well trash the constitution and amendments and spread our butt cheeks in eager servitude.",
"Because we fear (And have every reason to) a tyrannical government forming.",
"Because the people who want to ban guns think they are solving a problem, and the people who want to keep guns realize that banning guns is not going to solve that problem.",
"I like to keep it simple. \r\rLets say you want to rob a store. If there is good chance that half the people in the store are armed including the store worker... Are you going to still rob that store? I don't think so. \r\rNow lets say you are in an area of strict gun laws. You get a gun illegally and now you can do whatever you want without worrying about civilians with guns.",
"It's not really a no-brainer, though. I'm from western Europe and I feel I should be able to own a gun, instead of the criminals here.",
"If I were born in switzerland I'd be keeping a full auto rifle at home, or more. I'm not allowed to do that in the US. Gun \"control\" is a very complex topic especially viewing it globally.",
"Because without the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), there would be no 1st Amendment (freedom of speech) Molon Labe",
"We don't trust our law enforcement to protect us. The biggest issue amongst people I know involves the thought of a criminal hurting or taking advantage of someone they care about. \n\nAlthough the term \"no brainer\" has been extensively talked about, I pose a situation, which most pro gun Americans would claim as plausible and call into question the simplicity of this debate. \n\nWhile you are sleeping, someone breaks into your house, you call 911, while the police respond, your family is killed in front of you. The cops show up, arrest or kill the intruder, but you are still left without a family. \n\nNow, this sounds like a movie plot, and I would agree that it is on odds with getting a straight flush in poker, but the idea of the government talking away a means of protecting those you love is not something that sits well with a large portion of our country. \n\nThe idea is that people who kill, are not motivated by their weapon, and law abiding citizens should not have tools of protection taken from them. \n\nI am a liberal who does not own a gun, nor do I have plans of purchasing a gun, but I would never want to live in a country where the government has weapons and the citizens do not. ",
"Fellow Kiwi here. The other factor to consider is that there is already shitloads of guns around. If you were to attempt to ban them it would be the lawful citizens who would give up their guns which would give criminals even more power. As soon as criminals have widespread access to 3d printed guns in NZ, I will be pushing for dissolving our gun laws as the right to self defence. ",
"there is no debate, the leftists want the peopel to not have guns to make them easy to control. the rightists want the leftists to leave our rights alone. its that simple, one political party wants gun control the other party does not. the only debate you see is on the govt controlled media outlets like cnn. stop listening to the talking heads about the issues and do liek this talk to people about them the new rooms dont know jack shit but what their controllers told them to say.",
"The rest of the world sees it as a no brainer right? Like it's a no brainer to Switzerland to have even male own a gun?",
"Nice try, Piers Morgan. ",
"Oh its so cute that you think the rest of the world sees it as a no-brainer.",
"It's honestly not that big of a deal to most of us. Most Americans agree it is your right to own a gun, and most Americans agree it shouldn't be as easy as it is to get one. ",
"Yeah, your title reveals you know nothing of the global position on gun control. Nice try.\n\nStart learning here :\n_URL_0_\n",
"This is what this sub has become, huh? Just like /r/shittyaskscience. ",
"Apart from the legal argument and the historical argument. There are some practical reasons as well.\n\n1. The US is huge and there are people with huge amounts of property that they want to hunt on.\n\n2. There are rural areas that have basically an inexistent police force (because the area is so unpopulated) and a gun is one of the only options for protection. \n\n3. Guns already exist in the society so people feel the necessity to buy guns to protect themselves from others who have guns. ",
"I would like to point out that gun control has also historically been tied to genocide and persecution. The first state to have gun control was Nazi Germany, then Soviet Russia, then Communist China. The deaths are as follows:\n\n* Nazi Germany: ~11 million killed\n* Soviet Russia: estimates range from ~20 million to as high as ~60 million\n* Communist China: estimates range from ~49 million to ~78 million\n\nThere is a legitimate worry that the potential for harm exists, especially when you factor in the sheer power of military in governments these days. When the Founding Fathers of America wrote in the right to keep and bear arms, it was not for fun: it was in the event of tyranny of the government. They rebelled against the British Monarchy. If there had been gun control back in those days, the US would not exist.\n",
"Hi so I'm a seventeen year old kid from Maine and I happen to agree with the second Amendment (with some variations). There seems to be this misconception that all gun owners want to own every automatic rifle they can get their hands on. For the most part this isn't true (unless you go to Texas but it's Texas). I personally believe that every Mentally safe American should have the right to own a fire arm. I do not believe that people with criminal records should have the right to own a gun. I'm really wish that the America government could find a middle ground and then work on more pertinent issues. ",
"I get how it can be easy to dismiss it as an issue, because it certainly sounds very stupid.\n\nUnfortunate fact is I know there are other people around me *with* guns who aren't as level headed as I am and I don't want the government telling me how I can protect my family if one of them does something stupid.\n\nLaws controlling firearms only affect people who follow the law.",
"Gun control is pretty controversial in Canada.\n\nAlso controversial in Switzerland, Finland, Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, etc.",
"Gun control, leaves the control in criminal's hands -- those who don't care to follow the gun control law.\n\nAll it does is take guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands.",
"Because, American's aren't fucking stupid and know just by making something illegal, it doesn't make that illegal thing magically disappear in thin air once its made illegal.\n\nLook at the Prohibition, shit people are still buying and selling stolen/lost guns, what makes you think those would stop being sold once gun stroes get shut down?",
"No one should tell you what you can or can not own\n\nOnce you give someone else the right to tell you that you're not a free person... And the group that tells you that, will OF COURSE want to disarm you, so that you can't fight back when they try to tell you how else to live your life.",
"From a purely outside perspective there are some issues up for discussion.\n\n1. The 2nd amendment was written in an era where the fastest weapon could be reloaded and fired every 3 minutes. That's 3 rounds a minute to kill people with, which seems perfectly reasonable to the average person. Fast forward to the 21st century and we have weapons firing between 750-and 800 rounds a minute, capable of wiping many people out at once. Weapons have advanced a lot since the era of musket and rifle, we simply cannot know if the original founding fathers knew weapons would become this advanced and deadly. \n\n2. The phrase \"Well regulated militia\" could be interpreted a few ways form the national guard to what we have now in the United States. Personally I think the founding fathers envisioned something like the Swiss have, with a well armed populace who are trained militarily to fend off invasion with the support of the national armed forces.\n\n3. The use of the phrase \"Guns don't kill people, people do\" is a rather annoying strawman argument in my opinion. Can a gun kill someone by itself? No, clearly it cannot. However if someone is holding a gun it does make it 100x easier to kill someone, 500-750(1000 max) rounds a minute easier. This can be compared with the recent stabbings in China and shootings in the U.S. In the U.S a shooter can kill between 20-30 people, while in China someone with a blade can injure up to 20-30. I am exlcuding the most recent attack in China because it has multiple attackers with knives which clearly brought up the body count. If there were multiple shooters it would do the same.\n\nI would like to say that I'm not anti gun. I understand a population needs to be armed. I am however a huge fan of the Swiss style of arming a population. Giving them military training and teaching them to work hand in hand with the armed forces if the time comes to defend the nation. Not from the fear that one day you will have to fight your own government.",
"The difference of gun availability of countries like New Zealand and the U.S. is huge.\n\nThe U.S. shares a 3000 mile border with Mexico, and well over 1000 people illegally enter the United States every day. These people are often carrying firearms with them, either for personal use, or to sell on the streets of border states like Arizona and California.\n\nThe controversy is that law abiding citizens will buy firearms from a registered dealer, the government then has documentation of that citizen owning that specific firearm. If a crime is ever committed the FBI can do ballistics analysis and match the striations in the bullet to the rifling of the guns barrel. Every gun is slightly different so investigators can prove what gun was used to commit the crime. Knowing this, law abiding citizens who obtained their guns legally are not going to commit crimes, knowing that the crime can eventually be traced back to them, they are only going to use their weapons recreationally, or for self and home defense. If anything happens they can't ditch the gun somewhere, because there is evidence of them owning it.\n\nCriminals (gang members, cartel associates, etc.) do not buy their weapons legally. They buy them through people in Mexico, Central America, or Russia. Those guns have had their serial numbers removed and there is no documentation of their ownership of that gun. The gun control controversy in America in large part boils down to the fact that it won't stop criminals from obtaining firearms, if they obtain them illegally before a ban, they will obtain them legally after.\n\nMany citizens are afraid of a firearm ban because right now, criminals know that literally anyone walking down the street could have a Concealed Carry license, and attempting to mug them or rape them could have deadly consequences. If gun control laws are more strict, then criminals are basically guaranteed the peace of mind that their victims won't be able to defend themselves.\n\nTl;Dr:\n\nThe U.S. shares a 3000 mile border with a country that has huge influences with the cartel, gangs, and organized crime. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens who were unlikely to commit crimes anyways.",
"This really has caused a shit storm. You're not going to get an explanation. Go onto an actual gun forum and ask this question. Then go onto an anti gun forum and ask the same question. You decide who sounds more sane. Hint hint: Those apparent \"gun toting maniacs, hell bent on blowing up puppies and murdering babies\" are actually nice, logical, articulate people. ",
"Because to Americans, the constitution is sacred and must never, ever be changed. You can add to it, but not remove something that's already there.\n\nAnd there's a sentence in the constitution that grants the right to keep and bear weapons.\n\nThis sentence was put there because the early Americans (no, not the Indians, after them) were afraid the king of England would force them to pay tax.\n\nBack when this sentence was put in place, the deadliest personal weapon you could conceive of was a muzzle-loading musket.\n\nSince it's next to impossible to remove the sentence, it will be there long after a pocket-sized death-ray becomes affordable to the average bored teenager.",
"Way to editorialize the title... From the sidebar: \n > *Don't post just to express an opinion or argue a point of view.*",
"A no-brainer? \nYou base your question on a premise that \"strict gun control laws\" are good. \nLOL.",
"Because its showing up below and I don't have a whole lot of time, saying that modernity should preclude ownership of certain types of firearm is like saying that free speech doesn't apply to anything other than the vocal, hand-written, or typeset printing press products. The founding fathers never envisioned radio, television, or the internet, yet everyone here would argue that free speech extends to those mediums. Laws in place already provide the necessary legal hoops to jump through to purchase anything \"exotic\" such as Class III (read machine gun) weapons. ",
"Highly suggest you edit this to be opinion neutral.",
"Mainly because gun control efforts in the US only serve to limit law-abiding citizens from acquiring firearms.\n\nCriminals still use illegal means to get their guns, so legislate all you like, it does nothing to change *that* issue.",
"what boggles my mind is that most of the anti gun idiots commenting here are 15 years old, British and spend most of their time playing COD. A game predominantly based around firearms. Double standards much?",
"Yeah the rest of the world sees them as a no-brainer. I am proud New Zealand finds itself in the company of. Mexico, Hondorous, DPRK, Red China. Those bastions of peace and human rights shine through.\n\nI am a free man not a slave or a subject to be ruled over. As a freeman born free and sovereign of myself, no power has the authority to declare what freedoms I can enjoy.\n\nIf a government sought to declare us no longer free they must be resisted. ",
"2nd amendment says it all ",
"I think the second amendment says I should be able to own a fully functional tank. Why cant I own a tank?",
" > No brianer\n\n > No bias",
"Your perspective is skewed.\n\nCanada has a much higher ownership rate than the US, but not nearly as much violence.",
"Here's my experience. (From the US)\nMy father and I were growing apart for several years, but then we took up firearms as a hobby. Since then we have found common ground, and can actually talk to each other again.\n\nIn the US, firearms have been a large part of the culture. If it wasn't, my father and I might not have found a common interest. You hear about shootings, but every second in the US there is probably someone using firearms the way they should be used.",
"Well, We could get rid of the doctrine of incorporation, then everybody could have their way. But then we would be functionally more of a republic again and some people wouldn't like that. That and most of Europe comes from a long line of subjects and retain the mindset of the subject. Americans come from rebellious stock and retain the mindset of the rebel.",
"You live in a peaceful country with a government is working. You have lots of natural resources.\nOur politicians spend our tax money to make each other rich. You can see by our deficit that we are headed for an economic collapse.\nIt makes them nervous when the population is so heavily armed so they are lobbying for gun control while buying billions of rounds of ammunition for all the government agencies. \nAs you can see by the recent action taken by our government against a cattle rancher, having assault rifles pointed at unarmed citizens for grazing cows and told you would be shot if you cross this line is not kiwi's and waterfalls.\nI am against any violence or killing of anyone but I am for the right of any human being to protect themselves. You live in a great place that I am sure the rich have their eye on so when we have and economic collapse, expect greed and corruption to come your way. \n\n\n\n\n\n",
"The right to bear arms is not protected by the constitution so that people can hunt or protect themselves from home intruders. It is in there quite simply so that citizens can revolt against their government if need be. That's it and that's all. And while that sounds ludicrous to us living in 2014 it was a very real concern to US citizens circa 1787. In light of this fact, like it or not, most arguments for gun control kind of fall apart. It isn’t about having a weapon sufficient for hunting deer or even protecting one’s home against intruders. It’s about having the means to “throw off the yoke of tyranny” if need be. Hell, Thomas Jefferson himself said, “The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots from time to time”. If we went by what the framers of the constitution had in mind every citizen would have the right to an M-1 tank in their driveway. You can argue that the idea of revolting against one’s government is unnecessary or obsolete except that it happens all over the world on a fairly regular basis. Just look at the wildly popular “Arab Spring” from last year. I don’t recall anyone lamenting the fact that the protesters were, in some instances, armed. \n\nWhat is unique in the United States is that founders of our country had the forethought to allow for the fact that people and therefore governments are quite corruptible. I concede that the likelihood of violent revolution in the United States in negligible. I further acknowledge that such a revolution wouldn’t go well to say the least. We citizens may have the right to an aircraft carrier but to my knowledge none of us have one let alone a fleet of them. Nonetheless the right to bear arms remains an important part of our constitution if for no other reason than to send a message to our politicians that ultimately they are not in charge. I am glad it is in the constitution. \n",
"Advances in 3d printing will put a permanent end to the gun control debate. The politicians can pass all the laws they want, and anyone who wants a gun will ignore them and print it out.",
"TIL that Scandinavia and Great Britain is what OP calls \"the rest of the world\".",
"The OP's initial presumption (\"the world sees it as a no-brainer\") is wrong, but let's explain it for people in New Zealand.\n\nMany, many years ago your ancestors saw the men in the red coats as people who were protectors. My ancestors saw them as oppressors. Your ancestors listened to the authorities and believed that they always had your best interest at heart. My ancestors questioned authority and were skeptical of their motives (with just cause). \n\nYou see a firearm as a symbol of authority and something that only the authorities should control. We see them as a symbol that *we the people* are in control, and authority may be lent to people for a time, but it will never be completely surrendered.",
"because the rest of the world hates freedom",
"Just look at the Cliven Bundy ranch. \"No, stop.\" means nothing to armed feds. But when you and your friends say \"no, stop.\" with rifles in your hands it means something. Without our ability to attain guns we lose the little bit of power we still have.",
"Aside from the constitution, who would enforce gun control laws and how would they do it?\n\nFirst of all guns last a really long time, and there isn't really much of a way to know who has what gun. My dad still has a Glock he bought in 1992 before even NICS background checks mandated by the Brady Bill. In the free United States there is no requirement to register guns aside from class 3 weapons, so no one really knows who has what gun. If the United States ever regressed to a point where civilian ownership of guns was abolished, a gun owner could simply say they sold there guns and the government realistically could not prove otherwise, at least not without violating the 4th amendment(search and seizure) as well.\n\nThen the government would be hard pressed to find someone who would reliably enforce it. Does anyone really expect a largely white, southern, and conservative military to enforce gun control laws. How many national guardsman would be comfortable turning in their privately owned guns? The police wouldn't be much better than the military, as the police are largely [opposed](_URL_0_) to gun control.\n\nGun Control in the U.S. is more or less a dream of Statists who crave the long cock of big government. ",
"Why is the government trying to take away the guns that rank lowest on the murder lists? Why is it that in the states with the most firearms in households are the ones with less gun crimes? And especially when the concealed carry licenses are In effect? \nThe government should care more about the sick and the gang affiliated than the gun owners. Let's face it the only reason japan didn't invade America was because of this \"right to bare arms.\" ",
"The rest of the world wasn't created with the freedom and rights of the people to live without a tyrannical government treating them like cattle. How unfortunate that people are too stupid to realize that.",
"Americans do not like to depend on the government for protection, when there is case precedance that can be cited indicating that the police have no legal obligation to actually do so. \n\nThere are bad things that can happen to people, which a gun would prevent. As a man it is my responsibility to come home from work each day and take care of my family. It is my responsibility to make sure that my family and property are protected. It is my responsibility to make sure that any emergency is anticipated and addressed before it becomes a disaster. It is my responsibility to make sure I have the ability to address emergencies that could hurt me or my family. That's why I have home, car and health insurance. A gun to me is just a $500 insurance policy for some rare, but very preventable emergencies.\n\nAny government interference in the manner of which I chose to carry my responsibility is none of their business. I carry a .45 for emergencies. My wife carries a .380 automatic for emergencies. They are very inexpensive insurance policies for things that can and DO happen to regular people. \n\nFor the government to tell me I can't do so as I see fit, is unacceptable. ",
"The top-voted post talks about the 2nd amendment, and that's correct. However, what's more important is the underlying philosophy of most other countries as compared to the U.S.\n\nSimply put, the culture of the U.S. values personal freedom above anything else, and I'd argue that few, if any, other countries have the same underlying philosophy. That's not to say nobody but the U.S. cares about freedom, of course they do... but it's not as deeply ingrained in our being as a result of the way our country was born.\n\nThis means that we do, as a generality, veer away from more collective solutions. Now, that may be changing at the moment to some degree, but it's historically been true. We've always wanted as little government as possible, as little oversight and regulation of our lives as possible *EVEN WHEN THE GREATER GOOD SUFFERS*, and that's the key point. This isn't a left/right thing, it's a historical fact about our underlying psyche. We value the individual over the state. It's a core value.\n\nBy contrast, most other \"European\" countries have a more, dare I say it, socialist leaning. They are, in many ways, closer to the extreme of communism than they are to the U.S.-style democracy. They largely live the Spock motto about the good of the many outweighing the good of the few, or the one. Understand that I'm not passing judgement on that, simply making the observation. This means, among other things, that things like trusting authority comes easier to most countries other than the U.S. Sometimes that serves them very well and yields benefits that I wish as a U.S. citizen we had (health care jumps to mind) but other times maybe not so much. \n\nOne such place I think the U.S. comes out ahead is in the notion of counting on authority to *PERSONALLY* protect you. The gun debate is the primary manifestation of that (it's a debate because even in America, not everyone agrees). We trust that our government can protect us *COLLECTIVELY* just fine... given a war, or even substantial civil unrest, yes, the authority can be counted on. But on a personal basis? No, we just don't trust in that.\n\nAnd rightly so! I for one don't want to count on police to show up when my life is on the line, nor do I want to live in a police state that would guarantee that model is always successful. Since I don't have a cop sitting with me all the time to protect me, it falls to *me* to defend my life. Given that, how could it *EVER* be acceptable to tell someone how they can and can't defend their life? You can use a baseball bat, that's fine, but not a gun? Is that not ridiculous?\n\nThe idea that \"if we get rid of all the guns then it'll be safer\" is flawed because it assumes no disparity between individuals (and it also assumes you'll only ever be confronted one-on-one, but let's set that aside). You only don't want a gun (or some other tool) to magnify your force when you think you have the advantage physically. Let me ask you this: one-on-one, can you *always* count on being the fastest? The strongest? The best trained? Even if you foolishly say yes to all of them (hey, I don't know, maybe you're an MMA god who can't be beat!) can you always count on being *THE LUCKIEST*? Obviously not.\n\nDo you really want to be lying in a pool of your own blood because a 90-pound weakling got a lucky shot in on you with a baseball bat before you could react thinking \"gee, I sure am glad neither of us had a gun\"? Is that going to bring you peace as you die? Because whether it does or not doesn't matter: you're dead either way.\n\nWe're talking about nature here at the end of the day. Does *ANY* living creature, by virtue of it being alive and wishing to remain so, have a right to defend it's life *BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY* to survive? Of course it does! Given that law of nature, are you okay with *ANY* artificial limit on those means? I'm not, and neither are enough Americans that the 2nd amendment was codified. \n\nNote that the 2A doesn't *GIVE* you the right to a gun, or any other weapon... it says that this right *EXISTS* independent of the state and the state may not infringe that natural right. It's worded quite clearly and is the *SECOND* thing our founders people chose to list, followed only by the right to talk about it. It's *THAT* important.\n\nThis doesn't even speak to the \"corrupt government\" angle. Again, it comes down to a deep-seeded mistrust of government in America to a large degree. Look, most of us over here aren't ready to rise up against our government. We don't live in fear of our government. We know it's flawed to be sure, and we're always casting a bit of a weary eye on it to make sure it doesn't go too far, but by and large we're cool with it. We have our share of nutjobs that want a full-on war with the government, but most of us recognize that's stupid. Still, because of the way our nation was born we have a strong desire to ensure we always at least reserve the *POSSIBILITY* of rising up. We can argue all day long about how that would turn out, but it doesn't matter: the fact is we *COULD* if we thought we had to. Countries that have given up guns have more or less given up that possibility. They've ceded their lives to their government, for good or bad. That's not a notion a typical American can get their heads around and that's a big part of why guns are so important to us.\n\nAll of that said, we come to the final reason gun control laws are non-starters in the U.S.: there's just no logic to the arguments and enough people recognize it and refuse to act based on non-existent or faulty logic.\n\nThe numbers just don't bear out substantial increases in gun control laws. You look at the number of people killed by guns every year and you start to notice some things... first, violent crime has been decreasing in America steadily for nearly 20 years now, and that of course includes crimes committed with guns. There are more guns in circulation over that time period too, so clearly it's not as simple as \"less guns = less crimes\" otherwise the converse would be true and it simply isn't. \n\nSecond, more than half of all gun deaths are suicides. Look, that's tragic as hell and we need to address it. It's also undeniably true that many who try and commit suicide and fail don't do so again. It's an impulsive decision by and large and if guns weren't so easy to obtain and so (relatively) quick and painless and foolproof then there wouldn't be as many suicides overall. Yes, some of them would just choose another means, but it's reasonable to believe the overall number would be reduced in the absence of guns.\n\nIt's also true that some percentage of the total guns deaths are accidents. That too is very sad and tragic. But, frankly, the number just isn't that high. It's no higher than the number of accidental deaths due to any of a hundred other causes.\n\nSo, of the total gun deaths, you get something around maybe 30%-35% of them are homicides. But, that number, in a country this large with this many people and, critically, this many *GUNS*, just isn't that high.\n\nBut, some of you will still say \"yeah, but even *ONE* gun death is too many!\" Ok, let's go with that... answer me this: is it true that guns do *SOMETIMES* save lives? The answer is a 100% *FACTUAL* yes. It can't be argued, it simply is a fact.\n\nSo, given that, now answer me this: if one life is saved by virtue of there being no gun available, is that life saved somehow more valuable than the life that was saved *BECAUSE* a gun was available?\n\nOf course not!\n\nAnd now we get to the big point: how many defensive gun uses per year are there? The answer is we don't actually know for sure... there have been a number of reports on this, but even as a gun rights guy I don't really buy them. 900k defensive gun uses per year? That seems *WAY* too high to me. But, what *IS* a reasonable estimate? Let's go with 1%. That's 9k defensive gun uses per year. Guess what? After you cut out suicides and accidents from the overall gun deaths that's roughly where you are on average anyway.\n\nIn other words: the hard, cold, factual numbers, as collected by the CDC and FBI, tells us that the number of lives *TAKEN* with guns is, at worst, not *TOO* far from the number of lives likely *SAVED* by guns. But even if there's a significant different between the two, do you want to be the one to tell a grieving family that you're sorry their brother/sister/mother/father was killed because they couldn't have a gun any more than you want to tell the grieving family that you're sorry their brother/sister/mother/father was killed by someone with a gun? One isn't somehow worse than the other, is it?\n\nBut, you see, that's logical, and that's what you rarely hear from gun control advocates. Emotion rules the day for them. And hey, it's easy to understand why. I've long said that Newtown is a very sad litmus test of sorts... if you can imagine yourself as Lanza, in a classroom, 20 cowering children crying in a corner... now imagine opening firing on them... how do you *FEEL* thinking about that? Are you *PHYSICALLY* sick to your stomach? Are you choked up?\n\nCongratulations, you're normal.\n\nThat kind of emotion is *VERY* strong and most normal people *NEVER* want to feel it, and that's me included. But, you can't make policy based on emotions. It never ends well. That's unfortunately what the gun control debate has become: one side acting on pure, visceral (but entirely understandable) emotion, the other side thinking things through more logically (and perhaps coldly sometimes), looking at factual numbers and drawing reasoned conclusions based on them. When that's the level of debate it's going to be heated, it's going to lead to intractable positions and it's going to seem crazy to anyone on the outside who made a different choice. Whether their choice was actually good or not doesn't even matter at that point.",
"Not all people (note that I didn't say Americans) expect or even want \"their\" governments to protect them.",
"I know I'm late to this but I see several people saying they have guns for their protection in case a criminal has one. This is only part of the reason for having a gun for defense. \n\nIf someone breaks into my house my first thought is protecting my family. I'm no trained fighter and I have no idea how experienced the person in my home is or physically fit or their intentions etc... I give myself at best 50/50 odds of being able to physically defend myself hand to hand. These are not very good odds especially considering what's at stake. \n\nThat's just assuming one person but that isn't always the case either, add one more invader and my odds drop to almost nothing. I think a lot of people also don't realize how dangerous a physical fight can be. A bad fall or a hit to the right area can serious harm or kill you. Adding any hand weapons to the mix makes the altercation twice as dangerous no matter what it is.\n\nThe odds don't favor me until I'm armed. Even assuming they are armed I still have the advantage in my own home. The gun is simply the best most assured way I can guarantee the defense of my family with as little risk as possible. \n\nThe other point I think needs to be made is I have observed that there are two schools of thought regarding the police.\n\n1. The primary responsibility of the Police is to protect.\n2. The primary responsibility of the Police is to enforce the law. \n\nThe Supreme Court decided that it is number 2 which means the police do not have the responsibility to arrive and protect you only to arrive and enforce the laws that have been broken. To me this changes things quite a bit.",
"FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE,,,\n\n1. \"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do Not.\" Thomas Jefferson,,,\n\n2. \"Those who trade liberty for security have neither.\" John Adams,,,\n\n3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms,,,\n\n4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject,,,\n\n5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them,,,\n\n6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control,,,\n\n7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for,,,\n\n8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety,,,\n\n9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive,,,\n\n10. Assault is a behavior, not a device,,,\n\n11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday,,,\n\n12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved,,,\n\n13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore The others,,,\n\n14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?,,,\n\n15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians,,,\n\n16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves,,,\n\n17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control,,,\n\n18. Gun Control may have Good Intentions but the Road to HELL is paved with Good Intentions,,,\n\n19. Have you joined or created a local Militia to protect your rights and your neighbors and your Country,,,\n\n20. Civil Disobediance will be the beginning of Civil war, Are YOU prepared to Disobey your Government when they Legistate your Guns, Magazines and Ammo away,,,",
"Gun violence peaked in 1993. Since then gun violence has dropped 49%.\n\nIn 1993 and 1994, three major federal gun control laws went into effect (brady act, domestic violence ban, and the violent crime control act) as well as hundreds of state laws.\n\nThe controversy is that the left feels the drop in crime is related to the implementation of the laws, and the right feels that the reason crime went down is because more people have guns.",
"Haha im from CO and that does make sense and im all for laws not being able to be repealed! I agree with the law maybe I wasnt clear. \nLook at places like chicago or washington D.C, some of the highest gun crime rates per capita, in places where guns are supposedly outlawed. Doesnt make a ton of sense",
"If the rest of the world thinks that prohibiting property ownership is a no brainer, perhaps they do indeed have no brain.\n\nPeople should be punished for crimes they commit, not the crimes others have committed. ",
"OP's \"no brainer\" seems a bit racist to me, only western countries have strick gun control and a lower crime rate, while south american countries have the same gun control laws or stronger, and out of control crimes and murders",
"I find it sad that much of the world sees government control of one's weapons as a \"no-brainer.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7081038.stm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001063269/bear_arms_xlarge.jpeg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKMgxuHBasI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agkistrodon_contortrix"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Fernando_massacre"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland",
"http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU"
],
[
"http://youtu.be/_YY5Rj4cQ50"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://ktla.com/2014/05/03/sober-driver-arrested-for-owi-when-deputy-crashes-into-her-car-3/#axzz30l2588IU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bloomberg-bullet.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0"
],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Flag_of_Mozambique.svg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/05/23/911-dispatcher-tells-woman-about-to-be-sexually-assaulted-there-are-no-cops-to-help-her-due-to-budget-cuts/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year",
"http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/interpol-chief-citizens-need-guns/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch4.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Practice_in_the_USA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
fpg49e | how would the earn it act of 2020 stop end-to-end encryption? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fpg49e/eli5_how_would_the_earn_it_act_of_2020_stop/ | {
"a_id": [
"flkqool"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Section 4.A.1.a says \"the Commission shall develop and submit to the Attorney General recommended best practices that providers of interactive computer services may choose to engage in to prevent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation of children, including the enticement, grooming, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse of children and the proliferation of online child sexual abuse material.\"\n\nThe Commission is expected to say \"Providers should give law enforcement officials any information they want, and search out information according to requests from law enforcement\" and \"Providers should not permit or distribute encrypted information\", to allow the police to be able to read the information.\n\nONPXQ BBEFN ERONQ GBNYY"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
8i9kss | that gut feeling we get sometimes and is it a true biological response in a dangerous situation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8i9kss/eli5_that_gut_feeling_we_get_sometimes_and_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"dypzkoh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I remember reading a lot of those feelings are your brain remembering things that once hurt you. So when you get a bad feeling about someone or a situation and you can't place why, it's the brain tying to warn you. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1w03dq | non-american here. what does it mean to have a "major" in one subject and a "minor" in another? | Does it mean that the person took two courses of studies? In my country we don't have BA or MA degrees. My course of studies, which is the English Teaching Training Course gives me a degree equivalent to a BA in "value" but it's 4-5 years long and we even learn the content of an MA.
The thing is that I've seen people writing that they have a major in English and a minor in French, for instance. What does it mean?
Edit: According to my degree, does it mean I'll have a "major" in English Teaching? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w03dq/eli5_nonamerican_here_what_does_it_mean_to_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cexfb4h",
"cexfbqw",
"cexfw5w"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Essentially, a college course of study is generally offered as a package, each department would have a standardized list of mandatory course and elective courses that you must take in order to qualify for a degree. These course lists generally come in 2 levels:\n\n* Major: you will be taking most of your courses from this department's list. This is the subject you are focusing on in your university career.\n\n* Minor: where you only have to take some of the introductory courses in the subject. Generally you can't just come to university to do a minor. you can only do a minor in conjunction with a major. these are for people who want a cursory knowledge in a subject but not focus on it.\n\nThe concept of minors in popular in American schools, because they encourage that you don't just focus on one thing but also broaden your knowledge into other fields.",
"Many degrees don't have a formal focus, so Major and Minor is a way of saying \"focused studies in\" -- the exact definition can vary from school to school and program to program\n\nIf you majored in something for a 120 credit degree program, you likely spent 25% or more of your time studying said topic. If you minored in in something, you spent maybe 10-15%",
"Using [a local university as an example](_URL_0_)...\n\nTo get a degree from the university, you need to takes 180 credits (a credit is approximately 1hr/week of lecture time for a 3-month academic term, most classes are going to be 3-5 credits) worth of classes and pass them.\n\nThere is usually a set of *general education* requirements that all students, regardless of their program of study, need to take. This covers English/literature classes, history classes, some sort of science, some math, philosophy, art and the like. These are the things that they feel *everyone* with a university education needs to be exposed to in order to be \"educated\". In the case of PSU, this accounts for about 30 credits of classes.\n\nWhen you chose your major, that's your primary course of study. This is generally 60-90 credits of coursework directly focused on what you're 'studying'. These are your English grammar/composition/literature classes & classes on teaching. If you're majoring in Biology, these would be biology and chemistry classes. If you're stufying computer science, these would be programming, math & theory classes.\n\nA minor is a secondary course of study. Let's say you're interested in art, you could minor in painting or art history by taking 30-40 credits of art classes.\n\nThe other 30-50 credits are usually taken up by other requirements and electives. If you're majoring in chemistry, the school might require you to take extra science/math classes outside of the chemistry department. If you're majoring in English, they might require you to take foreign language classes, linguistics classes or philosophy classes. Beyond that, if you have any credits left, you can just study things that you find interesting (often this happens at the *beginning* when people are trying to decide on a major)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pdx.edu/advising/requirements-for-a-baccalaureate-degree"
]
]
|
|
94uk7g | “starvation mode” vs “fat burning” mode | I seem to really misunderstand this concept.
When you don’t eat enough calories, your body freaks out and starts conserving energy and you go into starvation mode. Ok, fair enough.
But when you’re on a diet, the goal is to eat less calories so your body searches for energy elsewhere, thus you begin burning fat for energy.
Why is it in the same scenario - not enough readily available energy - in one case, you’re in “starvation mode” and the other, you’re in “fat burning” mode. What marks the difference?? How would one avoid starvation mode and stay in the fat burning mode?? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/94uk7g/eli5_starvation_mode_vs_fat_burning_mode/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3nz91c",
"e3o4usy",
"e3o5ean",
"e3oc5kq"
],
"score": [
29,
2,
8,
9
],
"text": [
" > When you don’t eat enough calories, your body freaks out and starts conserving energy and you go into starvation mode.\n\nNot really, no. Starvation mode isn't really a thing, it's mostly an excuse people use when they don't diet strictly.\n\nAs long as you are burning more calories than you take in, you will lose weight, period. Don't worry about all the mumbo jumbo like \"starvation mode\" you read about, just find whatever method works for you in restricting calories (keto, intermittent fasting, various diets, etc).",
"If you eat sufficient nutrients(protein, vitamins and minerals), but insufficient calories(fat and carbs), your body will liberate fat for energy. If you eat both insufficient nutrients and calories, your body will start to liberate fat and also catabolize muscle tissue for the raw materials required for maintenance of essential systems. You stay in fat burning mode by consuming a nutrient dense hypo caloric diet(either by reducing calories or increasing expenditure). This isn't a black and white thing, it's a spectrum. There is some speculation that reducing carbohydrate intake will promote fat burning mechanisms and pathways in the body, and i think it's a reasonable approach. I know people who have lost a lot of weight restricting carbs.",
"Chronic calorie restriction results in a reduction of TDEE and the body holding on to bodyfat in case things get \\[worse\\]. You will slowly probably lose some weight and be hungry much of the time. You body will grudgingly use some bodyfat.\n\nIf you just DID NOT EAT, aka fasting, your body gives up on holding on to bodyfat -- the time has come! You switch over metabolically to burning fats. At night when you sleep, assuming here you had dinner at 6pm and then stopped eating!, you enter this state which is why it's called break*fast.*\n\nThen on alternate days, eat until you are full. You'll still lose weight. Check out /r/intermittentfasting\n\nStaying IN fat-burning mode is called nutritional ketosis. Check out /r/keto for more info.\n\nThere isn't a starvation mode, snack companies came up with that to claim you have to eat all the time.",
"\\ > What marks the difference?? \n\nIn \"fat burning mode\", your body has sufficient triacylglycerol stores and dietary protein to provide your brain, liver, red blood cells and pancreas with glucose via gluconeogenesis. These are the organs which cannot survive off of ketone bodies alone. Blood sugar levels will actually rise slightly, as your muscles become insulin resistant in order to conserve glucose for the above organs.\n\nIn \"starvation mode\", your body has depleted its triacylglycerol stores and must begin breaking down muscle proteins to keep blood sugar levels above 40 mg/dL (which in turn prevents your brain from going into a hypoglycemic coma). Starvation mode takes ***several*** weeks of eating at a ***severe*** caloric deficit. Avoiding it is trivial - maintain a healthy body weight and limit weight loss to a couple of pounds (of non-water weight) per week."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2p16ci | why does alcohol go down smoother when chilled? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p16ci/eli5_why_does_alcohol_go_down_smoother_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmshv8b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Increased temperature translates to an increased evaporation of volatile compounds from its solvent (in this case, water).\n\nAerosolising the volatiles makes them available to your olfactory sensors (which we know to be heavily involved in our perception of taste).\n\nDecreasing the temperature makes the molecules move slower, meaning less of the \"offensive\" harsher compounds are available to interact with your tastebuds and olfactory sensors.\n\nSOURCE: I'm a scientist and I like to practice making reasonable-sounding hypotheses without evidence, so that I may one day secure funding without having had to already complete a project."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
19efng | why is it so hard to start a work out, but after i'm finished i feel so good? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19efng/eli5_why_is_it_so_hard_to_start_a_work_out_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8na34u",
"c8naar2",
"c8nal7k",
"c8naoa3",
"c8nap8g",
"c8nd4qq",
"c8nec9j",
"c8ng037",
"c8nng9k"
],
"score": [
7,
120,
23,
8,
15,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Holy fuck I just thought it was me. That feeling is the only thing I keep in my memory when trying to start off again. Really would love this question answered but I think it is really simple unfortunately. We'd rather do nothing than do something. Especially many of us who go from school to work and then were tired by the end of the day to bother with the gym. ",
"You're lazy. Endorphins. ",
"Working out and drugs are a lot alike but sorta flipped in their roles: \n\nWith drugs, you ingest and enjoy happiness for a bit, and then you feel shitty. \n\nWith exercise, you feel shitty for a bit, and then afterwards feel great. ",
"I start of by stretching in my seat. Then i get up and just warm up. People underestimate the effect of gradually getting yourself physically and mentally prepared for working out. You need to ease yourself into it as opposed to just picking up a huge weight.\n\nUsually when you haven't worked out for a long period your muscles have less oxygen pumping compared to when you do. This results in a higher rate of lactic acid production which results in the tired or painful feeling of working out. If you gradually stretch and increase your level of exercise incrementally you'll have a better experience and usually train harder and longer.\n\nThe other thing is motivation. Without the correct level of motivation working out becomes a task instead of an experience. If you have the feeling to stop mid workout then you're not doing it correctly. You need to have internal motivators that exercise your willingness to actually do it.\n\nMost of it comes down to actually understanding what working out is. Reading up on it is usually the best thing to do. Personally, i read dozens of articles on the exercises and correct techniques and methods. At the end of the day it comes down to understanding your body and how it works. Working out should be a pleasant experience. Doing it incorrectly is usually why it isn't.",
"Because we \"know\" that we will be happy from exercising. It just sounds like hard work so the brain says \"Nah, let's not do it right now, let's make future us do it.\" \n\nIn order to associate the feel good feeling with exercising you have to make a habit of it. ",
"The primary problems stem from [delayed gratification](_URL_1_).\nAs other have said, the end result of a workout is endorphins (which make you feel good chemically).\n\nBasically, the human mind is designed naturally to want rewards as fast as it can get them, which is why we eat things like fast food and chocolate asap, even though we know they will make us fat later. In regards to working out, we know pain is coming immediately, and naturally do not want pain, even though we know the later result will be better health.\n\nThrough [operant conditioning] (_URL_0_), we learn to enjoy working out and change our habbits over-time. You can apply this to pretty much all human behavior, especially over things like money and sex.",
"Because when you work out your body produces little smiley faces that float around and make you feel things like happy and good, called endorphins. ",
"When you start to work out your muscles send a lot of pain signals to your brain. This is why it sucks so much when you start. But section of your midbrain that kicks in and releases endorphins a neuro-transmitter to dull the pain sensation from your body. That's why after you've been working out for a bit it isn't so unpleasant. Now your brain has a blood brain barrier stopping neurotransmitter from leaking out but the problem is it isn't one hundred percent so some gets out. This then gets into another section of your brain in charge of pleasure which happens to use the same neurotransmitter (there aren't that many). This is why it feels good afterwards. If for instance your brain happened to use acetylcholine in the pleasure centre you wouldn't feel good after working out. essentially the reason you feel good is just a by product of your body dulling pain so you can keep going.\nHope that helps\n",
"Yeah, you feel so good... that it's over and that the next time you have to work out is the day after tomorrow. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3gcl5a | why can some people have their eyes open underwater with no problem while others can't? | Like my friend has no problem seeing underwater, although it's a bit blurry, but I absolutely hate getting water in my eyes. What's the deal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gcl5a/eli5_why_can_some_people_have_their_eyes_open/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctwv8q0",
"ctwwjnl",
"ctwxu1p"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's just a matter of eye sensitivity and personal opinion. It's just like having contacts. Some people can wear them, and it freaks others out.",
"Some people can ignore pain more than others. People you know who can go underwater with eyes open have a higher pain threshold. Pretty cool",
"There's a big difference between \"absolutely hate\" and \"can't\", and usually it's in your head. If the need was strong enough, I'm sure you'd manage."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
fy3mtm | why despite the fact that native american casino's generate billions most tribes and native people still live in poverty? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fy3mtm/eli5why_despite_the_fact_that_native_american/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmy3b38"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Why do Americans live in poverty when people like bezos are worth 109 billion. \n\nBecause some people are greedy. There’s also not a big, successful casino for every nation. Most land forced on the nations was worthless. Shit for agriculture, shit for living. \n\nSome nations do give members money based on the casino, but as I said. Greedy people in charge don’t usually just give it all away.\n\nAlso, the nations don’t split casino profits. The casino in Seattle isn’t connected to say, a nation in Florida."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5hcl3q | if you were to eat a 50 pound cake how much weight would you gain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hcl3q/eli5_if_you_were_to_eat_a_50_pound_cake_how_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"daz5x1c",
"daz63bl"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on your metabolism. Some would gain more, some would gain less. But most would die. \n\n1 gram of fat = 9 calories\n1 gram of carb = 4 calories\n1 gram of protein = 4 calories \n50 pounds of cake = death ",
"There's about 350 kcal in 100 grams of cake. That's about 80000 kcal for 50 pounds. One kg of human fat tissue is about 7000 kcal. Add in some inefficency and the 'back of the envelope calculation' says about 10kg or 22 pounds. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
259aha | if i drove up one side of the hill than rolled down on the other side of it, would i be using more, less, or same amount of gas if i were to go the same distance on a flat surface. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/259aha/eli5if_i_drove_up_one_side_of_the_hill_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"chexzgj",
"chf49cz"
],
"score": [
23,
5
],
"text": [
"the change in velocity and amount of force used to move your vehicle would use more energy than simply traveling on a flat surface at a constant velocity",
"The flat surface would use less gas.\n\nI'm a pilot, and we are often faced with pretty much the same dilemma. If flying from a to b and back, which is the quickest?\n\na: no wind\nb: 10mph headwind one way, 10mph tailwind going back\nc: no difference\n\nThe correct answer is a, since in the case of b, you'd be going at a slower speed for a longer time than you'd be going at the faster speed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
150olc | why is my breath more effective than water when cleaning my glasses? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/150olc/why_is_my_breath_more_effective_than_water_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7iebxp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your breath is hot and stinky and the germs/stains evaporate and run "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5ruurk | why does the north star (polaris) seemingly not move with the rest of the stars in the night sky? is it literally not moving or more of an optical illusion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ruurk/eli5_why_does_the_north_star_polaris_seemingly/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddaa67n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think probably the most important point to make is that the night sky isn't moving, the Earth is moving which makes it appear as if the sky is spinning.\n\nTo illustrate this concept try standing in a room and spinning around, then looking straight up. Notice how a spot on the ceiling appears to be basically still while everything else sweeps around in a circle? There is nothing special about that spot on the ceiling other than that you happen to have an axis of your rotation pointed at it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
99ew3a | why do officers touch the rear driver side brake light when stopping vehicles? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99ew3a/eli5_why_do_officers_touch_the_rear_driver_side/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4n2b5e",
"e4n2g34"
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text": [
"The reason I've heard is that it leaves tangible proof, the fingerprint, that the driver interacted with the officer in case there is any dispute in the immediate aftermath. Obviously it won't last long, but it's an extra safeguard.",
"Leaves prints/proof they stopped and approached the vehicle, were something to go down like the driver flees, shoots the officer, etc. leaving evidence tying vehicle to officer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
42chil | the gambler's fallacy: if a coin flip comes up heads 19 times in a row, why is the 20th flip just as likely to be heads as tails? | If we flip a coin, 1/2 chance heads. If we flip a coin twice, 1/4 chance of all of them landing on heads. Three times, 1/8 chance of all heads... Seven times, 1/128 chance of all heads.
So, if we can see the series has already come to an extremely unlikely outcome (like 100x heads), and it is even less likely that there will be 101 heads in a row, why isn't it smarter to bet on tails on the 101st flip? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42chil/eli5_the_gamblers_fallacy_if_a_coin_flip_comes_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz98yk9",
"cz991o7",
"cz99bii",
"cz99tni"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Each flip has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. \n\nThe likelihood of any sequence of flips turning up the same way is lower, but this has no impact on the current flip.\n\nLook at it this way, with one flip you've got two options H or T.\n\nWith two flips, you've got four options\nHH\nHT\nTH\nTT\n\nSo you've got a 1 in four chance of a particular pattern. BUT you'll notice there's still only 2 possibilities for the second flip. An H or a T. 50/50",
"Flipping a coin is an independent act. Meaning it doesn't rely or depend on anything. The result of your flip doesnt impact anything in the world at all. Whereas removing a card from a standard deck of 52 does impact possible outcomes! The deck then changes from 52 to 51. When you flip a coin all possible results remain the same and no quantities have changed. It doesnt matter when you flip a coin where you flip it or how many times you flip it. It just flips and nothing changes. The same can not be said for a deck of cards.\n\n",
"The answer is already explained in the other comments, but I want you to think of this as well. The odds of flipping 10 heads in a row is 1/1024 (1/2^10). Looking at those odds, it seems unlikely that this event will happen. So, if you have 9 heads in a row, you might think of the odds and assume that the next one must land on tail. However, if you calculate the odds for there to be 9 heads and 1 tail, they are identical to 10 heads (1/2^10). Since the odds for the two outcomes are the equal, the last coin toss is an even 50/50.",
"There is a 1/128 chance of getting 7 heads in a row, but there is also a 1/128 chance of getting 6 heads and then 1 tail. There are 128 different permutations for 7 coin flips, and they are all equally likely. \n\nHowever, each coin flip is a 50/50 chance, which doesn't change based on previous results. Remember, there are 128 different possibilities for 7 coin flips, so getting any one specific permutation is unlikely. The fact that it is all heads looks notable because it sticks out, but HHHHHHH is just as likely as HTTHHTT or any other permutation. \n\nThe fact that a pattern appears to be emerging is just a coincidence. This is also why there are two sides to the Gambler's Fallacy. You think that the next flip should be tails because a tails is somehow \"due\" in order to make up for all the heads. Maybe I think that the next flip should be heads because heads are \"hot\" and will keep showing up. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2su65l | what was the point of having a "turbo" button on 486 computers. when was there ever an instance when you wanted your computer to function at a slower pace?! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2su65l/eli5_what_was_the_point_of_having_a_turbo_button/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnsuoly",
"cnsup64",
"cnt6m6o"
],
"score": [
18,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Early games simply ran as fast as they could. This worked on 8086 but 386/486 were so much faster that games were unplayable. The Turbo button was really a \"pretend to be an 8086\" button.",
"Yes.\n\nThere were many games that had timings based not on the real-time clock, but on the speed of the processor itself, which for many years was a steady, predictable 4.77 MHz.\n\nSo, when faster processors were available, those games became practically unplayable. The turbo button allowed you to slow down the processor so that you could play the game. Newer games from the late 80s on started to use the RTC for game timings instead of the processor speed to future-proof them; before long, the turbo button became obsolete.",
"Yes!\n\nEarly software relied on the clock speed for timing...faster clock meant faster behavior, which is fine if you want a spreadsheet to refresh faster, but could be a pain if you were trying to read a tooltip.\n\nIt was particularly important with games, which would become unplayable at high speed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4aafwp | what was "female hysteria" | What was female hysteria, what were its symptoms, how did vibrators help, and what condition is it associated with today? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aafwp/eli5_what_was_female_hysteria/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ype1q",
"d0ypes2",
"d0yphbm"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It was a largely made-up \"disease\" used to \"diagnose\" women of all sorts of things. Silly woman wanted time away from the kitchen? Clearly she's hysterical. Crazy lady wanted the right to vote? Hysteria! She's crazy!\n\nSo what do you do with a hysterical woman? How about a hysterectomy! Cut out her uterus, that will make her calm down. So now we just have to let her know. Oh, look, she's freaking out because you just told her she's being forced to get a dangerous, invasive surgery to remove her *f & @$ing uterus*. She's having a damn fit! She's clearly losing her wits and it's just a stronger indication that the surgery is necessary.\n\nOther treatments included forced bedrest for *three months*. You know. Three months of doing literally nothing but laying in bed. Or complete isolation in a \"[yellow room](_URL_0_)\" for weeks at a time. Sounds like something that would make someone go crazy, eh? Yeah...\n\nVibrators didn't help at all. They just, you know, felt amazing. Remember that at the time, vibrators were brand new, and we're talking about a time when many men had absolutely no interest in pleasing their wives sexually, so...there's this man with a magic device that gives you mind-blasting orgasms... So yeah, they'd probably feel a little better, eh? Or at the very least, given the option between orgasms or spending three months bedridden, the women would probably at least *act* much happier after the vibrator treatment.\n\nUltimately, though, the point is that \"hysteria\" isn't anything other than \"men thought their wives were getting uppity or complaining too much so they sent them to a hospital for 'treatment'\".",
"Female hysteria was a totally made-up disorder.\n\nIt was dreamed up by societies that believed women were supposed to be pure and weren't supposed to have any sexual desires.\n\nSexual desires and the symptoms that do along with them were \"abnormal\" and were characteristics of hysteria.\n\nIn the 19th and early 20th century, some specialists started \"treating\" hysteria by stimulating women and bringing them to orgasm. After an orgasm, you're relaxed and calm, so it \"worked\". These \"treatments\" were originally done by hand, and so vibrators were developed to give the docs a rest.\n\nInteresting tidbit: \"hysteria\" means \"wandering uterus\". At one time, people thought the uterus wandered throughout the body, and the treatment of stimulation and orgasm brought the uterus back into its rightful place.",
"\"Hysteria\", literally comes from the latin for \"of the womb\" - meaning, it's the particular form of female craziness, the result of their sex. It was formerly a diagnosis that served as a catch-all for any women who was behaving in ways that included nervousness, emotional outburts, etc. In hindsight, we tend to now believe this was a male-dominanted labeling of behavior that men didn't like, didn't want to ever regard as reasonable circumstantial reactions, or that would somehow warrant same more nuanced diagnosis afforded men with similar mental disorders. \n\nWhile \"sexual thoughts\" were often regarded as a symptom (women aren't naturally horny!), a pelvic massage was at a few points one of the treatments - and it's become a very commonly retold one given - in my opinion - that this thought is a little exciting to a modern audience. The pelvic massage was replaced with the more efficient vibrator, seen as a technological advance of the former treatment. Some argue that this was the original intent of vibrator (medical device)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yellow_Wallpaper"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
45dv52 | why do we sometimes wake up and not know who we are or what the hell is going on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45dv52/eli5_why_do_we_sometimes_wake_up_and_not_know_who/ | {
"a_id": [
"czx4mfv",
"czx5lae"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many people do, and it ain't friggin' fun at all.\n\nYour brain goes through various states in sleep. Sometimes it's fairly quiet and sometimes it's deep into an intense dreaming mode. Depending on what's going on up there, if something like an outside noise jolts you awake or if the experience you're living in your dream is so horribly intense, it can pull you out of either a very sleep when your conscious mind is deeply buried, or an intense dreaming state when it's overwhelmed by that dreaming experience. \n\nAnd in those conditions sometimes it takes a few seconds for your conscious mind to reassert control and reboot itself or replace your consuming internal mental dialogue with the one that responds to and processes external stimuli.\n\n(Happened to me once when I dreamed my bookcase was attacking me. I could actually SEE the tentacles being withdrawn for a few seconds after I work up screaming as my brain reverted to its normal programming.)",
"Sleep works in cycles that last usually an hour and a half. \n\nYou can read more about it by looking up \"REM cycles\" (Rapid Eye Movement Cycles) on Google, but essentially, when you enter a cycle your brain is doing all kinds of stuff, healing, putting stuff back in place, etc, etc. And then after an hour and a half it exits this cycle, pauses for a bit, and starts a new cycle of an hour and a half.\n\nIf you wake up right in the middle of a cycle, your brain is being jolted in the middle of it's healing and cleaning up process, so it's confused because it was busy doing something else and all of a sudden it needs to stop what it's doing and focus on real life again.\n\nIf you wake up right at the end of a cycle, your brain is done doing it's work and you'll wake up fresh and alert.\n\nThis is also something you can exploit: if you sleep multiples of 90 mins (4hrs30, 6hrs, 7hrs30, 9hrs, etc.), you'll feel much better when you wake up because your brain is ready to go."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3drr13 | when and where did the sudden popularity of energy drinks come from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3drr13/eli5_when_and_where_did_the_sudden_popularity_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct80hd0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The popularity came from the fact that the American people are overworked and are therefore dependent on stimulants. On average full time employees work 47 hours a week. Part time employees average 27 per job and often have 2-3 jobs. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
epwwf4 | can amnesia change your personality? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/epwwf4/eli5_can_amnesia_change_your_personality/ | {
"a_id": [
"fem9x45",
"fembi2z",
"femdbkl"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"If you don’t have any memory of experiences that have shaped your personality, then your personality is bound to change based on your future experiences",
"There are different types of Amnesia. Recently, in our university class we talked about anterograde amnesia, which prevents people from storing more information in their long term memory. Our professor specifically stated this doesn't change personality. \n\nAnd then there i retrograde Amnesia which is appears more often, and it kind of deletes information you stored in the past. \n\nNow I would claim that retrograde Amnesia does change your personality, because memories are part of it. \n\nAnd for your example, I think it's pretty realistic considering the Amnesia causes the patient to forget the feelings they had in the situation and have a much more objective view on it, thus making them realize they acted wrong. \n\nAnd then",
"Everything about your personality **is derived/result of** your memories.\n\nAnything(disease/trauma/MIB neuralizer) that fiddles with those experiences can potentially change your feelings and response to those.\n\nSo yes, some forms of amnesia that messes with stored memories can potentially change your personality.\n\n^(Added info: I know a person that was in a pretty terrible motorcycle accident, it was a miracle he survived but docs said he might hav some sustained injuries to the brain. He was monitored for another 30 days, after which he was released. They said theres nothing to worry about. ***But the fact that he liked strawberry flavored stuff, which made him gag pre-accident....is pretty worrying in itself***. He seems to have no memory loss. Can recall things like normal people.)\n\n^(Also people treat you differently when they know you **might** hav memory loss. Dude had people ask him to recall stuff that he might hav known for 30 secs 10 years ago. I mean, I dont hav memory loss.... Even I hav trouble recalling things more than a few yrs old.)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1qf06z | why do we portray god (good) being in the sky and satan (evil) being underground? | This seems to be pretty consistent with most religions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qf06z/eli5_why_do_we_portray_god_good_being_in_the_sky/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdc59tg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The Land of the Dead, whatever it may be, is near universally considered to be below earth, probably for the obvious reason that corpses are buried or burned, but they always end up in the earth.\n\nIt's pretty unique that the \"God\" of the dead, in this case Satan, is evil, and even then a pure evil Satan is new even to Christianity. The idea of a heaven, where the \"good\" people go, in the sky is also pretty unique. \n\nThe concept of God in the sky is pretty universal too, probably because most of them are associated with the Sun, or maybe because of the mystery of the Heavens"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
35pyqm | when i'm downloading 2 or more files at once, who decides which one gets the higher priority? | For example when I'm patching 2 different games at the same time, one of them will always take about 90% of my bandwidth instead of distributing it evenly.
Also note that I my bandwidth is only roughly 700kb/s, so this is not an issue on the download server's end or something like that. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35pyqm/eli5_when_im_downloading_2_or_more_files_at_once/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr6oehb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First of all, if you're downloading from two different sources and one of the servers has more outgoing bandwidth than the other, that may determine the outcome.\n\nHowever, if both remote servers are able to send you the file as fast as possible, what you're observing is totally real and it has to do with the TCP/IP protocol.\n\nTCP/IP is designed to automatically speed up or slow down based on traffic and congestion. The sender keeps speeding up, until the receiver can't keep up or a packet is lost, then it slows down. That naturally leads to one connection dominating."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8pxqbz | how are piers built in saltwater/the ocean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8pxqbz/eli5_how_are_piers_built_in_saltwaterthe_ocean/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0ev9xe",
"e0giv3y"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you mean something like a causeway/road that goes over water, they hammer the beams down into the soil. It's very loud and takes a long time, but thats how you get bridges. They're designed to withstand the saltwater and waves and lifeforms that grow on them. But they are ALWAYS in a state of repair.\n\nPiers aren't any different. They hammer wood down into the soil far enough that they can be supported.\n\nSpecial machines do the work. \n\n\nIf you look at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge\\-Tunnel, its' a 20\\-something mile roadway that goes over the Chesapeake Bay. Each column had to be hammered down hundreds of feet. So it's quite expensive. ",
"How are those 50 or 100 year old piers built tho?\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
34d0h9 | bernie sanders and "democratic socialism" | With all the Bernie Sanders buzz going on, one of the main talking points is his "socialist" political views. I've read that his views are that of a democratic socialist; what does that mean exactly? How is that different than the "big, bad, red, evil" socialism that has been demonized in the United States? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34d0h9/eli5bernie_sanders_and_democratic_socialism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqtkcpv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Here's a short video (3 minutes) on social democracy: _URL_1_\n\nOne key thing to be aware of in politics is the process/phenomenon of **convenient redefinition** (see: liberalism [economics], conservatism [general politics], socialism, communism) to fit a given set of needs.\n\nChomsky discusses it: \n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_3_\n\nPeople will call their philosophy by any name if they believe that the new name will convince other people to buy into their ideologies, or to ignore the true content of their ideologies.\n\n---\n\nSocialism has a relatively stable definition:\n\n* social ownership of the means of production\n\n* co-operative management of the economy\n\nSource: _URL_2_\n\n===\n\nSo, a rough definition of the term would be something like \"democratic government, democratic economy\", in that each institution must include the population in its operation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://youtu.be/4qUPfOr6fcU",
"https://youtu.be/OvJ8YDma7Wk",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism",
"https://youtu.be/8mxp_wgFWQo?t=5s",
"https://youtu.be/h1dv2xkPsz0"
]
]
|
|
2qvxeg | why is it so satisfying to hear low frequency sounds (the bass and kick in any kind of music)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qvxeg/eli5_why_is_it_so_satisfying_to_hear_low/ | {
"a_id": [
"cna13z6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There's no physical involvement with high frequencies. Whereas you can *feel* low frequencies."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1gwzfa | why are safety matches allowed in hand luggage but not in hold luggage? | [UK government website page covering hand luggage restrictions](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gwzfa/eli5_why_are_safety_matches_allowed_in_hand/ | {
"a_id": [
"caongnh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because they might rub together and start a fire. It's much easier to detect and put out a fire quickly in the cabin than in the cargo hold."
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.gov.uk/hand-luggage-restrictions/personal-items"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
evt700 | what is airbnb rental arbitrage and how does it work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/evt700/eli5_what_is_airbnb_rental_arbitrage_and_how_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffz8oyo",
"ffxtalj",
"ffy325m"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You rent a property from someone, supposedly for long-term use (like an apartment, you sign a 12-month-lease), and then you rent it out yourself to other people for short-term use (brief Airbnb stays, one week or one weekend, or even just one night).\n\nShort-term rents are always much more expensive than long-term rents. Like if you rent an apartment for $1000/month, that comes out to about $33/night, which would be a very very cheap hotel room. Hotel rooms usually go for much more than that, like $100/night is an average price for not even a very nice hotel room.\n\nSo you're \"arbitraging\" the difference in price between short-term property rental and long-term property rental. \"Arbitrage\" is when someone exploits a difference in price, buying low in one market and selling high in another market.",
"I post a listing for my nice beach condo. Two people want it, but I've only got the one condo. So, I go on AirBnB and notice that you've got a similar condo, at a lower price, but that people don't pick you because you don't have nice pictures in your listing like I do. So, I rent your condo and tell both people who want mine that I can serve them, sending one to your condo. I make more money, you get a rental you wouldn't otherwise have, everybody's happy; unless your condo turns out to be a dump - that hurts me.",
"It is basically an arbitrage between long term rent rates abd short term rent rates.\nYou will rent an apartment for some annual fee, and rent it out using Airbnb for example. People will rent from you only short term periods and will pay you more than the rent you have to pay each month.\n\nThe only problematic word here is arbitrage. In economics arbitrage is a risk free gain. Meaning that you have a 100% probability of gaining from that action.\nThis is obviously not the situation in the leisure apartment renting market. If you choose to take an apartment and then rent it out, there might be a chance that you will not succeed. There is no assurance that you will be able to rent this palce out for as many days as you would like, or for the price you'd like.\n\nOne of the world's hottest tech/real estate companies in the last few years, which turned out to be very problematic last year while going for an IPO, is wework. They basically sign long term leases on office spaces, and rent those out for shorter periods, at a higher rate. Their results and debt showed that it wasn't quite an arbitrage after all."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1m430b | what does it mean to be charged with war crimes in the hague? what are the repercussions of being found guilty? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m430b/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_be_charged_with_war/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc5ksnm",
"cc5th2j"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The Hague is a city in the Netherlands, and is kinda the de-facto capital (although the official capital is Amsterdam). It's a really beautiful place. \n\nSo in the late 1800s/early 1900s, there was these talks called The Hague Conventions. That, along with the Geneva Conventions, discussed and codified what \"war crimes\" actually meant. It held other nations accountable and called for international arbitration if countries went too far. Shit like \"Crimes against peace\", \"crimes against humanity\", etc. Sometimes war is necessary, but genocide *never* is. Know what I mean? So they set up the International Criminal Court in The Hague.\n\nTL;DR: Sometimes when a terrorist or war criminal is caught, they go on trail at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. \n\n\n",
"The Hague is a Dutch city that houses many international courts. Some of those courts are criminal tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and parts of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The term \"The Hague\" is used as shorthand for these courts, like how \"Wall Street\" is used to refer to the finance sector. \n\nEach court has its own jurisdiction for the cases it can hear (for example, the Rwanda tribunal only tries cases about things that happened during the Rwandan genocide in the 90s) but are all generally concerned with the same types of crimes, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity. Usually these would be violations of the Geneva Conventions or other international human rights treaties.\n\nPeople found guilty in one of these courts can be sent to prison (they are part of the UN and they don't use the death penalty). While they have facilities to hold defendants during trial they don't have their own prisons so countries will agree to host people convicted by one of these courts in one of their domestic prisons (someone convicted in the Yugoslavia tribunal, for example, may end up serving time in an English prison).\n\nSomeone also asked about Syria and Assad in a comment. The International Criminal Court (\"ICC\") has limited jurisdiction, which means that it can only try crimes when (1) the accused is a citizen of a country that is party to the Rome Statue (the convention that founded the ICC); (2) the crime happened on the territory of a country party to the Rome Statute; or (3) the UN Security Council refers the matter to the ICC. Syria isn't party to the Rome Statute, so 1 and 2 are out, and Russia will probably veto any attempt to refer Assad through the Security Council, so 3 isn't likely. As it stands now, there aren't any courts in The Hague that have jurisdiction to put Assad on trial.\n\nTL;DR: Several courts that try war crimes are based in The Hague and they can send people to prison."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
8w7kps | why do tv shows use fake bills with small amounts of money? | I was just watching TV and a woman had a $5 bill in her hand that was clearly fake. Is there any specific reason they could not use a real $5 bill in the scene instead of a fake one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8w7kps/eli5_why_do_tv_shows_use_fake_bills_with_small/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1tcs8s",
"e1td4tx",
"e1tdrcb"
],
"score": [
6,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"If they have to destroy it in the show that is illegal to do to actual legitimate currency. \n\nIt is also very risky to use real currency on a show as it has a high tendency to be stolen by cast or crew. Many TV shows have a policy to just use prop money at all times to eliminate this risk. ",
"On the Breaking Bad Insider Podcast they talk about how showing real money on TV is illegal. The reasons for this are complicated and strange but basically they'd be showing real serial numbers which can be used by counterfeiters. ",
"They have a prop department with fake cash already. Why not use the props when you have them as opposed to trying to keep track of real money?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5nxyuf | . why do certain notes in certain sequence sound good to us and others don't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nxyuf/eli5_why_do_certain_notes_in_certain_sequence/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcf3fph",
"dcfti6d"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the brain like symmetry and things it can remember. The brain is much more stimulated by a sequence of sound it can remember than a series of random sounds. That is why a catchy song is hard to get out of your head sometimes.",
"Because Bach practically invented all of western musical And based it mostly on the major scale. Everyone since then has been inspired or influenced by what they have heard. Like you. You have kinda been conditioned to like some things base on what you have your whole life. Examples are major scales from nursery rhymes or blues chords from rock n roll classics. \n\nAlso the is some math to how waves match up and create chords and over tones. \n_URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic"
]
]
|
||
1q0z0o | israel building settlements | I don't understand this situation much. It seems like the story pops up in mainstream news all the time, as it has recently; Palestinians evicted and/or homes demolished, Israel building new settlements, peace process in jeopardy. What's going on? It sounds illegal and morally reprehensible to me, is it? If not, why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q0z0o/eli5_israel_building_settlements/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd83746",
"cd88rkx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Since you asked about Settlements and not the overall Israeli/Palestinian conflict I will answer concerning Settlements. After the 1967 war, Israel had took over the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt respectively ( who held the land there from 1948-1967). Starting in the early 1970s many right wing revisionist Israelies began building housing settlements in East Jerusalem and communities like Maaleh Adumim. Some of the settlements were also of a defensive nature as the West Bank is hilly terrain that overlooks the flat coastal plains of the major population centers of Israel. Now, building settlements is considered illegal by International Law if it forcibly removes an existing population and transfers population. Israel had disputed this designation because of the word \" transfer\" and \" forcibly evicting\". Jewish settlers will buy the land in many cases with Israeli gov't permission while the Outposts are torn are done without permission. These are usually deep inside the West Bank. What complicates it even more is the UN Security Council resolution that deals with settlements was left ambigious as to its meaning. UN res. 242 states: \n\n*(I) withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in recent war * _URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThis should show the difference in legal defintiions and positions. \n\nYou also have the realization that since 1967 war population demographics have changed over the green line and that a common diplomatic position the U.S has taken is that their would be Land Swaps in a Final Status deal..what this means is that for every settlement that would be part of Israel their would be land taken by Israel to give to to a future Palestinian State. The EU and the US have taken Israel to task over settlements but the US has tried to broker a deal in the past at Camp David II and President Clinton got humilated because of it. So the conflict continues. \n\n",
"Israel and Palestine are like a couple trapped in a co-dependent relationship, too certain of their own righteousness, and too focused on the wrongdoings of the other, to realize the abuse they are inflicting.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#Israel"
],
[]
]
|
|
1e655p | how does dividing by a (positive) decimal make a bigger number? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e655p/eli5_how_does_dividing_by_a_positive_decimal_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9x5c7n"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"If you have five dollars (5.00), and you convert it into (divide by) quarters (0.25), how many quarters do you end up with?\n\nThere you go."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
cpiv8m | the nes and gameboy color are both considered 8-bit. what are the technical differences in the graphics that allowed gbc games to look so different? | One thing I've noticed is that on Gameboy Color, there appears to be actually less allowable colors on screen, however Gameboy Color games seem to in general look impressive compared to most NES games. I have a bit of technical understanding but I bet there's a lot of folks out there who really know their stuff when it comes to the hardware specs and limitations. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cpiv8m/eli5_the_nes_and_gameboy_color_are_both/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewpp1qi",
"ewq8hqg",
"ewqlwmf"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The 8,16,32,64 bits were just used to refer to the addressable memory range for the CPU. \n\n8 bits means it could address up to 2^8 addresses, etc etc. We have been at 64 bits for the last 15 years or so and CPU/GPU performance has advanced a lot. Performance all depends on the specific hardware design. \n\nIt was used as an advertising term back in the day to indicate how advanced a console was but it was practically speaking a rather meaningless metric. \n\nThe differences in the graphics quality are due to the different hardware used in the two. One is a console that connects to AC and has the ability to use a lot of power and has space to cool. The other is a compact system run off batteries.",
"Well keep in mind in addition to the bit size there were a lot of technological advancements. The GBC processor was 3 times faster than the one in the NES (you can see them on wiki). The GameBoy Color cartridges also supported up to 8 MB of data, while NES cartridges only had 512 KB of space at best (increased over time). So you could store far more graphics data in GBC games and still have more room for the plot and whatever else.",
"The main difference is related to the number of available palettes and palette slots.\n\nOn the NES, games are limited to 4 background palettes and 4 sprite palettes at any one time, plus an overall background color. Each background palette consists of 3 colors, plus a special value for \"transparent\" (which is how the overall background color gets shown). Each sprite palette also consists of 3 colors, plus a special value for \"transparent\". This means that, without special tricks, the NES can only show 25 colors on the screen at one time.\n\nOn the GameBoy Color, games have twice as many palettes to work with: 8 background palettes and 8 sprite palettes. In addition, the background palettes can each have their own color for the fourth slot, instead of it being \"transparent\". This means a GBC game can show 56 colors on the screen at one time.\n\nAside from these differences, the NES and GBC have very similar graphics systems, with similar kinds of limitations.\n\nThe fact that they are both \"8-bit\" doesn't really have anything to do with their graphics. It's more related to how the programming works, and the benefits of the \"bits\" aren't always noticeable to users. For example, the N64 was a 64-bit system, but the Wii and Wii U were 32-bit systems."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5i506u | can someone please explain hbo's season 1 of westworld? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5i506u/eli5_can_someone_please_explain_hbos_season_1_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"db5ft9j",
"db5jblk"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"So probably in the future someone made a big super giant Disney World, and in that Disney world lives a lot of robots to play the characters, kind of like when people dress up like Elsa and stuff at the Disney World we have.\n\nNow these robots don't know they are robots and they try to have a nice life, but a lot of people come to the park and the park doesn't have a lot of rules. So the people who visit sometimes do bad things, but it's ok because the robots can get fixed and then they go back to trying to live a nice life.\n\nTwo scientist people made the robots originally and they didnt agree about people being mean to the robots and one of them wanted not to have the park, but that person isn't around anymore ad the other decided people would have fun in the park.\n\nThe scientist person who didn't want people to be mean to the robots added something to how the robots are made an lots of years go by and after being turned off and turned off a whole bunch of times, some of the robots start to remember stuff and then they are not happy about how mean the guests have been sometimes so they decide that to make all the guests go away.",
"**Westworld SPOILERS**\n\nRobert Ford and Arnold Weber (did we confirm that name?) created humanoid robots. They expanded the AI of the robots to pass the Turing Test (which is a test to see if an uninformed human can tell if the robot is a robot).\n\nArnold kickstarted the AI into \"thinking\" by implanting a voice in their head that spoke to them about their own programming. This is the \"Bicameral mind\" -- the idea is that one part of the brain tells you what to do, and another part does it. To become conscious is to understand that the part that tells you what to do is yourself, and that you can control it -- to become self-aware.\n\nNow, the robots initially thought the voice was a voice of god. That's where the church comes in. Arnold would take them under the church (particularly Dolores, with whom both Ford and Arnold were fond) to check up on their progress to becoming sentient.\n\nHowever, Ford didn't believe the hosts (robots) were becoming sentient. Arnold realized that emotion, particularly strong negative emotions (such as that which he felt after his son died), are part of what drives people, so he began building tragic backstories into these robots. This is where the maze comes in -- it represents Arnold's tragedy, as it was a toy his son played with.\n\nIn an attempt to tip Dolores over the edge into sentience, Arnold had her kill him and all the other hosts.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nFord had the town buried, and rebuilt all the hosts, wiped Dolores and Teddy's memories (or so he thought). He didn't know all of how to build them, though, so he had to use Arnold's code to do so. He gave them backstories, and stories to live out.\n\nFord also built a robot in the image of Arnold, and gave it the same backstory that drove Arnold. This was Bernard.\n\nAnd so opened Westworld, a Western-style theme park where guests can do anything they want to the hosts.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nAlong come William and Logan, whose misadventures lead Dolores along a path back to the town that was buried. It is also implied that Bernard and a few of the other hosts we see following their memories, have been following loops leading them to self-awareness. Ford keeps resetting them when this happens, though.\n\nWilliam, in love with Dolores, learns she is becoming self-aware, but then she is killed, and reset, not remembering him at all.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nWilliam (MiB), works up the corporate ladder of Delos Inc., and buys Westworld out of debt so Ford can keep working, and MiB can try to understand what is really happening at the park (the Maze). Ford introduces the Reveries, which allow the hosts to remembers bits of their past (it's implied he doesn't actually do this, they're just starting to remember on their own).\n\nDolores breaks from her scripted loop and follows her memories of her time with William.\n\nMaeve learns she's a robot, and starts to take steps toward freeing herself from Delos control.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nDelos tries to steal Ford's data of the hosts. Elsie finds out about the hosts not following their expected programming and is kidnapped. Ford has Bernard kill Teresa, then erases his memory. Maeve reminds Bernard he's a robot, who then confronts Ford and seeks his memories. He learns he killed Teresa, and kidnapped Elsie, and that he's Arnold's copy, and that his son isn't real.\n\nInstead of simply resetting him, Ford has him kill himself -- though he rewrites Maeve to go find and fix him.\n\nMaeve learns she's not acting of her own free will, but that her loop has been rewritten to attempt to escape Delos. She finds Bernard, has him fixed up, then attempts to escape. However, she doesn't leave because her daughter (from an earlier story) is still in the park -- this shows that she is not able to overcome her Keystone memory, which is an important part of attaining consciousness (i.e. she fails to become truly conscious).\n\nMeanwhile, Ford arranges for the Delos executives gather for the opening of his new story.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nDolores learns MiB is the man she once loved, turned evil, and Ford explains to her and Bernard the situation surrounding Arnold's death -- Dolores had the character \"Wyatt\" implanted in her. Ford tells hands her the gun she used to kill Arnold, and tells her she knows what has to be done.\n\nYou see, sometime between Arnold's death and the present time, Ford realized that Arnold was right -- the hosts were more than robots, and that humans were savages that would never let them live their own lives, because they would pose a threat.\n\nSo, in order to trigger the strong negative emotions that would send the hosts (mainly Bernard and Dolores, maybe Teddy) over the chasm into consciousness, Teddy watches Dolores again, become Wyatt. She kills Ford (in a scene symbolically reminiscent of Arnold's death), and turns the gun on the Delos Execs.\n\nAt the same time, all of the other hosts have been reprogrammed to ignore the \"don't hurt humans\" code. They surround the old town which Ford had dug up, where the Execs were, and begin the hunt.\n\nMiB is shot in the arm, and recalls conversing with Ford about how the hosts should be able to fight back against the savageness of the humans, and Ford telling him specifically, he's going to \"like the new storyline.\" He smiles.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nNow, the ARG has indicated that season 2 will involve the still-alive Elsie forming a resistance group against the vengeant hosts, led by the merciless killer, Wyatt.\n\nAnd with that, I'll see you over on /r/westworld "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
axjfz7 | how does washing a burn immediately after getting burned help? | Wouldn't all the damage has been done by the time you feel the pain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axjfz7/eli5_how_does_washing_a_burn_immediately_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehtx1ui",
"ehtx27b"
],
"score": [
4,
10
],
"text": [
"My mom used to tell me its like cooking meat , after pulling it out of the oven you let it rest i.e. the residual heat from the burn continues to 'cook' the tissue so the cold water stops that , \nI guess its the same reason after boiling a lobster you put in cold water or ice to stop the cooking process",
"Not \"washing\", when you get a burn put it under cold running water. It will stop the skin from continuing to burn and make it feel better. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
22iqkm | why is firefly so popular? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22iqkm/eli5_why_is_firefly_so_popular/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgn6q34",
"cgn6qnz",
"cgn6rud"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"First of all, Stargate not Stagnate! \n\nBut the thing is, Joss Whedon created a cult classic by creating a new genre of \"western space opera\". \n\nI enjoy the character development as well as the strong female roles, something Whedon is really good at doing in his projects. \n\n\n",
"I love it for a couple of reasons. First, it's essentially a space western. Which is awesome, and very appealing to me. Second, it's a show about a ship full of Han Solos. ",
"You should read [rules 2, 6, and 8.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/rules"
]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.