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
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
c5mv5i | if all college debt is forgiven....who foots the millions already lent? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c5mv5i/eli5_if_all_college_debt_is_forgivenwho_foots_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"es2q58r",
"es2q7fu",
"es2qmpm",
"es2regj"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Billions? Same people who bailed out the banks I guess.",
"Trillions, not millions. According to a bbc article:\n\n > The Vermont senator's proposal would see $1.6tn (£1.2tn) paid off through a new tax on Wall Street transactions.\n\n > The proposal will include a 0.5% tax on stocks and a 0.1% tax on bonds, which the Sanders campaign says would pay for the estimated $2.2tn cost of the programme over the next decade.",
"Basically, the government, or our overall society. If you're a fan of economic thinking - the rationale would be that educating your workforce enables them to invent new technologies to make your life better, or medical technologies to save your life. Or invent new forms of entertainment to distract you when you don't know what to do with all your free time after robots do all our work. So we all collectively pay for skills improvement and we all collectively benefit down the road.\n\nIt's one of those cases where a society-wide investment may pay off society-wide, but be difficult to point to a specific ROI. Another way of looking at it is that forgiving student loans now gives those people income they can spend on the business you own so you can hire people and the taxes on those people pay for your social security fund, so the people whose debt was forgiven effectively pay the tax payers who footed the bill. It's all interlinked, and we're all in this together.",
"Well that depends on how the debt is forgiven. If the only debt forgiven is the federal debt (i.e. that given from the D.O.E. and not any banks or private lenders) than no one. It is merely dissolved (as the bill has already been paid by the existing taxes and debts that had been partially repayed). If the government is mandating that all loans are forgiven (including the private loans) then it gets a little trickier based on how the mandate is worded and enforced."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3g8sgi | why have wages been stagnant since the 60s, yet housing costs have doubled and college costs have trippled? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g8sgi/eli5_why_have_wages_been_stagnant_since_the_60s/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctvx3c8",
"ctvy0cg",
"ctvz6a0",
"ctvzwjz",
"ctw064w",
"ctw0naf",
"ctw0v6q"
],
"score": [
56,
7,
14,
7,
39,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Supply and demand. The population has increased, and unskilled and skilled labor that doesn't require college education has been placed over seas where wages and cost of living are lower. Therefore you have more unemployed people desperate for work, more people pursuing housing, and more people entering universities.\n\nHowever, while demand is significantly higher, the number of universities and their capacity hasn't increased at a similar rate. Furthermore, American culture has shifted from tax payer subsidized state universities to direct tuition payments, increasing perceived cost to the student (and their parents). Additionally, due to decreased tax payer funding, many of these same state universities now focus on tuition payments from out of state (and country) students that they can charge at higher rates. This decreases the available seats for domestic students, again lowering supply and increasing prices.\n\nAs for housing, these costs have increased predominantly in urban areas where population density has continued to climb. In places like D.C., Seattle, NYC and San Francisco, there has been a huge migration of people back into these urban areas away from suburbs. Due to the lack of land to develop more housing, the housing costs there have increased at an astronomical rate. Additionally, since the 1980s, there have been huge influxes of foreign investment in American housing as a vehicle to safely store foreign wealth in a form easily converted to dollars. As with universities, the mix of increasing population both domestically and by addition of foreigners, combined with a limited resource (land) that cannot develop as fast as the population grows increases costs.",
"Wages were as high as they were in the 50s and 60s because the rest of the world was either rebuilding from being destroyed in WWII, or just pre-industrial. That left US producers and workers in a very advantageous position of being able to command high prices. But, once Europe and Japan rebuilt, and other countries started to develop, the US lost that productive hegemony.\n\nMeanwhile, American subsidies for loans for higher education and homeownership induced many more people to enter those markets, without a corresponding increase in supply, raising those prices.",
"There is nothing compelling corporations to give workers more money now, whereas before the 60's you had a masive labour movement. All major increases in things like minimum wage, etc. are gained by the workers, not just given to them.",
"Short answer:\n\nDownward pressure on wages due to globalization. \n\nCheap easy money for housing, in addition to tax subsidy. Same with College education.\n\n",
"I think it's worth pointing out that you are saying average wages haven't changed, when adjusted for purchasing power, and your listing tuition fees that *haven't* been adjusted for purchasing power.\n\nSo it might be that maybe after being normalised you might see that tuition costs have risen, but as it stands you're not comparing the values fairly.",
"Back in the 60's almost everything Americans bought was made in America. Cars, TVs, Radios, etc. That's when trickle down actually worked. When companies moved overseas the money trickled down there. This what my comeback is when conservatives say \"look at JFKs tax cuts, they worked\".",
"The government began subsidizing housing and college. General purchasing power for those items, therefore went up, allowing housing values and college costs to climb. The more assistance government provides, the more the values will inflate because more people have access to that thing.\n\nSimple economic reaction.\n\nIt's an important downside and side effect of any government intervention in an otherwise (mostly) private sector market. It works very well for those who receive a huge portion of the subsidies. It, unfortunately, causes those expenses to become greater for everyone else."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
68acdl | why is the ice that comes out of my fridge's ice maker white, or cloudy, while the ice you get at a restaurant or bar is clear? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68acdl/eli5_why_is_the_ice_that_comes_out_of_my_fridges/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgwwgoy",
"dgxc7kv",
"dgxcl7c",
"dgxd133",
"dgxe1t4",
"dgxe54y",
"dgxfrdg",
"dgxg6b8",
"dgxh6ge",
"dgxhylm",
"dgxi2ii",
"dgxilgt",
"dgxjcc9",
"dgxjdrh",
"dgxjjrw",
"dgxkmh2",
"dgxl82m",
"dgxlszk",
"dgxoqfo",
"dgxr64c",
"dgxrsh0"
],
"score": [
12343,
60,
11,
111,
446,
80,
30,
6,
2,
6,
7,
5,
4,
2,
71,
3,
2,
7,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The white/cloudiness is mostly small bubbles of air that was previously dissolved in the water when it was a liquid. Residential ice makers form the top down. The top layer of water freezes and slowly the ice grows downwards into the mold. This trap the air that was previously dissolved into the water. \n\nCommercial ice makers form ice from the bottom up, this lets the gas escape. Additionally they may use water that was additionally filtered through a carbon tank to remove off flavors, water softener to reduce calcium and other minerals, or reverse osmosis to make it \"pure\" water.\n\nBoil and cool the water before freezing it, and you'll get almost clear ice.",
"When I worked at a somewhat fancy bar, the bar manager paid for super high quality ice blocks which he would saw down into cubes. There was a drink on the menu that had one of these cubes in it. They were sizeable. One filled the whole glass. They were super clear and really pretty.",
"I have a relevant question. Why do some ice cubes look like an alien species are trying to crawl out of the ice ? What I mean is sometimes when I make ice cubes at home in a tray there will be one ice cube that has a spike sticking straight up out of one of the cubes.",
"Clear ice melts much more slowly too, hence it being popular commercially (it also won't dilute your spirits too much if you choose to take your time and savour it..)\n\nIf you freeze water really slowly in your own freezer, then it will be fairly clear too. There are ice moulds out there that are 'insulated' (say, thick rubber) that enables this. Ball shaped ones too for use in certain drinks.. At the price though, you have to REALLY want clear ice balls..\n\n[Ice Ball Maker](_URL_0_) ",
"Clear commercial ice is made in a machine called a Clinebell chiller. It freezes water from the bottom up, and as the ice freezes it forces dissolved air and other impurities upwards into the unfrozen water above the ice. Before all the water is frozen, the \"dirty\" unfrozen water is discarded, and the clear frozen column is then removed and cut up.\n\nYou can approximate this at home by taking one of those styrofoam coolers and filling it with (filtered then boiled then cooled to room temp) water, and then placing it (without the lid) into your freezer. It will freeze from the top down, and will force any impurities into the remaining liquid water, like a Clinebell in reverse. When about 2/3 of the water is frozen, remove the block of ice. It should be almost perfectly clear. Discard the remaining water, which will look dirty beyond belief. Then cut up the block of ice into 1\" cubes for your artisinal-style cocktails.",
"This 5 minute documentary by one of my favorite youtubers explains it beautifully. \n\n_URL_0_",
"And what about the pellet ice, which IMHO is the best ice for soda? How is that made? Must be more expensive since so few places have it. ",
"Water has many dissolved gasses present when it is liquid. When water begins to freeze, the gasses escape and become trapped. These bubbles can be very small and make the ice look cloudy. In fact, as the water gets colder, gasses become more soluble until the point of freezing where they disassociate from the water.\n\nOne method of growing ice with few bubbles is to heat it up (to remove dissolved gasses) and freeze quickly before gasses can be redissolved. You can also cool flowing water or cool water very slowly to allow gas to escape before getting trapped.",
"There was a show that explained stuff like this. I learned I have been tying my shoes wrong for 30+ years because that show. I learned the best way to fold a paper airplane and about ice from it too.\nI miss it. I wish I could remember the name of it. Nerdy guy in a apron....that's all I can recall.",
"Semi related question. A lot of the fast food ice cubes are concave ... why?!",
"David Reece did an amazing job of explaining ice in his [Going Deep](_URL_0_) series.",
"According to this: _URL_0_\n\nCloudy from impurities and air bubbles. It freezes from the top down and pushes the impurities to the bottom.",
"if the ice vibrates while freezing, most of the air will escape and you'll get clear ice.\n\nJust put your Hitachi in the freezer",
"If you freeze ice from the bottom, the air bubbles come up and out, making it clear. Your fridge doesn't do that. It freezes from all angles, trapping the air bubbles inside. ",
"I work on/sell/lease Ice Machines for a living.\n\nThe short answer for commercial Ice Machines is that they circulate water over the evaporator (where the ice is mace) so that Ice forms almost like an icicle. This means that no air bubbles are in the ice: it's pure water. \n\nIn an ice cube tray or an ice maker in a residential freezer, cups are filled with water and frozen. The air is frozen in with it. This is why sometimes the ice tastes bad: whatever odors are in the air in your freezer are being frozen in with the ice.\n\nAny follow up questions I will do my best with.",
"Just to add to the other good answers here, I think it also has to do with the speed at which the water freezes, at higher temps (30-31f) just below freezing, it freezes slower and forms larger ice crystals, which means fewer surfaces for light to reflect off of.",
"Multidirectional soldification like in a normal ice tray trap impurities. Dissolved oxygen and chlorine calcium so on and so would rather be in liquid state then solid. As the soldification front moves forward it pushes the solutes forward. If soldification is in multi directions like a tray cube solutes are trapped in between dendrites and create a nonperfect appearance. I believe slow one directional cooling would create very clear ice. This can be done with insulated cube trays if you are looking for a cheap way. \n\n\n\n",
"As others have said, as the water freezes in your home icemaker, the freezing starts at the edges of the mold and traps the air in the center of the cube making it cloudy. \"Directional freezing\" yields a clear cube. The best way to accomplish this is a small insulated container filled with water placed inside of the freezer. The ice will form from the top down, driving the air into the liquid water below. When the layer of ice on top reaches the desired thickness, (which may take 24 hours or more), remove it from the freezer and cut it into cubes. [my cubes](_URL_0_)\n\nDistilled water boiled water, vibrating trays, etc. are pretty ineffective.",
"Commercial ice, especially the clearest grades used for sculptures, are vibrated as they freeze. This releases the micro-bubbles.",
"Ice make in your ice machine fills up a tray and then freezes it. This leads to bubbles in the water. Ice makers at restaurants have a tray that sits vertical right on top of the coils. Water is then run over it to create the ice. Since it's a thin layer of water, no bubbles. ",
"White cloudy ice is made with cold water but if the water is hot when they make the ice it comes out clear "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.icebirgpress.com/ice-ball-press"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/BoYbqSxPWrA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGV3cr3v5JQ"
],
[
"https://www.truecubes.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/7CuaIt9.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2qc8ad | how to get the haircut you want. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qc8ad/eli5_how_to_get_the_haircut_you_want/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn4s54h",
"cn4s8zg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Just find a picture of the hairstyle you want and they can do it for you",
"ELI5 is not for personal problems.\n\nOn a side note, take a picture of yourself with the hairstyle and show it to them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7c0xk0 | why are bubbles round? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c0xk0/eli5_why_are_bubbles_round/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpma2pg",
"dpmgmzt",
"dpn5ll3",
"dpnvybp"
],
"score": [
100,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not all bubbles are round but for to answer the question it is a force called surface tension. It pulls the molecules tightly together and the closer they pull the more compact they are leading to a spherical shape. A sphere is were you achieve the tightest possible grouping of particles. ",
"The surface tension of water makes it much like a balloon. the surface want to be as small as possible, but the volume of air is still constant because it can't get out, so what happens is that it goes towards the shape that has the smallest surface area, given the constant volume, which is the sphere. \n\nA balloon isn't perfectly round because it has the opening and the rubber might not be equally thick everywhere, but a bubble becomes perfectly symmetrical because there is no reason any side should be favored over another, so everything is evenly distributed. (Gravity might make it slightly thicker at the bottom I suppose, a bubble is so thin and light that the gravitational force is very small and hardly noticeable)",
"A bubble is a thin film of soapy water that is surrounding a volume of air. \n\nThe thin film of soapy water is comprised of molecules that want to pull each other together - and they do. The air that is surrounded by the thin film of soap is being contracted by the film - because it is a gas, it exerts an equal force on every surface point touching it. \n\nThe film contracts until the forces causing the contraction are balanced by the pressure of the trapped air (which exerts a force that would otherwise cause the bubble to expand). At this point, the two forces are in equilibrium (balanced).\n\nMathematically, the only possible resultant shape is a sphere. Any other shape would have some soapy film molecules closer together than other soapy film molecules in the film and would cause the resultant shape to no longer be in equilibrium with the compressed gas - the shape would then undergo a change towards equilibrium - and the only resultant shape in which **every** soapy film molecule is pulling on an equal number of soapy film molecules is a sphere; the only shape in which every single point on the sphere is exactly the same as every other point on the structure (this is untrue for every other geometric shape). \n\n",
"Surface tension, plus the fact that spheres are the shape that requires the least surface area to enclose a given volume, and equalizes the pressure on the bubble walls.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3d7ibm | why can my laptop easily load videos at 1080p but struggles to load other videos at the same level or even lower? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d7ibm/eli5_why_can_my_laptop_easily_load_videos_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct2ir27",
"ct2iw0r",
"ct2jxbd"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The other videos might be of a higher bitrate or in a less compressed format, or they might be playing in a different player that doesn't take proper advantage of your hardware. I'll need more information to give a proper answer though.",
"This gets asked on a daily basis, it seems. \n\n99% of the time it's not your laptop struggling to do anything. It's the servers on the other side being slow. \n\nIf this is happening with locally-stored videos, there is something wrong with your laptop. ",
"Not enough information to answer properly. Do you mean 1080p downloads or 1080p streaming? If you're talking about videos being played from the hard drive, then it may be that the 1080p video is of a lower bitrate or in a more compressed format. Just because something is higher resolution, doesn't always mean it will look better or be of higher quality. When a video is compressed for downloads, its often rendered at a low bitrate. To most people, this will look fine and all they care is that it is 1080p, but to someone with more knowledge of the subject, they may see the problems with compressed 1080p movies. YIFY for example, compresses the video to a small size, meaning you can download movies quickly and take up little amount of storage, but keep a decent quality. However, a blu ray movie will be much larger and look better, despite having the same resolution. \n\nThink of it like this, two artists are given two identical pieces of paper to draw the same picture, but one is given a really nice set of paints and the other is given plastic brushes and cheap paint. In the end, both are the same size and look similar, but one was able to achieve more detail and the other has less. This is like bitrate. Higher bitrate video has more detail, but takes up more space on a disk or hard drive. Lower bitrate video has less detail and can cause blocky or grainy video, but takes up a significantly smaller space on your storage. The benefit of lower bitrate aswell is that it is less demanding on your laptop since it doesn't require it to read as much data per second. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4575ib | how do my water consumption habits in a developed nation actually affect others with less access to clean water? | I saw a toothpaste commercial during the Super Bowl about wasting water, and now I'm curious as to how me wasting water (in the USA/ other developed areas) actually affects those without running water. I'm not advocating for wasting resources, I'm just curious about its impact! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4575ib/eli5_how_do_my_water_consumption_habits_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"czvp9i8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Short answer: They don't.\n\nA country's access to clean water depends primarily on it's level of technological sufficiency. In Western countries, our abilities are such that we're able to reclaim water from things like sewage, salt-water and rain-water - and that's assuming there's not a clean source of water nearby.\n\nIn the case of a river, lake or dam with sufficient clean water, the ability of infrastructure basically means that we live off the water cycle - we drink water from the source, excrete it into the ocean/river/sand-bed (usually in the form of cleaned sewage) and then do it all over again when it rains. \n\nThe idea of \"wasting water\" is misleading... it's impossible to actually waste the water, unless you're living in a drought affected area (in which case the idea of the \"water cycle\" helping out doesn't hold... I live in Australia, so this happens rather often).\n\nEDIT: Basically, anything to do with water in one country doesn't affect anything in another country. It's all about how we manage our own resources. Just wanted to make that part clear."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
458jop | how li-fi works? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/458jop/eli5how_lifi_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"czvxjzs",
"czvz7q0",
"czvzb1f",
"czvzsf6",
"czvzyt5",
"czw63vx",
"czw6io1",
"czw7uyf",
"czwm33m"
],
"score": [
71,
658,
15,
3,
2,
6,
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It works very much the same as other network communication. It requires a sensor on the host to pick up the flickering of the light as ones and zeros. A network switch can power a POE LED light and turn it on and off so fast that the human eye cannot detect it. If you can turn something on and off you can send a signal. The host has to have a special NIC adapter to detect and translate that signal.",
"Supersheesh is right, but I don't think it was very eli5.\n\nLet's take a dark room. Most bathrooms work very well for this.\n\nNow computers always send things as 1s and 0s. So lets assign things. Light off is 0. Light on is 1.\n\nNow we can send messages. But it is so slow that humans see the light dark. We don't want this, we want the light on.\n\nSo we use something computers do very well, talk very fast. So now instead of slowly flicking the light on and off, instead we turn the light on and off billions of times a second. Now the humans can't tell the difference. All the humans see is that the light is basically half as strong.\n\nSo lets fix that half strength.\n\nHumans only see particular colors. In particular we don't see infrared or ultraviolet. There are other colors of light that we don't see, or see very weakly. We take the normal lights in the room, but we block that normal light from sending infrared. To the humans this did not change the light at all. To the computer though, it is easy enough to make a computer that only sees infrared. Now we can turn that infrared light on and off very quickly for the message.\n\nTo the human the light doesn't change, but now the computers can talk to each other with light very quickly and easily.\n\nEven better there are many different infrared colors. This means that the computers can use different colors of infrared to talk and speed up their talking with each other.\n\nHowever infrared is old technology. It doesn't bounce very well in most places. This can be good or bad. It also has a lot of interference because heat shows up in infrared.\n\nSo we go back to the color choices. Since we can use any color we want, we can choose any color that humans don't see very well, but we want ones that bounce off walls very well. Right now there are many different ideas of the best color to use, and it is a very complex decision.\n\nNow you might have noticed that we have something of a problem. How do we tell the difference between a long series of 1111111...111111 and simply the light being on? Actually the fix to this is to add security. Encrypting the data means that it is impossible to have a long stream of 11111...1111 (or as close to impossible as we can make it). Instead each bit will appear to be randomly 1 or 0, exactly the result we need. So added security makes it possible to send any message and have it received.\n\nSo that's the basics of lifi. Flicking a light on and off really really quickly. Everything after that is to make it nicer for humans or to deal with seemingly weird failures.",
"Imagine you are stuck in a wall and have access to a light switch, but nothing else. How would you provide information about your location to people outside the wall? LiFi is the same thing just so fast you can't see it, or using a light like in your TV remote( your TV can see it, as can your digital camera, but you can't)",
"Just like wi-fi, except it uses near infrared band radiation instead of UHF band radiation. We didn't do that before because for some reason it's really hard to find materials that detect and emit near infrared radiation efficiently and controllably.",
"Follow up question. How will my computer send data via lifi? This seems very limiting for me. You need to have the light emitter on your device and comunicate through a similar frequency to a reciever placed where? And how will my device and the router (I guess) know who is whom in a room with more than one device?",
"Oh man I did research on this as a freshman, and it's a very odd concept at first but I'll do my best to explain. \n\nSo imagine how wifi communication works between two computers in one direction. The first computer wants to send a video to the second computer in real time. So it takes the information of the video and modulates (changes the sound and visual information) to a certain wavelength that can be sent as a radio wave. This wave gets sent to the wifi sender (router) and the emitted on that wavelength. The second computer with a receiver antenna is scanning for that certain wavelength in order to pick up this communication wave from the first computer. Once it picks up the wave it will start receiving the information, and then begin de-modulating the wave to get back the original video signal. \n\nNow we do the same thing but with say an LED as the sender hardware, and a photodiode (an eyeglass looking device that scans for wavelengths of light) as the receiver. This time the computer modulates to a much shorter wavelength, like visual light, and can be sent through the LED and received by the photodiode. \n\nThe reason this is gaining some traction Lately is that simulations have shown that LI-Fi has the potential of very very fast connection speeds, and could change the wave internals of computers communicate. What I found interesting about working on this is that since this is being emitted as a light wave through an LED, if you put your hand between the light and the photodiode, you stop the transfer of information, unlike radio waves which are long enough to pass right through our hands mostly intact. ",
"ELI5: Morse Code with the lights that people can't see, instead of WiFi which is like Morse Code with light that people can't see.",
"Wouldn't this be essentially the same as they have been using in fiberoptics for 20+ years? Just in this case instead of Tx/Rx light impulses down a glass tube (fiber) it's just in all directions in a room.",
"Hello,\n\nImagine sending your friend a signal with your flashlight. Now flash your light for many different messages as fast as you can (LiFi). Hoping a photon detector is created and a way to take the light signal/energy and turn it into (wifi (lifi)), mobile charger, amongst many other ideas.\n\nNow imagine sending your friend a signal with a rolled up piece of paper to make your voice louder and maybe faster (WiFi). Creating a field of energy that the sensor in your friends ear can pick up.\n\nPlease add to the explanation if I am incorrect. Thank you for reading.\n\n-Damus"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9rsys9 | why do some states, (texas, florida, california.) have 2 teams of each sport? | Example: (Houston Astros/Texas Rangers; Miami Dolphins/Tampa Bay Buccaneers; LA Clippers/LA Lakers) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rsys9/eli5_why_do_some_states_texas_florida_california/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8jgt6s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It really usually has less to do with states, than size of Metropolitan areas. The states you mention have large metropolitan media market.\n\nIn fact, if you look at _URL_0_, you will see that most of the major media markets have sports franchises.\n\nOutside of the historical oddity of Green Bay, almost every franchise exists where it does because there are a lot of people living close enough to justify the costs associated with sports.\n\nAs for why some states have a lot more major media markets than other states, that usually comes down to the history of business, like Detroit being the home of the Auto, the Bay Area being the home of many electronics firms, some cities being major shipping ports or railroad junctions, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market"
]
] |
|
2bk0lk | saw a smoke ring in the sky for a few minutes. can someone explain what it was? | There was a huge black ring of smoke or thats what it looked like just like the one in England that was recorded. I didnt get any pictures because of the resolution on my phone could barely be able to see it . What was it ? How could there be a perfect circle of smoke flying around the sky without loosinh its shape ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bk0lk/eli5_saw_a_smoke_ring_in_the_sky_for_a_few/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj62xt8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They often come from electrical transformers. The ones on the top of power poles that look like a large grey can. They're filed with oil and If they explode they send a large black ring into the sky. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
m01cc | monte carlo simulations. | I guess I just don't understand how they are done. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m01cc/eli5_monte_carlo_simulations/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2wz0oz",
"c2wz9aq",
"c2x0r0k",
"c2x143r",
"c2wz0oz",
"c2wz9aq",
"c2x0r0k",
"c2x143r"
],
"score": [
14,
60,
2,
3,
14,
60,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically when you have a lot of interconnected variables which would make a problem hard or practically impossible to solve purely mathematically, you instead build a model that assigns odds of all the various events occurring, then run a large number of simulations where you use random numbers to determine what occurs in each simulation, and finally determine the percentage chance of some particular outcome occurring (by counting how many times in the simulator that outcome occurred).\n\nFor example let's say you are a hockey fan, and there are 10 games left in the season, and you want to find the odds of varying teams making the playoffs. Since there are 150 games remaining, to figure out every possible way things could happen you need to determine 2^150 (1.42x10^45) different game outcomes (and that's ignoring the actual complexities of NHL scoring and tie breaking procedures, but it's unimportant for this example). Instead you could build a model that determines the odds of a given team winning any given game, then run 10,000 different versions of those 150 games, which would give you fairly solid breakdown of the odds of various season ending scenarios, but with a minute fraction of the work compared to actually solving every possible scenario. ",
"Suppose you are sharing a room with your brother. The left side is yours, the right side is his. You draw a line on the floor to mark them, but you think it should be moved more to the right and so you start quarreling. You do not have a measuring tape (and besides, since the room is not a rectangle it's hard to measure), and you want to know if the division of the room is fair. What do you do?\n\nWell, some clever people came up with a way to see if the line is in the middle, and all you need is a bouncy ball. What you do is, you throw the bouncy ball against a wall (really hard, so that it bounces against the floor and walls multiple times) and see where it ends up. You do this a lot of times and each times you note whether the ball ends up on your side or his side. If you keep doing this, and the room is divided fairly, the balls should land in each side of the room about the same time.",
"Okay, I have a problem that is mathematically solvable.\nBut it's hard, and maybe I'm not sure I have the right answer. And maybe it takes a lot time to get the right answer. Like long division with a lot of digits.\n\n\n\nBut, if I have a possible answer, I kinda know how to check if it's correct, like multiplying for division. So I can take a whole bunch of numbers in the right range, and multiply them by the number I'm dividing by, (Like, if I'm dividing 15 by 3, then I multiply my random numbers by 3), and the one that's closest to the the number I am dividing, (in this case, the number that's closest to 15) is the number that's closest to the right answer.\n\n\n\nBut I can do this for much more complex problems!\nSo, instead of working out the probability of drawing certain cards from a deck, (Which is multiplying 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 x 1/49 x 1/48 for 5 cards like the ace of, 2 of, 3 of, 4 of, and 5 of spades), I can just draw cards, and draw cards, and draw cards again. And then if I drew the cards I wanted 3 times, and I drew cards a total of 1 billion times, then I know that the real probability is somewhere close to 3 in 1,000,000,000 times. \nBut I have to use a computer for that, because it can draw a few billion cards in a couple of minutes, and I would take much longer than minutes to draw them. It would take me hours, days, years even!\n\n\n\nAnd even more complex problems:\nIf I have a bunch of cities I want to travel to, and I want to spend the least time travelling between them and I don't wanna visit one twice, well, that's a hard problem with hundreds of cities. \nSo I can come up with a way that gives me a lot of different ways to travel between the cities. So I make one route, and then make sure that each route I make after that is different from every other of the routes I've made thus far. Then I simply make a lot of these routes, and use the shortest one.\nIt's probably not going to be THE shortest path, because there are 10^1124 possible paths between 500 cities, but if I compute a couple million or so paths at random, the shortest path I find is probably going to be pretty close to how short the shortest path is.\nOf course, with 500 different cities,you don't even have to guarantee that each path you make will be different from ones you've made before. There are so many different possibilities that you will probably never randomly choose the same path twice. Even a computer couldn't run through all 10^1124 paths, which is a really huge number. That's more than all the crayons & gummy bears on earth combined!\n\n\n\n(Still too complex for a five year old, methinks :( )\nedit: formatting",
"Imagine your final math exam is rumoured to be very hard and you aren't sure you are going to make it. You'd like to know what grade you can expect to have with your current knowledge / skills.\n\nSo you take the exam of the last 5 years, do them, check what grade you got on them, average it and that's about what you should expect when you do the real exam.",
"Basically when you have a lot of interconnected variables which would make a problem hard or practically impossible to solve purely mathematically, you instead build a model that assigns odds of all the various events occurring, then run a large number of simulations where you use random numbers to determine what occurs in each simulation, and finally determine the percentage chance of some particular outcome occurring (by counting how many times in the simulator that outcome occurred).\n\nFor example let's say you are a hockey fan, and there are 10 games left in the season, and you want to find the odds of varying teams making the playoffs. Since there are 150 games remaining, to figure out every possible way things could happen you need to determine 2^150 (1.42x10^45) different game outcomes (and that's ignoring the actual complexities of NHL scoring and tie breaking procedures, but it's unimportant for this example). Instead you could build a model that determines the odds of a given team winning any given game, then run 10,000 different versions of those 150 games, which would give you fairly solid breakdown of the odds of various season ending scenarios, but with a minute fraction of the work compared to actually solving every possible scenario. ",
"Suppose you are sharing a room with your brother. The left side is yours, the right side is his. You draw a line on the floor to mark them, but you think it should be moved more to the right and so you start quarreling. You do not have a measuring tape (and besides, since the room is not a rectangle it's hard to measure), and you want to know if the division of the room is fair. What do you do?\n\nWell, some clever people came up with a way to see if the line is in the middle, and all you need is a bouncy ball. What you do is, you throw the bouncy ball against a wall (really hard, so that it bounces against the floor and walls multiple times) and see where it ends up. You do this a lot of times and each times you note whether the ball ends up on your side or his side. If you keep doing this, and the room is divided fairly, the balls should land in each side of the room about the same time.",
"Okay, I have a problem that is mathematically solvable.\nBut it's hard, and maybe I'm not sure I have the right answer. And maybe it takes a lot time to get the right answer. Like long division with a lot of digits.\n\n\n\nBut, if I have a possible answer, I kinda know how to check if it's correct, like multiplying for division. So I can take a whole bunch of numbers in the right range, and multiply them by the number I'm dividing by, (Like, if I'm dividing 15 by 3, then I multiply my random numbers by 3), and the one that's closest to the the number I am dividing, (in this case, the number that's closest to 15) is the number that's closest to the right answer.\n\n\n\nBut I can do this for much more complex problems!\nSo, instead of working out the probability of drawing certain cards from a deck, (Which is multiplying 1/52 x 1/51 x 1/50 x 1/49 x 1/48 for 5 cards like the ace of, 2 of, 3 of, 4 of, and 5 of spades), I can just draw cards, and draw cards, and draw cards again. And then if I drew the cards I wanted 3 times, and I drew cards a total of 1 billion times, then I know that the real probability is somewhere close to 3 in 1,000,000,000 times. \nBut I have to use a computer for that, because it can draw a few billion cards in a couple of minutes, and I would take much longer than minutes to draw them. It would take me hours, days, years even!\n\n\n\nAnd even more complex problems:\nIf I have a bunch of cities I want to travel to, and I want to spend the least time travelling between them and I don't wanna visit one twice, well, that's a hard problem with hundreds of cities. \nSo I can come up with a way that gives me a lot of different ways to travel between the cities. So I make one route, and then make sure that each route I make after that is different from every other of the routes I've made thus far. Then I simply make a lot of these routes, and use the shortest one.\nIt's probably not going to be THE shortest path, because there are 10^1124 possible paths between 500 cities, but if I compute a couple million or so paths at random, the shortest path I find is probably going to be pretty close to how short the shortest path is.\nOf course, with 500 different cities,you don't even have to guarantee that each path you make will be different from ones you've made before. There are so many different possibilities that you will probably never randomly choose the same path twice. Even a computer couldn't run through all 10^1124 paths, which is a really huge number. That's more than all the crayons & gummy bears on earth combined!\n\n\n\n(Still too complex for a five year old, methinks :( )\nedit: formatting",
"Imagine your final math exam is rumoured to be very hard and you aren't sure you are going to make it. You'd like to know what grade you can expect to have with your current knowledge / skills.\n\nSo you take the exam of the last 5 years, do them, check what grade you got on them, average it and that's about what you should expect when you do the real exam."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
58axwq | how can different species (or subspecies) appear so similar when differences in breeds within a species can be very significant? | I mean, take four animals as an example: the white rhino, the black rhino, the Chihuahua and the Irish wolf hound. Now obviously the Chihuahua and the Irish wolf hound are dog breeds created by humans selectively, which differ greatly, at least in appearance. The rhinos, on the other hand, differ in species (or at least sub-species) through evolution, but, to the untrained eye at least, they're very alike. So my question is, if breeding can't create a new species and size and appearance aren't a factor, then when a new species is discovered that's very similar to, or a subspecies of, a previously known species, what exactly are the criteria that determine that it is, indeed, a new (sub)species and not just a variation / breed ?
For example, I understand that Chihuahua and Irish wolf hound skeletons are anatomically almost identical, barring size and, I suppose, the relative length of some of the bones (e.g. leg bones). However, in the case of the rhinos, there may be structural differences too, like different joints maybe. So are anatomical differences key ? I used to think that interbreeding was factored in. We all know a small dog's diminutive stature won't stop it trying to score with a massive dog, so I used to think that refusing to interbreed between types was a factor too. But recently I saw a TV documentary where they talked about different big cats being kept in captivity. They observed that if they're in the same area, they can actually interbreed. Don't remember what species of big cat they were - could have been cheetahs and pumas maybe ?
I'm just asking because every now and again when a new sub-species is found, they announce with great excitement that this is, in fact, a new species of pitviper, and you look at it and think it looks really like the existing species, how has it earned it's new species status ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58axwq/eli5_how_can_different_species_or_subspecies/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8yvcgc"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The dirty secret is that there is no universal definition or precise criteria for what a species is. A very common definition and a good rule of thumb is that if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring (hybrids are often sterile), then they are the same species. But, as you noted, that rule is not universally followed, and species are frequently split, merged, and designated without much knowledge of their ability to produce fertile offspring with similar species (finding this out all the time would be impractical and it would be hard to be certain anyways).\n\nThe reality is that when a taxonomist argues for a new species or a species merger, they advance a range of arguments that could be based on morphology, physiology, genetics, characteristic ranges, interbreeding, and probably other things I don't know. In botany, at least, it is also required that you cite a \"type specimen\" preserved somewhere when designating a new species, so that people in the future can see what you were looking at when you designated the species."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
bcz3eu | why “is not it” sounds like it doesn’t make sense even though the contraction, “isn’t it” makes sense when it’s essentially the same thing? alternatively, “is it not” | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bcz3eu/eli5_why_is_not_it_sounds_like_it_doesnt_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekum812"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Isn’t is a contraction of “is not”. Otherwise “isn’t it” wouldn’t make sense.\n\n“Is not it” doesn’t make much sense, usually, because that’s not where “isn’t” fits."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1rng0c | why is it that during the night, i can listen to music fine at a very low volume, but the next day it is way to quiet? | I should probably add that it was still just as quiet in my room when I listened the next day than when I was listening to it the previous night. So explanations like, it's more noisy during the day don't really cover it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rng0c/eli5_why_is_it_that_during_the_night_i_can_listen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdozac5",
"cdp072r"
],
"score": [
5,
8
],
"text": [
"I believe that it could also be because that when you are in bed, there is literally no other sound except for the music you are listening to. During the day however, there are many other sources of sound that mesh with the music, making it harder to tell out from the other sounds.",
"Put simply, because hearing adjusts similar to your eyes to light, albeit less noticeably. I'm on my phone so I apologize for any typos and I can't give too detailed an explanation or link you to a web page, but i can give you a brief summary. \n\nDepending on how much stimulation your ears are receiving, the ear itself actually adjusts to match it. How alert you are also plays a role in this. If there is little to no sound around you, like at night when you're going to sleep, you will pick up sound much better than you would normally. On the flip side, if you're in a loud crowd, you'll pick up less sound. The reason is again similar to why the eye adjusts: you are able to pick up very subtle sounds when there is no other noise and still not be deafened by loud noises. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
nnhms | gases and containing gases | How do people gather Sulfur hexafluoride, Helium and other gases. Where are they, and how do you put them in containers or things to hold them. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nnhms/eli5_gases_and_containing_gases/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3agsdu",
"c3agsdu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a few ways to do it, but the most frequently way to Helium is extracted from Natural gas by distillation. \n\nNo idea about Sulphur hexafluoride, sorry. ",
"There are a few ways to do it, but the most frequently way to Helium is extracted from Natural gas by distillation. \n\nNo idea about Sulphur hexafluoride, sorry. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
797h49 | why do pointe ballet shoes have a life span of only one or two performances? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/797h49/eli5_why_do_pointe_ballet_shoes_have_a_life_span/ | {
"a_id": [
"dozukml",
"dozwqv4",
"dozwyih"
],
"score": [
21,
17,
4
],
"text": [
"Because they are specialty shoes that have to handle enormous stresses and are only worn by a handful of people nationwide.\n\nI have no doubt that Nike could design a Ballet Shoe 900ZX1 that with super-space-future materials that could handle the stress of 20 ballets. But even selling one of them to every professional ballerina in the world they'd only sell a couple of thousand of them. \n\nNo one else would buy them because they are stiff, uncomfortable shoes that are only useful in extreme situations. They would lose enormous amounts of money doing this.",
"Pointe shoes hold a dancer's entire body weight for a 2 or 3 hour performance, not including the possibly hundreds of hours of rehearsals. Also, in addition to just holding their weight in a standing position, each dance step the dancer performers bashes them against the floor repeatedly. The pointe toe itself is a wooden box, and the outside is leather and silk, so they aren't the most durable things in the first place. They also have to deal with rosin buildup. (rosin is a powder used to create friction, just as in violin bows).\n\nEdit: Rosin creates friction, not reduces it. My brain is tired.",
"It has to do with the material of the shoe having a combination of rigidity and flexibility. The toe area (the \"box\") and soul (the \"shank\") of a pointe shoe is made up of many layers of cardboard and glue. A brand new shoe is hard as a rock, and most dancers will spend time softening the shoe (aka smushing it and hitting it against the ground) before they even put them on for the first time. This is so the material is soft enough to mold to their feet. The shoe still has to be hard enough to support their foot though. A dancer isn't actually putting all her weight on her toes, a lot of her weight is supported by the rest of their foot, which is sort of squeezed and held up by the hard sides of the shoe. So basically, because the shoe is hard, but still \"soft\", and dancers put 8 hr a day of stress on the shoes, they break down quickly to the point of not supporting the foot anymore. Theoretically Nike could come out with PointeShoe3000 that would be hard enough to last, but I don't think it would be very comfortable. Plus artists are very traditionalist, so we like to stick to the old glue and cardboard even if there could be better materials designed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4w43fg | why does breaking the sound barrier create a sonic boom? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4w43fg/eli5_why_does_breaking_the_sound_barrier_create_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d63vvth",
"d63wkyv",
"d63zaez",
"d63zax1",
"d640lqh",
"d64179y",
"d6419mw",
"d641oxt",
"d6446hz",
"d644cko",
"d6454eh",
"d646iaz",
"d6477av",
"d647wy1",
"d64apro",
"d64eav8",
"d64fcpw",
"d64h3zm",
"d64l6xl",
"d64m226",
"d64nder",
"d64rnb7",
"d64tuki",
"d651mwz"
],
"score": [
4544,
611,
414,
22,
3,
5,
3,
3,
10,
2,
2,
10,
2,
6,
7,
2,
2,
9,
2,
5,
2,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine a tiny, bouncing ball on the surface of a pond, with ripples spreading outwards from it. The ripples always travel at the same speed, regardless of what the ball is doing. When it's still, the ripples spread out evenly in every direction. But if the ball starts moving slowly across the pond, the [ripples in front of it will be closer together than the ones behind it](_URL_0_).\n\nNow, if the ball moves exactly at the speed of the ripples, then the ripples at the leading edge can't get away from the ball and dissipate - they just accumulate, so all that energy is concentrated along a single, massive leading ripple.",
"In addition to what others are saying here, I find [this](_URL_0_) graphic to be extremely helpful. ",
"The sound barrier is how fast sound moves in air. But sound is just waves moving in the air, so really it's how fast the air \"likes\" to move. Which also means it's how fast the air \"likes\" to move out of the way if you're moving through it (just like moving in water, you have to push the air out of the way). If the speed of sound is how fast the air \"likes\" to move but you're moving faster than that, you have to forcibly \"push\" the air out of the way faster than it naturally wants to move. This \"push\" requires extra energy, and pushes some of the air together (kind of like an air compressor pushing air into a tire, but instead of rubber surrounding the air it's just surrounded by other air that doesn't \"want\" to move as fast as you're pushing it). \n\nOnce you've moved past, the air wants to find a way to decompress, and now that nothing around it is moving faster than the speed of sound it decompresses by pushing the surrounding air out of the way. Much like you'd pop a balloon (or a bicycle tire filled with compressed air) and the balloon makes a \"pop\" as it releases air; the air that was \"compressed\" by something moving through it faster than the speed of sound makes a \"pop\" as it decompresses behind the object.",
"The short answer is that molecules can't get out of the way of others creating a shock wave. A shock wave is NOT a single occurrence, but instead a surface at which the state of the air changes dramatically across a very tiny gap. Temperature and Pressure changes are nearly instantaneous. This causes a \"lot\" of energy to be released in the form of sound. (a lot for sound anyway) Shock waves are very fascinating. They are in no way \"pulling through\" or \"bunching up\" as shown in some graphics. Bunching up of molecules imply they are communicating with each other and creating a high pressure. The fundamental quality of a shock wave is that air/fluid molecules don't have time to communicate with each other.",
"Do bullets create a sonic boom?",
"I've always been curious what the pilot experiences in the moments leading up to and post breaking the sound barrier. Do they hear the sonic boom? Do they hear no sound after breaking the barrier?",
"A sonic boom is not created by breaking the sound barrier. It is a standing wave of compressed air created by an object traveling faster than the speed of sound. Picture a boat traveling parallel to the shore. Observe it from above and watch the wake as it strikes the shore. If you were standing on the shore, as the wave of the wake strikes the shore where you are standing, you will hear the sonic boom as the wave passes. ",
"About to start my senior year in aerospace engineering here.\n\nThe best way one of my professors described it was comparing it to a skiing pile up. If a bunch of skiers (air particals) are going downhill and some start to wreck (hit the vehicle's surface) more and more skiers coming down the hill will crash and pile up too. This creates a sort of \"wall\" (barrier) where the skiers have to go through in order to get down the hill. The first few skiers who crashed will soon get up though and start going again (slower than before). And it continues with people quickly crashing into the wall with skiers slowly getting up on the other side. So there's difference in skier speed and density on each side of the wall, which relates to a pressure difference. And that pressure difference is what you hear and sometimes can see as the \"sonic boom\".",
"If something moves through the air, air starts to pile up in front of the object, because it takes a little while for all the air molecules to shuffle around the thing and get out of the way. They get out of the way at the speed of sound, because that's the speed air molecules shuffle. If the object is travelling faster than the molecules can get out of the way, then the pile up gets really big, with a very dense area of air around the front, which suddenly gets less dense as you get a bit further away.\n\nThat's a shockwave. Remember that sound is just pressure waves, and a shockwave is a pressure wave - a very strong one, and it sounds to us like booming!",
"So when the space shuttle comes back to us, we hear 2 loud bangs. Is this the last part of a sonic boom or is it happening from 2 different surfaces of the orbiter? ",
"Could you have a sonic boom in space?\n\nI understand space is a virtual vacuum, but nasa has recorded electromagnetic vibrations from planets that can be played back as sounds.\n\n ",
"A shock wave or sonic boom is the near instantaneous change of air pressure upon air particles encountering an object moving faster than sound. \n\nNormally, the air can move out of the way (air moves at the speed of sound) in a smooth, slow process. This doesn't result in much noise. \n\nWhen a supersonic object hits air, the air particles *cannot* get out of the way smoothly. They get physically \"knocked\" out of the way by the object. This is done via a process known as a shock, which we hear as a sonic boom. \n\nNote that this boom is not a one time thing that occurs only when breaking mach 1. The shockwave/sonic boom will follow any object traveling > Mach 1. \n",
"Its about information transfer.\n\nThe speed of information transfer, or in other words how fast an impulse gets forwarded is the speed of sound. So if the first particle hits an obstacle this information is passed on by pulses and interaction between particles. (It doesn't matter if the fluid moves or the obstacle, just relative speed)\n\nNow in **slow motion** the speed of information is much faster than the obstacle moving. So all particles are informed that there is an obstacle and will move out of the way.\n\nThe **exact speed** of sound is instable to maintain, so the airplane is either faster or slower.\n\nIf its **faster than the sound of speed** the information that there was an obstacle is not transferred in time within the fluid. So as soon the obstacle is here, there is no gentle push to the side, but a hard movement to make space. For each row of particle this displacement happens a little bit later, hence your line of displacement is diagonal. This is the line you sometime see in the faster-than-sound pictures ( [mach-wave at each conture change of the airplane where a different displacement is enforced due to the wall of the plane](_URL_0_) )\n\nNow this mach-waves dont stop at the end of the picture but reach out quite far. If they reach the ground where you stand this moving mach wave will at some point pass by you as the airplane flies by. If they is more than one like in the picture, the strongest (first) one will take over the rest. In the moment this wave passes your ears you hear the BOOOM!",
"Suppose you're travelling at the speed of sound, a bit faster though, in any direction you want, in air. \n\nSound waves you're generating will sound normal in all directions, except the one you're heading to, because what happens is that yourself can arrive there before your own sound waves do it, and all along the way you start carrying that wave in front of you, basically distorting it and amplifying it. Like there are hundreds of copies of that same noise packed together in a single instant.\n\nIf someone else is standing still and you pass above them, you'll bring a loud BOOM with you right after your passage, and then they'll hear the noise that's actually coming from around you.\n\n\nedit: [this shows exactly what I tried to explain](\\_URL_0_) ",
"As you travel faster, sounds keeps traveling at the same speed. When a train is coming at you, for example, its whistle sounds louder, because as it's moving, it's emitting sound waves, and those sounds waves are coming at you from each point where the whistle emitted sound, The result is a \"scrunched\" up soundwave -- and as we know, faster waves sound higher pitched (speed up a song for example). The opposite is also true; when the train goes away from you, since the sound wave from the whistle is being made away from you, the sounds get to you later and later, resulting in a \"stretched\" soundwave that ends up sounding *lower* pitched.\n\nSo imagine something come at you near than the speed of sound. As it approaches the speed of sound, it creates higher and higher pitched noise as more and more waves get closer together. When it passes the sound barrier, suddenly *all the sound it made gets compressed together at one instant* -- and all that sound coming together at once is the sonic boom.",
"Because sound waves are air molecules moving together in groups of low pressure and high pressure zones.\n\nWhen an aircraft travels at a faster speed than these groups (sound waves) travel, these waves merge to form a \"shock\" wave pushing these molecules together. \n\nThe shockwaves travel at the speed of sound and are essentially pressure disturbances in the atmosphere.\n\nTo a stationary observer two booms are heard once from the nose and other from the tail of the aircraft (much like bow and stern waves when a ship travels in water).\n\nAlso \"breaking the sound barrier\" is not synonymous with the appearance of vapor cone which is nothing but condensed water that's formed as a result of sudden expansion of flow along the fuselage. The presence of these depends upon humidity and dew point and the shape of the aircraft.\n",
"Think of it like water waves clapping back together after you've moved you hand through it so fast you left a gap.\n\nThat's really all it is. Gas (air) and liquids are very similar in these kinds of ways. ",
"Maybe this video can help you understand why breaking the sound barrier creates a sonic boom. [SciShow](_URL_0_)\n\n\nedit: spelling",
"As you go faster than sound the air around you doesn't have enough time to fill the space between the plane so there is a vacuum. When the air meets it makes a thunderous clap!",
"So if you were in a car on the ground matched with the speed of the jet snd aligned with the sonic boom, you would hear an insanely loud constant roar? ",
"Sound moves at a specific speed through air. When you break the sound barrier, the sound stacks up because they are all going the same speed.\n\nImagine you have a gun that fires bullets that go the speed of sound. You can shoot a bullet every second, so when you're shooting at a target, one bullet hits it every second.\n\nNow say that you are running at the speed of sound at your target, firing your gun. The bullets leave the gun, but can only go at the speed of sound through air, so all your bullets end up travelling together. You fire a hundred times, but when you pass your target, it gets hit by one hundred bullets all at once instead of one per second.\n\nThe sonic boom is all the sound made by the plane stacked up together and hitting you all at once.",
"To create a sonic boom you have to hold back for two seconds then press forward and A simultaneously. ",
"Would there be a light boom if hypothetically we could go as fast light and break the \"light barrier\"? ",
"On of my favourite physical phenomenums (did I spell that right? fuck it) is Cherenekov radiation; esentially the light analog of a sonic boom. pretty (literally) and cool."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/12550/area14mp/hbsmgt9g-1341284530.jpg"
],
[
"http://i.stack.imgur.com/X2dlm.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_wave#/media/File:Schlierenfoto_Mach_1-2_Pfeilfl%C3%BCgel_-_NASA.jpg"
],
[
"http://i.stack.imgur.com/9QJ3z.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/OoetqEJafy0?t=1m53s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4hp84i | why acetone feels cold. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hp84i/eli5_why_acetone_feels_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2rd2cm",
"d2rjaac"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Acetone evaporates very quickly when it gets to be your body temperature. As it evaporates it takes the heat from the direct part of your body making you feel cold. ",
"As the others have said this has to do with evaporation. How does evaporation make things cold?\n\nYou may know that acetone is made up of many small identical components called molecules. These molecules are not stationary, [they are constantly moving and bouncing off each other](_URL_1_) as in this demonstration with balls representing molecules. If you could measure the speed of each of these balls at one point in time you would find that they are not all moving at the same speed. Some are moving quite slowly (maybe because they just bumped into another ball) while others are moving much faster (because a couple of favourable collisions made them faster). [Keep your eye on one ball in this gif and notice how its speed is changing.](_URL_0_) Importantly, if nothing is changed the *average speed* of all the balls stays the same. We actually perceive this random motion of molecules (balls) as *temperature*. The molecules in hot substances are moving more quickly on average. Processes that make things become warmer make the molecules bounce around more energetically, processes that make things colder make the average speed of the molecules decrease. \n\nNow one other important thing you need to understand is that the acetone molecules are also somewhat attracted to each other. This is what makes them stick together to form a liquid. If they weren't attracted to each other they would fly apart and turn into a gas. So what is evaporation? I said that the molecules are not all moving at the same speed, some are moving quickly, and a small amount are moving very quickly. If a molecule on the surface of the liquid is moving quickly enough and in the right direction it can actually overcome its attraction to the other acetone molecules and [fly off into the air](_URL_2_). Now ask yourself what has happened to the *average speed* of the rest of the acetone molecules, minus the molecule that has escaped (evaporated). One of the molecules with lots of speed has now disappeared, so the average speed must therefore be lower. Thus, the acetone has cooled. \n\nSo why does acetone feel cooler compared to water? This is because water is more attracted to itself compared to acetone. It takes more speed for individual water molecules to overcome this attraction so fewer are able to evaporate, so the temperature of the water changes more slowly. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Translational_motion.gif",
"https://youtu.be/n-VXWtLok9o?t=19s",
"http://hendrix2.uoregon.edu/~imamura/102/images/evaporation.jpg"
]
] |
||
crx8bw | if isopropyl causes intoxication like ethanol, why does it also break down into acetone and kill people? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/crx8bw/eli5_if_isopropyl_causes_intoxication_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"exajk59",
"exajnev",
"exb8q58",
"exb9llz"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is a different chemical. Assuming that it does cause intoxication (which I'm not sure it does), it does so because it behaves similarly to ethanol in your brain. Just because it behaves similarly in your brain does not mean it can be broken down into the same stuff. If you look at the atomic structures of acetone, acetaldehyde, ethanol, and isopropanol, hopefully you will see why each breaks down in the way it does.",
"They both fall under the chemical class of alcohols, but they're different structures. Because they have different structures, breaking them will yield different products. Without getting into too much detail, they do different things. That being said, isopropyl alcohol poisoning isn't that fatal. In terms of how much it takes to kill you compared to ethanol, isopropyl alcohol is slightly more toxic.",
"Each alcohol is metabolyzed into the corresponding aldehyde or ketone after causing the buzz. The aldehyde of ethanol is acetaldehyde, it is mildly toxic and causes hangovers. The ketone of isopropanol is acetone, which is somewhat more toxic than acetaldehyde. The aldehyde of methanol is formaldehyde, which is a potent neurotoxin, this is why methanol is deadly stuff. Tertamyl alcohol, like all tert alcohols, does not have any corresponding aldehyde or ketone, so it has the least crippling after effects.",
"Fun Fact: The cure for methanol poisoning is ethanol. \n\nWhile working in the ER had a patient that drank methanol (horrible alcoholic) the doctor gave another tech money to run to the corner store across the street and get vodka."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
52viub | why do one's wrists and neck make cracking sounds when one stretches them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52viub/eli5_why_do_ones_wrists_and_neck_make_cracking/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7nms3v"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Bubbles build up in the synovial fluid between joints. When you stretch your joints out the bubbles escape from the fluid creating a popping/cracking sound. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2hsr5q | why will the hoover dam crack when the concrete is finished drying? | Engineering student reporting in:
In my statics class the professor made the claim that the hoover dam is still liquid concrete at the center and will crack as soon as it solidifies, is this claim factual and if so, why would it occur right as it finished drying? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hsr5q/eli5_why_will_the_hoover_dam_crack_when_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckvnays"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > _URL_0_\n\nNo, it isn't true. I suspect the statement was misheard; *if* the dam had been poured as a single job it would still be liquid and crack. But it wasn't because they knew that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=258217"
]
] |
|
47i1db | how come modern graphics cards have more than a thousand processing cores whereas the top of the line processor from intel has only 18 cores? what's the difference here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47i1db/eli5_how_come_modern_graphics_cards_have_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0d2txg",
"d0d4j23",
"d0d4sfw",
"d0d9ch8"
],
"score": [
22,
4,
67,
3
],
"text": [
"GPUs compute things quite differently to CPUs. GPUs rely on what's sometimes called stream processing. That is when you have multiple cores all doing the same thing, but on different inputs. Also known as Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD).\n\nCPU cores on the other hand can run completely different instructions to each other, so each core is more complicated.\n\nThat makes GPUs very good for graphics, and some other tasks that can be broken down in that way. But it means they're not great at other things.",
"There are a only relatively few problems that can easily be run in parallel. Meaning, for most tasks, there simply is no way of breaking down the problem and solving it simultaneously. This means to solve a task you have to do it step by step, with each step having to wait for the one nefore it. This is what CPUs are good at.\n\nBut image processing is almost completely matrix operations. You have a matrix of something like 1080*1920 pixels, which have to be transformed/recomputed 30-60 times a second. Fortunately matrix operations can easily be broken down and done in parallel. You can break them downx solve the smaller problemsx then combine It back up. This is what GPUs excel at.",
"CPU compute cores are smart, GPU compute cores are dumb. Sometimes its faster to have 18 smart people working on a problem, other times you can do it quicker with thousands of dumb people.",
"CPUs are more generic and are good at making decisions. GPUs are horrible at making decisions and better at doing straight-forward problems that can be broken up into smaller chunks.\n\nImagine if you're trying to move 100 carts from point A to point B, but the terrain is narrow and hilly and can't be blindly traversed. A cpu in this case would be like getting 4 horses to pull the carts from point A to B. Horses, assume for this example, are expensive and big, so you only have a few of them to do the job, but they're pretty smart and are able to traverse the terrain quickly. If they happen around something blocking the path, they can quickly decide to move around it. A gpu in this case would be like getting 100 dumb robots to pull the carts from point A to B. For the sake of argument, these robots are relatively cheap, individually and small, so you have a lot of them, but they're not great at tackling obstacles. If you give the job to them, if there's something blocking the path, they will take forever to move around it. In the end, the horses would be faster since they can adapt to the terrain by making quick decisions.\n\nNow, let's change the scenario, you still want to move 100 carts from point A to B, but now it's a completely flat field, nothing to really navigate and nothing blocking the field. Your 4 horses lose a lot of their advantage since the dumb robots can very easily move across this clear field all 100 at at time to move the carts in 1 go.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
13astn | why can i run faster on my tip-toes? | It seems sort of counter intuitive, but most people I've asked agree they run faster when only their toes touch the ground while running. Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13astn/eli5_why_can_i_run_faster_on_my_tiptoes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c72azzq",
"c72baa7",
"c72bcry",
"c72daji"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Think about how your foot strikes the ground running normally and running on tip-toes. Running normally, a lot of surface area hits the ground, kind of rolling from one section of foot to the next, then stabilizing before taking off again. The shock from that also travels up your leg and has to be managed.\n\nRunning on tip-toe, just a little bit of surface area strikes the ground, all at once. Quickly! Then you absorb the shock and move on.\n\nBasically, that kind of step just takes less time, and the time saved when you do lots of those steps instead of regular steps is noticeable.",
"You don't. Probably not, anyway. That's really a mechanical issue, and most humans are built approximately the same, so if it were true for you, it'd be true for everybody.\n\n[Watch the Beijing Olympics 100m dash](_URL_0_). They're definitely not running on tiptoes, they're planting the whole foot on the ground.\n\nNow, why does it *seem* like you're running faster... That's a whole different matter, and one I can't answer, I'm afraid.\n\nEDIT: Asked my sister, she works at a lab doing evaluations on high-performance athletes, and she basically answered \"running on tiptoes is just stupid. Part of the impulse you get from running is from your calf muscles, and you can only get that from fully contracting and extending those muscles. Unless your heel touches the ground, you're not actually gaining that advantage\".",
"I don't think there is a difference in speed, however people who tend to do rearfoot strike while running are more prone to repetitive stress injuries than people who do forefoot strike. \n\nUnfortunately I can't find any source that could validate that claim, however if I had to guess, seeing how Achilles tendon dramatically improves performance, probably tendons in your feet are also working to make running more efficient. ",
"There are a bunch of things to consider here. First, most people don't actually run faster. You accelerate faster to your maintainable speed, but you don't actually run faster over the same period of time.\n\nNow, the other thing is that running on your toes slightly lengthens your stride. Other animals do it for speed, there are tons of examples. If you look at the feet of a cat or dog for example, they are designed to run on the balls of their feet because it gives you a longer stride. Horses take it even further, running on the equivalent of a very long toe nail. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21rkesYI8Co"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
8302yh | does it require an elevator more energy to go "down" empty than to go "up" full? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8302yh/eli5_does_it_require_an_elevator_more_energy_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dve2s7m",
"dvechcg"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on the sizing of the counterweight\n\nIf the counterweight is sized to be *exactly* car weight + 50.0% of the rated load then it will take the same amount of energy to go down with 0.0% load as it takes to go up with 100.0% load\n\nIf it's not perfectly sized, then which ever involves lifting more weight will require more energy",
"There was an elevator at my university that used some kind of hydraulic system to move the elevator and it was slower going down. When the elevator goes up, hydraulic fluid (oil) is pumped through a valve into a piston that pushes the elevator up. To come back down, the oil is slowly released and if you’re in an empty elevator, there’s less weight pushing the oil back out of the piston."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3wx9v3 | why do companies insist on telling the public there's "scheduled maintenance" when a web site is clearly broken? | Ok, so this stems from the Reddit outage a few hours ago. The site was down. Logins weren't happening. But the error page says, "maintenance", not "we're down".
That got me thinking - many companies do this - they state their site is undergoing some sort of routine maintenance when it's clearly broken. So, why not just admit that? Is this just a face saving maneuver or is there some sort of legality involved? Why not just say, "it's broken". I mean, if it were truly maintenance, they'd let us know in advance, right? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wx9v3/eli5_why_do_companies_insist_on_telling_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxzm186",
"cxznhxs",
"cxzomlx",
"cy0gm8j"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In this particular case, we have a way of stopping traffic that lets us try and fix the underlying systems while we shunt incoming traffic...unfortunately it put up an inaccurate message but it was pretty far down the list of priorities to fix that! For the best info, stick to _URL_0_. ",
"Product Lead here from a software corp.\n\nOften we end up showing the 'down for scheduled maintenance' page/site because a bad error has happened as we need to reboot the network/servers to apply a fix, or bring the site back up - Most times we just invoke the 'update service' logic/mode and you are shown this maintenance page because its part of the service restart flow.\n\nAlso, when the system is down the last thing we need to spend time on is the wording of a holding page, all hands to the pump on getting the error fixed and service online.",
"Sometimes it is actually scheduled maintenance and they weren't expecting any issues maybe a little slowdown while they checked and changed/modified the code. Then someone fucked something up or something unexpected happened because something didn't preform as expected and poof a whole mess that no one anticipated.",
"You don't advertise negativity.\n\nI run a restaurant, and occasionally we will run out of something. My servers/bartenders want to put up a sign saying that we are out of whatever it is, to make their lives easier. But if you do that, you are very blatantly showing people a negative. If they ask for the item, we let them know we're out - that's not good, but a smaller % of people are getting that negative experience than if we were telling everyone right away we were out of the item."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"redditstatus.com"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
60jkk0 | why are most of us drawn to eating and drinking unhealthy produce over healthier ones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60jkk0/eli5_why_are_most_of_us_drawn_to_eating_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"df6wa1q",
"df6wc38"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A) why are you drinking produce?\n\nB) because it's what you learned growing up. Most healthy people were either raised healthy or they had a major life event (diabetes, heart attack, second marriage to a much younger much hotter wife) that forces them to be healthy. ",
"Some of the stuff we like to eat a lot of (fats, sweets etc) is stuff that, in nature, was harder to get. \n\nYour instinct and body hasn't changed much from our \"hunter gatherer\" days and your instinctual interests in snacks don't \"know\" that fatty meat no longer requires chasing after something with a spear."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
30p0ol | how come tractor trailers can't go super fast when they don't have trailers attached, but as my car gets heavy it's more difficult to accelerate? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30p0ol/eli5_how_come_tractor_trailers_cant_go_super_fast/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpuff6j",
"cpug3su",
"cpuhpbh"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They aren't built and geared for speed, rather they are made to pull heavy loads.\n\nI'm not sure what else to say other than they are not made to go fast. \n\nEDIT: Do you mean [trucks](_URL_1_) or [tractors](_URL_0_)? Ive not heard of either being called a tractor trailer, but the same principle applies, also quite often they have speed limiters. (56mph in the UK)",
"Going fast and accelerating quickly are not the same thing. Any vehicle will accelerate more quickly with less load, but that doesn't directly affect their top speed.",
"The transmission of a tractor trailer is optimized for torque. It can generate a lot of force at low speeds, but going faster speeds requires a lot more engine power. The transmission of your car would be optimized for speed and fuel efficiency. As a result, it produces less torque, but can travel at higher speeds while not requiring as much power as a high torque engine. \n\nThe high torque of the tractor lets it pull heavy loads unhindered, while the low torque of your car allows you to travel at higher speeds, without requiring a more powerful engine.\n\nThis goes past ELI5, but if you want to understand how a transmission can transform torque and speed, research [gear ratios](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GIGM_enGB625GB625&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tractor",
"https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GIGM_enGB625GB625&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=truck"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear_ratio"
]
] |
||
btzgms | why do we represent molecular structures as beautiful alveolus-like schemas and do they actually look like that ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/btzgms/eli5_why_do_we_represent_molecular_structures_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"ep4xf31"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"On that scale, to say that something \"looks\" like anything is incorrect. We're dealing with objects smaller than the wavelengths of visible light, so they don't have color the way we think of it. Furthermore, they don't really have a shape either, as objects behave like fuzzy clouds of here's-where-it-might-be rather than solid \"things\" at that scale. Chemical bonds definitely don't take the form of sticks connecting spheres either, they're just electron clouds getting comfortable with each other.\n\nHowever, the electron clouds are, roughly, spherical, when all is said and done, and these spheres do appear to be sticking together when we manage to image them individually. Any image of something that small is going to be a metaphor at best, but the metaphor isn't a bad one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3x3vix | who is kojima and why are people so excited that he made a deal with sony? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x3vix/eli5_who_is_kojima_and_why_are_people_so_excited/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy18wyq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This sort of question is not asking for an explanation of a complex concept so explainlikeimfive isn't the appropriate place for it. Try asking on /r/outoftheloop."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3ijiwn | how do djs such as kygo and chris lake make money off of remixing songs that are not their original work? | Do they have to acquire rights from the original producer, and, if so, do they have to pay royalties? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ijiwn/eli5_how_do_djs_such_as_kygo_and_chris_lake_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"cugze00"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, they have to license the songs and pay the royalties. But they command huge fees when they perform, and they perform pretty much year-round. They can do that because their performances don't involve too much physical effort (unlike a singer or band). That's where their revenue comes from. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
cqwfpm | how do they make large products made of bamboo or other materials? | What I mean: bamboo has a certain width, so how do they make things like a large bowl? How do they "fuse" this bamboo together, that it seems like one piece?
Same with other materials like wood. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cqwfpm/eli5_how_do_they_make_large_products_made_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ex09m8x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Long story short. Bamboo is cut into small strips or even broken down into strands, baked, dried, glued in a mold to form beams and cut into planks. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/eu5QRDNLeYw"
]
] |
|
4o8b4i | internet now is a utility. good or bad? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4o8b4i/eli5_internet_now_is_a_utility_good_or_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4adzzs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The new rules enforce net neutrality. They are specifically worded so that ISPs are treated as a utility for net neutrality purposes but are not required to meet most other utility-related laws.\n\nThis is good for consumers. Depending on your point of view, it's either neutral for the ISPs or bad for the ISPs. Net neutrality is nothing new - the internet has been neutral for nearly all of its existence. It's only in recent years that ISPs have started trying to make extra money by violating net neutrality. So in essence these rules enforce the old status quo of the internet, preventing ISPs from gouging extra money out of websites."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3yzr57 | what purpose do choir conductors serve? can't the choir just sing the song? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yzr57/eli5_what_purpose_do_choir_conductors_serve_cant/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyi311x",
"cyi371n",
"cyi3ks0"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The same purpose that orchestra and band directors serve: help the performers keep the beat, get the right dynamics, help the group get ready for the performance, etc.",
"By far the most important reason is to coordinate breathing! There's the more obvious things like how loud or soft to sing, and making sure all the words are 'cut off' at exactly the same time by everyone, but when to take a breath and also when to PREPARE to take a breath are the vital indications the conductor gives. In a certain way, it can be harder to conduct a choir than an instrumental ensemble - you have to give TWO cues with your hands, one to say 'get ready to take a breath', and then another to actually take the breath. This answer leaves out about a thousand other more usual reasons he conductor exists at all, but re: choirs, this is the big one. ",
"One of the biggest reasons is because it's very helpful for all the musicians to be working off one person's idea of what \"right\" sounds like. You put 40 vocalists or orchestra instrumentalists in a group, and no matter how good they are, each will have a slightly different idea of what right is. Forte and mezzo forte might mean a slightly different thing to you than it does to me. The conductor, who is also the one directing them during rehearsal, is there to tell me I'm wrong when I'm playing louder, or faster, or in the wrong style compared to you. \n\nBy the time of the actual performance, a well practiced and talented group probably could play the song well enough for most listeners without a conductor, but the work they put in to get to the point absolutely requires one. And you don't just remove something that you've had for all the practices just for the performance. If you're used to a conductors visual cues, that's not something you want to just remove right before the actual performance even if you're practiced enough to predict them by then. Changing stuff at the last minute rarely works out for anything. Live performance art in particular. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
dichsj | why do climate scientists say we only have 5-10 years to save the earth? is there a point of no return that we will hit very soon? | With all the coverage of climate change in the media in recent months, I've heard a lot of experts saying that we only have X amount of years to save the Earth. The figures have usually ranged between 5 and 10 years. They say that if we don't alter our behaviour in the next 5-10 years maximum, nothing we can do will save the climate beyond that point. Apparently if we go beyond that point, we will have "locked in" the next 100 years of climate destruction.
Why is that? I'm a bit confused by that. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dichsj/eli5_why_do_climate_scientists_say_we_only_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3usjzt",
"f3w1aql"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"The main worry is Earth's average temperature. A [major international report](_URL_1_) estimates we have until about 2035; if we keep going without changing anything, the average temp will rise to about +2°C, which will cause some of the biggest natural disasters in living memory -- widespread flooding, fatal heat waves, extreme storms, etc. We're already seeing extreme weather in some places, mostly flooded coasts and inland droughts. However, if we act now, there's a chance we can push that deadline back and give us more time to fix everything. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is a really good graph, courtesy of XKCD -- a webcomic written by a rocket scientist -- showing Earth's average temps from 20,000 BC to 2016. It was very steady until about the industrial revolution, and then around the late 90s it suddenly spiked, and will continue to spike unless we stop it.",
"The first step is to educate yourself about the science behind climate change. Climate scientists have [climate and atmospheric data](_URL_15_) going back hundreds of millions of years based on rock and sedimentary data. We also have very solid data going back 800,000 years using [ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica](_URL_10_). As a result, we know that in the past the Earth was much warmer, and sometimes much cooler. We also know that these changes often take millennia to proceed. These past climate change events have been caused by a number of different events like [the great oxygenation event](_URL_26_), the [PETM](_URL_25_), or the [Deccan Traps](_URL_14_). This [video](_URL_12_) \"is an ice age coming?\" reviews some of the factors that affect long-term natural climate change.\n\nNobody is refuting that the Earth has been warmer in the past (or colder). However, what is important to not is that when *rapid* changes in the climate occurred in the past there have been catastrophic changes in biodiversity. ***In other words, not all change is good.*** There have been [5 major extinctions in the Earth's past where the Earth experienced between 70-95% species loss](_URL_2_), which were caused by a myriad of different things from major volcanic events to asteroids. Today human activity is causing this rapid degree of change as we add greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to our atmosphere. We refer to [climate change](_URL_20_) (CC) that is driven by human activities as ***anthropogenic climate change****.* Since we are the cause, we need to be the solution.\n\n[It's real](_URL_11_), [it's us](_URL_19_), and [it's bad](_URL_16_)...Any legitimate source you find will tell you that humans are causing this change: [NASA](_URL_18_), [NASA](_URL_22_), [IPCC](_URL_27_), [American Government](_URL_5_chapter/1/). In the remainder of this post will go over some of the science and elaborate [the past, present, and future of climate change.](_URL_8_) Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the average temperature of the Earth has already warmed by 1.0c or 1.8F. Were locked in for about 1.5c change with the real likelihood of hitting 2-3c change by 2100. This [video](_URL_17_) goes over what the Earth looked like the last time it was warmed to this degree. To emphasize it took **200,000 years** for the Earth to warm up as much as it did that time - were doing that degree of change, possibly more, in **200 years**.\n\nThe world is a big place and CC is going to affect each region differently. Climate scientists are working on modelling this change trying to predict its effects. Early models only included a few parameters, but now we are able to model climate systems with a much higher degree of precision. Here is a [History of climate research](_URL_4_).\n\nI think people's skepticism stems from their inability to understand the models and what they are predicting. All they see is a range of possibilities and they conclude that the models must be flawed, otherwise they would give out more precise predictions. The range given is due to the uncertainty in [how humans will respond to the climate change crisis](_URL_29_). For example, the IPCC models range from best-case-scenarios (e.g. RPC 2.6) where humans do everything in our power to mitigate CC to worst-case-scenarios where humans do nothing and pollute more (e.g. RPC 8.5). That’s why you end up with a range of 0.5-2-meter sea level rise or a range of 1-3c increase by 2100. Unfortunately, right now we are closer to the worst-case-scenario models than the best-case-scenario models.\n\nTo get you started I suggest the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They come out with reports every 10 years or so that synthesize the nearly all climate data and put it into one report. The last report came out in 2014. The 6th report will be out in 2021. The most recent mini-report is on [Global Warming of 1.5c](_URL_21_). There's [a fully footnoted version in the IPCC AR5 WG1](_URL_1_). In particular, [this chapter](_URL_3_) goes over the sources of warming. Each report is broken down into subsections:\n\n· [Synthesis Report 2014](_URL_27_report/ar5/syr/)\n\n· [Summary for Policymakers - written in layman's terms](_URL_9_)\n\n· [Mitigation of Climate Change Report 2014](_URL_6_)\n\n· [Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities Report 2014](_URL_0_)\n\n· [The Physical Science Report 2014](_URL_1_)\n\nI suggest starting with the **summary for policymakers**as it is written in layman's terms and probably the easiest starting point for someone who has no background in climate science. As for the degree of expected change & types of change we will see - well we also have some very good models on that too. Not only [do we have people](_URL_28_)observing and recording that change in real time we have many different instituitions monitoring change: [Arctic Sea Ice Blog](_URL_7_), [National Snow and Ice Data Centre](_URL_13_), and [Mauna Loa CO2.](_URL_31_)Here are some resources for expected changes:\n\n1. [America](_URL_5_)\n2. [Canada](_URL_23_)\n\nNext I will go over some of the predictions in a bit more detail...."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://xkcd.com/1732/",
"https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/issues/point-no-return-for-climate-action-is-2035.htm"
],
[
"https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf",
"https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm",
"https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/",
"https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php",
"https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/09/21/the-past-present-and-future-of-climate-change",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf",
"http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/",
"http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/",
"https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws",
"https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps#Effect_on_mass_extinctions_and_climate",
"https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-do-scientists-study-ancient-climates",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf",
"https://youtu.be/ldLBoErAhz4",
"https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/",
"https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/",
"https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/",
"https://climateatlas.ca/map/canada/dd15_2060_85#lat=55.37&lng=-109.62&z=5",
"https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/",
"https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-figures/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway",
"https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/",
"https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/"
]
] |
|
30lhlc | in the 90's and early 00's why did disney make so many crappy, straight to dvd sequels to very successful films like the lion kong rather than taking their time and making a good story that they would've easily profited from? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30lhlc/eli5_in_the_90s_and_early_00s_why_did_disney_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpti6le",
"cpti7m8",
"cptiu6s",
"cptjgyv",
"cptkj8j"
],
"score": [
17,
8,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are mistaken if you think they did not easily profit from their crappy direct to DVD sequels. ",
"You might have thought they were crappy movies, but they were movies Disney was able to make a hell of a lot of profit on for a fraction of the cost they'd have with a big budget cinema film.\n\n[This] (_URL_0_) article explains it pretty well. ",
"Those were part of some very questionable decisions that were made by Michael Eisner, who was CEO of Disney from 1984 until 2005. Essentially, those countless sequels were made because Disney wanted to profit off the burgeoning VHS and later DVD market. Many of those sequels sold like hot cakes, so basically one could almost say that Eisner sold Disney's soul for more money. Eventually, Roy O. Disney, nephew of Walt Disney, resigned from Disney after growing concerns that Disney had become a \"rapacious, soul-less company\" and he started a campaign called \"Save Disney\" that successfully led to the ousting of Michael Eisner as CEO and Robert Iger taking over. That's also the reason why there are no more endless Disney sequels after 2005 and it's also fairly safe to say that most films after 2005 were a marked improvement over the films of the early 2000s.",
"Something that should be noted is that these films were made by a different animation houses. There's Walt Disney Animation Studios, which has produced the \"good\" Disney movies(your Cinderellas, your Lion Kings) and then there's Disney Toon Studios which produces your crappy sequels. I believe that Disney Toon Studios was also formed from the studio that produced animated series for Disney, which leaves you with a team that is used to animating for speed and low costs rather than for quality and that isn't used to writing feature films. ",
" > rather than taking their time and making a good story that they would've easily profited from?\n\nIf it were that easy to just make up good stories and rake in the cash, everybody would be doing it.\n\nThe effort involved in crafting an original new story as opposed to churning out an easy sequel is massive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-08-04/features/0508040163_1_line-separating-big-screen-movies-dvd-originals-costly-film-prints"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1kpigk | sometimes when i'm dreaming and i do something physical like punch something or walk, my dream body gives out as if my brain realizes my body isn't actually moving. is this what is really happening, and if so, why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kpigk/eli5_sometimes_when_im_dreaming_and_i_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbrc279"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Two things going on.\n\nFirst, while most of the sensations of your body are suppressed while you dream, not all are. Often you have a dim awareness of your eye not being opened or your legs not moving.\n\nSecond, there are no physics in your dreamworld. IRL, when you punch something, you get a tactile response from the object. But in your dream, there is no response beyond what your brain makes up, and sometimes it doesn't do a very good job."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3qfshc | do the specialized drawers in a refridgerator really make a difference in how well your food is stored? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qfshc/eli5_do_the_specialized_drawers_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwer0f6"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Yes they do. The specialized drawers have a way of limiting the amount of air that hits certain foods (which is why that have that slider that says fruits or vegetables.) This makes a difference in how long your food lasts and overall how it tastes as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
eflsc4 | why doesn’t increasing the temperature while cooking proportionally decrease the time. | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eflsc4/eli5_why_doesnt_increasing_the_temperature_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"fc14k4p",
"fc14kw9",
"fc14rh7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Because of the principles of heat transfer that allow for only so much heat energy to be transferred by a material ie the food at a time. This means that while the surface will absorb mire heat the inside can only absorb so much so fast.",
"The heat needs time to penetrate the food. If you cook at 600 degrees for 10 minutes you'll get a burnt outside and an uncooked inside.",
"For the same reason that touching a pan that’s 100 degrees for 10 minutes won’t burn you but touching a pan that’s 1000 degrees for 1 minute will. Too much too fast, the heat doesn’t have time to dissipate and spread before it will have ruined what you’re cooking"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
975jxz | what exactly does it mean to "go down the wrong pipe?" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/975jxz/eli5_what_exactly_does_it_mean_to_go_down_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e45oofu",
"e45pct8",
"e45rzvi"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It literally goes down the wrong pipe. Food makes its way into your air pipe and your body convulses slightly to cough it up.",
"New sub..r/explainedlikeamechanic... Well what had happened was your fuel mixture went down your blow hose instead of the intake manifold.",
"if you want to experience this, just inhale the next time you're drinking water or laugh while eating rice. (it's painful...I wouldn't suggest this typically)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1r80pg | when you get a physical and the doctor has you turn your head and cough, what exactly are they feeling for and why? | I can't believe I've never found this out. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r80pg/eli5_when_you_get_a_physical_and_the_doctor_has/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdki0qm",
"cdki2k4",
"cdki4zd",
"cdkkmbo"
],
"score": [
3,
23,
13,
16
],
"text": [
"I believe it has to do with hernias. That may just be something I made up to deal with the doctors violating me though",
"They're checking for an inguinal hernia. There's essentially a weak spot below the abdomen called the inguinal canal that separates sections of the body. If you do have an inguinal hernia, the doctor will feel that something normally not in the scrotum has either moved inside or is causing the canal to bulge. ",
"hes feeling the base of ur scrotum where it meets your body. the scrotum isnt totally closed off to the body, at some point in yoour life your testicals came through a hole to drop into the scrotum. a common hernia is when some of you intestines comes through that hole and gets caught. he asks you to cough because it creates pressure there and if you are at risk for a hernia the doctor would feel the intestines coming near the hole when you cough.\n\nhe tells you to turn your head simply so you dont cough in his face :)",
"Also, They make you turn your head so that you don't cough on them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5epocg | is mouth to mouth kissing or "french kissing" a universal action for desire/lust across all human cultures? | Before you scoff, Inuit greetings are done by rubbing noses; handshakes were not the standard greeting across most of the world until the 19th century, and even nodding and head shaking can't be taken for yes and no in every culture.
The act of kissing is very personal and intimate and requires mutual trust - but has it always been universally known as a sign of desire, or is this a Hollywood construct?
Edit: thanks to Baktru for the referral to the [2015 Study ](_URL_0_) of 168 cultures into this specific question - and the answer is no. Romantic kissing is no where near a human universal behavior. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5epocg/eli5_is_mouth_to_mouth_kissing_or_french_kissing/ | {
"a_id": [
"dae9vyg",
"daeafh1",
"daebo9w",
"daeyqmg"
],
"score": [
14,
16,
18,
4
],
"text": [
"The Wikipedia article [Kiss](_URL_1_) is quite complete, and under [Biology and Evolution](_URL_0_) explains that a kissing-like behaviour occurs in many animals, and appears to be related to feeding behaviours between mother and child or between courting couples. ",
"Kissing is actually a way for the male to give the female antibodies she doesn't have that will protect a possible offspring should coitus occur.",
"French kissing is more of a western world thing that seems to be spreading to the the rest of the world. In east Africa, granted I haven't been back there in a decade, most people were repulsed by kissing. It just wasn't part of the norm. It wasn't even allowed on tv. Affection was showed through actions, verbal affirmation and kissing cheeks (oh yeah, we're big on cheeks). Holding hands and having arms around each other was very common. Two grown men walking down the street could hold hands to show their friendship without it implying anything else. Growing up, whoever my best friend was for the year, we always held hands or we always had our arms around each other wherever we went. There's no such thing as personal space. But two tongues touching? Oh nawwww *that* was unacceptable. ",
"It's not universal at all. It is very much a cultural thing and there are cultures where people do not kiss at all.\n\nAs it happens to be, Cracked actually had this in an an article just two days ago: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.12286/full"
] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss#Biology_and_evolution",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cracked.com/article_24461_5-insane-ways-your-culture-physically-shapes-your-perception.html"
]
] |
|
4etl3t | does exercise weaken knees? | I'm trying to convince my mom that a jump rope will strengthen my knees in the long run, but she is on the fence because my dad had to have a partial knee replacement. Which one of us is right in this situation? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4etl3t/eli5_does_exercise_weaken_knees/ | {
"a_id": [
"d237kth"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For a normal, healthy person ropeskipping would be a safe way to exercise. Just make sure you don't jump with fully stretched legs and let your muscles absorb the shocks instead of your joints. \n\nHowever if you had serious knee injuries before or there's a lot of weak knees in your family, you may first want to consult a doctor or fysiotherapist before exercising. If your mom is so worried and you feel like you need stronger knees, this may be the case. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4ul015 | when an artist is commissioned to make a song for a movie, how do the profits split up? | For example: The new Twenty One Pilots song Heathens for Suicide Squad. It's a song that was obviously made for the movie specifically, but now it's being played on the radio, and will most likely make it onto whatever album they release. How does the studio and the band split those profits? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ul015/eli5_when_an_artist_is_commissioned_to_make_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5qjhtj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Everything is negotiated between the producers of the movie and the rights holders of the song, so it can be anything. But usually is goes like this: \n\nProducers negotiate a price for the band to make them a song. The band will negotiate that it can be used indefinitely on \"Suicide Squad\" related work, BUT the song still belongs to the band and they can put it on their album. This is standard for any major or established band.\n\nThere is also something called work-for-hire where the band is commissioned to create a song for the film, and then the producers gain total ownership of the song. It is more expensive and they buy it outright. This is how it works with movie composers and sometimes bands, though bands will usually try to retain ownership so they can profit from albums, tours, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5qmkb2 | why movie theaters have the glass and microphone dividing customers and cashier. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qmkb2/eli5why_movie_theaters_have_the_glass_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd0gecc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The cashier is an easy target for a robbery since they have a lot of cash and nowhere to go. The glass and the microphone to communicate reduces the success rate of these kind of robberies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1r9cea | if you put water bottles under a frozen lake when the outside temperate is below freezing will the bottles not freeze because the water under a lake is still liquid | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r9cea/eli5if_you_put_water_bottles_under_a_frozen_lake/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdkx2oc",
"cdkxq6k"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"depending how big of a lake you speak of they may freeze. It is rare that deep lakes freeze all the way down as their is still a current running beneath the ice on the top.\n\nif you were to tie water bottles to stop them from floating away and tossed them under the ice they would probably freeze as the water around them is cold and the current will not affect the bottle water as it's in a bottle.",
"The reason lakes and oceans normally don't freeze all the way to the bottom is that water has a very special property: it's highest density is at 4 degrees Celsius (39.4 degrees F), while it freezes at 0 degrees C (32 degrees F). Hence, the temperature on the bottom of a lake is 4 degrees Celsius if it's cold outside (for deep lakes, it's usually 4 degrees at the bottom all year round). \n\nSo, if you we're to weigh your bottle down, or use a glass bottle, it wouldn't freeze since the water surrounding the bottle would be above freezing temperature. If, however, the bottle were to float up against the ice, it would most likely freeze into the ice as the ice gets thicker. And then the water in the bottle would also freeze. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
18oo0s | what does it mean to flood or stall an engine? | and What kind of engines does this affect? New? Old? Just cars or other types of engines? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18oo0s/what_does_it_mean_to_flood_or_stall_an_engine/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8gluf2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"To stall an engine means to accidentally stop it running, by asking it to do more than it's capable off. The easiest way to stall an engine, with a manual gearbox, is to lift off the clutch too quickly. It's possible to stall an engine with an automatic gearbox too, but much harder.\n\nTo flood an engine means to put so much fuel into the engine that it can't run. Since modern engines control their fuel flow using a computer, it's very unusual for a modern engine to be flooded. However, the engines on my aircraft at work are much older, and it's not top uncommon for student pilots to flood the engines when trying to start them. Older car engines can also be flooded - less likely than aeroplane engines until you start talking about *very* old cars, because car engines, even older ones, don't need \"priming\" - pumping fuel in before turning the starter - the way aeroplane engines do. But you can flood an older car engine by pulling the choke out too far."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
r70lw | when conducting a study, how do you avoid 'correlation does not mean causation'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r70lw/eli5_when_conducting_a_study_how_do_you_avoid/ | {
"a_id": [
"c43evpu",
"c43gsju",
"c43lu2v"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You very rarely do. Most studies do not assert a direct causation, but rather a strong correlation. In simple cases you can imply causation. To do so, one must define a VERY clear link from A to B, and one must also define a very clear link from ~B to ~A. \n\nFor example, let's try to say that \"Running out of gas causes your car to stop.\" Then, through sample testing we'd get a very high (Read: 100% in this case) correlation from your car running out of gas, to your car stopping. That is enough to prove a correlation. How to prove causation? By proving the contrapositive. Prove through sampling that if a gar is NOT stopped, then it is NOT out of gas (Which you can, again, see with 100% certainty. In a simple case, by doing this, you would prove a causation.\n\nIn complicated cases with dozens or even hundreds of variables (For example, the effect that a government mandated health care system would have on the economy) there is absolutely no way to prove a causation, only a high correlation. ",
"The key is to show that the \"effect\" must be preceded by the prescribed \"cause\". So in your testing you try to demonstrate that the \"effect\" does not occur as a result of other likely causes or no cause at all. When being peer reviewed, the reviewers, who are usually expert in the field, may propose alternative possible causes, and the original investigator(s) will have to address those possibilities.\n\nIn science one never \"proves\" anything unless you are showing something to be false. The positive case for a cause- > effect argument is made by the asserting the hypothesis and supporting it with tests that seem the most likely to show it false, but which fail to do so.\n",
"I hate this phrase.\n\nCorrelation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causation. Which means correlation very often does imply causation. You just need addition evidence.\n\nEvidence that A causes B includes:\n\n* Correlation - B happens when A happens\n* Negated correlation - B does not happen when A does not happen\n* Isolation - possible casual agents C, D, and E have been eliminated\n* Chronology - A happens before B happens\n* Mechanism - A does this one thing to cause B\n\nRemember, philosophers still debate whether there even is such a thing as causality. The best scientists can do is show high and isolated correlation with a well understood mechanism."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2q4jpr | how does league of legends differ from dota2 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q4jpr/eli5_how_does_league_of_legends_differ_from_dota2/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn2sthu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"How does Call of Duty differ from Battlefield? How does Binding of Isaac differ from Faster than Light? Same genre but different features.\n\nDifferent champions, different map layout, different abilities, different graphics styles etc etc.\n\nWatch a game of each and you will probably spot quite a few differences and similarities. I prefer league, but probably because that's the game I started with.\n\nIt's the same with Smite, Dawnguard and may more MOBA's."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6azs7o | why do tires have whiskers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6azs7o/eli5_why_do_tires_have_whiskers/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhin73n",
"dhin9gh"
],
"score": [
29,
165
],
"text": [
"Do you mean the little bits sticking out on new tires? They are called risers and help the rubber fill the mold fully in the manufacturing process. ",
"Just looked it up. They're called 'vent spews.' When they fill the mold the tire is made in, they want to ensure there are no air bubbles or pockets in the tire, so they have small holes in the mold to allow the air to escape and some of the rubber gets spewed out of those holes, causing the little hairs/whiskers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
14sb8v | how audio was recorded on the first celluloid strips in 1927's *the jazz singer* | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14sb8v/eli5_how_audio_was_recorded_on_the_first/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7fyrr8",
"c7g9j81"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"\"The Jazz Singer\" was the first motion picture with sound, but the sound wasn't recorded on the film. It used the [Vitaphone](_URL_0_) process, which had the sound on a 33 1/3 record. The projector motor also drove the record player so that the sound stayed in synch with the film.",
"There were three competing sound systems in the early days of \"talkies.\"\n\nAs previously mentioned, there was Warner Bros. \"Vitaphone,\" where phonograph records accompanied the film print. There was one record for each reel of film (a reel of film lasted about 20 minutes, thus several \"changeovers\" would occur, alternating from one projector to the other, during a show). The record would be placed on a turntable geared to the same motor that powered the projector. [Here is a projector equipped with such a turntable.](_URL_2_)\n\nThe other two formats were Variable Density and Variable Area. [Here's a picture, with VD on the left and VA on the right.](_URL_0_) Both used a light shining through the soundtrack area onto a photocell, the photocell would convert the varying light into an electrical signal, which was then amplified and sent to the speaker.\n\nVariable Area eventually won the format war. I think this is because it had better frequency response than Variable Density. The stereo version of VA (SVA) is still used on film prints today, in addition to several digital soundtracks. The cool thing is all four sound formats can co-exist on the same film print, [such as in this picture here.](_URL_1_) The two squiggly lines are the SVA soundtrack (typically using the Dolby SR process), the blocks of pixels between sprocket holes is the Dolby Digital soundtrack, the \"morse code\" dots-and-dashes is the time code for the DTS digital soundtrack (this soundtrack comes on CD-ROM disks, and is far more reliable than Vitaphone ever was), and the blocks of pixels on the edges of the film is the SDDS digital soundtrack.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitaphone"
],
[
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dDpIdhKJGfA/SkT0xc1WZII/AAAAAAAAAHo/aBTjNJZQB8Q/s1600-h/Optical+Soundtrack.jpg",
"http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/image-files/soundtrack-on-film-small.gif",
"http://jaxonfilmfest.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/vitaphone2.jpg"
]
] |
||
11edd0 | why do energy drinks come in metal cans instead of plastic bottles? | I was buying some soda and noticed that the Mountain Dew was available in both plastic bottles and in tall metal cans. It made me wonder: why are all the energy drinks sold in metal cans instead of plastic bottles like soda? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11edd0/eli5_why_do_energy_drinks_come_in_metal_cans/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6lpw64",
"c6lrkap",
"c6ls37q",
"c6ltyac"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"I have only seen [NOS](_URL_0_) sold in plastic bottles. ",
"In my country they're sold in glass or plastic bottles almost as much as cans.",
"Ever seen a Rockstar or Monster in a clear container? they look really nasty. i always thought that's why they're in cans.",
"to convince you to pay $3.99 for $0.05 worth of sugar water and caffeine. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOS_%28drink%29"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1j6yjd | how do companies like car fax get its data on used cars? | Do Dealers, mechanic shops, etc. just hand over the data? Does CF pay for said data? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j6yjd/how_do_companies_like_car_fax_get_its_data_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbbsj03",
"cbbtiqq",
"cbbtx83",
"cbbudz6",
"cbbuj01",
"cbbunas",
"cbbv6v1",
"cbbv86n",
"cbbw05m"
],
"score": [
38,
8,
4,
2,
43,
6,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"TIL Carfax is kind of a dick. ",
"They buy them for $10 a piece from local police municipalities. I set up the nightly sync for a local police station",
"They only get the info when someone fixing the car reports it to them...so don't trust it because that doesn't happen 100% of the time",
"Supposedly, there's some readily available database about used car history that car dealerships and carfax alike have access to. I've been told that carfax is all about branding, the information they have is the same that the dealership could provide to you, but they train people to walk into a dealership and say \"SHOW ME THE CARFAX!\". Carfax apparently charges the dealership for this service, so dealerships understandably don't really enjoy the whole thing.\n\nThat's just what I heard, though.",
"TL;DR for /u/TotalEklypz's article: CARFAX buys info from insurance companies and other sources. Some insurance companies have a non-disclosure agreement, where they will not disclose information about your car and its accidents and other insurance companies are willing to sell that information to make money.",
"VinAudit. I found that they provide more or less the same report information for a fraction of what Carfax charges. I don't know why Carfax is still so widely used. You're essentially paying for all of the useless advertising that they do.",
"Also car faxes can be post dated... \nI thought I got a killer deal on a car. Car looked great, had a clean car fax at the point of purchase, and also had a cpo warranty. \n\n6 months later I had a dealer appraise my car. He pulls a car fax.... And it shows a accident from two years before I purchased the car, with a asterisk next to it stating it started reporting this information the week prior (to the appraisal). \n\nI called carfax.... And they pointed at some BS fine print... And told me I'm SOL. ",
"In the UK, there is a service called HPI which lets you look up information on your car from the licence plate number.\nHPI get's all of it's data from the Government, police and all of the insurers as they run assorted Government registers and schemes for tracking cars including mileage register. It also runs the Insurance fraud and Theft register so they get all the insurance info instead of America where it seems only partial.\nIt's also really quite complete since all cars need to go in for an MOT every year for a government-standard check if they are on the road.",
"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Car Fox."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
11x47f | if the server reddit is on is down, then how can their still be a "reddit is down" page? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11x47f/eli5_if_the_server_reddit_is_on_is_down_then_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6qd49w",
"c6qgfop",
"c6qhwdn",
"c6qli70"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Websites aren't simple like they used to be. Now they are clusters of severs that generate HTML on the fly and send it to you. \n\nIn this case, you connected to a front end server that made a request to the back end servers. They were down so you got the default message. If they were up, you would get a full site. The front nd servers can be all over the place with multiple backups. The back end servers could too but it is much harder to build, so I assume reddit has a single cluster that all these front end servers talk to. ",
"Imagine your house. Normally, every day you have people over for a party. Then one day, your toilet over flows. You kick everyone out and you close your door with a note \"house is closed. Toilet overflow.\"",
"Lets say that reddit is a shop (website) where you can buy a picture (reddit page). So you go up to the assisants(static server/load balancer) and ask for a picture. The assistant says you can have a picture and gives your instruction to an artist (back end/dynamic server)(there are many of these). The artist draws a picture and the assistant hands it back to you. You get your picture and all is good.\n\nBut lets say that all the artists get sick and can't come in to work. The assistant can't draw a picture, but they can tell you that the shop is closed.\n\nThat's why you can see a \"Reddit is down\" page but not an actual reddit page when reddit is down.",
"A large web site typically consists of multiple layers of servers, or *tiers*.\n\nThe top tier typically just handles the web portion...taking to the outside world, figuring out what they want, and passing the request on to the next tier, which actually builds the web page.\n\nThe web tier is pretty fool proof, so it is going to almost always be up. But when one of the other tiers can't do its job, the web tier is smart enough to say at least give a downtime page."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a8y9lp | why do squirty ketchup bottles get explosive diarrhea when they're nearly empty? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8y9lp/eli5_why_do_squirty_ketchup_bottles_get_explosive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecewe4u",
"ecexur8",
"ecexve0",
"eceylg6"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the air in the bottle has nothing (ketchup) to slow it down so it pushes out faster than if it were a full bottle, and takes small little remnants of the rest of the ketchup with it. ",
"Oi mate you push out stuff from squeezing no matter what is in the bottle\n\nIf you squeeze out 12% you're getting 12%, even if the bottle is 99% air and 1% ketchup\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf the ketchup was perfectly symmetrical and perfectly at the bottom, you'd get only ketchup! but it's not, so lots of air gets through. ",
"Because they're not almost empty. They're almost full of air instead of ketchup. You know when you have gas? The sound it makes? Yeah.",
"Squeeze the ketchup bottle when it is upright. See how easy that is? Now squeeze it when it is upside down. See how much harder it is? When the bottle is nearly empty, you are alternating between squeezing out ketchup and air bubbles. If you are squeezing hard enough to drop a giant ketchup deuce but lose the ketchup seal over the opening, it will squirt a blast of air at a much higher velocity. The bits of ketchup around the opening get sucked into this high velocity ketchup fart. The wide field of spray is because the air spreads out as soon as it leaves the nozzle taking the ketchup shart with it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1jhugs | what was the warsaw uprising | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jhugs/eli5_what_was_the_warsaw_uprising/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbesov3",
"cbesr5a",
"cbet5c7",
"cbf1nwk"
],
"score": [
21,
23,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The Warsaw Uprising was a bloody battle in World War II, between Nazi forces and Polish resistance. The Polish resistance, fighting to expel the Nazis from Warsaw and establish their own sovereignty, took up arms and attempted to fight.\n\nThe uprising was supposed to be timed for the advance of the Red Army to the east. As they approached the border though, the Red Army stopped short, leaving the resistance to defend themselves without little help. While Winston Churchill lobbied for support of the Resistance, there was no help from the Soviets, and there was little help beyond some supply drops from Americans. Many believe that Stalin purposefully left the resistance to be stranded and crushed so that his own puppet regime could take power in Poland.\n\nWithin a little while, Most of Warsaw was destroyed, with some estimates saying that up to 85% of the city was destroyed by a combo of the earlier war damage and by Nazi forces systematically going block by block, leveling everything. Hundreds of thousands of Polish were executed, and almost 20,000 Resistance members died.",
"Warsaw was under Nazi rule. People didn't like that, especially the Jews living in the ghetto. People were purposely starved, killed in the streets. The Polish Underground State was formed - a resistance paramilitary which was made of several groups that wanted to liberate Poland (and save Jews). \n\nSome folks with radios learned that the Red Army was coming. And the Reds hate the Nazis. And the Polish Resistance thought \"Hey! If we fight the Nazis from within - and the Reds help out - we'll totally fuck the Nazi shit up!\" \n\nThe Resistance started fighting - but the Red Army never came to help them. Those dudes camped outside the city. The Poles fought the Nazis for two months, much of the city was in ashes, and Churchill was all like \"HEY STALIN, COME HELP OUR POLISH ALLIES!\" and Stalin was kinda like, \"I don't want to risk my dudes quite yet..\"\n\nThat's the Warsaw Uprising. ",
"Thanks for the answers guys they were very insightful.",
"if you're interested, this book is one of the definitive source on the Warsaw Uprising, and a fantastic (if sometimes ponderous) read:\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Rising-44-The-Battle-Warsaw/dp/0143035401"
]
] |
||
2irnip | if html 5 is smaller, faster, and more effecient, why don't gif dependent sites such as imgur and tumblr use it already? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2irnip/eli5_if_html_5_is_smaller_faster_and_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl4suw8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's still fairly new. It's not supported on all devices, not everyone likes or uses them. And the process to make them is very different, so it's not like you can go \"Alright, gifmakers, just hit the Html5 button at the end now.\" "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1le6hi | what is autism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1le6hi/eli5_what_is_autism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbybo98",
"cbyd25r",
"cbyqwky"
],
"score": [
27,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"**Autism is a developmental disorder that appears in the first 3 years of life, and affects the brain's normal development of social and communication skills.**\n\n[If you want to know more](_URL_0_)\n",
"(neurology) Developmental disorder that directly effects a person's social, communication and motor function/skills. The spectrum of ASD and it's effect on each individual is too complicated to explain here, know that there are different 'kinds' of autism, and the categories have different symptoms. Classic autism for example is very different to Aspergers syndrome. There has been what's classified as \"higher functioning and lower functioning\" (though in the autism community we are trying to shun these obsolete and offensive terms.\n\nIf you are very curious I would suggest speaking to someone from or going to ASAN's website (Autistic Self Advocacy Network) and avoid 'autism speaks'\n\n~ Worked with autism and challenging behaviour for years, partner aspergic, brother classic, years of interest - life's work to help people with sensory needs, AMA I don't mind PMs etc.",
"It's a catch-all diagnosis for many different disorders.\n\nUnfortunately it has become the new ADHD with parents pushing doctors to diagnose their kid as autistic when the kid is just antisocial or a spoiled brat. On the other end of the spectrum you have people with a disorder that doesn't fit perfectly within another diagnosis, but the patients have a couple of similar symptoms so they're lumped together."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002494/#adam_001526.disease.symptoms"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
a0dy29 | why do you lose feeling in a body part when you cut blood flow if the nervous system is what is responsible for feeling? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0dy29/eli5_why_do_you_lose_feeling_in_a_body_part_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"eagy6oc",
"eah2hk7",
"eah3kou"
],
"score": [
4,
17,
3
],
"text": [
"The nervous system requires oxygen and blood flow like the rest of your cells. If you cut the supply off, they begin to malfunction just like any other cell.",
"You're most likely mixing up compressing a nerve with cutting off blood flow. The latter is rare and seriously harmful, and it takes quite a while before feeling is lost.",
"MD here. Cells need an amount of blood just to stay alive and a bigger one to work properly. Its a deliberate throttle down on cellular functions to prioritize others.\n\nThe membrane of nerves require a very fine adjustment of ions to stay the correct voltage, then it releases the adjustment on purpose for a very short time to make an electrical pulse. This ions adjustment is VERY energy consuming and the cell cannot do it properly without energy.\n\nFor that reason all kinds of weirdness can happen, like seisures and parestesia. Google parestesia because I don't know how to explain it in English."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3o6x41 | why do my legs hurt when standing, but feel fine when running? | I'll clarify by saying this only occurs at my Ultimate Frisbee practices when we are running around a lot. For some reason after running for a while, the only way to stop my legs from aching is by running some more. It doesn't make sense to me.
Also, any idea how I can prevent this leg pain in the future? (I try stretching, but it doesn't do much) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o6x41/eli5_why_do_my_legs_hurt_when_standing_but_feel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvukzwc",
"cvun9mg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is probably caused by two things: \nWhen you exercise, your muscles actually make acid as a byproduct of the muscles burning glucose and carbs so quickly. Usually, this stuff can be easy for your blood to wash away, but if your body is building it up faster than it can manage — like when you're exercising — it can cause sore muscles. \nThe other effect may be a numbing effect caused by adrenaline. I don't think that this is what's affecting your particular case, though. \n \nWhen you're finished running, instead of stopping, try walking until your heart rate comes down to a more natural level. It should help give your body enough time to wash away the acid buildup. ",
"A simple answer is that when you are standing without moving, the muscles that keep you standing still (balanced) are partially contracted. These are, by the way, not just in your legs but in your back as well. Keeping muscles contracted takes up energy and you cannot do it forever so eventually the muscle fibers are damaged just like when lifting weights, but at a different rate, and this leads to pain.\n\nWhen you are running, it is true that you are contracting your muscles much more but you are doing it in periodic sets of contraction and relaxation so the stress on the muscle fibers is much smaller than a continuous contraction over long periods of time. \n\nHaving said that, intense running can leave you just as sore as standing up for a long period of time, and the pain in both cases is directly related to the \"damage\" on your muscle fibers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
18ooyn | what causes us to feel a vibration from our pocket as though our phone has received a call or text when it actually didn't (aka, phantom vibrations)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18ooyn/eli5_what_causes_us_to_feel_a_vibration_from_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8gmgjn",
"c8gmthe",
"c8gnc2m",
"c8gnf5t",
"c8gnm8r",
"c8gnuur",
"c8gnzxg",
"c8go1ev",
"c8go5k5",
"c8go6oo",
"c8go7kf",
"c8good8",
"c8gpb08",
"c8gq1ra",
"c8gzy8q",
"c8h2bu9",
"c8h4t3d",
"c8h4xur",
"c8h65qn"
],
"score": [
99,
1559,
5,
2,
5,
4,
2,
14,
19,
4,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Personally, I have made the following observations:\n\n1. Wearing pants that have some friction - Usually, when I wear loose pants, but those which have a grip on my body, I feel my phone vibrating when I walk. This also happens with me when I am wearing a denim. This must be happening when pants which are 'just' loose get tighter in the area where my phone is located, so movements may make the pants have a grip on the phone causing a vibratory movement everytime you move\n\n2. Pants brushing the top of my footwear - This happened with me yesterday. I was wearing a denim and a pair of slippers. Whenever I moved, the denim touching the edge of my slippers also moved causing it to brush the edge of my footwear. I felt a vibration all the way upto my pockets where my phone was - perhaps because that area of my denim was tighter than other locations except the waist.\n\n3. Psychological - If you are too used to texting/checking your phone, chances are your mind maybe playing tricks with you. Now, couple this factor with a tiny hint of what I described in points 1 and 2, and you'll have those things amplified by your brain. Although, this rarely happens with me.\n\n**TL;DR: Tight clothing causes vibratory feelings on your phone or your brain plays tricks on you if you are a serial texter.**",
"Before mobiles you got those vibrations too (as hey-dog suggests because of clothes or whatever). But they never meant anything so you never noticed them: your brain knew they were meaning less. \n(this is similar to 'not noticing' the sensation of your shoes or clothes after a while because the sensation is meaningless: there's no need to react to it). \n\nBut along come vibrating phones. Now that vibration might be something you *want* to react to. So you notice it now. \n\nEDIT: Thx all who upvoted me! Please also feel free to read (and upvote) these awesome comments: \n_URL_1_ (the phenomenon is called 'Habituation') \nand \n_URL_0_ (more detailed explanation)\n",
"I always thought it was leg fat getting fatter. ",
"The scientific name for phantom cell phone ring vibration is “lexdosia.”",
"In certain pairs of trousers, I feel the (real) vibration alert in the opposite pocket to where my phone is. The phantom phenomenon also often happens in my opposite pocket. I can't think why this would ever be, structurally speaking.",
"Interesting side note: I keep my phone in a pocket in my work jacket. I get the phantom vibrations there and not in my pants. I doubt it's muscles fooling you I think it's mental. ",
"Jeans sliding across underwear ( I wear boxer-briefs) when I turn does it for me.",
"i've noticed that sometimes it's really fast muscle twitches. As a kid, i used to think it's chunks of thick blood being pushed through my arteries comic style. \nMaybe nowadays, as people have been training themselves to look out for vibrations because of cellphones, this alerts our brains that yay there's someone who wants to communicate with me when in reality it's just a spasm or the He-Man app that tells you how much of a pussy you are for not saving eternia all the time.",
"Is it weird that sometimes I think my phone vibrates and then seconds later it actually does with a legit message?",
"Maybe your phone was excited about being so close to your private bits. ",
"[Scott Adams referenced this in Dilbert in 1996.](_URL_0_) It's been happening to people for a long time.",
"If you are actually talking about the \"Phantom Ring\" its not just vibration, it happens with ringing as well, not just vibration. It also isn't new, its common with any repeating sound that needs to be paid attention to. like doorbells, ringing on older phones... etc\n\nhere is a Wiki article about it, _URL_0_ ",
"This might be tangential, even completely unrelated, but does anyone else notice the sound your phone makes seemingly at random, with no obvious trigger or pop-up? (Specifically, modern Android phones). It took me ages to figure out that it was when the phone passed within about two centimetres of my wallet that it made the 'bloop' sound. It's the NFC inside the phone picking up your credit cards or whatnot.\n\nJust thought I'd let people know, in case someone else has this and can't figure it out.",
"I'd hate to see you assholes actually explain something to a five year old. ",
"But DAE gets this feeling, check their phone, nothing, put the phone back in their pocket, THEN the phone ring ? ",
"The feeling of the hair follicles all over your body rubbing against anything you come close to touching.",
"You can search for phantom vibrations. This explanation is far from anything I've found. My leg only vibrates from the pocket I keep my phone on. Usually when I'm sitting still, or driving. The first time I heard of this was on the radio, and they said it was caused by stress. Also, having random vibrations is also from fibromyalgia. \r\r_URL_0_\r\r_URL_2_\r\r_URL_1_\r",
"I don't want to live in this body no more",
"You try to not feel your heart beating and you swear you've skipped a beat or three and now your panicking thinking you'll have a heart attack and you start furiously pounding your chest with your fists in what feels like a futile attempt to get your heart beating to the point when you can feel your pulse again, oh and add a little bit shortness of breath in there too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18ooyn/eli5_what_causes_us_to_feel_a_vibration_from_our/c8gmgjn",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18ooyn/eli5_what_causes_us_to_feel_a_vibration_from_our/c8gp5j8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-09-16/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_vibration_syndrome"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Vibration_Syndrome",
"http://www.fastcompany.com/1770237/are-you-victim-phantom-vibration-syndrome",
"http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-12-cellphones_N.htm"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
5vqrnl | how can i see the moon in day time while also countries in night time around the globe see it too? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vqrnl/eli5_how_can_i_see_the_moon_in_day_time_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"de41jfw",
"de46jzg"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"half of the world can see the moon at any point in time. \n\nand half of the world can see the sun.\n\n\nOf course those 2 halves can overlap some, all (solar eclipse), or none (lunar eclipse).\n\nso at 10PM EST/6PMPST, if the moon is somewhere over north america, both coasts can see the moon, but only the west coast will still be able to see the sun.",
"Great visualization with the added note that everyone sees the same amount of moon as lit up, i.e. 1/4, 1/2, 3/4.\nThe farthest you can be from another person is ~ 8,000 miles while the moon is 250,000 miles away so not much change in angle. The sun is 92,000,000 miles away. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1k879j | how/why clouds drop water to rise above mountains | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k879j/eli5_howwhy_clouds_drop_water_to_rise_above/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbmc62n"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Clouds don't drop water in order to \"rise\" or go higher in the sky. The wind is pushing the clouds and all the air beneath them toward the mountain. When it reaches the mountain, there is no where for the air to go except up, so the whole column of air goes up. \n\nThe reason it rains when this happens is due to the temperature of the air. The further away from the surface you go, the colder it gets. Also, warmer air can hold more water vapor than cold air. So moist warm air rises, cools off, and the cold air cannot hold the water vapor anymore causing rain drops to fall."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ekti5b | how does our brain trick us to experience -and know how they feel- some feelings/actions although having not experienced them in real life? | Such as sexual stuff, or falling huge distances etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ekti5b/eli5_how_does_our_brain_trick_us_to_experience/ | {
"a_id": [
"fddivxs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Simply put, certain feelings whether we have experienced them before or not are the result of our brain releasing chemicals into our bodies. There is no trick to it. The chemicals are released due to fright (oh shit, I'm falling!!) and the way we feel when those chemicals are released result in the emotions and feelings you feel during and after."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4a9g4l | how do cpus wok? | So I have a basic understanding:
-A CPU is made out of pure silicon (for now)
-Programs are run through a converter that converts them to binary (1 representing on and 0 representing off for the transistors)
-A CPU core is made out of an FPU, ALU and a CU (please tell me more if I'm wrong)
-L3 cache receives instructions from the RAM(most of the time??) and then the CU decides what core executes the instruction(s). The instruction is passed on from the shared L3 cache to the L2 cache and each core gets dedicated L2 cache
-There are two types of L1 cache. L1 D and L1 instruction
-The core has a "buffer" of maybe 6-8 instructions and this buffer locks once it is full and does not unlock until all instructions in that row have been completed.
BUT! I still don't properly understand how SMT works (I know at a basic level it utilities resources better by giving a free core work to do while one core is being stalled with another instruction.
What is a deep pipeline? Why are people wary of them?
What exactly is branch prediction?
What IS a branch?
How does CMT work and why was it not effective in AMD's processors?
Hopefully you can help... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a9g4l/eli5_how_do_cpus_wok/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ygej3",
"d0yhqu1"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Some of the questions you're asking, to fully explain, you need a strong background in digital design, electrical engineering or computer engineering. \n\nPerhaps r/askengineers or r/askscience might be your better bet. ",
"SMT: As you mentioned, there are several parts of a CPU core, like the FPU, ALU, instruction decoder, some interface to the RAM, some interface to a graphics card, some interface to hard drives, and so on.\n\nTypically any given instruction will only be using a small number of these components (often just one), which means that the others are going idle. SMT (simultaneous multithreading) allows two processes (which are a high level concept enforced by the operating system, although the processor is designed with them in mind) to both be executing on the same CPU so long as they aren't trying to use the same part of the CPU at the same time.\n\nThe analogy I'm fond of here is of cooks in a kitchen: if you have a kitchen (core) with a number of different appliances (akin to FPU, instruction decoder, etc) then one chef (thread) can't use everything at once. Putting a second chef in the kitchen means that you need to work out some way for the chefs not to interfere with each other, but it means that one can be chopping vegetables while another is sauteing things on the stove. Note that for some tasks (say, cake baking) the chef was already spending the vast majority of their time with one appliance (the oven), so putting a second chef doesn't speed things up. You see this when you look at a task that uses, for example, all floating point math. A processor with SMT will not perform much (if any) better than one without SMT.\n\nIf you were aware of that specific kind of task when designing your processor then you could put double of that part of the processor in each core. This would be like a cake baking specialized kitchen that has two ovens, where each chef gets exclusive control over their oven. This is how AMD designed their SMT processors—they have, for example, four FPUs with 8 integer ALUs, then they define a \"core\" to be an integer ALU so they market that processor as an 8-core chip. Indeed, with all integer math they perform like you'd expect from an 8-core chip, but in other tasks they're much more like a 4-core chip with SMT.\n\n******\n\nDeep Pipeline: Let's say I give you instructions on how to make a PB & J sandwich. If you're like a normal human being then you take the first step, carry it out, then when you're finished you start the second step, and so on.\n\nHowever, computers are not normal humans^([citation needed]). A computer can start step two before it finishes step one. This is especially useful when the individual steps don't rely on one another and when each step takes a long time to execute. In this way you can increase the number of instructions you carry out per clock, even when these individual instructions are complex and take a long time from start to finish.\n\nMaking this pipeline \"deep\" means that you make the individual instructions longer and more complex and you have more instructions being processed at the same time. The obvious problem with this is that sometimes you need to know the answer from step 1 before you can start step 2. That leads to....\n\n*****\n\nBranch prediction! In a program you often have to decide what bit of code to execute based on some condition. You may have a loop that runs 100 times, incrementing a counter each time, then continues on with the next line of code after that. When you get to the end of one iteration of the loop you have to ask \"what comes next?\" 99 times it'll be \"go back to the start of the loop and do it again,\" but the 100th time it'll be \"go onto the next line of code.\"\n\nIf you have a processor that's trying to get several things done at once then it will want to start on the next line of code when it gets to the end of one iteration of the loop, but it has a problem: which line of code is actually next? There are some options here: the first and simplest one is to just wait. Let everything in the pipeline finish and then check the condition. This is obviously the slowest answer. The next option would be to start executing *both* sides of the branch, which is more efficient in terms of time but less efficient in terms of how much computation gets done. The preferred solution is to make an educated guess of which side of the branch is going to occur and to charge forward with that side. Of course, if you guess wrong then you have to go back and undo whatever you've done, so that's an expensive mistake, but if you get it right then you've just saved some time.\n\nThis brings up the question of how to choose which side of the branch to follow. In our example after a few runs through the loop it should be pretty clear that you go back to the start of the loop most of the time. Just by looking at this trend you could make the decision to default to jumping back to the start of the loop and you'd have 99% accuracy with which branch to take. Chips with branch prediction use much more sophisticated means to choose a branch, but this presents the general idea.\n\n*******\n\nFinally, CMT. Unfortunately this isn't a technology I'm overly familiar with, so I'll have to defer to others on this one. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bspgq1 | does death from carbon monoxide intoxification hurt and why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bspgq1/eli5_does_death_from_carbon_monoxide/ | {
"a_id": [
"eooz5p1",
"eoozn02",
"eop5ilb",
"eoqcaud",
"f2h6o7x"
],
"score": [
6,
8,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"You go to sleep and don't wake up. The body doesn't react to the buildup like it does with CO2. Same with inert gases. The body doesn't realize it is suffocating and you just drift off.",
"I had carbon monoxide poisoning. Some of the first symptoms were a splitting headache and extreme nausea",
"Thank you all for the clarification! And yes, it was just an innocent question. I was just curious about this ever since i learnt about this from biology lessons. :)",
"Are you suicidal? Are you trying to think of a painless way to die? \n\nBecause if you can confidently say no you are just curious then fine, this is an interesting scientific question, but it's also the kind of question a person might ask if they were suicidal or were considering painless ways to die.\n\nI can't do anything and you owe me nothing, but if you *are* suicidal I hope this comment makes you pause and seek some help. Otherwise, cheers.",
"I was at the bathroom I finish washing myself \nWhen I get outside i couldn't stand up I can't move my legs and also my eas I was hearing piiiiiiip it scared sound and my heart I can feel it slowly and I lost my vision it like 10 minute I was a kid 12 years I remember everything it didn't scared me"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fbwp44 | why are london forces weaker than permanent dipole forces? | As far as I understand, in London forces, all molecules are aligned favourably so it makes sense that they should be stronger than Permanent dipole forces as the random movement of molecules will not always produce a favourable interaction. However, every source I’ve checked online says that London forces are the weakest Van set Wall force. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fbwp44/eli5_why_are_london_forces_weaker_than_permanent/ | {
"a_id": [
"fj6wpy4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"LDF's are incredibly slight and temporary alignments of electron motions.You can imagine them like super tiny dipoles forming by chance and causing the slightest attractions. Permanent dipoles are dipoles which are way wider and with more charge."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
f2le97 | why did the us dollar inflate by so much in the past 30-80 years? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f2le97/eli5_why_did_the_us_dollar_inflate_by_so_much_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhdb0mq",
"fhdb6ac"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As wages and prices have gone up around the world the buying power of the dollar, and every other currency, has gone down. \n\nIt's nothing to worry about, there is nothing you can do to influence it. And it's been that way for the almost 250 years the U.S. has existed, and for other currencies many centuries before.",
"Small inflation is seen as generally good, as it requires people do something with money rather than just keep it in a shoe or something. Extreme inflation is bad, but if there was none it would end all low level investment as pointless and nothing would invest in anything but giant swingy bets or nothing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
94x1p3 | how do chance and probability correlate / work exactly? | My friend and I were recently talking about this and I am in need of an explanation.
If you have an event that has a fixed 1% chance of giving you something/an item and you run it repeatedly the chance isn‘t affected but the probability increases right? If you were to run this 1% chance a thousand times, how likely would this event be? Is there a possibility that you will never get it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/94x1p3/eli5_how_do_chance_and_probability_correlate_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3opk6y"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Assuming that all of your trials are independent then the 1% chance stays 1% each time you re-do the event.\n\nThe probability that you succeed on at least one of the 1000 trials is 1 - (0.99^1000 ) = 0.999957 so there is a very, very small possibility that you do not suceed. In fact, because the term 0.99^X can never equal 0 then the probability that you succeed never equals exactly 1 and therefore you can never be certain of success.\n\nIn general, if you run more trials, the chance that you'll get at least one success increases with the number of trials. The key wording is \"at least one\" here. Nothing about the number of trials changes the fact that each trial has exactly the same probability of success as the previous one.\n\nOf course, if the trials are dependent upon each other then everything gets a bit more complicated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
25oe44 | how can i cycle up the same hill everyday for 2 years and still be out of breath at the top? | I cycle to and from work everyday and am faced with a pretty steep hill on the way home. I thought that eventually one day I could reach the top without being a sweaty mess and short on breath. Its only 60 seconds to the top, if even that.
I'm young, active and healthy. Why hasn't my body got used to doing this everyday activity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25oe44/eli5_how_can_i_cycle_up_the_same_hill_everyday/ | {
"a_id": [
"chj5k4i",
"chj7fst",
"chjb2fo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I ask a similar question before, so [here is the reply](_URL_0_) that best explained the phenomenon. This might be what's going on with you as well.",
"It takes *a lot* of energy to develop muscles and become stronger, so if your body can help it, it won't. Assuming that climbing that hill is the most exerting activity you do on a regular basis, your body has become just fit enough to conquer it reasonably efficiently. If you want to make that hill easy, you have to regularly exert yourself on an even harder hill. ",
"Your body has limits. There will *always* be things you cannot do without getting tired."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vixxo/eli5_why_do_i_sometimes_run_out_of_breath_and_get/cespbkx"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
wulwd | guitar, why are the harmonics on the lower frets higher sounding? | dont understand, any help would be appreciated thanks
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wulwd/eli5_guitar_why_are_the_harmonics_on_the_lower/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5gkw5s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Did you know that you can create these harmonics at multiple places on each string? For instance, the 7th fret harmonic can be replicated at the 19th fret. The 5th fret harmonic can be replicated at the 24th fret. \n\n[Here's a picture to help you think about it.](_URL_0_) Essentially, creating a harmonic on a guitar is the same as playing a string of the length of the distance between these \"nodes\". So, the 5th fret harmonic is the same note as playing at the 24th fret. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moodswingerscale.svg"
]
] |
|
ous7n | why do our legs sweat less than the rest of our bodies | If I hadn't seen it happen after really intense exercise, I would swear they don't sweat at all, whereas areas like the forehead and armpits seem to start sweating excessively almost right away. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ous7n/eli5_why_do_our_legs_sweat_less_than_the_rest_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3k7fkw",
"c3k9ad0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It really depends what you're doing. When I run or row, my legs sweat as much or more than the rest of me, ostensibly because those muscles are generating a lot more heat. Perhaps your activities don't involve your legs as much (or any more) than the rest of your body?",
" You sweat in order to cool yourself, therefore it's more efficient to sweat at the body part that's feeling the most heat and areas that's most efficient at dissipate the heat. You don't necessarily sweat the body part that moves. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1ox7st | the difference between the apocalypse, armageddon, ragnarok, end time, judgment day, rapture | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ox7st/eli5_the_difference_between_the_apocalypse/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccwk8p6",
"ccwkicd",
"ccwupow"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"* The apocalypse is the name for the christian end time.\n\n* armegeddon is a location where an important battle will take place during the end times of several religions.\n\n* ragnarok is the end time for the Norse religion.\n\n* end time is the name for any myth that describes the end of the world\n\n* judgment day is a feature of some religions. It's when god judges everyone for the last time. What exactly happens depends on the religion and sect.\n\n* the rapture is a belief held by some christian sects. Prior to the apocalypse the righteous will ascend to heaven and avoid the horrors to come.",
"* [apocalypse](_URL_2_) is an Amarr standard battleship known for its laser bonuses.\n* [armageddon](_URL_3_) is another Amarr standard battleship with a focus on drones.\n* [ragnarok](_URL_1_) is the titan class ship of the Minmatar fleet. It's power is greatly feared throughout the universe.\n* end time - sorry, never heard of this ship.\n* judgment day - This sounds like a new Amarr ship that you may have gotten blueprints for. Be careful with this information and share it only with corporation members you trust.\n* rapture - Do you mean [rupture](_URL_0_)? This is a classic ship. Great equipment bays and is a step larger (and similar capabilities) of the rifter.\n\nFly safe!",
"*\"Apocalypse\" is a transliteration of the greek word for \"revelation.\" It has come to mean \"end of the world,\" but only by association. More accurately, it denotes a dispensing of knowledge.\n*\"Armeggedon\" is the English rendition of \"har Meggido,\" which literally translates to \"place of Meggido,\" which is a location near Jerusalem where many invading forces have been fought. It is mentioned in the book of Revelation.\n*Judgment Day is a time when God (or gods) makes all the world (past and present) stand trial for their lives on Earth. In Christianity, this comes after the \"End\" of the world. I can't speak for other religions.\n*Ragnarok is the end of the world in Norse mythology, sometimes known as Gotterdamurung (the twilight of the gods) because all or most of the gods will die in the midst of the battle.\n*End time simply designates the last period of Earth history. I know, I know, there's not a lot to this one. Sorry.\n*Rapture is a concept in a minority of Christian sects that God will call true believers out of the world and into Heaven before the really bad stuff happens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rupture",
"https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ragnarok",
"https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Apocalypse",
"https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Armageddon"
],
[]
] |
||
2odhg3 | when i replay a youtube video it has to completely reload | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odhg3/eli5when_i_replay_a_youtube_video_it_has_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmm2ts6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Unless I'm mistaken, youtube doesn't load the whole video at once. It loads the upcoming few seconds, then once you've passed a certain point it loads the next few seconds and clears previous chunks from the line-up "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1smte0 | does every living creature feel pain? | I know like humans and dogs obviously feel pain, but I mean do like trees, vegetation or bacteria feel pain? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1smte0/eli5_does_every_living_creature_feel_pain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdz4430",
"cdz4uwv",
"cdzcs4o"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"No, many animals lack the nervous system requirements to feel pain as we would understand it. Plants are totally out of the running and bacteria are just single cells. ",
"Apart from the excellent answers already given, it is also thought insects can feel no pain.\nThis is because mortally wounded insects often don't even seem to notice they are missing half their bodies and go about their business trying to mate and eat as if they weren't dying.",
"I've read that oysters are a good source of animal protein since they don't have nervous systems to feel pain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dtfpij | how do animals adapt to their preys disadvantages? | Sorry for the kinda weird title; I just saw this post here: _URL_0_
That brought back an old thought of mine - how does the tiger know that if his furs color is orange some deer have problems spotting them? How is the tiger revolving to get a fur like that? Is that just a coincidence? If you need another example: How does a snow-owl know that having white fur camouflages them the best? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dtfpij/eli5_how_do_animals_adapt_to_their_preys/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6wa5xz",
"f6whpbi"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"It's evolution. The animals don't decide what color coat they wear, nature decides.\n\n Tigers that had a different fur pattern (or maybe which are just one complete color) had a harder time hunting those deer to stay alive. They couldn't eat = they couldn't survive. The tigers with stripes, on the other hand, were eating deer buffets every day, so they got to live and have more tiger cubs.",
"Here is a really good example of evolution in action.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe animal/bug/whatever doesn't \"know\" that a certain trait grants them an advantage. It's simply if a certain trait allows them to survive long enough to pass on that trait to the next generation, then it gets passed on."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/dt5f0r/deer_and_some_other_tiger_prey_animals_are/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share"
] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution"
]
] |
|
3w66p8 | when are african americans or asian americans or native americans or hispanic americans (etc.) just "americans?" | For example, if someone has a grandparent who is classified as an Asian American, but the other three grandparents are all just classified as "American," is that person still classified as Asian American? I'm just confused on how, legally speaking, they are classified. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w66p8/eli5when_are_african_americans_or_asian_americans/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxtptuf",
"cxtqhbj"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Legally, if you are an US citizen then you are an American. Informally you can identify yourself however you like. There is no legal definition for most identities except for Native Americans. ",
"They **are** all just Americans, legally speaking.\n\nIt's just that sometimes you want to talk about things that relate to certain groups of people, you need to use more descriptive terms. There's not really any legal background to it but it can be interesting sociological data.\n\nNative Americans are a special case - there's certain laws about reservations, benefits & whatnot that are the result of old treaties between the US government and the tribes. That doesn't really mean they're any different under the law in most cases, however."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1d71zr | why bands/singer perform their songs differently live than in the studio. | Not just minor things but clearly intentional changes in notes/keys/tempos | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d71zr/eli5_why_bandssinger_perform_their_songs/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9nilnz",
"c9nj2jw"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Well for starters you don't get more than one take, if you're performing live and you miss a note you can't just call redo. You are also standing on stage having the sound blasting from giant speakers, not ins a sound tight area with special equipment to pick up and fine tune every little bit of sound. And of course you cant go in and edit a live performance, where when doing as studio recording you can tweak and polish. ",
"Songs can be seen as organic things by a lot of musicians; subject to constant variation and whim, so even after it's recorded, a song may still be a living idea. So it's possible that they want to explore various interpretations they have for the song, but were decided against during the studio sessions...variations of melody, chords, key that might express the same idea, but slightly differently.\n\nThe live setting is an opportunity to explore these variations to keep it fresh. Bands/musicians can become bored with the song, especially if it has been recorded: throughout the writing, rehearsal, demoing, tracking, mixing, and mastering of the track, they've likely played and heard the song hundreds of times. You never want to perform when you're bored with the material!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4nhgcu | does playing in denver, colorado affect an athlete's performance due to a higher altitude? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nhgcu/eli5_does_playing_in_denver_colorado_affect_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"d43wvtc"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Yes it does. It's for that reason that most American cyclists live in Boulder, Colorado; they could live elsewhere and be near mountains to train, but then they aren't getting the respiratory training they need. \n\nIt mostly only affects endurance athletes, however; baseball and American football players, for example, aren't as impacted because their activity tends to be in short bursts. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
81g46y | why is it always most slippery the first hour of rain | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81g46y/eli5_why_is_it_always_most_slippery_the_first/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv2xv43",
"dv303yu"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Because of all the oil on the road that cars leak out, the water makes it more slick, something along those lines is how it's always been explained to me.",
"This only applies if it hasn't rained for a while.\nThe dust and oil/coolant/exhaust particles make a coating on the road that when first wet from the rain will float up to the top of the water layer.\nTill the rain can wash this oily layer away the road will be slick.\nThe best race times on a race track will be after a hard rain washes the track.\nThe trick to keeping the shiny side up on a motorcycle is very smooth movements and inputs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7epwas | how come health professionals/experts go on about how energy drinks are so bad for you, yet mainstream soda has just as much sugar? | What's the difference between the two? Why are energy drinks considered way worse than a traditional soft drink? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7epwas/eli5_how_come_health_professionalsexperts_go_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq6mu6f",
"dq6ugyf",
"dq756f2"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because energy drinks also have very high levels of stimulants and caffeine. And since it tastes like soda, people drink it like soda. Basically the average energy drink has as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. so when you drink many a day every day it wreaks havoc on your heart.",
"Are they considered way worse than a traditional soft drink?\n\nAny health professional worth listening to ought to be going on about how mainstream soda is so bad for you.",
"Traditional soft drinks are also pretty bad for you. One now and then won't kill you, but drinking them regularly is pretty bad practice if you want to stay healthy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2k6sha | why do americans have such an issue with their 'right to bear arms'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k6sha/eli5_why_do_americans_have_such_an_issue_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"clif7yc",
"clifdy6",
"clifr9b",
"clig04c",
"clig9tw",
"cligmqd",
"cligwry",
"cligxuj",
"cligxz4",
"clih0fw",
"clih1p1",
"clih3mg",
"clih81r",
"clih9jy",
"clihann",
"clihcfx",
"clihdpw",
"clihezg",
"clihgwy",
"clihj9p",
"clihk55",
"clihk81",
"clihll9",
"clihoeb",
"clihqzr",
"clihrne",
"clihwcu",
"clihydl",
"clihzn7",
"clii07z",
"clii0g9",
"clii1pz",
"clii1xv",
"clii2cr",
"clii2zl",
"clii543",
"clii5gb",
"clii5n5",
"clii6dl",
"clii93q",
"cliidex",
"cliignf",
"cliiiqk",
"cliij6r",
"cliijnj",
"cliijoi",
"cliijqh",
"cliilpd",
"cliimbn",
"cliinqb",
"cliintx",
"cliirgx",
"cliisid",
"cliism6",
"cliixqp",
"cliixvo",
"cliiyie",
"clij0k2",
"clij0ks",
"clij26e",
"clij426",
"clij52k",
"clij6a5",
"clij6jx",
"clij7r1",
"clij8d4",
"clij9h2",
"clij9s2",
"clijaek",
"clijb1o",
"clijboj",
"clijbu5",
"clijbvp",
"clijfsp",
"clijh8a",
"clijivp",
"clijkzx",
"clijl76",
"clijlno",
"clijlue",
"clijmp7",
"clijmqd",
"clijnip",
"clijnyf",
"clijo90",
"clijoeg",
"clijowx",
"clijp19",
"clijrpg",
"clijrz4",
"clijtoo",
"clijtq9",
"clijujd",
"clijulc",
"clijvfa",
"clijvxv",
"clijwjs",
"clijxfc",
"clijxfx",
"clijzfg",
"clik1q9",
"clik1y3",
"clik4if",
"clik7dv",
"clik901",
"clikciz",
"clikdon",
"clikdul",
"clikg5b",
"clikgea",
"clikhh6",
"clikksi",
"cliklro",
"clikmhz",
"cliknb0",
"cliko1w",
"clikphw",
"clikpzr",
"clikrdz",
"clikyyg",
"clil167",
"clil38y",
"clil3mc",
"clil3tw",
"clil3xb",
"clil7ac",
"clil7aj",
"clil8o1",
"clil957",
"clil9h4",
"clil9jb",
"clilciq",
"clild5x",
"clildkx",
"clilhqg",
"clilizk",
"clilk3z",
"clilpf3",
"clilpvk",
"clilqfh",
"clils6e",
"clilspj",
"clilsq7",
"cliltdg",
"clilx54",
"clily3k",
"clim0uw",
"clim5lg",
"clim669",
"climb35",
"climj26",
"climn7z",
"clin1cq",
"clin1g7",
"clin7sf",
"clin9x5",
"clinb91",
"clinjrt",
"clinl2k",
"clinn5f",
"clinpek",
"clinz19",
"clinz5z",
"clio1j4",
"clio2dc",
"clio2rq",
"clio33y",
"clio89h",
"clio8hj",
"clio8ja",
"clioapo",
"cliocit",
"cliod7j",
"cliod96",
"clioee1",
"clioeww",
"clioffl",
"cliohfh",
"cliohyj",
"cliojrw",
"cliojtl",
"cliojxv",
"cliolf6",
"cliollz",
"cliorvc",
"cliou7d",
"clioxqh",
"clip3au",
"clip6hl",
"clip73g",
"clip7ud",
"clipak7",
"clipcz9",
"clipea5",
"clipetu",
"clipeyv",
"clipigg",
"clipj07",
"clipju9",
"clipmoe",
"clipmvi",
"clipqxx",
"clipspt",
"clipuvq",
"clipwrx",
"clipxi4",
"clipxq3",
"cliq2tr",
"cliq3kb",
"cliq8m5",
"cliqb7l",
"cliqbb3",
"cliqcka",
"cliqdfw",
"cliqeg0",
"cliqfmz",
"cliqirv",
"cliqlai",
"cliqlgu",
"cliqo3n",
"cliqppb",
"cliqsye",
"cliqu7t",
"cliqunx",
"cliqvjk",
"cliqvjp",
"cliqvjw",
"cliqw4w",
"cliqzau",
"clir4ap",
"clir76i",
"clir95b",
"clirb13",
"clirbc6",
"clirccj",
"clire9y",
"clirei5",
"clirfli",
"clirg64",
"clirg8d",
"clirimm",
"clirmld",
"clirmyv",
"clirops",
"clirpq0",
"clirpwf",
"clirtxq",
"clirzen",
"clis22t",
"clis5dn",
"clisau9",
"clisjc8",
"clisjpw",
"clism9k",
"clismqp",
"clispzq",
"clityh5",
"cliws1e"
],
"score": [
2687,
2,
58,
2,
187,
5,
77,
3,
64,
26,
7,
8,
2,
69,
518,
139,
16,
3,
6,
3,
58,
3,
4,
6,
5,
7,
8,
6,
5,
5,
4,
2,
18,
9,
31,
3,
2,
15,
114,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
3,
5,
3,
5,
3,
234,
2,
4,
4,
5,
7,
3,
13,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
5,
2,
442,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
4,
9,
5,
2,
5,
2,
13,
2,
19,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
288,
2,
2,
2,
29,
63,
13,
3,
2,
2,
4,
6,
2,
1409,
2,
4,
3,
2,
47,
2,
2,
49,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
27,
17,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
23,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
6,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
8,
7,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
5,
10,
5,
9,
5,
2,
3,
2,
8,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
3,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, there's the fact that the nation was *built* on an armed populace overthrowing the government. That helps. And since it's in the Bill of Rights, it's firmly enshrined as being a big freaking deal. Taking away a right like that is incredibly difficult.\n\nNow, for a few quick points of clarity. First, assault rifles are mostly illegal. A weapon with automatic or burst fire capabilities made ~~before~~ after 1986 are illegal at the federal level. You're probably thinking about \"assault weapons\", an arbitrary category made up by Congress. Even the AR-15s which look like the M-16 are still just semi-automatic rifles.\n\nAs for magazine sizes and background checks, these are things which are mostly done at the state level, and the requirements very pretty strongly across state lines (how well they work is...questionable, but that's not really an issue we need to get into now). The states are *very* reluctant to give this power up to the federal government, and many people don't feel comfortable having a federal registry containing information on everyone who's armed.\n\nAlso, if we're talking about magazine sizes specifically, it's because magazines are big for a reason. Movies and video games make things seem so easy, but in real life, your accuracy is almost certainly going to be shit if you're in a situation where you need to defend yourself. Even if you're a trained shooter, there's a very real chance that if you're limited to seven shots (like in my state), you might not hit your target, or not hit him enough to put him down. \n\nEdit: Holy shit, 2600 points and two gold? Thanks guys I really didn't expect that!\n\nEdit 2, Electric boogaloo: yes, i meant that weapons made *after* 1986 are illegal, not before. And no, they're not completely illegal, just very difficult and expensive to get (and possibly illegal depending on your state). I probably should proofread things a bit better",
"The U.S. constitution was written in 1787. Back then, your right to bare arms was pretty much solely for protection. Now it seen as more than that. People want to be able to protect themselves, express their rights, and just own a gun because we it is our right to. For some it expresses their freedom. For some it represents safety. It shouldn't matter what reason you want to own a weapon (aside from hurting innocent people) because it is OUR RIGHT TO OWN ONE. We do not have a plethora of rights, so you can take away (fill in the blank) but you cannot take away my guns, unless it is from my cold dead hands! ",
"For me the biggest reason is that banishing weapons would do nothing to remove them from the hands of felons who are already not obtaining said weapons legally. Supply and demand is a powerful notion, I'm sure in the city I live in heroin or any other compound is simple to get if you know the right address, that will always be true of weapons as well. ",
"It's not just people who want their guns. There are also gun manufacturers who make millions if not billions of dollars off gun sales. They put a lot of money into lobbying and advertising to make sure that there will be no threat to their profits.",
"As you can probably tell from the shit storm so far, it is rather controversial in the US. Some Americans want absolute freedom to own and operate firearms, others want to ban certain weapons, and others want to ban it completely. \n\nIt has to do with American political culture. Because of our history, we tend to get our feathers ruffled when the government tries to \"intrude\" in on our lives/rights. We are suspicious of them, simply. It's the same reason we have such a problem with raising taxes and the idea of universal healthcare. We want to make the choice for ourselves. \n\nNow, as to the Second Amendment, our Constitution is vaguely worded in many cases, so we have to interpret it through our court system, namely the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country. People who say gun rights need to be limited point to the fact the amendment says, \"A well regulated Militia...\" while people who support gun rights point to the fact it says, \"the right of the people...\" \n\nAlso, it's important to keep in mind, the US in general, is more conservative than most other Western nations. Even our liberal politicians tend to not be as liberal as their European counterparts.",
"Most likely because we remember history and we don't want it to repeat itself on us.\n\n > Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ... Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools.",
"What do you mean? We do have background checks..",
"For me and most of the people I know, the issue is that when gun rights are under attack they are attacking something in the bill of rights without an amendment to the bill of rights, it's just like someone trying to take away your free speech ",
"So, the main argument is that a *huge* part of American national identity is that only a short while ago (historically speaking), we went from being an abused colony, of what we saw as an unjust empire, and forged our independence thanks in no small part to the modern firearms of the day. It was again guns that allowed a newly minted America to expand and grow from the eastern seaboard ever westward.\n\nThe main issue these days stems the disparity of power: The core Tennant of all government and law that defines us as a nation, til relatively recently, is that the government exists by the people, for the people. But when that government starts doing things like telling its citizens that they can't be armed well enough to defend themselves, naturally it's going to seem suspicious. ",
"\"[Why are Americans so vehemently devoted to the 2nd Amendment?](_URL_0_) Because it is a linchpin of trust between the government and the people, and if removed that trust will fall apart.\n\nOnce the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st will soon follow. *Because*, if some Social-Engineering genius determines that real people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, *then it's only a matter of time until they decide they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas either.* Ideas have killed many *millions* more people than dangerous hand-guns. \"",
"Reloading a clip or mag by hand while shooting at a range is a pain and \"Assault rifle\" basically means nothing.",
"Most Americans oppose gun regulation for a few main reasons.\n\nAs a matter of principle, people don't want the government to regulate firearms in order to preserve the ability for people to essentially revolt. The United states, and a lot of other nations at the time, were formed in revolution. People had the image of governments confiscating their weapons then abusing that power fresh in their minds. Because of this the second amendment was placed in the Constitution. Those founding the United States tried very hard to limit the ability of the government to expand with the constitution and essentially preserve human autonomy and freedom. Basically, people have the right to own whatever guns they want because the government doesn't have the right to regulate them.\n\nWhich was somewhat hypocritical considering all of them were slave owners at the time; but that's another issue.\n\nAside from principle a lot of people oppose regulation because they believe the consequences simply wouldn't be positive. Basically using the logic that the people who are actually going to benefit from a gun safety course are going to take them anyway, without the governments influence. In addition, the common argument that people who are already acting outside the law aren't going to purchase firearms in a regulated market anyway. So the regulations would really just damage firearms salesmen and the buyers.\n\nEdit: A common reaction to the principal argument seems to be that it should be abandoned since the military is already so powerful. Keep in mind that rag tag militias in the middle east are currently defeating the US military disastrously. I don't mean to validate terrorists but it is evidence that brute force alone can't win a war. \n\nSame thing happened in Vietnam as well.",
"Because we don't trust our government to protect us in times of upheaval and individual, self-determination is important to us.",
"You're going to get a lot of feedback on this question, and most of it will likely be detailed and technical since it's a very important issue that people will like to expand on. To ELI5, however, I can put it this way.\n\nThere is a line drawn that divides guns we allow and guns we don't allow. The discussion in America is where to draw the line.",
"I'm a bit surprised a beatnik said this. It summarizes the American viewpoint quite well.\n\n\"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.\"",
"I feel like it's a situation where if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. If we start accepting more and more limitations on our right to bear arms, where do we draw the line? And while everyone's focus is on gun control for the public, we have an ever increasing militarization of corrupt police forces. Seriously, they are getting ~~tanks~~ armored military vehicles, riot gear, assault weapons, etc. They use increasingly excessive force against non-violent offenders, performing swat raids on peoples houses with no-knock warrants for petty crimes. I'm seriously scared of what the future of this country would be if the public was unarmed.\n\n^^^And ^^^there's ^^^always ^^^the ^^^possibility ^^^of ^^^a ^^^zombie ^^^apocalypse. \n\n**edit:** I encourage everyone to watch [this documentary](_URL_0_) if you are not aware of the serious problem this country has with police brutality.",
"You should look at how many people are killed by Rifles each year in the US and then look at how many people are killed by Pistols in the US.(Make sure they do not include suicides or accidents)\n\nYou'll see that banning Semi-automatic Rifles or limiting their Magazine size wouldn't effect much because the Crime Rates with them are just so low, more people die from fists & feet than die from Rifles and even then, we're also including rifles with smaller magazines, bolt actions, etc.",
"No one is really against background checks. The current background check system is not available for any individual to use, its only for registered firearms dealers. The problem comes from the way they want to implement expanded background checks and that certain government officials keep trying to pass other things like limits and bans by hiding them inside the bills that would expand background checks.",
"Do you ask any other nation to ignore the second paragraph of their most important ruling document? \n\n If you ignore the paragraphs that you do not like in the constitution then what is next? ",
"We only have an issue with it when liberals try to take it away.\n\nThe Black population keeps embarassing the democrats by being the sole perpetrators of most gun violence, despite being 15% of the total population.\n\nWhite democrats think that taking guns away from everyone is the answer so the Blacks will stop killing each other. \n\n99.99% of legit gun owners never shot anyone or ever will. So that's why people get mad. \n",
"Usually I just have a snide answer for political questions because people just want to use them as a excuse to publish political rhetoric, but you seem genuinely curious, so I'll address your questions, then give some historical perspective.\n\nFirst off, you need to understand what you are saying when you say \"assault rifle.\" There is a reason why Piers Morgan was fired from CNN after months of unintelligent and clearly uninformed gun rhetoric.[(When a fresh college grad takes down that argument, you know there's a problem.)](_URL_1_) Piers clearly has never touched a gun in his life and arguments like this show. An assault rifle is a gun that shoots multiple bullets when the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic weapon means that you pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out. **An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's not legal to own an assault rifle.**\n\nAs for magazine sizes, the argument basically comes down to need. People who argue against it say that \"you don't need that many bullets,\" but the oversimplification leads to a lot of problems. Some places in America are clearly more dangerous than others. If you live in a city where riots/gang warfare could erupt, 5 bullets isn't going to be enough to protect you. The people who are arguing \"no one could possibly need more than X bullets\" are doing so from a point of comfort and probably can't fathom that there are places more dangerous than the privileged backgrounds that they come from. The fact is that there are places where the law has broken down and you only have yourself to look to for protection. A modern day example is Detroit, [where the police don't come when you call them,](_URL_0_) but you can also think back to the LA riots of 1992. [Korean](_URL_2_) business owners who armed themselves were able to to protect themselves from violence and looting. If they did not have those weapons, they would have been subject to riots like everyone else. \n\nAs for background checks, I am not against these and see them as a more extreme argument of the pro-gun movement. I am a believer in rights, but am also a believer in the responsibilities that comes with those rights. Every citizen has a right to vote for example, but it's your responsibility to prove citizenship in order to keep the system stable. It's also your responsibility to prove that you are mentally stable and have gone through basic training. One thing the founders did not know about was mental illness and I do think that it is fair to prove you are sane before you can obtain a firearm. Even the most ardent gun-rights person i've spoken to in real life holds this position, so I don't consider it to be the norm along with open carry.\n\nNow to the [wording](_URL_3_) itself and why it was put there. I'm sure you know that this nation was founded from armed rebellion against our government. We didn't have much of a formal army at the time, so it came down to the citizens to fight back against the [aggression](_URL_4_) of the imposed British troops. We had trusted the Mother Country to protect our rights, but ultimately, she turned against us. The framers of the constitution knew that they were vesting a lot of power into an elite group, they feared it would just end up as another tyranny if the people were not given power to balance that all out. The second amendment is that power when all else fails. No matter what, the armed population will always be much higher than the army. There are tens of millions of gun owners in this country, and it does make our leaders think twice about going against the interests of the people regardless of contrary rhetoric. Thomas Jefferson once said that when people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty. Franklin also said that people who give up freedom for security lose both. History shows this. People who have put too much faith in government have paid for it greatly. Germany, China, Russia, all had vested power, which included banned guns, which caused the government to turn against the people.\n\nEDIT:Sources for further reading.",
"Some people like comics, others baseball cards. Me I like Hunting, that requires the the use of deadly things. /shrug\n\nI am perfectly fine with people not liking guns. As an avid hunter my daughters love to go with me. My Son HATES it. Its all good.",
"I've always found it funny that there's no real test for ownership. I'm not talking about background checks, but a precision shooting test combined with some form of theoretical about gun laws, maintenance and appropriate use. \n\nHere's the car keys, this is how you start the car, here's your drivers license.",
"The more important question would be why do those in power want so badly to disarm the people? If you don't have the right to defend yourself from an oppressive government it quickly becomes a dictatorship or other totalitarian regime.",
"Assume we're talking about a fundamental human right and you'll understand. \n\nImagine if the Aussie government made a law that said no books could exceed 50 pages. Do you really NEED more than 50 pages to write a story? And the letter E. Is it *really* necessary? \n\nYour reaction to such a law is similar to what you see in the US. Rather than debating the specific merits of books over 50 pages, I suspect you and many other people would say that it is an invalid use of state power and a violation of individual rights to limit book length.\n\nIn addition, support for gun rights isn't universal here. About 40% of the population thinks guns, and the people who own them, are disgusting/evil.",
"What always gets a chuckle out of me is how liberals think firearm prohibition would work. They'll cry and cry about how the war on drugs is a failure and we need to decriminalize and legalize because it doesn't stop people, and they're completely right, drugs should be legal. They go full retard though when they think what has failed for drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and guns already will somehow miraculously work in the future.\n\nIf the government can't even stop middle schoolers from being able to buy pot in class how the fuck do you think they're competent enough to keep guns out of the hands of adults?\n\n\nlooks like I hurt someone's fee fees. Oh well, the special pleading though for why gun prohibition would somehow work is adorable.",
"As an Aussie, ask yourself this question: would the genocide of aboriginals have happened as it did if they were all armed in the same manner as the colonists? The right to bear arms is about the ability to protect yourself from tyranny and oppression.",
"Comes from the distrust of the Government starting from the founding of our nation. The right to keep and bear arms is a guarantee against an oppressive government. \n\nThere is no NEED for an assault rifle in everyday terms but i suppose it's a stronger guarantee. You don't want to wager your freedoms on a musket in today's modern warfare... There is nothing wrong with the idea of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the insane or criminals, but some feel they go to far for how effective they really are at keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. Limiting mag size is stupid.. are we trying to make killing less convenient? like some asshole's plan is thwarted because he/she can't be arsed to change mags...\n\nAlso it kind of flies in the face of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment if the governing body it protects us from regulates it... just goes against the grain.\n\nThe 2nd amendment is pretty straight forward... \"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\"",
"I just want to point out something, because there is a lot of good content regarding regulation and absurdities of our government; however, nobody has mentioned this common sense fact. \n\n----**Criminals don't give a shit about gun laws**, whereas stand-up citizens like myself and I'm assuming posting about this, do. They work around the law. ----\n\nIf the underground world and petty criminals have them (which they always will, no matter what laws are passed), I would definitely like to own one and encourage everyone considering it to do their research, practice and evaluate whether they are responsible enough to own firearms.",
"Because it's the last thing you take before you take anything else you want from people in the way of rights. Currently, sadly, depressingly, we're up against that line closer than anyone wants to admit. Crazily enough saying so somehow probably makes me come off as a conspiracy nut.",
"I cannot be sure the government will always be there to protect me. \n\nTake that as you will... Protect me from those who want what I have or wish me harm as during times of disaster or some unknown future state when there is no enforcement for laws.... or protect me in terms of allowing me to have all the civil rights and freedoms from government that I am entitled to (which is why our forefathers took up arms and created this nation).\n\nJapan didnt invade the US mainland because 'there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass'. ",
"Why do you have such an \"issue\" with your right to free speech?",
"Something everybody needs to understand is, THERE ARE NO ASSAULT RIFLES SOLD IN AMERICA. An Ar-15 is not as assault rifle. An assault rifle is a rifle that has selective fire. The ability to switch between full auto, burst, and semi auto. No assault rifles are legally sold in the United States. \n\nSorry. I shoulda clarified. Yes you can have a assault rifle if you jump thru the hoops. But they are not sold to civilians in open market. Your sandy hooks and your batman theater shootings were not done with assault rifles. But they are always reported as such.",
"I think what it comes down to is fear and morals. People fear others with guns trouble is they cannot remove the guns because the 2nd of the second amendment. Here is where it gets tricky...We have tried in this country to legislate morals. \n\nSmoking, alcohol, prostitution,pot and even firearms and light bulbs have come under regulation at some time or other; it has never worked because we value a free society where an individual has the right to choose. \n\nWhen some government entity tells us what our choice is we dig in our heels and say \"NOPE...You do not get to tell me how I live or what I choose just because you feel morally superior.\" \"My values are mine and my choices are mine and you nor anyone else will remove that from me.\" \n\nWe are taught to challenge the rules that oppress us and that it is a part of our heritage. To deny that would be just as immoral as removing a right once granted simply because some do not like it.\n\nDisclosure: I shoot Trap and Skeet I enjoy my firearms and I am a strong advocate for education and safety training. It should be taught in school like sex ed. and driving a car. We teach Drug prevention and pregnancy prevention why are we not teaching gun safety? ",
"Because if the government can take away ONE right, they will soon start trying to take the others. And no I don't own any guns. ",
"Before I start, let me say that there are plenty of responsible gun owners in the US, myself included. I'm not talking about those people because most of them are fine with sensible gun control laws. People who use guns as tools, as they were meant to be used, have no problem with limited magazine sizes or bans on assault weapons.\n\nI'm talking about the guys, it's almost always guys, who think carrying a loaded AR-15 into a Chilis is a good idea. They like the idea of freaking people out, they aren't about defending their rights, they're about showing everyone what a bad ass they are, like carrying a gun actually gives them any power. \n\nAnyone who believes that their guns are necessary to prevent the government from doing stuff to you simply has to explain to me how much good your guns did when the government passed the Patriot Act or when the NSA started collecting all your telephone calls.",
"This is a very divisive topic and everyone will have a different answer. My two cents\n\n1. Any form of entitlement flips a switch in people's brain. Normally sane people go apeshit. Normally insane people become demons.\n\n2. America is, at heart, a country of rebels who love their guns.",
"It's because the government works for us, not vice versa. A better question is how will Aussies defend themselves against a fascist government? I can think of a few million jews who would liked to have been armed when the nazis rolled through town. ",
"Another aspect is that a significant proportion of the population live in places not easily accessible by law enforcement. As much as I am personally against guns, if I were in the Midwest, I'd consider owning a gun. I even have a friend in upstate New York who is out of shouting distance from his nearest neighbour.",
"Not all of us do. In fact a lot of people, including myself, believe that the right should be limited to rifles, shotguns, and handguns. For the purposes of hunting and self/home defense. I personally don't think that people should be allowed to purchase grenades, land mines, RPG's, automatic weapons and the like. Basically ( anything that is used in the military that doesn't fit into hunting or self/home defense category). \n\nThat being said, USA is a huge place. It's very easy to smuggle guns into & out of the US. Putting sanctions on the peoples right to bear arms isn't going to stop gun violence. If anything, it's just going to create larger black market for weapons. \n\nIt's like saying \"If we make drugs illegal, there we be less drug abuse & drug related crimes.\" Well, drugs are illegal & it's not stopping people from making, buying, & abusing them. The same is true for guns. You can put sanction on the right to bear arms, but that's not going to stop people from buying weapons and committing crimes. \n\nBut, yeah. I hope this helps",
"Because there will always be stories like this that convince people they need to be prepared:\n\n_URL_0_",
"the right to bear arms isnt just about allowing us to line our zombie bunkers with big guns, its about a free mans right to defend himself. the right to self defense should be a basic human right afforded all citizens of free societies. giving up a right to defend yourself basically puts your own life in the hands of others and makes you a dependent on those who the nanny state has granted to authority to be your legal protector. ",
"It is a fundamanetal right defined in our consitution by our founding fathers (who used guns to liberate and defend our country).\n\nPeople argue that more gun control will make us safer. It will not. The criminals are not buying firearms legally now. You will not take them out of the hands of the bad guys by taking them away from the rest of us. You will simply make us easier targets.\n\nThe areas in the US with the strictist gun control laws have the highest incidents of gun violence and crime.\n\nThe 2nd amendment was not created to allow us to possess firearms just to hunt, or just to defend ourselves from criminals, but also as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.\n\nGuns are illegal in Mexico... how's that working out?\n\n\n\n\n",
"People complain about how we should change the Constitution. But they are called AMENDMENTS and a lot of people seem to forget what that means.",
"Obligatorily video explaining the very clear wording of the amendment for those that think there is any sort of argument against US civilians owning guns: Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment: _URL_0_",
"In 20 years gun control will be a joke. You will be able to 3-D print a gun in your hand in less than 30 seconds. ",
"We don't have an issue. We have the **right** to bare arms. It's a right and we don't like our rights being infringed upon. The proper question is \"Why do we have the right to bare arms?\"",
"Americans are pretty big into the \"domino effect\" (see: *Vietnam War*), so the idea that something that is written into the Bill of Rights, which is considered pretty sacred in the United States, can just be disregarded because the government is trying to convince people it's for \"the greater good\" can be scary. Remember, our country was founded on the fact that our founding fathers were upset with the laws that the government put into effect, so they created a democracy and the Constitution to prevent the government from being able to create laws that the *majority* of citizens disagree with.\n\nSo, back to the \"domino effect\". Today it's our guns. \"People are killing each other with guns, they're bad, only trusted bodies appointed by the government (military and police) should be able to bear arms\". OK, so we give in and give up the second amendment. What's next? \"People are spreading dangerous ideas on the internet and it's causing uprisings and spreading hate. The government should start censoring anything that causes unrest. Also, the open practice of religion is contributing, so now only religions deemed 'peaceful' will be allowed to be observed.\" Right now it sounds far-fetched, but who knows if the same fear-mongering that is happening with guns right now is going to happen 20, 50, 100 years down the line? There goes the first amendment.\n\nIf we set a precedent of ignoring the Bill of Rights now, we have little to stop a totalitarian government from taking over in to future. As far as background checks, magazines, etc., I think we need stricter control laws, but that is up to the *states*, not the federal government, and I think the federal government over-stepping their bounds is what is pissing people off.\n\nIt's not necessarily a gun-issue, this is a law-interpreting issue that can tip our very delicate balance of power too much one way or another which is something all Americans have learned to fear since we first learned of the American Revolution. Plus, us Americans just love blowing shit up and guns are fun like that. Not to mention our \"bigger is better\" attitude. It's an ideological and cultural thing.\n\n***TL;DR: People are nervous about the \"domino effect\" that changing or giving up an amendment can start.***",
"Because 'youth'/'teens' attack in packs. Sometimes a few rounds may not cut it. Beyond that, a sharp shooter at the range will not have the same results in a stressful confrontation. I would rather have some rounds left in a magazine that aren't needed than be another statistic.\n\nThe problem with 'background checks' is that, as with most things the government does, this is not really the motivation. The real motive is to have a national gun registry. It makes them much easier to collect ( of course only the ones owned by law abiding citizens ) if they ever decide to do so. Registration is always a precursor to confiscation.\n\nTruth told, there already IS a background check when you purchase a firearm. Those pushing for a registry pretend that you can buy them from a vending machine in order to scare people into compliance.",
"Because they are silly. It's the same here in Canada. We had our guns all subject to VERY strict laws. They all had to be registered and when not in use...stored in a vault with a 9ft thick door (last part exaggerating).\n \nThey think it wills top shootings and people murdering with guns. But as you can see by the events this week a lot of good that law did. all the gun registry has done is cost the government a crap load of money to the point where it's considering scrapping the law.",
"The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the unfettered private ownership of all weapons is a bogus interpretation, and a fairly recent one (in the mainstream) at that. Up until about the 70s or so, all bona fide Constitutional scholars agreed the purpose of the 2nd was precisely what it says, to guarantee the right to well-regulated militias, and thus, it was something of an antique, much like the 6th, which prohibits quartering of troops in private homes in peacetime.\n\nThe SCOTUS also held this view, as in US v Miller, 1938, which upheld the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which made most automatic weapons, bazookas, etc illegal or put strict controls on them). The 1938 ruling, as well as the NFA, still stands.\n\nIt was really only the real lunatic fringe who held that the amendment guaranteed the unfettered private ownership of weapons. Further, the NRA at that time was an organization for gun owners, mainly hunters. They actively fought for stricter gun control on several occasions. Conservative demigod Ronald Reagan signed some of the strictest gun control legislation in the country when he was governor of California.\n\nThen the lunatic fringe started moving into power. The NRA was quietly co-opted into a lobbying group for gun manufacturers, and started campaigning against some of the same gun control legislation they got passed originally. Although the interpretation of the Constitution CAN officially change by a SCOTUS decision, that has not (yet) happened.\n",
"My ELI5 attempt:\n\nAmerica's constitution didn't give citizens the right to own weapons; instead the constitution says that the right to own weapons is a fundamental human right which it will protect.\n\nMany Americans are adamantly against any attempts to infringe on that right. Club, dagger, sword, pistol or rifle - the government shouldn't be able to disarm you and remove one of your fundamental human rights.",
"George Washington was half man half bear and so Americans to this day yearn for bear arms like he had. ",
"While I live in the buckle of the bible belt (Oklahoma) and love guns and the 2A just as much as your next gun toting redneck, there's a lot of ignorance on both sides of the argument. \nTo your question about background checks and national gun registration- those for gun control want this as it would make things safer for the public, and rightfully so. Those against argue that you can't just hand down your grandfather's antique hunting rifle to your son anymore with the registration, because they would have to be 18 to have ownership, and by handing it down underage it would be illegal. As for background checks- I think people debate on what crimes constitute not being able to own a gun, and what's fair and isn't. \nFor the assault rifles thing- It isn't as common in other parts of America, but you can use \"assault rifles\" for wild pig hunting. Their skin is very tough and won't always go down with a .22 shot, and they run in packs so you need more than one shot from a higher caliber bolt action rifle. (There is no regulation on hunting wild pigs in my state, they're actually a problem). Which is where something like an AR-15 comes in. Higher caliber and a bigger magazine.",
"Take this simple statement to heart and you will understand why Americans have such an issue about gun control. When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The only way for liberty to be secure is to have a well armed populace, if the govt has all the guns the govt has all the power ",
"Letting the government take away or severely limit any of our constitutional rights is just about the worst precedent I can think of.\n\nAlso: if citizens can't have guns, how will they defend the rest of their rights? Our politicians are not representatives of the general population.",
"In short, we just don't want the same thing to happen here that happened in Australia. Which was a 2 phased effort at completely taking that right away. First, require all gun owners to register their firearms. Second, go around collecting them and putting those who refuse to give them up in jail.\n\nThe Second Amendment doesn't define the nation but it does define the right guaranteed to each person to help curve tyranny and provide protection for their friends and family. It's not 'badly worded', it was diligently crafted to ensure that is could evolve with the arms over time.\n\nThere is no stipulations attached to the right of people to bear arms other than, bear arms. In other words, if you can hold and carry it you should be able to own it. Most civilian weapons are predecessors of next generation military weapons and the founding fathers knew that the weapons of their era would eventually evolve so if they didn't specify any characteristics, e.g. - length, color, type, caliber, number of rounds, etc. then the people wouldn't be bound by those restrictions while the government surpasses those bounds exponentially and the right would essentially be useless. \n\nAlso, in that right it states that it \"shall not be infringed\" so any stipulation involving the right to bear arms is an infringement and should be found unconstitutional. That being said, we ALREADY have a TON of restrictions when it comes to owning guns. Background checks exist in EVERY state when purchasing a gun from a retailer. It's nearly impossible to own a fully automatic weapon made post 1982. Most gun owners, and by most I mean 95% of them don't own an 'Assault Rifle'. Those that do own weapons commonly confused with actual assault rifles are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like fully automatic versions that the military uses, which goes back to the whole civilian models evolving from military applications. \n\nWhen it comes to rights, if you don't use them you lose them.\n\nEdit - Typos",
"Owning an assault rifle *is* highly restricted in the US. The definition of an assault rifle includes that it has selective fire, which indicates that it is an automatic firearm. To own one, you have to pay a considerable amount of money for the stamp, register with the ATF at the federal level, have permission from your local Police chief, register at the state level, pass an extensive background check and then you have to be able to afford one.\n\nAn AR-15 or an AK-47 that you buy at the gun store is not an assault rifle. No amount of misusing terms will make them become assault rifles.\n\nAnd in regards to it being a badly worded line in the Constitution, well, that's just not the case. There is a lengthy history about how militias are defined and what constitutes an organized militia and unorganized militia. The Militia act of 1903 being one of them. This goes so far as to create State Military Units (state guard) that are under control of the Governor of that state. Governors have released these guard units to fight alongside federal military units in wartime, and recently, as in they were (are?) in Afghanistan and Iraq. The same act that defined these guard units for the states, also defined an unorganized militia, which is the general population. \n\nThe Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this amendment and these acts and have slapped down state or city laws that have restricted them. In particular, you can read about how they overturned firearm bans in both DC and Chicago.\n\nAnd finally, our Constitution provides provisions for change, a process to be amended. The Bill of Rights is in fact the result of these provisions. They are the first ten amendments, with the right to bear arms as the second one. The mechanism is there to make the change. If it is indeed, badly worded, then that process needs to be used to change the wording; to create an amendment. The problem is, the majority of the people do not want the change. There is a highly vocal minority that does, but they can't get the support for it, so they are trying to pass ancillary laws to restrict it, such as magazine size, or how a firearm looks. The point of contention is that the constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms \"...shall not be infringed\", so these peripheral regulations could and often are considered infringement.\n",
"_URL_0_ report from 1946. Vets from Tennessee took up arms against a corrupt sheriff and county officials. When they say the Government would never do that. It was attempted here right after WWII.\n",
" In Alaska you need guns for protection from bears. Many people still hunt deer and other animals for their food. Guns are necessary tools for life in a lot of areas. ",
"People here would rather die than start losing rights.\n\nWhen you give an inch here, people will and do take a mile.\n\nIf you give up assault rifles, pretty soon you have nothing but hunting guns.\n\nThis bothers people because we were founded by rebelling against the government.\n\nNot to mention, a lot of Americans accept the militia as proper defense, but some would rather be able to also defend themselves if an invasion or some sort of military state ordeal were to happen.\n\nAll in all, atleast 51% of the people closely involved in this topic would risk a crazy person getting an AR over not allowing anyone to have one.",
"There already is a federal mandated background check in the US for every single firearm purchase. They check your background to make sure you aren't a criminal or have mental issues. Its called NICS.",
"Most of the major political arguments in our history have been about the rights of people. Almost universally the people who want to restrict rights have been in the wrong. \n\nThe only time the constitution has been amended to take *away* the ability of free people to do something, it ended up with more people doing that thing and strengthened the mob (prohibition), and was soon repealed. ",
"A great many people do want gun control. If everyone was in favor of gun rights there wouldn't be a controversy, but as it is we're strongly divided. I live in a state with strict gun controls, and I'm fine with that. I have no desire to own a gun. However our constitution grants the right to bear arms and I respect that too. Besides, at this point with so many guns in circulation I haven't yet seen a realistic plan to eliminate them. \n\nI've never thought of guns as the defining characteristic of our nation. My family all came here as war refugees from their different countries. They thought of the USA more as a haven than a place where they could get guns\n\n\nInteresting that autocorrect keeps changing 'gun' to 'fun'",
"My grandfather is an arms dealer and honestly I can see how this is mostly a hobby and obsession for people. He's a Vietnam vet and originally an entomologist for the state of Pennsylvania, but he's always had a closet full of old cool guns. Now retired, he sells old military ware, pistols, hunting rifles, and good ol' ARs too at an antique shop in our home town. He also keeps a pistol next to his reading chair in the living room, one in the center console of his car, one velcroed under the table in the kitchen, and one usually strapped to his shoulder under his coat. Who knows where else. I get it. Don't fuck with Grandad. They're cool. They're powerful, loud, and simply bad ass looking. They will most usually thwart any sort of attempt on you or your family's safety by an intruder, whether by intimidation alone or by pulling the trigger. They're even great fun to take out to the shooting range and I'm a huge fan of shooting clay birds with my family and friends. But simply put, it's excessive. America's gun obsession is excessive. I love my Grandad, I even help him out around his shop when I'm home, but some of the people coming in looking for guns....are not people you want to have guns. Some seem perfectly capable of the responsibility, but others.. \n\nThere are precautions set forth to prevent certain people from getting guns, but it is still TOO EASY for the wrong people to acquire guns in this country. There needs to be a new process, there needs to be more limits, and gun education, safety, training, and the psychologoical effects of firearms needs to be an open and transparent discussion everywhere. If firearms are going to be such a facet for much of the American population, then safety and responsiblity needs to be a much more prevelant discussion in our schools, homes, jobs, everywhere. There is no doubt that this is becoming a bigger and bigger issue as time goes on. I don't have the answers, but the fact remains that this is more of a glorified enthusiast hobby that just so happens to be backed by our Constitution. Firearms absolutely have a place in our country - for safety, peace of mind, defense against a tyranical government, and in some cases recreation - but it's up to the people and our leaders to make it a safer place for everyone. There needs to be change in our gun culture. To help you understand OP, it's like any foreign nation with their own quirks. Gun fascination is one of our domestic quirks. We have fucked our enemies in the ass because we have the biggest baddest guns. We are the nation that says \"DON'T FUCK WITH US\" because we have the firepower. In a way, it's in our blood. But that doesn't mean we can't be better as a people when faced with any topic relating to firearms and their distribution. \n\nAnd to all the people mentioning blacks, whether or not your racist and discriminatory remarks have any statistical backing, you are all the scum of reddit and of the world. Crawl back into your swamp and drown in it. ",
"First of all its a little crazy to sy that's our defining characteristic...",
"The thing is, in America, owning an assault rifle IS illegal. Background checks ARE performed.\n\nWhat people keep trying to do here is ban things that make no sense and have no effect on weapon performance. No one is discussing anything related to making anyone safer, only more inconvenient for legitimate and innocent owners. \n\nI'm the early 90s we had a nationwide \"Assault Weapons Ban\" which banned stupid things like folding stocks, reflex sights, muzzle brakes.. All things that have little measurable effect on how lethal a semiautomatic weapon is.\n\nOn the flip side, people want things such as national registries which have been found to infringe other constitutional rights.\n\nThe only real change anyone has proffered that would legitimately work (imo) is outlawing sales at gun shows. For whatever reason, gun show sales aren't held to the same standard as stores where background checks are performed. They SHOULD be outlawed.\n\nFor the most part, guns in the US aren't different from guns you can own in Australia or anywhere else (AFAIK). the only tangible difference is that, in the US, you do not need to prove you have a need for a gun. ",
"Utah has a very low crime rate and lots of guns. Chicago has a very high crime rate and very little guns. Texas shares the longest border with Mexico, has medium crime rate while California has high crime rate. Same trend.\n\nNow it gets confusing because gun enthusiests will point to this and say its the right to bear arms that kept crime rate low or high depending on where you are, but there are too many variables in play.\n\nThen you add on the fact that the US police force has rocket launchers, grenade launchers, tanks, other Armored vehicles, and much more. You really can't blame some Americans for looking at that and wondering why he or she can't have the right to bear arms.",
"ELI5: The Second Amendment is the right to self defense, even from the government.",
"One important thing to know about it is that Americans are deeply divided on the issue. Take the contrast between, say, Manhattan and Montana. Your average person in Manhattan does NOT want the craziest 0.1% of the population having access to firearms, because the population density is such that the craziest 0.1% of the population is within a few hundred yards of them.\n\nOn the other hand, parts of the country (I picked Montana because it also begins with \"M\", but there are lots of rural parts of the country), if someone shows up at your house intending to do you harm, and you dial \"911\" (the emergency number), you can expect the police to make it there in about half an hour. Not because they are not trying, but rather because that's how far away they are. So if you're aware that no police force will be able to defend you, the need to have a weapon available for your own defense looms larger. Support for gun rights in the U.S. tends to be higher in areas of low population density, lower in areas of high population density.\n\nThen in recent decades, there is a general tendency of the U.S. population to diverge on every issue into left vs. right. Once one side is solidly in favor of something (restrictions on gun rights being just one of many examples), the other side will tend to become more extreme in their opposition. Stating a more extreme stance on gun rights (or anything else, left or right) becomes a way to prove your bone fide status to other members of your side. This part of the situation has led to polarization on a lot of issues in recent decades, so asking \"Why do Americans...\" anything, while a reasonable sounding question, turns out to contain a false assumption, which is that there is a typical American opinion on much of anything.",
"In a lot of other country's this isn't a problem but in a super country like the US their government is so untrustworthy that I believe Americans should have the same access to all the same guns as their government encase they ever have to over throw it, Americas people are great just really repressed and mislead I believe there still should be background checks and limitations but I believe they do have the right to bare the same arms as their government, ps. 30 round clips are a little excessive but when state police have grenade launchers and armoured vehicles to \"protect\" their citizens, non dangerousness citizens should have them too! ",
"I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of it, but part of it has to do with not allowing the government to have bigger guns than the people. When the government has the bigger guns, they do not fear the people and they can become incredibly power-happy since they have no uprising to fear. But when civilians also have the big guns, then the politicians may fear a civil uprising and they'll have to think twice before making authoritarian policies.",
"Part of the reason pro gun people are frustrated by the attempt to take guns is because you can't magically get them from all the criminals, who will continue to assault, rob and/or murder people with them. It'll take years for it to be evened out.\r\rAdditionally, guns are not necessarily the source of violence, just an additive that makes murdering easier. The source and solution to violence in our country lies in the social problems we refuse to recognize or address properly, mostly because the fixes take time, cost money, or people just don't want to deal with it.",
"There's also an understanding between most citizens that our state and federal governments and government agencies are some of the least-transparent, poorly-run, and most corrupt in the western world. This is a new development and many of our grandparents didn't feel this way about the country.\n\nBut this distrust towards the government, and an unspoken feeling that they would try to totally control us without gun rights, is rightfully rooted in many blunders and blatant disregards for citizens and due process since the late 60s that started with the Vietnam War - riffe with alterier motives, political moves for personal reasons, supported by an involuntary draft that saw thousands of soliders slaughtered while their lucky friends at home were shot or beaten by police for protesting. Make your way through thousands of bribery, illegal uses of power, electoral plutocracy and kleptocracy in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, and you're left with the current administration who imprison and kill citizens (drones) without due process, pass legislation based on lobbying \"donations\" to their campaigns instead of thinking of citizens first, use the IRS to target political opponents, spy on it's citizens and the rest of the world without due process through the NSA...\n\nSo when people make the argument that people are crazy to think that the US government is not to be trusted and we should create registries so they can track us or possibly disarm us one day, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who would agree or not just laugh at the idea. \n",
"As long as humans are susceptible to corruption we assume our politicians/government MAY need radical overhaul. To this end we do not think peace lilies and doves are persuasive enough to convince those in power to surrender control of public office.",
"The right to own guns is the right to organize and overthrow a tyrannical government by violent revolution. This is an important right, especially given what is happening to this country. The tyranny we export to other countries will eventually make it's way back to the homeland. We will need guns to fight the government in order to restore both human and civil rights.\n\nWe need AR-15s because we must match what agents of the state have.",
"Easiest way for me to put it is that I don't trust my government. While it actually would be very ineffective for one individual, like myself, to use my firearms to fight back against my government, that is the idea of it. If our government ever decides to go fascist Germany on us we will shoot back. However ineffective that may be is not the question. ",
"Because we haven't achieved world peace and even if we had, nothing lasts forever. You should always have a means to protect yourself from anyone trying to cause you harm.",
"The issue is Constitutional, the primary document that was intended to limit the power of the federal government, and of the States over the People. The People are sovereign, the states are to be sovereign over the federal government. The federal government was intended to operate with in very narrow lines. Much of this has been forgotten in practice, but it is still there. The right to bear arms is in the second amendment. it says that Congress shall not infringe on the people's right to bear arms. The purpose is at least two-fold: self defense of one's life, and of the need for people to be armed against government tyranny. States do regulate this right in various ways, but the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals is very fundamental. One thing that is worried about is the slippery slope, which would lead to the point where only the government actors (police, armed agents of State agencies, soldiers) would have weapons and ordinary citizens would be powerless to defend themselves from tyranny (and crime). This is not something, like freedom of speech, press, practice religion, that the People are going to give up without a fight. ",
" > I don't really understand the NEED for an assault rifle but they are probably really fun to shoot, IDK. \n\nIn America our Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms. What types of arms, however, may be reasonably restricted by various levels of government. What constitutes reasonable restriction is kind of a moving target (haha!) over time. Select fire (burst or automatic) firearms are tightly restricted in America, but people often mean semi-automatic (1 shot per pull of the trigger) AR15 style firearm when they say assault rifle. The AR15 is a standardized firearm with a great deal of after market accessories, and it capable of using many modular uppers which allow it to shoot a wide variety of ammunition. Its versatility is what makes it attractive for many. There is really no significant conferred benefit by shooting it versus any other rifle.\n\n\n > But why is there an issue with limiting magazine sizes? \n\nMagazine size limits do not really appear to do much of anything other than inconvenience people who shoot for pleasure, as any criminal could certainly just carry any number of 7 to 10 round magazines, and swap them out in seconds as a recent mass shooter did on a college campus. Pro-gun people see these limitations as merely an incremental step towards further bans. For self defense purposes you want as many rounds as you can get, considering the low rate of hitting a moving target, and the chances of stopping a threat only increase with greater blood loss or damage to the central nervous system. \n\n\n > And what is so bad about background checks? \n\nThere really are background checks, any firearm dealer (FFL) is required to perform them. Private in-state sales however do not require background checks in many states. Some pro-gun people oppose them for a few reasons, such as preferring the government not have a potential list of firearm owners, and believing none should be required in order to transfer to a relative or some such[.](_URL_0_) \n \n\n",
"There really isn't an argument that people \"need\" assault rifles- the point is more that the government shouldn't ban things just because someone doesn't need it- that sets a dangerous precedent.\n\nAlso, magazine (and assault rifle) bans don't affect gun crime. It's a band-aid that only penalizes the law-abiding.",
"For those who don't know, the right to bear arms is our right to own guns. It's in our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the constitution. A lot of what our founding fathers did was based on that. Now of course there have always been people opposing it but in recent years we've had more than our fair share of shooting sprees and many innocent people and children have died, so a lot more people have begun to have an opinion on the matter.\n\nEdit: On mobile and accidentally submitted. ",
"Americans don't see that \"badly worded line\" as merely allowing us to own a gun. We see it as \"You have the right to overthrow this government if you so choose.\" Therefore, any attempt to regulate gun ownership is seen as a government plot to ensure control, and not as a safety program. \n\nWhen the Constitution was written, a bunch of farmers with smoothbore rifles COULD HAVE overthrown the government. The founders didn't envision Howitzers and tanks. ",
"Bad guys have guns. I want one too.\n\nDon't tell me banning guns will mean bad guys don't have guns. To say such a thing would be foolish.",
"Without an armed populace, the Constitution becomes a suggestion. That's why.",
"A lot of people really like guns. Mainly though, an armed populace is one of the biggest deterrents of a tyrannical Government. The Bill of Rights was written in a way that said that the U.S. Citizen should have a right to be just as armed as a U.S. Solider. Obviously that is not the case now, but I believe the underlying factor is to prevent a tyrannical government. ",
"Many in the US see the removal of their guns as the first step towards a totalitarian state. Many others see a gun as the great equalizer. There is no other tool that allows a 110lb woman to be the equal of several armed young men. Denying her that tool only protects the criminals and makes the victim have to rely on others for her own protection. ",
"Colion Noir: \"Being Pro-Gun\": _URL_0_\n\n\n\n\nThis guys vids are spot on. Go check him out.",
" > don't really understand the NEED for an assault rifle \n\nIt's not about NEED. Other people have no right or power to tell me what I can and can't own. You don't really NEED to have chocolate or NEED to own a computer. Is it okay for me to take them away from you?",
"We're all just people. If the government has guns, the population should. If you take guns from the population, then you should take them from the government. Pretty simple. ",
"this is a surprisingly civil discussion....good job reddit!",
"My take on it, which is unfortunately somewhat rare:\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States is designed to *grant* the federal government its powers. Absent the Constitution, the Federal Government has no authority, much like the EU has no power over the nations of Europe without the various treaties forming the EU. \n\nIf you read the Constitution, there are a specific list of things that Congress has the power to do. In theory, if it's not on the list, Congress can't pass a law to do it. Over the past 200+ years, various legal maneuvers have made the list *very* blurry. \n\nThe men who wrote the Constitution argued over whether the Bill of Rights was necessary. Why should they need to explicitly say \"Congress shall pass no law infringing on the freedom of speech\" when nothing on the list of powers says they're allowed to in the first place? Doesn't creating a list of things they cannot do suggest if it's not on the list, they can do it? \n\nUltimately the authors decided on the Bill of Rights - a list of ten protections that were so important they were worth spelling out. \n\nThe First Amendment protects speech, assembly, etc. \n\nThe Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to bear arms. \n\nI cannot fathom the logic that suggests we can allow the government to just ignore the Second Amendment, while the First Amendment should be respected. It's either all or nothing.\n\nFree speech is the most powerful weapon a citizenry has against its government. It's always the first thing to be oppressed, and it was important enough to put first. A government always dearly wants to limit freedom of speech to protect itself. So we must defend it passionately. \n\nTo look at the Second Amendment and say \"Oh, this one's inconvenient\" or \"It's badly worded\" so we should just ignore it? It takes some incredible self-delusion about the nature of man to think that same logic wouldn't then be applied to other Amendments. \n\n[edit] Since a few folks have made comments, I realized I presumed something that isn't explicitly stated here: The Constitution provides a way to amend it. I would think given the formalistic tone of my comment that folks would understand that if you want to *Amend* the Constitution to \"fix\" the Second Amendment, that's perfectly reasonable. Then we can have a secondary discussion about which way to \"fix\" it, but that's past this point of \"let's just pass a law to make guns illegal.\"",
"*I just don't get how one badly worded line in the constitution becomes the defining characteristic of a nation.*\n\n\nVery subjective. Defining characteristic for you maybe.",
"Sometimes we forget about this quote from Thomas Jefferson. The founding fathers didn't write in the right to bear arms because they thought it would be necessary 200 years down the road. \n > \"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.\"",
"I don't really have any time to explain the whole reason you are asking but I would like to point out that \"assault rifles\" are illegal. They can only be used by the military and police. An assault rifle is a rifle where with one trigger pull multiple bullets are fired. It has nothing to do with the appearance. It is something that the media has gotten wrong and has made the public thing wrong too now. ",
"First, you are starting off by creating a question that is disingenuous.\n\nAssault RIFLES mean something. Assault WEAPONS do not. The majority of people arguing about Assault RIFLES are either ignorant about the topic (no insult, they simply don't know better) or are trying to stir things up.\n\nAn Assault RIFLE can fire more than one round per squeeze of the trigger, are heavily regulated, to the point that without a special manufacturing license, anything post 1986 is defacto banned.\n\nAssault Weapons, and the term was manufactured in order to create confusion, distrust, and general FUD about the topic, share cosmetic characteristics with other guns.\n\nWe have laws that are contradictory here. For instance, earlier, in the 1900s, guns that served no military purpose were said to have no basis of protection by the Second Amendment (which, by the way, is recognized as a natural law, not a grant of rights from the government. This means they did not give it to us, so they can't take it away). Guns like sawed off shotguns were banned because that is what a \"gangster\" would use.\n\nSporting guns were not \"protected,\" because they were not there for the intent of the law. Now, guns without sporting use are banned. I mean, come on...\n\nSo there's that. There have been multiple concessions on the side of the gun owning public. MULTIPLE, including the Hughes Ammendment, Hayes, et al, and yet they still keep coming for the law abiding.\n\nFor one... Let's go over background checks.\n\nWere you aware that they are already law? We HAVE background checks. They are done at the time you purchase a firearm. You fill out an ATF form 4473, and go through a nationally recognized criminal search like NICS or equivalent.\n\nThe problem is, people believe that there are these shady deals where either gun stores sell illegally (fast way to lose your federally required gun license to sell and go to prison for a very long time) or that terrorists and gangsters are selling weapons to one another and that a mandatory universal background check is going to stop them.\n\nHow do you bell that cat? This is only possible with a registry, which has in almost EVERY case where one has been instated, led to confiscation, because they serve no actual purpose to prevent crime. Those who own weapons illegally will not register them. Unless you already have a weapon, you can't check it against a registry, and thus, a crime has already been committed and it won't help with ballistic tests any more than it already can (which is not too much, to be honest).\n\nCriminals do not follow laws. In fact, here are a few shocking things you may not know:\n\nCriminals are not required to register their guns. It is the law. They are NOT required, because it would be incriminating themselves, which is a violation of another right in the Constitution. So... what's the point again?\n\nSecond point:\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect you. They can be right there, and have no duty to do anything. They can, but nobody can force them. There's no legal standing requiring them.\n\nYou are your own first responder. We live in a society that is dealt blow after blow from gang violence (the number one \"gun crime\" statistical generator). Most people who die from gun violence are voluntary combatants. Mass shootings are down. Gun deaths are down. Most of the list that are not gang on gang crime are suicides, and trust me, considering Japan's stance on guns and their horrible suicide rates, people find other ways.\n\nMagazine sizes:\n\nThe magazine holds rounds. It is surprisingly difficult to stop someone with a gun. Yeah, I get you. What did he say? I said stop, not kill. If someone is trying to hurt you or your family, imagine them being able to keep going and kill them or you. If they die on the table an hour later, what then? Victory?\n\nWhat if you miss? 7 rounds? I can see spending that on one attacker only to have his friend kill me. They don't limit themselves. Why should I?\n\nThe country put this right into this document because they had to break away from their government. Besides this idea of tanks, and drones and planes, be very aware that to break a city, you can use massive bombs and tanks. To keep a city, it's boots and rifles. A sufficiently armed populace can keep tyrants at bay.\n\nYou want to look at what a \"Good guy with a gun,\" can do? Look to Canada. Imagine how much worse things would have been if not for Vickers being a hero that day.\n\nThat's about all I can think of for now, but if you have more questions, I'd be glad to follow up.",
"Everybody is making great points about the importance of the second amendment but I'd like to mention something else that bothers gun enthusiasts. It's long but that's the fucking point. \nTL:DR \"come on gun owners, compromise!\" is a lie we hear about every 10 years or so to try and take away gun rights. I detailed big antigun legislation and how this thinking has only taken away rights and never restored them. If you are antigun and find yourself wanting more gun laws, please research the laws that are already on the books that still serve as a huge pain in the ass to people trying to lawfully own a gun. \n\nImagine a pre-prohibition America. Our gun rights were federally untouched. You could order a Thompson submachine gun and have it shipped to your door. Even with such easy access, the world didn't end and we didn't have mass shootings in the headlines all the time. \n\nNow skip to prohibition. After the repeal, we got our alcohol back but the bloodshed from organized crime gave politicians a foot in the door to pass legislation. \"Come on, won't you compromise, gun owners?\" Thus, the most invasive gun law in our country's history was passed: the National Firearms Act. It required a $200 tax stamp and extra federal registration for certain weapons and items. That was fucking expensive in 1934. This law is why AR-15s with barrels shorter than 16 inches are usually seen without a stock. They are pistols. Attach a stock, and it's a short barreled rifle! $200. Suppressor, SBS, full auto? $200. Put a plastic fore grip on your little AR without a tax stamp? FELONY. 10 years and $100,000. \n\nLet's skip to the Kennedy assassination. A terrible time in our country's history. Enter the Gun Control Act of 1968. Another cluster fuck gun owners still deal with today. For a gun to get inside the country to your gun dealer, it must now pass a \"sporting purposes\" test and, literally, make a high enough score to make it into the country. This has caused gun makers like heckler and koch to pretty much say \"fuck even *trying* to get our good guns into the states. Every time we come out with something, it gets banned.\" \n\nNow, you may ask \"how can a 'sporting purpose' be enforced when the bill of rights clearly says 'shall not be infringed?'\" Exactly. The nation fell to the \"gun owners, just compromise a wee bit more\" spiel. \n\nNow let's look at 1986. There was a Firearm Owner's Protection Act going through congress. In it was illegally slipped a bill now notoriously known as the \"Hughes amendment.\" The Hughes amendment banned machine guns manufactured after May of 1986 from civilian use. That's right. Today, if you see a civilian with a legal m-16, it was manufactured before 1986 and is currently worth it's weight in gold. \n\nYou might be noticing a trend. Gun rights **only** get more restrictive. They never get better or restored. The government just takes them every so often. Does that sound like a fucking \"compromise\" to you? \n\nNow, an assassination attempt was made on Reagan as you know. He ended up being fine but his press secretary, James Brady, was hit in his head and brain damaged. He and his wife, Sarah, started a foundation and spearheaded gun control laws. In 1994, Bill Clinton signs the Brady bill and \"Assault weapons\" ban. The Brady bill now requires background checks on initial gun purchases among other things and the assault weapon ban...was just a fucking disaster. Thankfully, it had a sunset clause in 2004 and we got our rights back. This was all done under the guise of \"come on guys. Just a little more! Why won't you compromise?!\" \n\nNow reflect on the environment after Sandy Hook. \"GUYS?! Why won't you compromise?! Think of the children?!\" \n\nNot another inch, god damnit. We are fucking tired of \"compromising.\" Gun rights advocates DID try to compromise and trade national reciprocity for state issued conceal carry permits (like how a marriage is honored in every state) for background checks for all transfers even between family. But no, antigun politicians wanted none of that and insisted on only making laws that take away. Gun owners are exhausted from constantly having to battle. If you can't understand why gun owners are so vehement about their rights, it's because they have a knowledge and understanding about their gun rights and their long history of being pissed on that you may not realize. \n\n",
"well it starts with the fact that private gun ownership is literally what allowed the revolution to take place. That is the reason it was in the constitution's bill of rights. It isn't actually about the protection of one's private property, it's about the ability to defy the stat.\n\nWe are a country founded on the idea that it is Right and Just to violently overthrow a government that no longer responds to your needs and tramples your rights. ",
"Because is not about guns its about control over the populous. Guns are not the problem they are only a tool the evil use, taking them from the good is not the solution.\n\nPencils dont misspell words but you don't blame the pencil, why would you blame a gun?",
"The right to bear arms was originally included so that we could fight against a tyrannical government, but the government has much more advanced weapons now. if they ever did fight against their own people, guns wouldn't help much. I think some people LIKE guns. But saying it's for protection holds up better. and they can be used for protection, but also for shootings involving innocent people. People say that if criminals can't buy them from a store they'll buy one off the black market, but the black market won't sell you one for less than your kidney is worth.",
"The analogy I've always used is to cars. Nobody needs a Ferrari. They're inherently dangerous due to their fragile construction and high performance capabilities but, they are crazy fun if used properly. You can bet that there would be an uproar if the government said no Ferraris or limited them to 5 gallon fuel tanks. In fact there is already quite a bit of hate over ridiculous regulations that mean we can't get cars like Pagani or even a Nissan GTR R34.",
"Look at what happened in Ottawa. A good guy with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun. Canada needs its 2nd amendment. ",
"Cause they're mine. Government can suck my balls. ",
"Throughout history only slaves have been disarmed.",
"You guys got your freedom from the British by voting, we got ours by shooting them.\n\n",
"The banning of fully automatic weapons and limiting of magazine size comes from a tactical level. It slower the rate at which you can fire, and increases the amount of reload time. This creates opportunity for counter-action, whether it be giving you an chance to run or give law enforcement a chance to return fire or move into a better position. So without taking a way guns, this is how law makers try to regulate weapons. They can't take away firearms because it is a tenant in the Bill of Rights, one of America's most important documents for the public's rights and protections. Another right that we are afforded in the same document is a right to privacy, which is why some people have a problem with the background checks because you are inviting the government to learn everything about you and evaluate you. Its quite invasive whether you care or not. \n\nIn the end its highly debated topic because its not always safe to have a deadly weapon in some scenarios, it escalates the *potential* for danger even if its not intended to be used. Example, you have a permit to open carry your pistol. So you go to your kid's soccer game, wearing your gun in a holster. You are legally allowed to do so, but is it necessary? And this is where the controversy really lies. Pro-gun activists say that you are inhibiting their rights by telling them they can't bring their gun, while anti-gun activist ask why it needs to be there at all.",
"And that nasty freedom of speech thing. What's that big deal with that?\n",
"The core of our country is built on the fact that regular citizens had arms. Without private ownership of guns, our revolution would not have happened. So as you can imagine, the ability to defend yourself *with lethal force* is a very closely held value in our country. It's so closely held that it's literally an inherent right spelled out in our constitution.\n\nedit: The Bill of Rights spells out the right to personal gun ownership. The document is actually meant to inform government of the rights citizens have inherently. It's not a document where the government outlines rights it gives to citizens.",
"Many Americans do not realize that the word \"assault\" in \"assault rifle\" is an useless and arbitrary word politicians created.\n\nI can stab somebody with a knife, but that doesn't make it an \"attack knife\".\n\nMost rifles that are at the heart of controversy are semi-automatic. Automatic weapons are very expensive and difficult to obtain because of all the licensing and background check paperwork.\n\nAlso, most people are very inaccurate with weapons, it is not easy to hit your mark. That is why police are trained to fire 6 shots consecutively and quickly with accuracy because two shots will most likely do nothing.",
"As a Mexican I can tell you this, never let go of your right to have weapons. In less than half a century your government can turn against you.",
"The majority of the USA wants the reforms you mention. However a vocal, very well organized and very well funded minority have aligned themselves with pro-gun candidates. Voting districts have been manipulated to maintain the oligarchy. We have a lot of diversity in the USA. Also plenty of passionate, uneducated, scared xenophobes & racist who associate maintaining their gun rights with preserving their culture and way of life from perceived outsiders. That message of fear spreads like wildfire to the rural and not highly educated country folk of America. It's another chapter in the long battle between country folk and city folk. One of the first such battles was the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. Check out the [Ken Burn's documentary Prohibition](_URL_0_)",
"Because once a right is taken away, we will never get it back. Since its a big enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, taking it away makes taking away any of the others possible. And I like the rest of my rights just as much as any other.",
"It's a great deal to do with history, and even more to do with fear. Americans define themselves, in some ways, as a people who resisted tyranny and fought to overthrow it. The idea of a tyrannical government that will enslave its people—and thus, the people need to have the power to fight back—is deep in the gene pool. Look at the American government: It's intentionally designed with a system of \"checks and balances\" to make sure that no single power could oppress the people.\n\nThe ultimate check is an armed populace. For people who believe this, *any* attempt to legislate firearms is the \"first step\" in enslaving the people, and it must be resisted.\n\nThe other part is the American idea of \"Self-Reliance\" and the \"self-made man\". This is the frontier mythos—that a human being ought to be able to take care of themselves against any challenge. Other cultures celebrate civilization and society; Americans celebrate the frontier and standing on one's own. (Read Emerson's \"Self-Reliance\"—he's talking about resisting society as the individual is ALWAYS better than the culture).\n\nFinally, for gun owners, the proposed legislation is *completely useless*. This is one of the biggest frustrations: There's very little functional difference between a 10 round magazine and a 15 round magazine. A magazine change takes between 1-2 seconds... how does that really stop a mass shooting? An \"assault rifle\" fires a bullet that is *less* powerful and *less* deadly than a common hunting rifle... so why are they the focus of legislation?\n\nA gun owner would say, \"because it's scary looking\" roll his eyes, and become disgusted with the process.\n\nThere *are* laws that could be passed that would help erode gun violence in America... but the people proposing gun control laws don't understand guns and so can't propose smart ones (they tend to focus on cosmetic issues, like pistol grips on rifles) and the people who understand firearms and *could* propose legislation that would make the weapons less effective in a mass shooting situation are utterly opposed to any restrictions at all... leading to stalemate and the current situation.\n\n",
"Another American here. I've seen some fine posts already, but I just thought I'd drop my two cents here as well. I can't speak much for the specific issues with background checks and clip size, but I'm going to talk about the American gun mentality instead.\n\nFirst off, I don't know if its fair to say that our right to bear arms is \"the defining characteristic of the nation.\" Yeah, we take the 2nd Amendment seriously, but we get WAY more serious when it comes to the 1st (covering freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc).\n\nBut you're right, we do love our guns as a nation. Aside from hunting, we like guns for both pragmatic and ideological reasons.\n\n**The pragmatic:** When it comes to self-defense, most of us gun-owners see guns as something you'd much prefer to have and not need, rather than need and not have. I have a family story I tell to explain this. When I was very young, I lived in a relatively \"safe\" and somewhat affluent town which shared a border with a city which was about the opposite. In 1992, there was a great wildfire that spread in the area, ultimately coming as close as two blocks from our house. But as the fire was burning, and the police forces of the area were concentrating on evacuating people and crowd control, public order began to break down. People from the city came into our neighborhood and began breaking into cars and houses, looting. My father saw this happening, and realized that if one of these people decided to come into our house, he wouldn't have much means of stopping them. It was at that moment that he realized that he needed a gun for defense in situations like this. Obviously, breakdowns in public order are rare, but then they happen, you want to be prepared. Thankfully, nothing happened to us, but it just as easily could've gone another way. \n\nThe previous story might help illustrate how a private citizen might want a gun to defend themselves in situations where the authorities/law enforcement/government can't. This is part of a broader sentiment that a lot of Americans have, in that they really just don't want to be dependent on the government for any more than they have to. Not all of us feel this way, but a lot do. We have a very large independent streak, and we don't want to be helplessly reliant on outside and impersonal forces to take care of us. \n\n**The ideological:** In addition to the pragmatic \"just in case\" reasoning for gun ownership, there's something to be said for defending ourselves against *the government itself*. I know it's cliche for an American to talk about \"freedom,\" but a lot of us actually take it really seriously. A **huge** amount of the Constitution is geared towards explicitly limiting government power, and it's generally seen that the architects of our government were very concerned with preventing an oppressive state.\n\nSo where do guns factor into this? Basically, the idea is that if (for whatever reason) the US ever does go down a dark path and starts to transform into a totalitarian place, an armed populace makes it harder for the government to have its way. In contrast, a disarmed populace is incredibly easy to push around by law enforcement, and it would unlock a very tempting door for the people in power to potentially step through.\n\nI know, it sounds ridiculously paranoid to talk about situations like this, but in reality situations like I've described have happened time and time again in modern history. Seriously, pick your favorite dictator. I guarantee you that one of the first things he did was restrict civilian access to guns, if they weren't restricted in the first place.\n\nGuns are power, and we feel that power shouldn't be taken away from the people. When it comes to things like background checks and clip size, the feeling is that it's like a war of attrition with our rights. Obviously, you have to draw the regulatory line somewhere, but people on both sides of that line want it pushed in the other direction. That's just politics.\n\nEDIT: spooling.",
"Pride. And people hate change/the idea of it. Myself certainly included",
"Sometimes I just don't feel like wearing long sleeve shirts. No government should be able to take away my god given right to bare arms.",
"I'll give you a unique perspective on this: Most people in the U.S. line up strongly on one side or the other and treat this as an emotional argument. Because people feel so strongly about it logic tends to disappear. This is easily seen when you read the passion and anger exhibited by both sides. \n\n & nbsp;\n\nSo here's why I'm unique: I own multiple guns and I have concealed carry permit. And I often carry a gun. However, I don't believe the Second Amendment gives us the unrestricted right do own guns or carry them. How can this be, you ask?\n\n & nbsp;\n\nI own guns because I want to. I carry one because I sometimes feel the need to do so and I can legally do so. Here's the however part: when I read the Second Amendment objectively, the right to bear arms is clearly tied to the establishment of a militia. I am not part of a well-regulated militia. It's clear to me that the intent of the Second Amendment was not to allow the population to carry arms at any time for any reason. \n\n & nbsp;\n\nClearly the Supreme Court does not agree with me. I am not a legal scholar. I have read all the opinions of the court related to the Second Amendment and have come away with this opinion: as it often does, the court is bowing to the established consensus of the country and is given more weigh to the history of the law than to the original intent. We see this over and over where the court will reverse itself after a one-popular cultural norm becomes unpopular. The public's willingness and readiness to accept change is a significant factor in the courts decision to hear and rule on cases.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nDo I expect this to ever change? I don't, and certainly not in the next 100 years or so. I think a better approach would be to clarify the intent and language of the Second Amendment with another amendment that replaces it. But I also don't expect this to ever happen. \n\n & nbsp;\n\nLastly, practically everybody agrees that the right is not unrestricted. Because the amendment is not specific about what constitutes \"arms\" it is open for interpretation. I can't carry a grenade launcher. I can't carry a full automatic weapon. These are both \"arms.\" So it's really a matter of what is the appropriate amount of restriction. ",
"If you need one and don't have one then you won't ever need one again.",
"The difference between you and me is you are a subject, I am a citizen.\nMy right to bear arms is one of many rights that help to guarantee I remain a citizen and do not become a subject. ",
"“It’s all circling around the same problem of personal liberties,” Walter said. “People came to this country for either money or freedom. If you don’t have money, you cling to your freedoms all the more angrily. Even if smoking kills you, even if you can’t afford to feed your kids, even if your kids are getting shot down by maniacs with assault rifles. You may be poor, but the one thing nobody can take away from you is the freedom to fuck up your life whatever way you want to.” \n― Jonathan Franzen, Freedom",
"I think its more of an issue about taking away a right, then the actual weapon itself.\n\nNot comfortable allowing the government to revoke a right we have. If they say we can't bear firearms its only a matter of time before they start taking away other rights.",
"Saying \"The right to bear arms\" is a defining characteristic of the nation, is like saying \"Throw another shrimp on the Barbie\" is an accurate description of Australia.",
"The crazy gun zealots aside.\n\nAmerica is the greatest and most powerful country in the world. At least we think so, ;) and the second amendment is one of the rights our country was founded on. The word \"right\" can get watered down due to over-use. A right is a freedom that you are born with. The brave men that founded our country set out a list of rights that they felt all men deserved. \n\nWhen someone sets out to restrict ANY of those rights, it gets a LOT of attention. They are trying to say that all men/women are not born with that right any longer. Regardless of how you feel about that right, it's a really big deal. It's the modification of one of the core ideas that made our country what it is today. \n",
"I've been to Australia so I'll put this in a context you should be familiar with.\n\nA kid goes out and has a few drinks. He then gets in his car, and begins a bloody rampage around the city. A bunch of kids are lined up for the bus and he smashes into them at 85 MPH and kills almost all of them. He then drives into a cafe and kills several more people before backing out and running down others.\n\nJohn Howard then stands up in front of a crowd and shouts that this was the fault of alcohol. From this point on, nobody *needs* a pint. Pint glasses are banned, as is almost all hard liquor and most beers, especially those over a certain alcohol content. Fourex is gone, so is Tooheys and Victoria Bitter. The government is using sales records from every retailer to find out who has bought any of this in the last few years and confiscating any they can find with a modest payback so they can get away with not calling it 'confiscation' (despite citizens having no choice in the matter).\n\nA few years later, a student at Monash University worked to acquire some hard liquor and some shot glasses, gets drunk, and drives around town. He hit and killed a couple people. The government comes out and says that because the actions of one person demonstrated that the populace obviously can't even be trusted with those, they institute a second phase of confiscations. No more hard liquor and shots.\n\nIn fact, at the end of their laws, the only thing you can buy with any ease is a thin red wine, but it still requires you to prove you have a lockable liquor cabinet and specify a 'need' for it. Recreational drinking in the home is not a need, but religious services is (but you still have to prove it). You can drink recreationally, but your wine (and you're only allowed to own one bottle at a time, one bottle per month, four bottles per year) has to be stored under lock and key at the nearest pub. Wine glasses are limited in size to small cups that only hold quarter- and third-servings, and the licensed bartender is the only one who can actually pour it for you. \n\nVery special exemptions do exist that allow you to purchase one type of beer, but under extremely strict circumstances. Police are allowed to investigate your house at any time if you own beer to ensure that the bottle opener and beer are stored in seperate locked containers. If someone unauthorized manages to drink that beer (your kid steals the key) you are liable for all of it and will probably end up in jail if he is caught.\n\nThe new laws do contain several exemptions for the upper class, however. John Howard and his subsequent replacements are frequently seen in public with a cadre of visibly drunk revelers with him. The government rules that because running the country is stressful, it's only reasonable that politicians be able to have alcohol whenever they want. Laws that would stop almost any regular citizen from owning booze are easily bypassed by those with money or political connections. Even the police are considered 'stressed' and are able to carry hip flasks on them full of hard liquor, visible to everyone, and get drunk back at the station. In fact, even after a cop gets drunk, drives around and smashes his car up, greatly injuring himself, the politicians seem to have no comment on the story.\n\nA few years afterwards, a 'study' comes out that points to the low rate of DUIs and says that the alcohol laws were a factor. But everyone who hated these new laws points out that in the years before the laws were passed, there really wasn't a DUI problem to begin with. They solved a problem that barely existed, they showed a serious level of contempt for their own citizens by implying that they were all irresponsible murderous drunkards who couldn't be trusted, and it was a complete waste of time and money. However, over the decades, the government continues to shout to people about how great their drinking laws are, and people growing up without any alcohol begin to believe that the laws indeed were the greatest thing in the world.\n\nMeanwhile, incidents involving drunks have begun to rise due to a growing industry of underground brewing. Police are finding more and more exotic liquors and even the occasional beer bong. A couple months ago, a guy got drunk and killed his entire family in their car, but it was barely mentioned in the news for fear of underscoring that the anti-drinking laws really didn't do much. Australians now populate the internet and every time a story comes out from another country about a drunken firey car crash, they talk about how stupid and 'insane' those countries are for allowing people to have free access to alcohol. \"I don't get your alcohol fetish at all,\" they say.\n\n---\n\nThat is why we hate Australia's laws (and frankly, why I hate the attitude of Australians on this topic). Australia is a very alcohol-happy society, their propensity to drink is practically a cornerstone of their national identity. But the reality is that nobody *needs* to drink. Drinking kills thousands every year. It's nothing but a stupid recreational activity. For centuries people have tried to ban drinking all over the world because it really, honestly does absolutely nothing useful at all except as a means of entertainment.\n\nIf Australia tried to institute a law that banned Tooheys the country would fucking riot. But at the same time, they seem to fail to understand the connection between Americans with guns (which actually serve far more purpose than ethyl alcohol ever could) and Australians with booze.\n\nWhy do Americans have such an issue with it? Two reasons that haven't really been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. The first is that frequently the people who are shouting that we should 'control guns' are people who don't own guns, don't know anything about guns, and frankly, will never have to deal with the legal minefield they forced upon gun owners. Since gun owners are a minority, we are completely at the whim of the majority and have to rely on strong lobbying in congress to fight for us. It's called 'tyranny of the majority'. People have proposed all kinds of insane and pointless laws, like taxing ammo at 500% or making gun owners own some sort of expensive insurance. They know it really won't do anything, but they also know that it will severely injure gun owners financially. Meanwhile, the people who passed the law don't own guns so they don't care if it forces someone to sell their beloved collection of family heirlooms because they can't afford them anymore. They won't have to deal with it. It would be like a bunch of virgins and men passing a law that allows abortions, but the state taxes them at $8,000 per. Yes, abortions are 'legal', but almost nobody - especially those who tend to need them most - can afford them. Abortions are effectively banned for those people. They do this because their hope is that it gets too expensive for people to own guns so they stop owning them, which marginalizes gun owners' power more, which makes it easier to pass even stronger laws. This is why we as gun owners make a point to try to attract new people to the hobby.\n\nThe second thing I wanted to mention was that gun laws have been a continual slippery slope. No matter what gun laws get passed (especially on a state level), they have absolutely no provable impact. California has the strongest and most asinine gun laws in the country, but California's ranking in the top state quartile of murders per capita hasn't really changed whatsoever in the decades they've been making laws. Then something happens that gets headlines, so they come up with even more ridiculous laws. On a federal level, we have silly laws that make no sense (short barrel rifle laws, suppressor regulations), but they exist to this day because nobody ever gets rid of laws in this country. Once a law is passed there's less than a 1% of 1% of 1% chance that it will ever be repealed in the future. The anti-gun types are playing the long game. They just want to sneak in the odd law here, the occasional law there, and then over the years they tend to add up. We're at the point where I can't even replace the handguards on my rifle with foreign-made ones because some obscure, absurd law in USC 922(r) tells me that it's a felony to do that. *Handguards.*\n\nGun control was almost considered a settled issue for a long time. Then, after Sandy Hook, it exploded again. A whole new generation of gun owners who'd never experienced this asspain and attacks on their hobby, their civil liberties, their character were in the fight. The anti-gunners tried to force in some terrible do-nothing laws that would just burden gun owners with legal bullshit designed to either put them in jail or punish them financially, and we had three options - pass the laws in a 'compromise' that would involve repealing a lot of older, shitty useless laws (which absolutely nobody on the left would ever do, since they don't understand existing gun laws anyway)... pass the laws and allow it to go ahead (which accomplishes the anti-gunners goal of slipping in more permenant gun laws, so they can propose new laws in the future after they complain about how their other law isn't strong enough since it doesn't do anything)... or reject all new laws outright, since otherwise we get nothing. So since the Democrats will never repeal a gun law, we had only one option, reject it entirely, forever. There will never be compromising with these people, so why should we listen to anything they ever have to say?",
" > I don't really understand the NEED for an assault rifle but they are probably really fun to shoot, IDK. But why is there an issue with limiting magazine sizes? And what is so bad about background checks?\n\nWhat in your mind it's a government's rights to take away something you don't need? I find this *appalling*. Yep. Government worker comes as you eat and says. \"You don't *need* that, let me take that from you\". That house is *too* massive; let me give you something you *need*. \n\nYou're advocating gun control by the government. You understand the government takes people's guns with a threat of a gun? The government does not altruistically throw away it's own guns but simply monopolizes the use by only the legalized violence of the state.\n\nThe same people threatening you is the same agency that puts you into trillions of dollars in debt. Sold guns to the Mexican drug cartel. Started the great depression and funded terrorism. \n\nNow with that noted can you realize how God damn stupid gun control is?\n\n**You're giving a gang of sociopaths the keys to the city and moral justification of their deranged behavior.**",
"Simply put though, most people don't want to give up their guns because then criminals would be armed, while people who follow the law would not be. That seems like a shittier situation than we are in currently. The reality is, no other country has the gang and gang culture problem that America faces, and banning guns wouldn't fix it. \n\nAlso, the reason you think this issue defines us is that most media is extremely liberal, so every time there is a shooting, they will slam the airways with liberal nonsense about how this would have been prevented if guns were banned. You won't hear stories on most US news channels about the millions of times guns save lives. Just saw a story the other day about a grandfather killing 3 intruders trying to rape his grand daughter. Without a gun in his hands, what do you think happens there? Probably have a dead grand daughter and a dead grandfather. You won't see the media play up a story like this because it doesn't fit their liberal agenda. ",
"Our country was founded through revolution. The country has a constitution that guarantees our right to own firearms. We will need those guns when we next need to revolt. Also, the populace owning guns puts us to arms immediately if we need to defend ourselves from invaders. We are responsible for our own protections. It has proven detrimental to relinquish weapons in historical cases.(see German history for this example)\\\n",
"It's the most important part of keeping the small amount of freedom we have left.\n\n\"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun\" - Mao",
"First of all, the 2nd amendment is not badly worded. It's very straightforward, but people don't like the ramifications of the simple statement \"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" The prefatory clause doesn't change the meaning of that line.\n\n...but that means that it protects everything from pistols to fully automatic machine guns to RPGs. Maybe everything up to nukes, but you can make an argument that \"arms\" means \"small arms\". All of the \"militia clause\" arguments and such all come down to one thing: people arguing what they think the 2nd amendment *should* say, not what it actually says.\n\nDo I think that's a good idea? To let everyone have unrestricted access to RPGs and machine guns? No. And neither do most Americans. Even most gun owners.\n\nSo when firearm technology advanced to the point where it became scary, why didn't we just amend the constitution and fix the 2nd amendment? We fixed slavery by amending the constitution. We amended the constitution to *pass* prohibition!\n\nWell, prohibition was the problem. Prohibition set off a crime wave never seen before. The 1934 National Firearms Act was a response to this crime wave and the perceived deadliness of new firearms like the Thompson SMG. Rather than actually making machineguns illegal, because they knew that would be unconstitutional, they just made them $200 more expensive with a tax stamp, putting them out of the range of ordinary citizens. **They circumvented the constitution rather than amending it.**\n\nThat one act set up the political divide over guns that we have today. The courts made bad stretches of logic one after another to uphold gun control that was anything short of an outright ban on all guns. The gun owners lost all faith in the system. And now we're far too divided to even come close to passing an update to the 2nd amendment that both sides could live with.\n\n\nRE: assault rifles\n\nBarring a few very expensive exceptions, you can't own an assault rifle. You can own a weapon that looks like an assault rifle just like you can own a motorcycle that looks like a MotoGP bike. They even share a lot of the same parts, but the important bits are different.\n\nRE: magazine sizes\n\nThe average gun crime uses 0 bullets. The average gun crime where shots are fired uses 1-4. The average suicide uses 1. Spree shooters carry a duffle bag full of spare magazines. Magazine size limits would do nothing whatsoever to affect gun violence statistics.\n\nRE: background checks\n\nThe idea of background checks polls at 80% support. The implementation that Democrats try to pass is *banning all private sales*, which has less support.",
"I'm sure others have mentioned this, but just as background on why I staunchly support the right to bear arms, my great grandpa was dragged out of his home with his family by the Sturmabteilungen. At the end of the day, I want to have the ability to protect myself and my family from an oppressive government.",
"I don't know if this has been said or if you'll even see this but the average gun owner is a pretty reasonable person. There are things that could be done better and I know that I at least would accept magazine restrictions and similar things. The vocal minority on either side of the argument is typically wrong and it holds true for the gun argument. I think most of us are okay with things like background checks, I'd be fine and think we should have mental health and a mandatory safety course before getting licensed. Also, we don't really (for the most part) own assault rifles. We have rifles that look exactly like our military issue rifles but they are actually different. In fact, there is a new one coming out that looks similar to an m16 but is actually bolt action so looks are deceiving. ",
"It's a very complicated issue, but it really boils down to \"it's the culture.\"\n\nLike the top comment already says, this nation was built on an armed populace overthrowing the government. But this alone has not ingrained the \"myth of the gun\" so thoroughly into American culture. We are also an *enormous*, continent-spanning nation. Despite over 300 million people living here, there is still a huge amount of wilderness across the country. In less densely-populated regions - like the Deep South and the Midwest - this has allowed hunting (both for sport and for food) to remain extremely relevant and popular. In these places, being able to own, operate, and upkeep a gun is tightly associated with becoming and being a man.\n\nThere's also that this is a nation that has also been built on aggressive expansion. American settlers were constantly moving west, settling new, uncharted lands, in order to find new wealth and opportunities. Not only were there already people living in these places (Native Americans), but these settlers were also outrunning the reach of the federal government. Back in those days, law enforcement wasn't as extensive and/or effective as today. So for settlers in these remote areas, you needed to own a gun to defend yourself and your family from any threats, as well as (and much more frequently) to hunt for food when your crops couldn't quite cut it.\n\nAdd to this historical context mass media, which takes the existing myth of the gun and magnifies it exponentially. While it's no longer a necessity for most Americans to own a gun today, the media portrayal of it keeps the myth of the gun fresh in our memories.\n\nSo it's really a culture thing. Like with all national or ethnic cultures, it's really difficult to understand unless you're surrounded by it day in and day out.",
"Please define \"assault rifle\", as used in your question. \nMany people think of automatic weapons when using the term, but those have been banned in the US since the 1930's and the Tommy Gun. \nFrom pictures of \"assault rifles\" the term seems to refer to a standard hunting rifle, but with a composite stock. I'm really having trouble understanding how a rifle that's been painted black would be any more fun to shoot than one that's painted brown.",
"Honestly the vast majority of gun owns are law abiding citizens that are ok with certain common sense limitations. Obviously people don't need a 1000 round belt and a full automatic 50 caliber for home defense or hunting. But it is engrained in our culture that the government is a problem and should jot be limiting our rights. I guess the best analogy would be freedom of speech and having the government come in and say you can say whatever you want, as long as isn't about the government, doesn't offend anyone, and isn't against god. I am a gun owner, have several pistols with a max capacity of 10 rounds, and a few shot guns. ",
" > I just don't get how one badly worded line in the constitution becomes the defining characteristic of a nation.\n\nIt's not a *badly* worded line. It's a *broadly* worded line, as it's meant to be. In this case, you have to examine the intent of the addition, not the erroneous interpretations of that line today such as the one your made. The intent of including that in the Bill of Rights was to give citizens the right to raise up arms in order to defend and protect themselves and their property. The real question is why shouldn't that right still exist today? It's a founding tenant, not just a simple malleable law, of our democracy and one that's not lightly revoked or changed, despite whatever the current popular opinion may be.\n\nAlso, it then becomes a question into what other founding tenants of our governmental system could be revoked or nullified. Freedom of speech? press? assembly? religion? A fair trial? Are soldiers allowed to take over your house? Illegal search and seizures now legal? As you can see, it quickly becomes a house of cards. ",
"/u/bobdole3-2 hit the nail on the head. I just wanted to add that not all Americans do care much about this right. In many urban areas that do not have a culture of hunting and are further on the left of the political spectrum gun control is very popular. In New York many of us do not believe that the right to bear arms is as important as it is made out to be elsewhere.",
"Please stop thinking that Americans want guns more than you or others. Most Americans have no interest in guns, and interest in owning guns in America is a product of the same individual factors that cause interest/lack thereof in people anywhere else, i.e.: local crime rates, farmers who have trouble with wild canids, etc. What is more of an issue here than elsewhere is what the Constitution means, that is all. ",
"The need for a gun, as I'm sure you see, is one of neccessity for many. Being an Ausiie, you are more likely to understand this than a Euro. Almost everyone in Europe lives in a big city, with police very close, who will very often come to the rescue very quickly if they don't deter a crime altogether. Even those in Europe who don't live in cities most often have great police forces.\n\nIn America, it can take half an hour or more for the police to arrive to a crime scene after being called, and it is not there responsibility to protect you as many believe, their only job is to investigate crimes that have already happened, and pursue the criminals that commit them. That being said, if they can catch the criminal in the act, they will always arrest then, although this is rare outside of cities.\n\nI have called the cops to my residence once, and it took them around 42 minutes to arrive. If I had to call them during a home invasion, they would, of course, show up after the fact. This is why I need a gun to protect myself.\n\nAs far as \"Assault Rifles\" go, we don't have them. The media calls the rifles built to mimic them assault rifles, so they have a better chance of getting legal action taken to ban them on the federal level. What we do have, is what is called \"sporting rifles\" that are used to mimic assault rifles, which fire in fully automatic. These rifles are built around military grade assault rifles because these are the weapons that are best designed for durability and reliability. Sporting rifles, in all honesty, is not the best name for this group of weapons, because they aren't designed for what one would normally consider a shooting sport. They are designed for the advanced shooter, who partakes in competitions designed purely around shooting, such as 3-gun. Because these guns have the best performance, they are also used by many for all kinds of reasons, simply because they are the best at what they do.\n\nThe reason that magazine capacity is an issue is because it is because it is unjust. It takes less than 3 seconds for anyone to change a magazine, and for those who really know what they are doing can perform this action in a second or less. Magazine restrictions don't really do anything to stop mass shootings, or more importantly, shootings in general. Magazines can also be easily made at home, meaning there is no way to effectively regulate them. These two facts means that magazine restrictions are unjust burdens, on citizens, and there for can not, or at least should not, become law.\n\nExpanded background checks are unwanted from the gun crowd for three reasons. The first reason because the background checks we already have aren't enforced, with the vast majority of those who legally aren't allowed to have guns never being pursued for prosecution by the federal government after failing a background check. The second reason is that background checks in private transfers get in the way of personal liberty, and are in turn an unjust burden. The third reason is that they allow for the creation of a database of all gun owners, which paves the way for confiscation.\n\nThe second amendment is so important because it is the one that protects every other amendment. It holds the government accountable to the citizens who are supposed to hold the power in America.\n\nWhile more gun bans and less guns do equate to SLIGHTLY fewer crimes committed with guns, it leads to more overall crime, especially violent crime. As an Australian, you should be aware that the decline in gun crimes in your country hasn't been very high since the implementation of the most recent gun laws, while the rate of violent crime as a whole has seen a sharp increase. The same is true in the UK.\n\nThe problem with gun violence isn't the gun, but the violence part. There isn't really a good way to regulate firearms that is fair to the population and doesn't actually cause an increase in crime. Like the failed prohibitions of alcohol and marijuana in the US, which have both been great failures, the prohibition of firearms would be equally, if not more so of a catastrophic failure.\n\nAnd before someone calls me a crazed republican that can't live without mass shootings, I consistently test as a progressive populist. ",
"Just wanted to respond as someone who has extensively studied the Second Amendment in law school. The core individual right conferred by the Second Amendment, as stated by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, is the right to self defense in the home. This right cannot be infringed by the federal or state government (McDonald v. Chicago)\n\n\nThat is to say, a regulation that infringes upon someone's right to self defense in the home is most likely going to be deemed unconstitutional. Laws banning guns in \"sensitive\" places such as schools, government buildings, churches, etc. are much more likely to be valid, but still need to be sufficiently tailored. Similarly, the government can restrict possession by felons. Unfortunately, unlike the First and Fourth amendments, Second Amendment jurisprudence is not well established (the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on enough 2nd Amendment cases to give clear guidance to lawmakers and the lower courts). \n\n\nSo practically speaking, unless a constitutional amendment passes to eliminate or alter the wording of the Second Amendment, neither the state nor the federal government can pass laws that render handguns inoperable in the home (can't just ban guns). Thus, the laws that have the best chance of being constitutional are extensive background checks, excise taxes on bullets (aka the Chris Rock solution), limits on magazines, etc. The government could also create a buy back program to reduce the number of guns in public circulation, but this program would have to be voluntary. ",
"If I didn't have a gun The King of England could walk in here at any time and start shoving me around. ",
"Many of us tend to look at firearms as a tool that one owns to protect your home and family. When the right to own that tool is in danger we view it the same as if the government suddenly decided that ownership of fire extinguishers should be illegal because fire departments exist. ",
"We feel very strongly that our government needs to be kept in check, it is what the founding fathers believed and instilled as a core value. Not saying it makes any sense, because the government has more and bigger guns. However, I know a lot of gun owners who say they will use their guns when pressed to do so. ",
"Obligatory Jim Jefferies comedy bit of gun control:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I live in Michigan. The national guard is not the same thing as a militia. Our militia is actually on the 'Watch List'\n\nAlso, arms is short for 'Armaments' which is defined as 'implements of war.' Muskets are no longer implements of war - the often used argument that guns have changed does not affect this discussion. However Assault Weapons are. So are tanks, F16s, artillery, and missiles. During the revolutionary war most artillery pieces were privately owned.\n\nThe second amendment exists to give teeth to the first amendment.",
"I think the best answer is because you shouldn't ever completely trust a government. Guns are the only way to defend yourself from tyrannical government. Sure democracy would have you believe you can just \"talk about it\". That didn't work so well in 1776. The right to bear arms is essentially the bill of rights way of saying that you can defend yourself. Taking away self defense is what you do to slaves. Not citizens.\n",
"I gotta stay strapped too many niggaz say they after me",
"Do you remember what Hitler did when he got into power? Most Americans have trust issues with the government, or any government for that matter. Some people feel that if things get to that point again, we may need our firearms. You also have the people who just enjoy hunting, and or collecting guns. It's been engrained into our DNA since 1776. ",
"This statement. This statement right here\n\"Even if you're a trained shooter, there's a very real chance that if you're limited to seven shots (like in my state), you might not hit your target, or not hit him enough to put him down.\"\n\nThe fantasy that American's have that this will really happen vs. the reality of the rest of the western world that it probably won't. \nYou can't take away a man's dream of being in an action movie. ",
"Because we have a pretty well established history of armed insurrection and you never know when a cache of weapons and ammo might come in handy, should the need to overthrow tyranny arise.",
"I'm an American and I don't give a shit. Most of the people I know don't give a shit. I come from the suburbs, not a lot of crime happens here, so bearing arms isn't a big deal. I suppose it would be a bigger deal to someone living in Detroit or the Bronx or something, but even if guns were 100% illegal, that wouldn't stop people in Detroit and the Bronx from acquiring/using them.",
"This will get buried but anways...as a Canadian who routinely calls lots of things that happen in America ridiculous, gun control is something that the US does right.\n\nQuite frankly to me and any logical person it seems insane that criminals who don't care about the laws still carry and use guns but I am not allowed to carry one for my own person protection. That's just silly. Also the events on wednesay have shown yet again the firearms need to be avaliable for people to defend themselves.\n\nA note on magzine sizes, we have some whacky laws in Canada. Semi Automatic rifles are limited to 5 rounds while pistols (which are \"restricted\" and only be fired at a range can have up to 10). First and foremost if I was using a firearm for defense, not even for people but maybe dangerous wildlife 5 rounds is NOT ENOUGH while you are in a panic situation. Also even for target shooting only having five rounds kind sucks. \n\nBelieve it or not most gun owners are law abiding citizens that don't want any trouble with the government. So what do I do if I want to have more than 5 round in a magazine but not break the law? I buy a pistol magazine that happens to fit into my rifle and now I can have 10 rounds. This is perfectly legal. Examples of this would be the Robinson arms XCR-L or M. It's a bit annoying and silly but I don't want to break the law so that's what I do.\n\nNow what do I do if I don't give a shit about the law or I want to mow people down? I just buy the MORE COMMONLY AVALAIBLE 30 round magazines and take them home and drill out the pin that capped the magzine at 5 rounds. The point is if gun owners didn't give a shit about the law this would be a cheaper, easier and \"more fun\" solution.\n\nMoving on to \"assualt weapons\" that term always makes me laugh. Lots of weapons here are restricted simply because they look scary or like a military weapon. As example an Ar-15 even with a 5 round capacity is restricted. That gun fires a .223 calibre round. Yet this fucking thing: _URL_0_ is non restricted and I can drive around with it my vehicle pretty much all the time. I don't know about you I would MUCH prefer to get shot at by the AR-15. \n\nMost guns laws are silly because the ciminals who intend to use them for nefarious purposes are just going to ignore them anyways.",
"First off, why do I have to provide a reason or a need? I have the bill or rights, 2nd amendment, that is sufficient.\n\nThe right to bear arms is not intended to preserve our hunting rights, it is intended to be a deterrent to our government from ever abusing our citizens - you know pretty much the basis for the creation of the United States of America. We won't destroy tanks or shoot down planes effectively with small arms, but an armed populace commands respect from those that govern. It is another part of the checks and balances. For that reason, civilian ownership of firearms should be on par with our military and police individual small arms. AR's, M-4's, AK's etc. \n\nYes, that is a NEED. It is a part of liberty and the US was created with a belief that it is the government that should fear the citizens. It is the government that should be restricted and controlled and the populace should be very careful about the powers it grants to them. If anything, we should \"gun control\" the police and homeland security and when big guns are needed, they should get a posse of citizens to get the firepower they need. That would be a nice way to ensure power remains in the hands of the citizens and we don't end up with an environment where there are large federal organizations with power to control the populace such as what we are seeing grow with homeland security and even the power hungry EPA. Ugly things are ahead if these organizations continue unchecked and get weaved more and more into our police forces. The system is being primed for centralized control from the very few.\n\nLimiting magazine sizes is a strategy of incremental restriction with the end game of regulating an equivalent of total gun rights loss. Taxes, background checks, ammo laws, black tactical vs wood stock restrictions, barrel length, magazine capacities are all tactics to regulate and introduce laws to eventually get to the end game of removing guns from American society. That is why we argue against all of these attempts. The deadliest firearm is the single shot high power scoped rifle yet that isn't on any of the anitgunners agenda. They go after emotional items such as the most popular rifle in the US, the AR platform. So I would actually like to ask you the question. Why do YOU want to restrict magazine sizes? What do you think you are going to accomplish with that? \n\nThe problem with background checks as a qualifier to gun ownership is that becomes an avenue to broad ownership restrictions. If you can change what \"mental issue\" is, you can deem whoever you want to be unable to own a firearm. It's just another backdoor to ownership restriction. Vets are being increasingly targeted as people with mental issues who should have firearms restricted and one of the outcomes is some of these folks are not seeking help with dealing with post combat stress due to the possibility of it affecting their gun ownership rights.\n\nThere is nothing wrong with line in the constitution. The militia is the people and militias are necessary to preserving freedom of a state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Very simple. I'd like people to focus on \"shall not be infringed\". These regulations against firearms are a violation of the constitution. Don't agree? Lets start applying speech regulation like we do firearm regulations and see how well that is accepted. \n\nDefining characteristic of a nation. Perhaps the US founding fathers got it right. It seems to me that individual firearm ownership IS one of the cornerstones of a free citizenry. To have in your hands the power to fight tyranny on a one to one level. To stand up for yourself. To not only be one who can protect and preserve ones interests through diplomacy, but when others choose to violate you or your family, you have the power to stand and protect. I think that is a fundamental personal right and freedom that should exist everywhere. You see it in nature, either you are armed (fangs, claws, talons etc.) or you are food.\n\nWhat we need to ACCEPT is that there is a cost that comes with this freedom. Some will abuse it. Some people will die because of misuse of this freedom. It is part of what goes with a free society. We have freedom of speech. That can be used to start riots or threaten. You don't tell some people they are no longer allowed to speak or that they have to pass a background check to speak. When someone threatens someone you deal with the threat. You don't take away hammer rights, axe rights or seek to regulate those things, you punish the person for the threat and the danger. The tool is not the criminal as we so often see mistakenly applied to firearms.\n\nI am very happy to be in a nation that has an understanding of individual gun rights and ownership. I recognize there is a danger that comes with this. I accept that as a cost of an abundance of freedom and would not want to see that abundance of freedom sacrificed for the belief that it will increase safety. I'll be responsibly for my own safety.\n\nThank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts.",
"imagine if every jewish household in the 40s had a 6-shooter.",
"It's a complicated question. There are a number of factors that often work in concert that make people really feel a need to keep all the firepower they can. \n\n1. It's very common to believe that you are a gun expert and that the data that shows that a gun in the house is more likely to kill someone living there than an intruder can be ignored for that reason.\n\n2. There is a common belief that more gun rights are at risk than really are. This is mostly due to a political group understanding of single issue voters. For example, there was worry that the current president was going to slash gun rights (mostly due to pundits telling people so in national media) but time and data shows us that he has been more friendly to gun rights than his predecessor.\n\n3. There are a lot of scared people here. This country is a melting pot and it's human nature to be afraid of and aggressive towards your outgroup. A gun can help people not be so scared around strangers.\n\n4. The country was founded with an armed overthrow. There is a pervasive belief that this could be done again if needed.",
"There are plenty of points in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that don't really make sense some 200 years later. The second amendment is one of those points.\n\nFor instance, in the 1700s, you couldn't buy a gun that would mow down an entire room full of people in ten seconds. You had to take a minute to get a single shot ready, which would likely miss anyway. \"Arms\" then vs. \"arms\" now are two totally different animals, so it makes sense nowadays to elaborate on that rule, rather than just saying \"yeah, sure, go buy some guns!\"\n\nA lot of people either don't understand or don't care that as society changes, the same laws can't always effectively apply. They think that something like a background check is just phase one, and it will give the government reason to ban guns altogether. It's sort of the same argument as saying that gay marriage will lead to elephant marriage, or chair marriage, or sodium molecule marriage. It's arbitrary and unprovable but there's no way they'll take that risk without a fight.\n\nThat's why everyone is so - wait for it - up in arms about this whole situation.",
"Also, since i havent seen it said already, there is a huge issue about legal precedent.\n\nThe bill of rights is arguably a huge defining document, super super important to defining and protecting american freedoms. The right to bear arms is only one small part of it. It also defines our legal system, our right to keeping our property and lives private, and of course our first amendment rights, freedom of speech, religion, etc...\n\nIf guns are made illegal by our government, suddenly there is legal precedent for violating the bill of rights. To me, this seems like a huge deal, and is way more frightening than any crazy dude with a gun. \n\nIt all comes down to the fact that americans don't trust our government not to fuck us over. The guns themselves are important because of our history, but more important is the \"you can't tell me what to do\" spirit. ",
"It would have been more useful to you, I think, to have asked ELI5: Rights.",
"Because it's a right. Take away one and where does it stop?",
"Came here expecting an American circle jerk, found an American circle jerk. ",
"\"Assault rifle\" is a bullshit term, just so you know. ",
"\"Assault rifle\" is a buzz word attributed to anything that looks scary (black plastic) with a magazine.",
"There is no ELI5 for this guns issue, unfortunately. I'm certain you do know this is quite the complicated matter. Frankly, if everyone were allowed to buy and own whatever weapon they'd like, whenever they'd like we'd have a pretty equitable society. Except there'd be several hundred people being shot to death a week, many thousands more maimed and injured.\n\nOn the other hand, banning gun ownership is such a constraint on personal freedoms and still would not eradicate guns that the criminal element, and more egregious \"law enforcement\" would undoubtable be exponentially more overbearing and unjust.\n\nThe authors of the second amendment fully intended it to speak on behalf of the citizenry's need to protect itself from an overzealous government (like that of the imperialist UK). Unfortunately, that premise has been made out of date by 2014 tech. Drones and tasers and the sort, in addition to secret intelligence gathering governmental agencies, have the trump card. There's no way, even if we the people had all the guns, that the militia could rise up and revolt against our Big Brother. The second amendment IS moot. So now we have two opposing sides with extremely valid points and absolutely NO clear cut correct side. This will never be settled. Sigh. Such is life. It was nice to be free but the irony is, with all the guns and rights to bear arms and shit, we're a society that is far less free than, say, Canada (for the time being). Our FBI knows who each and every one of us is, and you too!",
"The reasoning is because they're not sure if it refers the right to own a weapon or the right to hang a pair of bear arms above their fireplace. ",
"It's all one bad argument. The only argument that has any validity is that gun owners like their guns. Perfectly valid. Perfectly reasonable. I have fired guns at a range and they are incredibly fun. They also do have a safety use/crime deterrent as well, but none of the arguments really stand up to logic on why laws shouldn't be changed.\n\n1)It's in the Constitution/Bill Of Rights or It's our constitutional right!\n\nMost countries have constitutions and they are allowed to be changed and altered to meet the issues of the day. That is why they are called AMENDMENTS. We had plenty of things in the constitution that have since been removed or added; we have granted voting rights to women, black people (after the abolition of slavery), etc. \n\n2) History of overthrowing government\n\nThe country was built upon the colonists overthrowing A GOVERNMENT ACROSS AN ENTIRE OCEAN THAT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH REPRESENTING US. Today our government is representing us through the people we elect for the Senate and House of Reps. Is it perfect? No. But why the hell should anyone expect anything to be? \n\n3) We needs guns to protect ourselves from the federal gov't.\n\nThe federal gov't now has tanks, drones, and missiles. Pretty sure the battle is lost 99/100 there. We also overthrow the gov't ALL THE TIME with elections. It's a bloodless revolution. We have dems and repubs controlling different offices (senate, house of reps, presidency) and if they are so bad that enough people vote against them, then tada! Overthrow is complete. Is it a perfect pie in the sky, idealistic overthrow where everything is different and wonderful and utopian? Again, no, nothing is perfect.\n\n4) I'm a responsible gun owner. Why should I have to have my rights infringed on through background checks or magazine limits?!\n\nWe live in a society that has really really stupid people. Just because someone is fortunate enough to drive and text without getting into an accident and killing anyone, doesn't mean that someone else is that \"good\" at texting and driving. We have to adjust the rules accordingly.\n\nAlso, if part of being a responsible owner is that you never keep the gun loaded and/or you have it locked away in a gun safe, those things remove the expediency that may be required for use of the gun for safety.\n\nAs long as the 2nd amendment isn't removed or changed, or an additional amendment is not ratified, then it is our right as an American to have guns and naturally we will try to not have it impeded.",
"What's really f'd up here, in my opinion, is most people who are \"passionate about their guns\" also know how to safely operate and protect their weapons and are NOT the ones who end up on the 6 o'clock news.\nIt's the ones who are mentally unstable, wether temporarily or from chronic issues, that scare the rest of the population. I am an educated & mentally sound gun owner with acreage in a rural area in the Pacific Northwest, near a heavily travelled highway with little police presence. We have bears, cougars, and other wild animals in our area and most of my neighbors have guns. it's the neighbor who gets drunk every night and decides to \" target practice\" in his backyard, and invites friends over to do the same, and constantly fights with his wife and with those visitors, that worries me. I believe other responsible gun owners feel the same. \nIf you look at other things in the US that are regulated, and I use this term loosely, such as alcohol, prescription drugs, and motor vehicles for that matter, the same principles apply. It isnt the single act of owning a gun that's the real issue. It's the gun ownership coupled with many uncontrollable unknowns. It's the equation of \"gun + \"x\" \". You can't put a blanket regulation on this. The government has tried before and there will always be examples of why this won't always apply. \n\nIt's not a matter of government regulation on gun ownership as much as it is the \"what's next\"...will we eventually be required to surrender DNA samples or get microchipped at birth? Those possibilities aren't just science fiction any longer. And no, I'm not Republican nor am I a member of the NRA. I was raised in a home with a gun but was not aware it was there until I was in my late 20's. I purchased and learned to fire my first gun at 30. I do have a concealed weapon permit and did seek out and receive training for my weapons as well as others.\n\nI hope this makes sense....",
"Rural areas have wild animals for which firearms may be necessary for protection of self and livestock. There's also another reason for owning firearms in a rural area:\n\nMany towns/villages in rural areas lack a police force of any kind. They rely on state level police to respond when there are issues. Said police can be at least 30 minutes away at full speed if they respond immediately. \n\nTrue story time: I lived in rural PA for several years with my SO and have a concealed carry permit. At the time I worked nights and it was normal to get home around 3-4 in the morning. One Sunday morning I came home to two unknown pickup trucks in front of our house with two men I did not recognize loitering outside of them. I talked to them and they seemed suspicious (no reason for being there, seemed a little loopy) and one of them put a hand on my shoulder as I went to go inside. I don't know if he heard the hammer of my pistol (in my pocket with my hand on it) click back or not but I left peacefully. Turned out the guy who put his hand on me was my SO's ex and decided to show up uninvited after a night of hard drinking. If something had gone down, it would have been two on one with any emergency services at least 30 minutes away. There's a good chance I could have lain out in front of the house bleeding for several hours before anyone noticed.",
"Limiting magazine capacity is STUPID. Here's why \n_URL_0_",
" > I don't really understand the NEED for an assault rifle but they are probably really fun to shoot, IDK\n\nVirtually no one in the United States has an assault rifle.\n\n* [These are assault rifles, specifically M16's.](_URL_8_) This is the gun that ~~lost~~ was used in the Viet Nam war.\n* [This is an AR15, the version of the M16 that is quite popular throughout the United States with gun aficionados](_URL_7_)\n* [This is a Ruger Mini-14](_URL_3_), which is commonly classified as a \"ranch gun.\"\n\nAll of these weapons fire the same round: 5.56 NATO. Guess which one is the most different from the other two? Did you guess the Mini-14? I'd not be surprised, but you would be wrong. Of those weapons, only the M16 is capable of fully automatic fire. If you hold down the trigger of the AR15 or [Mini-14](_URL_4_) for an hour, the only thing that would happen after the first round was fired would be that your finger would get tired.\n\n > But why is there an issue with limiting magazine sizes? \n\nBecause it does nothing useful to stop, or even [meaningfully slow down,](_URL_5_) bad guys, but *does* hurt a good, law abiding citizen's ability to stop a bad guy. You see, the FBI published a [report back in 1989 (warning: PDF)](_URL_0_) of a study where they found that there were *only* two ways to stop a determined attacker: \n\n1. Hit the brain (I would add the brain-stem, or the spine high enough to cut off signals to the body).\n2. Deprive limbs of blood. Hitting the heart does that, so does putting enough holes in them that they bleed out.\n\nGiven that the fear/excitement the normal person will be experiencing makes it difficult to perform at the level of accuracy required to hit the brain or heart on the first shot or two. That means that the only way to reliably stop a dedicated bad guy is to put enough holes in them that they run out of blood. That's not something that you can reliably do with only 10 or even [15 rounds](_URL_1_). \n\nCan you kill them? Sure, but the \"I'm going to keep going, I don't care that I'm going to die\" thing that [Boromir did in Fellowship of the Ring is, in fact, realistic.](_URL_6_)\n\nSo the problem with magazine limits is that someone who is not planning to use their weapon will carry, one, maybe two magazines. That means they can realistically stop one, *maybe* two, bad guys. They don't carry more because the weight adds up, and the probability they're going to need it is infinitesimal. \n\nOn the other side of the equation, if someone is planning evil, they can *choose* to carry numerous magazines. The extra bulk and weight is worth it to them because they plan on using those [19 magazines](_URL_2_)\n\nSo the ultimate problem is that a bad guy has time to let someone die, but a good guy needs to stop the bad guy *now.* That means that a 15 round magazine is something like 10-15 victim magazine, but realistically, only a *1* bad guy magazine.\n\n > And what is so bad about background checks? \n\nBackground checks? Nothing. The concern is that these background checks are quite often accompanied by *registries.* And *in theory*, firearms registries aren't bad either, but that theory holds up to reality about as well as the theory that Literacy Tests for voting won't be used to disenfranchise specific sections of the population, or that your voting record won't be used for political leverage.\n\nIn other words, you're asking people to trust that at no point in the future will anyone who administers, or even has access to, these databases will ever do something improper with this information.\n\n > I just don't get how one badly worded line in the constitution\n\nIt isn't badly worded, it's just that people who want it to mean something different than it does, and are willing to try anything to make people believe their lie.\n\nThe 2nd Amendment is perfectly analogous to the following structure: \"Your inability to read English making Redditing difficult, this sentence is being written.\" The fact that the prefatory clause is quite obviously untrue doesn't have any bearing on the operative clause.",
"Because nobody in America seems to understand that cutting off an bear's arms and attaching them to yourself falls under the little thing we call animal cruelty. Unfortunately, some people just REALLY want to have bear arms and can't see the damage they're doing to an already endangered species.",
"I hate to be this cynical person, but frankly, I think gun ownership falls under fanaticism too often. I've lived in the states since I was a toddler, and cannot get a rational answer from any one that owns a gun. The only argument ever used is \"slippery slope,\" which we all agree is just a ridiculous argument for anything as it can literally be used to justify any point of view. ",
"We see it as a God given right to arm ourselves. ",
"Jim Jefferies does some hilarious stand up on this topic, while making some seriously good points. Leave your gun out and you're being irresponsible. Lock your gun up and it's useless for protection if anything actually happens. Case in point, you don't need your gun.",
"I think the problem arises from a real lack of productive discussion on the issue. This can be seen anytime anyone brings up the issue.\n\nPeople who like guns try to come up with other reasons why we should have them besides the fact that we have the right to. Examples are : I need them for protection. The government could become tyrannical. If we armed schools, we could prevent school shootings. \nMany also believe that the other side just wants to outlaw guns and consider it done. \n\nPeople who are for gun control often underestimate the measures necessary to implement such policies. Much of the proposed solutions are based on fear of something they don't know much about.\n\nMy take on it is this: there is a clear issue with guns in the U.S. While I do think something needs to be done about it, it needs to be handled tactfully. I think people should have full right to purchase, hunt with, and collect firearms. But there is no real NEED for them.\n\n In regards to self defense, there are better, non-violent means of self defense. People that break into your home are out for your possessions, not your life. \n\nIn regards to tyrannical government, I think it would be far more effective to act in a preventative manner and VOTE for representatives you can trust or get in the race yourself. No militia could possibly take on the U.S. military, and reasonably speaking, I doubt that the government has any real goal of becoming tyrannical. Our government has issues because no one votes when it matters.\n\nI think that wanting them and having a right to them should be enough. No need to make up other reasons. But let's realize the problem and deal with it like adults.",
"Some people have decided having guns = liberty, probably due to years of repetition of the Second Amendment and watching too many westerns. This belief has not stopped expansion of government power, not least the massive domestic spying operation Snowden helped expose, nor has it served as a check on police brutality and militarization. Guns are like cuddly teddy bears to their owners, convincing them of the fairy story that they have freedom and can do something about it if it were taken away. Unless you plan on leading a wholesale insurrection, just try using your gun to protect your \"freedoms.\"\n\nOn a less cynical note, having guns is a cultural signifier and touchstone. Come after my guns and you're coming after the other things that members of my tribe value as important.",
"I just don't understand why Europeans don't want guns. Do they really not want freedom like we have in the US? They seem a bit brainwashed.",
"The right to bear arms is not about having a gun for personal defense and hunting. It is actually about the right to arm yourself so that you could fight back against an oppressive government. So, really, assault rifles and not having the (oppressive) government decide who can have a gun are what the right to bear arms is about.",
"[Jim Jefferies](_URL_0_) on gun control. I myself like guns but this is hilarious and relative.",
"Guns were an integral part of this country's history. The colonial \"soldiers\" who went to war with the British to turn America into an independent country were largely not well armed. They went to war against the most powerful, well armed military of it's day and won out largely only because they employed guerrilla tactics the British didn't know how to fight against and because the British were busy with a larger war elsewhere that kept most of their military busy. Skirmishes against British troops were violent and bloody. Additionally, soldiers were free to let themselves in to any home they wished, where they would eat what they pleased, sleep where they pleased and were often unkind to the residents, sometimes even violent. The need for firearms was quickly embedded into the minds of all those who were involved, not just because they were needed for waging effective war, but also because they were needed for personal protection.\n\nIn the first few years after the war, this country armed itself well. Some feared that the English would eventually try to reclaim America as a colony, others foresaw potential invasion from other powers, they wanted to be able to defend themselves.\n\nThe Native American population wasn't happy about our encroachment onto their lands, sometimes leading to violent reprisals; They were painted as savages by colonial propagandists and people in areas populated by Native groups not only wanted protection, but also a means through which to drive those Natives away so their land could be claimed.\n\nThere was a prominent fear that our fledgling government would eventually go corrupt and need to be dismantled, people were taught this could only be done through waging war against that government, if necessary.\n\nThere was a need for personal protection. People are crazy. People are potentially dangerous. In a society where land grabbing can be as easy as killing the family that lived on that particular homestead, you wanted a gun. Fights and arguments were sometimes settled with a duel, or a knockdown style shootout, this continued well into the mid-late 1800s.\n\nAnd lastly, in rural areas, people frequently needed to hunt to eat; A gun is the easiest and most effective hunting tool man has ever invented, especially if you're trying to take down large animals that will provide days or weeks worth of meat.\n\nFast forward to today, the right to bear arms is considered a completely non-negotiable part of the \"American package\" by many people. They have been around for SO long and were SO entrenched in American culture in the founding days of this country, people have a complete mental block when it comes to even discussing changes to the laws.\n\nWe also have a small but vocal percentage of the population who are literal insane people whom have convinced themselves that an armed rebellion against this country's government may still someday be both needed and possible. They believe that keeping guns in the hands of American citizens somehow acts a deterrent to the Federal Government; They ignore the fact that the English and the Japanese are at no risk of being crushed by their governments despite living in countries where gun ownership is varyingly either partially or completely illegal.\n\nThe founding fathers had no idea what was going to be available almost 300 years after they founded this country. They couldn't possibly have foreseen the kinds of weapons that exist today, and there is utterly no way in hell they would have unilaterally made restriction-free gun ownership legal if they'd known what was down the pipeline. The people arguing that we can't touch the Bill of Rights are ignoring this reality; Literally interpreted, one might argue that the Bill of Rights says I should be allowed to own an M1 Abrams tank, a rocket launcher or a Blackhawk helicopter.",
"They're running out of bears, so arms are in short supply. ",
"I'm all for requiring psychological tests to be passed before allowing someone to legally own/register a gun. I am a US citizen and formerly in the military as well (and I'm a white male so I'm in an unusual demographic of people who is actually for these kinds of rules to be in place). I'm not for a national registry though, as we don't even have that for convicted felons, sex offenders, and people who have actually committed crimes. Also, being on or off a list lets people know if you are safe to rob, so there's that too.\n\nAs far as why we have an issue with it, basically its because our country is founded upon a very small set of rights. One of those rights, which is for the most part impossible to change - is the right to own and brandish guns. The second that right gets taken away, we can no longer feel safe that all of the other rights are safe (such as freedom of speech, protest, religion, etc). We aren't willing to lose even a single right in that document, let alone the one right that allows us to protect all the others. I say that because if anyone ever came for those rights, there would be a lot of bloodshed. Political heads on pikes kind of stuff.\n\nSo long story short, if they take away our right to own guns - they take away our right to defend the rest of our rights from also being taken away. Nobody in their right mind would let their government strip them of their basic human freedoms, especially those that the nation was originally founded upon.\n\nBut yeah, I still would like there to be some sort of \"gauntlet\" for people to go through before they are just handed a gun. It would prevent a fair amount of the atrocities you see showing up in the US news at the very least.",
"Assault weapons are not any more dangerous than other rifles. The distinction between an assault weapon and other rifles are based on cosmetic features not lethality, cartridge power, or relative contribution to gun violence. Rifles in general represent contribute to a small fraction of gun violence - assault weapons are a subset of this. When the original Clinton assault weapon ban was conceived it was not to target particularly dangerous guns. It was intended to target weapons that the general public perceived as more dangerous as a stepping stone to broader weapons bans. So why ban a gun that is generally less powerful than most hunting rifles, and contributes to a small fraction of gun violence? Why not ban hunting rifles for their power and accuracy? Why not ban cheap handguns which are used in the vast majority of gun violence? \n\nSame question on magazine size? What's the intended purpose? There is very little basis to decide that reducing magazine size it the most effective way to reduce violence. Lot's of shootings do not involve large magazine size. The shootings that have involved large magazines would probably still have occurred and had similar levels of damage if capacities had been limited. If there is little to no benefit for banning something then why should it be banned? \n\nBackground checks on new gun purchases is pretty streamlined and painless. It's a bit more of a pain for purchasing a gun from an out of town/state dealer and having to find a local dealer who is willing to do the transfer process and background check for you for a reasonable price but it's manageable. It becomes a really big pain in the ass when spouses, family, friends, coworkers can no longer share or loan a firearm without paying a transfer fee and getting a background check twice for each occurrence. What's the point in this? \n\n",
"Nobody needs an assault rifle... That being said, what defines an assault rifle? That's a big point of contention in the US. Limiting magazine size is an attempt to increase the time law enforcement has to act against a shooter. As for background and clip size as well, the reason any legislation is opposed with such ferocity, is the same reason anyone anywhere opposes anything, MONEY. Background checks mean less guns will be sold. NRA as a consumer lobbing group cannot have that. Basically the lives of 20something babies is worth less than the amount of gun sales that would be lost per year on top of that less clips will be sold. Apparently the majority of Americans agree because not a single damn thing has changed in the US regarding gun control. ",
"The biggest reason is because the 2nd amendment has a lot of ambiguity to it. It guarantees the right to bear arms, but doesn't specify what constitute as \"arms\". In modern society, that includes things like a tiny desert eagle handgun all the way to an apache helicopter. While it is perfectly sensible for a citizen to own and operate small firearms for protection and hunting it doesn't make sense for them to own some of the bigger and deadlier weaponry that can wipe out a small town in a matter of seconds. But the line which separates those two categories **can** be a gray line sometimes (not all the time, obviously a civilian, no matter how rich, should not be able to own and operate a weaponized helicopter, even though the helicopter is technically classified as \"arms\") when you are talking about weapons in the middle of the fire-power spectrum. \n",
"I wasn't aware that it was the defining characteristic of my nation but.. people in America and perhaps the rest of the world, would rather have laws saying we can't do stuff rather then invest in solving the real problem.. fucked up people.. Its an epidemic of not taking responsibility for our actions or the actions of our children.",
"Media blames America's high gun crime rates on relaxed gun laws. The reality is, our high gun crime rate is the result of America's history. How many people are shot on the south side of Chicago daily? I know, but do you? The media doesn't tell you about all of those gun crimes. Try telling the people in Illinois that they can't have guns while the rest of the criminals on the street all do. That'll go over well. For the record, I don't own a gun. They scare the shit out of me and I don't want one in my house. But I fully respect the right that someone else might. They do save lives, there are thousands of news stories I could bring up where they saved lives during home invasions. You won't see these on the news because they don't fit the news station's agenda. ",
"I dunno if this has been brought up already but here goes. I have no problem with someone carrying a firearm into a Starbucks or a grocery store or whatever. There was a picture awhile ago of a guy in Switzerland I believe carrying a Sig Carbine while browsing through an Apple store. That I get. What I don't understand is why it should be allowed in bars. Alcohol makes certain people angry. ",
"We have a 200 year history as a nation where we were able to keep and bear arms. This right was established only after we violently overthrew a government that we viewed as tyrannical. It is a deep seated belief that we may need to do it again(even though we pick all of our representatives). I own guns and shoot for different reasons, I enjoy the challenge and sport of it. Honestly, archery would probably give me the same satisfaction.\n\nBackground checks: People fear that if the gov knows who own what they could confiscate weapons if they wanted to. They also don't want the gov deciding who is fit to own guns and who isn't, 2nd amendment. IMHO background checks should be as thorough as possible, include a competency test, and allow citizens to own whatever they desire. If the goal is a force of citizens that can defeat the US Military or other invading force, we will need more than semi auto 10rnd magazines.\n\nYou got me on assault rifles, most modern hunting weapons were based off of military cartridges and actions 30-06 and .308, but we don't have an issue with citizens owning battle rifles from days of yore. \n",
"I don't understand the debate about gun rights at all. In the second amendment is says \"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\"\nThe important word in that is \"infringed\". The definition of infringe is \"to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the right of another.\" \nThere should be no debate about gun laws. The second amendment says \"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED\" having to have a concealed carry license to carry a pistol with you is infringing on my constitutional right. Not being allowed to own certain weapons is doing the same. It is a direct violation of the second amendment. There should be no debate about gun laws. ",
"Why do Aussie's not want to bear arms? Your question is absolutely fair and there are good responses to it, but I think there is something intrinsic in American culture (at least in the greater South) to wanting guns. \n\nI am not a nut. I am well traveled and well educated. Yet, I have the desire to possess my own semi auto rifle, among other guns. I could give you several reasons for this: home protection, tyranny protection, hunting, target shooting, etc. but I think the real reason is I believe I have a right to control my own destiny in a limited way. \n\nA gun is power. It may be small in by most comparisons but at least I know no matter what happens no one can take full advantage of me. I can put up a fight if I chose to do so. And in my view, everyone should have a gun. The world would be a safer place. Power would be more evenly distributed. \n\nThere are literally millions of \"assault rifles\" privately owned in the US and there have been very, very few incidents of violence with them (mostly handguns in areas of high poverty).\n\nWhy put me and my family's safety entirely in the government or someone else's hands? I want some of that responsibility. ",
"A government that doesn't trust a weaponized citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted.",
"That little tid bit was included as a safety measure to ensure that if our government ever got so bloated and out of control (which it has) that people wouldn't be powerless against it. Right now, the American Government is not our friend and to them we are expendable when it comes to their greater plans. Sometimes shots fired gets the point across a lot better than a vote. It'll likely come down to that again someday. I hope not though.",
"There are background checks and have been there a long, long time.\n\nLimiting a mag doesn't do anything, but require a person to simply RELOAD and use it again. 5, 10, 15, 20. Really? It makes a difference?\n\nWhy do you or anyone else feel there needs to be a mag size limitation? GUn deaths make up less than 0.5% of total deaths a year, and go down each year. Look at the FBI statistics. It's literally a non-issue. Make everyone drive smart cars if people want to save lives.",
"[From one Aussie to another, Jim Jeffries feels the same](_URL_0_)",
"First, its not an assault rifle, those are illegal to own, you should do some reading before starting a thread like this.\n\n2nd its not about if i need one, its if i want one. I also dont really need 2 cars.\n\nGun laws are a pretty good indicator for how free a country is and how much the gov trusts its citizens.\n\nLook at my country, switzerland and then compare it to a nanny state like the uk.",
"Here in California We like to call it the Scary gun law, things the make the gun more \"tactical\" are deemed Illegal even though they do not change functionality. \"Assault Weapons\" as they call it are are weapons that appear to militaristic. Mostly an attack on the ergonomics of the weapon. Law is Totally ineffective and a pain in the ass.\nI dont want a M4 to go crazy, I just wanna be Tacti-cool. \nGuns Don't kill People Crazy Mutha-fukers Kill people.",
"Guns are fun to shoot. I mean really fun. I mean, I go rock climbing, fly planes, visit foreign countries, drive fast cars, and shooting guns is still lots of fun to me.\nSmaller magazines means more reloading and less shooting, this reduces how fun guns are to shoot. \nThe idea that something I enjoy so much, could be taken away from me because it's misuse can cause harm, is frightening. Flying planes, and driving fast cars are also dangerous and misuse can cause harm to others. All three of these things are very important to me and I would be devastated if I ever wasn't allowed to do those things again for the rest of my life. And that's what's happening when someone suggests more restrictive gun laws. The possibility that something I take great joy in, could be reduced or eliminated and I would not get to do it for the rest of my life.",
" > 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\nAbove is the full 2nd amendment. I find it unsettling how many individuals on both sides of the debate don't actually know the amendment in its entirety. There's a lot to be said about this issue. It's a very polarized, partisan discussion; thus, little progress is ever made (or at least that's the way it seems). I'd like to take a minute to discuss the amendment as it is written. First, we need to understand some context. The founding fathers did not want a standing army during peacetime. You can read the Federalist papers if you want to know more about this issue. I think #26 talks about it. Nevermind the fact that we have a standing army at all times now. Anyway, without a standing army, the public would need to be ever-ready to quickly assemble with weapon in hand, basically as smaller militias and organized as an army (much like the Continental Army). The militiamen were expected to show up with their weapon and ready to fight. That is why the amendment starts off with \"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...\" Now the second part of the amendment: \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" When I hear my conservative friends quote the 2A, they neglect the first clause. But the first clause establishes the conditions in which the second clause applies. BECAUSE militias are necessary (since we don't want a standing army during peacetime), the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Since we do have a standing army during peacetime, I don't see how the 2A applies in today's society. BUT firearms are too entrenched in the American culture (highest gun ownership per capita) to take them away. And honestly, I don't support such a policy; I just think using the 2A in your defense to bear a weapon not for militia is ignorant and laughable. But let's move on.\n\n\nPersonally, I find myself somewhere in the center on the issue. I'm a southern liberal - born and raised in Georgia. My father owns a lot of guns, and from my experience I have observed that there are mainly three reasons for firearms. I'll rank these in what I perceive as importance to the gun owner: 1. family heirlooms, 2. self-defense, 3. hunting/riflery (sp?). You notice that there is no 4. rebelling against the oppressive, tyrannical American government.\n\n1. Family heirlooms are extremely valuable to the owner. My father's family was mostly farmers in south GA. They didn't have a lot to pass on to the next generation, so the guns that have been passed down through the generations carry sentimental value. Of course, these weapons are old and would never be used. There's no reason for these to be registered or taken away. \n\n2. Self-defense. I'll come back to this, because it's the most controversial one. \n\n3. Hunting firearms are, sometimes, the discussion of gun control debates, but it's really more about riflery weapons. The weapons you would need for hunting depends on a lot of factors, probably mostly on geography. Different areas have different game. This matters because you don't use the same weapon to hunt squirrels as you do for larger or more aggressive game, like wild hogs. There's also the issue of commercial hunting; those who hunt large volumes sometimes need machine guns to do their jobs well. The issue is mainly in areas where the rural populace hunts or is threatened by large or aggressive game. They want to have semi-automatic rifles. I don't really think that's a huge deal. When you hear liberals talking about semi-automatic rifles, they usually use the phrase \"assault rifles\" synonymously. That's a problem, because the definition of an \"assault rifle\" has more to do with appearance than function; Congress was stupid and shortsighted when they defined it as such. Now, as for riflery, we're talking about a legitimate sport, an olympic sport! A semi-automatic rifle is needed in some of these competitions because they involve shooting very quickly. Again, no big deal there. If we want to ban assault weapons, we first need to derive a sensible definition of an assault weapon. \n\nAs for 2. self defense, this is where conservatives start their picket lines and liberals vilify anyone and everyone who owns a weapon. These are both stupid. There's a lot of research out there on this subject - some legit, some partisan bullshit. But, for example, the AJM (American Journal of Medicine) recently published some research that basically says higher rates of gun ownership do not make countries safer. Click [here](_URL_0_) for a guardian article about the paper. Similarly, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a [study](_URL_1_) a long time ago saying fewer guns leads to fewer gun homicides. Conservatives often fire back with their favorite Heritage Foundation, Breitbart-published, NRA-financed, not-peer-reviewed study that says that the more guns, the safer we are. I usually ask these people to please trust the experts who must have their research peer-reviewed. If you don't trust scientists or the field of science in general, you are an unreasonable person who cannot be reasoned with and, thus, I will not discuss really anything with you. Conservatives also like to use anecdotal evidence for confirmation bias. It's always, \"BUT LOOK AT CHICAGO.\" To which the only proper and measured response is, \"Your applicable and absolutely legitimate anecdotal evidence is trumped by the statistics. The enormous amount of evidence contrary to your anecdotal evidence basically makes your anecdotal evidence a statistical outlier that can be q-tested out or just simply statistically insignificant.\" There is also a lot of statistical evidence showing that, should you pull out your gun as a form self-defense, you are more likely to be shot than not and mostly with your own gun. From my vantage point, not at all objective if you haven't realized so, it seems that people only want guns for self-defense because other people have guns. Not a great argument for your right to bear arms. \n\nAll that being said, my father and I agree that the following actions should be taken. \n\n1. Background checks for anyone and everyone seeking to purchase a firearm.\n2. As per permit application, the applicant must complete a gun safety and proper use course - much like driver's ed. If you have to take a class to drive a car, you need one to shoot a weapon.\n3. Those with a history of mental illnesses that put them at risk for suicidal (depression) or violent behavior (psychosis). In advocating for this action, I am basically saying that I should not be able to own a firearm, because I deal with depression. Trust me, this NEEDS to happen. Also, in case you love stats, a significant portion of the gun-related deaths in America are suicides. And of those suicides, a significant portion are military veterans. \n4. Redefine what an \"assault weapon\" is based on function, not appearance. \n\nEDIT: Just for clarification, my father is a very conservative, very brilliant man. He's not liberal, so the fact that we agree on the following 4 points is actually a testament to how reasonable they are.",
"To me, at least, someone who doesn't even own a gun, it is the idea that I want the government to be as minimally involved in my life as reasonably possible. Giving the government the power of whether I can own X or Y thing, even guns, is where I, and most Americans, draw the line. There are so many legitimate reasons to own a gun. Also we should always, in any society, question our leaders. Nobody wants a Nazi style blind following situation, where many soldiers didnt even know of the concentration camps! If the leaders, whom we should be wary of no matter how beloved, say \"oh I'm taking away your weapons no matter what\" that is a red flag the size of Texas to me.",
"I wish I would have made it here earlier. \n\nComparing the US to other Western countries is apples to oranges. \nThe major difference being that this country is 200 years old. The heritage is not here. We should still fear the government. \n\nSecond, the population and regional issues are so diverse. Does someone in a suburban neighborhood need a fully automatic assault rifle? If they are responsible enough to own one. But, on the border with Mexico where cartels shoot at citizens? Yes. Concealed handgun in the Bronx? Yes.\n\nThird, however you want to look at it, it's still a deterrent. People with the guns in this world rule over the ones who don't. It is absolutely a deterrent. \n\nFourth, at the philosophical level, this country is about the individual. Sadly, you can see from pop culture, much of that has amounted to bullshit selfishness at what should be criminal proportions. But, on the other hand it values individual responsibility with implicit emphasis on your role in society; however, jaded we might have become. In that line, your role in the 'militia'. The Supreme Court has ruled against individual rights in certain circumstances because the argument was not in the best interest of the 'militia'. It's not all about, \"yeehaaa bang bang Murica fuck yeah.\"\n\nFifth, magazine sizes should not be limited. That's an absurd legal feel-good type of bullshit. Background checks should not be needed. Training is one area I think should be required so long as it doesn't make a list of people for the government to use. Law-abiding citizens shouldn't be on 'a list'. There have been horrible attempts to legislate a registry, which can't even put criminals in jail because our 5th Amendment protects them from being part of a registry. THE LAWS ARE BUNK, and in many cases, enrich a few.\n\nSixth, the Amendment wasn't badly worded. It fit the time. Now we have arguments over the wording because people are writing the next chapter in US history. \n\nI am more for universal disarmament. It's starts with governments though. When people are up in arms about murder at the hands of the military around the world, maybe then we can talk about the insignificant amount of deaths caused by mass shootings. More people die from deer in this country than mass shootings. \n\nCitizens should reserve the right, both to deter and defend themselves, their family, property, and community against threats foreign and domestic. War on US soil will happen again. Maybe not even in my lifetime, but it will. \n\nI live in a town with no police department, everyone is armed to the teeth, and we have no crime. Go figure. I used to live in a metro area where I was burglarized 3 times in different locations and not once did the police ever give two shits. Their rate of solving burglaries was less than 10%. Guess who is armed and will stand my ground next time? But, I doubt I will ever have to use any weapon.",
"For reference, assault rifles are not free to own by just any American. You have to posses an FFL3 license which costs thousands of dollars, and that is IF you pass the 6 month long FBI background check. \n\nIf anyone tells you otherwise, they are not educated properly on the subject. Just because it looks like an assault rifle, doesn't make it one. ",
"That is ok. We don't understand how Aussies have allowed themselves to be so wussified by their government that they don't see value in the proficient use of arms by the population.",
"Your question should be why do certain people have issues with their right to bear arms. There are over 300 million people in the U.S., a lot of them don't give a crap about guns. ",
"about half of the people in the USA are really stupid",
"a.)The NRA is a lobby group that fights against any gun control laws\nb.) in America, lobbying groups give money to elect officials and this amount of money is essentially unlimited thanks the Citizens United supreme court case\nc.) the money for the NRA comes from gun and ammo manufacturers and member dues\nd.) FUD generated by NRA about changing laws generates gun and ammo sales\ne.) gun control was stricter and not controversial in the wild wild American west\n_URL_0_",
"Ooo! Ooo! My time to shine!\n\nI'm a young Libertarian, so this is straight from the horse's mouth.\n\nThere are MANY reasons why MANY Americans are so touchy on this subject, but I can only speak for myself, so I'll try to do that here:\n\nFor me personally, I care about the Second Amendment because I see it as a form of \"insurance\". Insurance for protection against a tyrannical government and the ability to protect oneself against a potential life-threatening attack. \n\nNow, I might sound like a \"gun nut\" for claiming that my government could over step its bounds, but come on, look at all the news...is it really that far off? I believe it is the responsibility of every American to keep the government in check somehow. It's up to us to keep this thing going. There might be the occasion that someone in power may not have our best interests at heart, and that person must be called out. Even if that person represents your political party. Unfortunately, I see a lot of complacency happening. Even from myself. We have to fight that.\n\nYou also might say, \"How could you fight against the might of the American military? They have tanks and helicopters and you only have rifles.\" Well, 90% of the population is armed. No government wants to kick that hornet's nest. Besides, if a conflict broke out, it would be a guerrilla war with PLENTY of outside help. [Civilians make sure they train too.](_URL_0_)\n\nAmericans at their very core are very stubborn and self-reliant. We don't want help from the government because we either don't trust it or feel it is incompetent. Toss that in with some immigrants who may have left their homelands because they disagreed with their governments, many parts of our government designed around checks and balances, our rocky history with English rule, and early American settlers who relied on their firearms for survival and you get this powder keg. Our Bill of Rights is basically a huge \"fuck you\" to any and all would-be dictators. Seemly written with an attitude or something. Americans have been raised with this defensive stance, I suppose. So, to the outside world, outlawing guns seems to be the correct thing to do. Makes sense, right? All those shootings happening. Something has to change. Well to us, the alarms start to go off. The gun control advocates have no idea what they're going up against. We're not protecting our \"weekend fun time\". This is serious. And they won't win.\n\nThe Second Amendment is also important for self defense as well. America is a very dangerous place and there might be an occurrence where you'll have to protect yourself. People might say \"Well, that's what police are for\". Well, we also have Firefighters but still manage to have a fire extinguisher nearby just in case. Our police can't always respond in a quick manner. The national response time is 11 minutes (Detroit is 58 minutes!) and that's not fast enough. Some states have gun laws like Texas' \"Castle Doctrine\" and Florida's \"Stand your ground\" which allow you to safely defend yourself inside your home. A lot of outside news sources will quickly label these laws as \"lawful homicide\", but come on...you don't believe that shit, right? I live in Florida and I have worked in security and we were told and told time again that if we ever shot at anyone, we better be sure we were in danger. If you shoot someone in the back for example, you'd better have a damn good excuse for that.\n\nSo I'll end on this, Americans are so passionate about this subject because a lot of us see everything on the line here. \n\nAs the saying goes, \"The second amendment makes all the others possible\".",
"Been done?\n\n_URL_0_",
"We have a government dangerously out of touch with its citizens.\n\nIMO we already hit taxation without representation 20 to 30 years ago. Technology is helping corruption along but we do nothing to let it help us form our governance. Like online voting regularly.\n\nGun nuts are scared the government will go to far too fast and there will be a fight. ",
"Guns are like $1000 for a decent one, and $2000 for a good rifle. Do you want the popo to come and take your $10,000 gun collection? ",
"You've made two assumptions that may or may not be correct. First you assume the line is badly worded. That depends on what the drafters intended, perhaps that's exactly how they wanted to word it.\n\nThe other is that it is the defining characteristic of the nation. Having lived here over 30 years, I've only shot a gun once in my life, it's never been a topic that has come up much in conversation, and I never see people walking around with guns. Unless you live in the deep south, it's not going to be something on your mind all the time. I think you may be getting a distorted view from the media.",
"You don't know about the cotton shortage of 1999?!? T SHIRTS are cutoff by athletes, blue collar workers and gym goers every 60 seconds and it's increasing at an alarming rate. All these sleeves are thus wasted and not able to be recycled and falsely increasing cotton demand. Americans not traditionally a resourceful bunch love their sleeves that THEY can cut off on their own and thus exercise their right to bear arms.",
"I dont know but Piers fucking Morgan aint helping",
"You're asking this question on reddit. You'll get very few real answers, and those that are real will be down voted. A better thing to do would be to go read the history of our country, look at the constitution, then look at the history of other places in the world.\n\nYou will come to much better conclusion that way than by asking people a question on here.",
"It was not a badly worded line of our constitution. That is why.\nI hope this doesn't get snipped by the length bot here because it is the truth.\n",
"All the people that are banding up to form there little facebook militia groups make me laugh. I support the 2nd for protection purposes but there's zero reason for anybody to have 10 AR15s just chilling in their closet because they're scared of the boogyman coming. \n\nBesides, if there ever was a govt. takeover all those people grouping up to \"train\" would learn what a drone does. No point in trying to take the peoples arms when you can just label them domestic terrorist and drop a hellfire on them.",
"Because minutemen and other armed civilians won our independence.",
"Historically, it makes sense. The ability to have an armed citizenry that could form a militia is what allowed for the Revolution to succeed. It was only natural that the founders thought that this ability should be protected.",
"Cuz 'Murica! And we need guns so that the govment can't take away our guns!!!",
"American's who own guns believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves. If someone tries to kill you you should be allowed to try to kill them right back. Limiting magazine sizes allows you to better defend yourself. It will not reduce crime. That's like saying reducing knife length is going to reduce stabbings. As an American I don't understand your willingness to let other people be responsible for your well being. If someone punches you do you just stand there and take until a police officer comes? I don't get it.\n\nSome common misconceptions: only a few American states allow you to own an assault rifle, in most states they are banned. To buy a gun in the US you must pass a background check. Period. It has been this way for a long time.",
"Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British Parliament began enacting laws that colonists deemed both unfair and unjust. The colonists began ignoring those laws. The British tried to respond with force but were met by a well armed populace. The British answer was to ban firearms and to steal gunpowder from the local \"Powder Houses\" (local buildings where both individuals and the town militia kept their gun powder, which was dangerous to keep at home in large quantities) in an effort to disarm the colonists and make it easier to enforce those laws.\n\nThat's why the Right to Bear Arms is such a big deal in the United States. It's not for home defense or hunting, it's to ensure that you can always protect yourself and your neighbors from tyrants.\n\nObviously, that was over two hundred years ago. I understand anti-gun sentiments and the people who support anti-gun laws are good, well-meaning people. However, I feel that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be able to arm themselves in case they were subject to an unjust government.",
"As a self-labled moderate from a southern state, I want to put my two cents in. This may get buried, which I hope it doesn't, as more and more young people are starting not to care about this issue today.\n\nI have heard plenty of reasons and ideas behind gun ownership in my area, which is highly rural. Although everyone has a reason to own the firearms that they do, the biggest concern isn't always the fact that firearm rights are trying to be limited.\n\nThe real concern to a lot of people is the ignorance surrounding firearms, and the culture they provide, in this country. Those who are highlighting the bad of firearms and flag-shipping the anti-gun movement are usually the least educated in the matter. People call for background checks, when you already have to go through an extensive background process and education through your county Sheriff before being able to purchase pistols or even conceal-carry. Also, those that argue against firearms often brandish weapons such as AK-47s and other weapons that are already illegal to own without certain licensing. \n\nWhere I'm from, gun safety is a number one priority taught from a very young age. In grade school I remember having to watch videos on how to handle a situation when you see a gun in a house. We were taught to not touch it, and tell an adult immediately. Also, from the very first day my father handed me a gun he taught me gun safety. Not too point the barrel at anything you are not willing to destroy, and to always treat a firearm as if it were loaded. I even remember pointing a nerf-gun at my Uncle and getting scolded for it. If education of the safety required when handling firearms was highlighted, the debate would change. This also relates to the hypocrisy behind the anti-gun movement.\n\nOftentimes, in the drug debate, we hear about how education should be of concern, rather than \"Just Say No\". People recognize that simply highlighting the bad of drugs will not fix the problem, and may even worsen the problem. Why can't this same philosophy apply to firearms?\n\nAlso, another prevailing pro-gun idea is not the need of firearms, but rather about the ability to get one. Often times, the argument is \"Well you don't *need* a high-powered rifle, so why have it\". This can get dangerous if applied elsewhere. The government's job is not to govern what the citizenry needs and does not. \n\nAlso, in certain areas, and this may be a hard thing to understand, certain bonds are built in different ways. We don't get off on shooting a gun, but often a young man's best childhood memory is getting his first .22 rifle from his father and being taught to shoot properly. It is not much different from someone who is taught how to maintain an antique vehicle passed down in the family from their father. It's a tool of self-reliance that has been around as long as the country has, and the traditions there are still carried own. \n\nI will also say that the usual stereotypical degrading comments representing my area such as \"they taking eerrr guns\" is insulting, and does not contribute to this ongoing discussion.",
"Because the Police and Army can only do so much to protect citizens, and regardless of the Legality of firearms, Criminals will have them.",
"Fun Fact. Gun Ownership - Its the law, in Kennesaw, Georgia. Everyones gotta own a gun (unless its against your beliefs) but as far as any robber rapist or mugger knows you're strapped. Violent crime was more than cut in half.",
"The short version is a simple four words: \"shall not be infringed.\"\n\nIt's been a right of ours since our nation was founded and we're not going to change that. The citizenry is the last line of defense against an unjust government and being able to defend ourselves should the unlikely happen is extremely important.",
"Have you seen any news about the cops lately? They're kiling unarmed citizens who aren't even threatening them. And its a right to bear arms to protect your family. Cops take 2+hours to arrive at a home invasion unless you say you're going to shot the intruders, then they'll be there in 5 minutes. I would trust my husband and myself to protect my family before the cops. That's my main reason i suppose. Everyone has their reasons. I think if everyone was taught how to use them properly then it wouldn't be as big of an issue but people seem to think it's the guns themselves that kill people and not the people holding them. Once again, just my opinion.",
"because we are a people who are well aware of our own influence and are well aware that tyrants and wannabe tyrants will resort to violence to keep their position of power. In short it is hard for any belligerent to conquer us if we *All* have fire power. Read a history book man, when the people are not armed to the teeth the powers at be do some fucked up shit.",
" I am going to try and field this to the best of my ability. I would first like to address the term \"Assault Rifle\". This is a fabricated term that has been created by the anti gun supporters here in the US. They are just long rifles that LOOK like military issued service weapons. They are no different than any other semi-automatic firearm. No one NEEDS to have anything but it is a matter of style preference and how you intend to use the firearm. The AR and AK platforms (deemed assault rifles) offer a lot of versatility, are easy to maintain due to very few moving parts, are lightweight, and look sexy as hell. You are correct shooting is a great time whether it be for competition, hunting, or recreation. \n On magazine size. This is just a side note in the ongoing battle between the anti-gun and pro-gun legislatures. The anti-gunners want to make it impossible for people to own a particular type/style of firearm (AR and AK platforms). They know that these types of firearms utilize a particular type of magazine. So since they cannot get law passed that bans the firearm they start making laws to circumvent the laws already in place to protect our second amendment right to own that firearm. So unless the magazine or firearm is modified permanently it is illegal because it has the ability to hold more than the lawful amount of rounds. Here is the kicker. It is damn near impossible to permanently modify a magazine unless it comes from the manufacture with the soul intention of only holding X amount of rounds. Some firearms hold more than 8 rounds(law in NY must hold less than 8 rounds) and it is extremely expensive in some cases to modify these weapons to conform with the laws. They say they made the law to reduce the rate at which a criminal can fire his weapon. I bring this up every time I get into a conversation about increasing gun control. Criminals do not obey the law. Laws only effect law abiding citizens. \n No one has a problem with background checks. They are already in place. The ADDITIONAL background checks they are talking about implementing are very invasive. They go into your complete medical background and disqualify you for mental illness. That could be a good thing. It could also disqualify a lot of people with how mental illness can be defined by current law. If you have a criminal record and have been arrested with a violent crime or have been institutionalized that will come up on the background checks already in place and could be denied the purchase of a firearm.\n I would not consider the wording in our constitution to be bad. You have to understand that the founders of our great nation were at war with an oppressive government. They had to bear arms to defend themselves when they wanted their freedom. It was the second thing they wrote down after the initial constitution was written. Many people said they were talking about muskets and flintlocks. Which they were. The wording was meant to stand the test of time and muskets and flintlocks were the pinnacle of firearm technology back then just as the AR and AK are today. It was put in there so the people of the United States can defend themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. The second part of that is where I want you to focus. If the US government were to decide that they don't want it's citizens to have rights what is to stop them if they have disarmed the population. Hopefully that will never happen. Hope this helped.\n\n ",
"TLDR: Fear a government that fears your guns.\n\nIt is about control. Not about guns. Our government wants more and more control.",
"I'd like to point out that your use of the phrase \"assault rifle\" is actually evidence of one of the most successful propaganda efforts of the anti-gun lobbyists in the US.\n\nAn assault rifle is something like an M16 or AK-47. It's man-portable, relatively low caliber ammunition(to save weight for how many rounds an individual soldier can carry in addition to all their other gear), and is capable of firing multiple rounds per trigger pull.... either on full automatic or commonly 3-round bursts. Most Americans do not and can not own these weapons since the 1930's, when the federal government started \"regulating\" them by requiring a tax stamp to be paid for them. In the 1930's, this stamp was (I think?) ~ $200.... usually well en excess of the market value for the firearm itself. Additionally, many states do not allow private citizens to own automatic weapons (3-round burst counts as automatic for legal purposes here) even if the person were able to acquire a federal permit for owning one.\n\n\"Assault Weapon\", on the other hand, is a term which was cooked up for the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Notice how similar the term is to \"Assault Rifle\"; this is likely deliberate. The Assault Weapons ban did NOTHING to further regulate the functionality of firearms that Americans could buy. It focused rather on the appearance of the weapons, and banned the sale of firearms which had more than X number of features which essentially made them look more military in style.... folding stocks, bayonet mounts, suppressors (we're not talking silencers here either, this even included modest flash suppressors which would otherwise have been standard on the ends of barrels). The \"Assault Weapons\" ban was in some ways a stroke of genius for the anti-gun folks, because it was ridiculous in implementation and because once it was allowed to expire in 2004 the world was left with the deliberately mistaken notion that \"Assault Rifles\" were about to flood the American market again.\n\nDo Americans tend to like cool looking weapons, ones which appear like the ones in Call of Duty games? All black, folding stocks, scope mounts, etc? Sure, a portion of our population does. These are largely cosmetic however, and don't affect the fact that we're talking in most cases about semi-automatic weapons (1 trigger pull = 1 round fired).\n\nIf you're interested in further reading, feel free to google \"assault weapons quiz\" or \" 'assault weapon' vs 'assault rifle' \". While some of the pro gun-rights stuff you'll find is partisan, it's information being put out by firearms rights advocates who were fighting back against unnecessary restrictions of the kinds of weapons which weren't even really being used in crimes to any extent.",
"A note on background checks...I have had my carry permit for 13 years. I agree with and support a state/federal background check when purchasing a firearm. What I completely disagree with is a registry of gun owners. The background checks can turn into a registry if the info is stored...and all info is stored now. One of the first things the nazis did in pre-war Germany was create a registry of gun owners. Then they took the guns away from the Jews. Then they murdered 6 million Jews.",
"First you have to know what the Bill of Rights was meant for. It was basically a set of rules to protect the people from the government, and set limits to what the government is allowed to do. \n\nThe second amendment was written to ensure that the citizens of the U.S. could protect themselves from the government should they need to.\n\nI do think gun laws need to be reformed though. I support background checks, but I don't think we should outlaw semi-automatic rifles. ",
"Because if every individual is expected to be armed, the government will never be able to impose violent rule over its citizens.\n\nFurthermore, a lawbreaker is going to get a gun anyways. If the law-abiding citizens does not have something to defend himself with, gun crime becomes risk-free.",
"Don't get me wrong.. I'm not saying they DON'T happen... All I'm saying is to take it with a grain of salt, because 90% of what \"the media\" claims to be truth is in fact sensationalization.. LoL",
"Its the reason why the russians wont try to annex compton. Im ok with it. ",
" > Assault rifle\n\nWow, and now I get why you are asking this question. Right-o, let's get down to it:\n\nMost people don't own assualt rifles, they own pistols, shotguns, and other forms of rifles.\n\nAssault rifles as a definition are completely arbitrary, and govern almost entirely cosmetic items (under the old Assault Rifle Ban for example, certain *nerf guns* were considered assault rifles because they had in-line stocks, detachable box magazines, and pistol grips) so you can already see how the laws on the subject tend to be poorly written.\n\n > Magazine sizes\n\nTurn it around: what's the help of limiting a magazine capacity? It takes no time at all to change magazines and a trained shooter won't fire more than a few round bursts anyways. So all limiting magazine capacity does it inconvenience the 99.999999% of gun owners who fire their weapons recreationally and force them to pay more to use their guns by forcing them to buy more magazines or a speedloader. Imagine if you had to pause a game for 10 minutes every 5 minutes but you could pay to make that pause timer go to only 1 minute. Would you want that feature in *every single game you own*?\n\n > What's so bad about background checks\n\nYou cannot purchase a firearm if you have a marijuana conviction because that is a felony and felons can't own guns. In fact, there are a whole host of nonviolent felonies that will prevent you from owning a gun despite said felonies regarding things that *affect literally 0 other people besides yourself*. Plus background checks get in the way of private sellers who may not have the physical or financial means to pursue an accurate and sufficient background check. \n\nImagine if every time you sold your car you had to do a background check on the person you were selling it to, and if they had a felony conviction for pot you couldn't sell it to them.\n\nThat's the problem with background checks.\n\nAdd to this a whole heaping helping of incompetant politicians who write broadly worded laws about subjects they admit they don't understand and you've got a severe distrust of the government coupled with a history of laws that don't stop bad people and punish good ones.",
"I think its more about the right for citizens to rebel and protect themselves against the government. If citizens weren't allowed to have guns, then the government would be able to do anything they wanted, like create a police state. Obviously that's not a likely situation, but still the principle of the people being able to check government power is something a lot of people care about. ",
"It's in the Bill of Rights, if they were able to somehow get it removed from the Bill of Rights, then you set the precedent to remove anything from the Bill of Rights, which can then be used to completely rewrite all those documents the United States was built on, in theory you will be changing how our government works at this point.\n\n",
"Because the easiest way to prevent tyranny is by having a constant (at least theoretical) possibility of a bloody revolution/revolt. One of the most important things the Nazi party instituted was a gun ban. Now, that isn't to say that anyone who advocates banning guns is a Nazi! However, banning guns, even for the best of reasons, by default gives the government a huge amount of power as they are the only ones that remain with the capability of physical dominance. ",
"It is very clear to me why Americans have such an issue with the right to bear arms . Its not that they think they are entitled to the finer points of recreationally using a _URL_0_ is more of a deterent of tyranny ........ill put it this way .....I think everyone agree that people should have a right to defend themselves, correct ? The right to bear arms is the right to have a way of defending yourself . You cant stand up to an armed person or a goverment if they have assualt weapons and you dont ..... pretty simple .......... I know that things are getting worse in America, but just imagine what our government would be doing if we were all defenseless ? ",
"We have a tradition of firearm ownership in the US. I live on the West Coast, Oregon specifically, and back when I was a child my family used to go shooting all the time recreationally. Most of my relatives own firearms-it's just part of the culture here. As for assault weapons, I will first state that I understand the distinction between select-fire weapons and semi-automatic weapons but for ease of identification I will call civilian-legal semi-automatic AR-15s and similar weapons \"Assault rifles,\" the Second Amendment affirms the right of American citizens to have essentially the same equipment as an infantry soldier, given the \"well-regulated\" militia clause. Additionally any NEW firearms purchased from a dealer require folks to fill out a 4473 form and go through a federal background check-it's the private sales between individuals that does not require a 4473. I would not oppose having such sales go through an FFL holder; as a gun owner I would much rather know if the person to whom I am selling my gun is a felon or not. Just my two cents.",
"Once the right is gone, it isn't coming back. And 20, 50, 100, 200 years down the line, or whenever the safety of the citizens is put in jeopardy by either the government itself or by an outside power, we'll be stuck with low power, low fire rate, pitiful excuses for guns to try and defend ourselves with. Or, in Australia's case, no guns at all.\n\n**Opinion incoming**\nApart from that, there is really no good reason for the bans that are being suggested. Most of it is just reactionary due to the amount of school shootings that have been happening lately. People love to blame tragedy on anything, whether it's violence in video games, rock and roll music, or, in this case, access to guns. I'm not just pulling this out of my ###, either, the facts and statistics-- that is, the **true** facts and statistics, the ones from sources who are completely transparent in their research methodology-- discredit any attempts to blame guns for the amount of violence in the world. \n\nEDIT: Adding a comprehensive collection of studies on the topic just to show I'm not blowing hot air. See this:\n_URL_0_",
"Back round checks already happen when the sale is from a gun shop owner. That is law in all states. I as a private owner could sell to another with out a check, but that amount of sales is miniscule. As already stated no fully auto guns are for sale except those made before 1986 and most of those go to dealers. Have you checked the prices? Thousands of dollars. Criminals get theirs illegally. As far as the Second amendment it was not badly worded at all. You need to also look at the writings of our founders to see their stance on gun ownership. That wanted/believed in an armed populace. as far as magazine size, 9 bullets good?, 10 bullets bad? whats accomplished? \n ",
"Other users have summed up the questions you've asked pretty well, but I want to address the \"large\" magazine bit.\n\nI built myself an AR-15 two years ago, and I have ten 30-round magazines. I keep six of them filled, because that's how many spaces I cut out of the foam in the box that I carry the AR in. When I go to the range, which happens *maybe* once a month, I have to share the space with a number of other shooters. I live in Vermont, where there are a relatively large number of gun owners, but surprisingly few public ranges (and a remarkably low gun-crime rate, but that's beside the point). This means that if I'm not shooting, I'm taking up a space that someone else could be using. Needless to say, if I'm at the range, I want to be shooting, because that's why I'm there.\n\nIt takes a minute or two to stop and reload a 30-round magazine, there are a lot of small bits (bullets) to keep track of, and most shooters don't want to have to do that at a dusty range when they could do it in the comfort of their own homes. It's also annoying to have to eject an empty magazine, get a new one, and put it in the rifle, which usually requires you to adjust your aim at least a little bit. Instead of having to do that every five times you fire a shot, with a 30-round magazine, you have to do it a sixth as often. It's more convenient, and you get better groupings.\n\nI personally don't have a problem with background checks. I've gone through the process three times for three guns I've owned, I haven't gone through them for two of the guns I own, and I've sold a gun to someone without a background check, all legally (I have the guy's contact information in case the ATF knocks on my door). I'm totally for checking people's criminal records before they get their hands on a gun, and even checking their mental health record. There are three problems, though. The first is that a system isn't currently in place to easily check people's records, even if you have their social security number. The second problem is that most people would consider it an invasion of their privacy to have a database filled with their mental health records, and they would consider it dangerous to have a database of every person who has a firearm, because it makes it that much easier for the government to take away their firearms if it decided to, which is exactly the sort of event that the second amendment was created to prevent. The third problem is that criminals who want guns aren't going to let a law that forces background checks stop them from getting guns. They're already criminals, so clearly they don't hold the law in the highest regard in the first place.\n\nI don't need an \"assault\" rifle, but I also don't eight different knives in my knife block, pillows on my couch, or half of the tools in my toolbox. I'm not killing anyone with any of them, but they're all capable of being used to kill people. You might think \"Yeah, but guns are specifically meant to kill people\". No. You know how I know? Because I bought it with the intention to shoot fruit and paper plates at a range. If I can also be part of a statistic that could possibly deter some government, whether it be foreign or domestic, from trying to eventually round up the population of this country, then that's great too. In the mean time, I'm going to have fun shooting tighter and tighter groups of holes in a paper plate on a farm in rural Vermont.\n\nEDIT: I just want to clarify that I'm 25, have a college degree, and live in an apartment building with four guns (two pistols, a shotgun and a rifle). I vote liberal, and willingly fill out the forms required of me when buying a firearm. I'm not who most people would think owns a gun, but millions of other people in the US are just like me in that they are just regular law-abiding people who happen to own guns for non-violent reasons.\n\nThe part of the AR that I built that is actually considered a \"gun\" was purchased off of Craigslist from a guy who happened to have an extra, and I was given the shotgun by my dad, who inherited it from his father. I didn't fill out forms for those because I didn't need to. I sold the rifle without any forms because it's legal to do so in my state.",
"It's not \"one badly worded line in the constitution.\" It's one very specifically worded line that does exactly what it was intended to for a nation *founded* on winning autonomy using guns.\n\n\nYou also have to understand that America was founded on a *deep* wariness of government power. To a lot of Americans, especially on the right, the best a government could ever be is incompetent, and the worst it can be is oppressive. To understand attachment to guns you need to understand just how deep that vein of distrust runs. We *hate* government. We see it as a bloated parasite that feeds off the populace and tangles up the economy with red tape.\n\nWe don't trust government one bit.\n\nWe see guns as the final check on governmental power. If for some reason the government got out of hand and became oppressive (which sounds far fetched to somebody who places their trust in government), the only thing standing between it and its populace is that populace's weapons.\n\nIt's a measure of autonomy and independence. And, yes, freedom.\n\nMaybe my neighbor is a psychopath with a gun. Who knows. But at least I'll be able to return fire without waiting for the police (just another arm of a government I can't trust to keep its own shoes tied, let alone with my life).\n\nThen you have to factor in that for a lot of Americans, especially rural Americans, firing a gun is as natural as riding a bicycle. We were raised shooting guns from a young age- we know their lethality, but we were taught to respect them, not fear them. \n\n\nOut government gets guns. That government is not sovereign over us- it reigns with our permission, and because we see it as subordinate to us, we reason that it does not have the right to disarm us. ",
"I'll try to explain it in my words without making too many people mad:\nWe were given the right to bear arms to protect us from other countries and more importantly our own government. So when the government begins to tell us what we can and can't protect ourselves with, some people start to get uneasy. \nAlmost all guns owners I know are totally okay with background checks! Everyone I know agrees that we need to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. A lot of what you may hear may not be the popular opinion amongst American gun owners. \nThis is my view on it as an American gun owner.",
"Liberals don't make sense. They think cops are bullies who shoot innocent black people, yet they want cops to be the only people in the USA who are allowed to have guns.",
"It's not poorly worded at all.\n\n[Linquistic analysis of the 2nd amendment](_URL_1_)\n\n[5 minute youtube summary for dyslexics](_URL_0_)\n\nEDIT: formatting",
"And here come all the biased uneducated liberals giving one sided explanations that don't make any sense.....\n\n",
"without the 2nd amendment (rite to bear arms) all the other amendments (us constitution) are useless. every person has the natural born rite to protect themselves with any and all weapons that can be used against them....thats how i see it. :-) ",
"As my opinion has largely been defined by my experience in the military, I feel it is relevant to note that I am a former US Army officer. \n\nThere are many reasons why American's collectively freak-out at any mention of our 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms). To assume there is only one is ignorant. One of the largest reasons for such uproar is that Americans have been and are still very fearful of the rise of tyranny. We were born out of rebellion. Our first figurative memory is standing up to a bully. This deep rooted fear is seen as a virtue and is held in amazingly high regard. Our collective responsibility to fight tyranny in our own homeland outweighs even our need to defend ourselves and family. \n\nFrom childhood we are taught that tyranny can infect even the most progressive and productive societies and guarding against it requires the utmost vigilance. In our elementary schools we are read quotes from the founding fathers warning future generations of oppression. We're taught from childhood how easy it is for a government to subjugate its people. One of the most common quotes taught in middle school and one of my earliest memories stirring patriotism is Thomas Jefferson declaring that \"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.\" \n\nEvaluate the cartoon shows American's watch (at least the ones we used to watch) and the toys we play with as children. One of my personal favorites, GI Joe, has the motto \"fighting for freedom, wherever there's trouble, GI Joe is there!\" Liberty, justice, and freedom from oppression are ingrained in our society. We collectively view firearms as the last possible tool of defense in a worst-case scenario. Americans believe that if things ever do get bad enough, at least we have our guns and we can fight. Many of us would rather die than live under tyranny. No matter the odds, Americans will fight for freedom and from the viewpoint of an informed American; the odds aren't too bad.\n\nHistory is rife with examples of small, out numbered, out gunned, out trained, and out financed groups of people defeating much larger foes. My classmates and I studied it extensively at West Point. It's happened to virtually every major super power the world has ever seen. The British lost, the French were overthrown, the Soviets were driven out, and even the Unites States has been defeated twice; in Vietnam and again in Iraq. Never underestimate the power of people defending their homes. The only people who believe a small band of rebels could never topple the government have likely never served in the military or have not paid much attention in history class. We will not surrender. We will all die fighting sooner than allow tyranny to dominate our society. The issue with guns and American's is, at its most fundamental core, a declaration that \"we will not go quietly into the night\". \n\nMany Americans view a restriction on private ownership of firearms as the first step towards tyrannical oppression. In my opinion, this a particularly important issue right now because whether warranted or not, whatever the reasons (and there are many) a large number of people seem to be viewing current world events, changes in our system of democracy and issues arising from our nation spearheading global capitalism as potential indicators of future subjugation. The question has become: how do we balance what's best for the safety of our citizens without taking away our last line of defense against oppression? I certainly do not have the answer, but it has become one of the biggest questions America is facing. \n\nFramed with this context, take another look at the gun control debate raging in the Unites States. It may make a bit more sense.",
"You have to realize even though 85% of America is considered \"small town\" or \"rural\" the 15% that are cities or metro like areas determine the mind set on guns in America. Its stupid beyond words. Naturally a handgun in downtown NYC has no other use than to defend yourself from another person, but a handgun in Montana can be for protection from wolves or bears, to target shoot, to collect...\n\nA gun is an inanimate object, people need to put the blame at the person behind the trigger not the piece of metal in their hand. A knife is used to cut things but you can also stab or cut someone with it, its all in how YOU use it.\n\nMagazine limits get a lot flak because people don't like to be told what to do (especially those who follow the rules already, why should i have to pay for someone else's mistakes?) and it is just a starting point. First they limit your accessories on a gun, then they limit your round, then they limit the type and before you know it they arent outlawed but none fit the legal characteristics to be owned.\n\nAssault rifle, the term is a joke. Fully automatic guns have not been legal in this country since the 1930's. They (meaning brainless gun grabbers and politicians) made up things on a gun to make it considered an assault rifle even though the gun operates the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. collapsible stock...really, this feature is offered merely so people of varying heights can shoot the same firearm. A bayonet... i think our law makers watched one too many westerns and WW2 movies ",
"There are a lot of insane NRA/TEA BAG types who think they speak for the rest of the country. Personally, I think the right to bear arms is a wonderful thing which protects the citizens of this country from an overbearing government and/or, even more importantly, a foreign enemy. We are the most well armed citizenry in the world. Even if you think you can beat our standing army (which you can't) there are like a billion weapons in the hands of civilians and that is too unpredictable to battle against.\n",
"This country was built around the history of the gun. At each engagement our technology (of the time) brought about a new series of marksmen and rifles. A lot of people have paid the price to guns and fortunes have been around firearms in this country. (Gatling, Winchester, etc.) It is not just a part of our history, it is our livelihood. (For those of us that live in rural areas.) People that do not understand the joy of target shooting or hunting either have not experienced it or are biased because of a select few criminals acts. The extremes exist in every aspect of civilization. For example, there are criminals, who would cause harm just to take your property, and there are politicians, who would sign a bill for their own personal gain. The backbone of our country is the Constitution and our rights. One of those rights is the second amendment.\n\n Amendment II\n\nA 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_URL_0_\n\nMeaning, the states each have the right to keep a militia (the National Guard). The right of the people, as a whole and individually, to arm themselves against any and all enemies. When you join the military or public office you swear to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. \n\nThis is not a complete explanation, but the best I could do just now.\n",
"An armed populace helps to prevent homeland invasion as well.",
"Personally speaking, I am former US military. I have many fond memories of carrying around a M-16A1 assault rifle and when it came time to consider purchasing a rifle, I wanted one that I could operate and clean easily and wouldn't have to constantly reload. I naturally went for a rifle that was similar to my M-16, and that turned out to be the M & P 15 Sport. The M & P 15 Sport is a semi-automatic rifle, not an assault rifle like my old M-16, but many of the features and mechanisms are similar. Shooting, breaking it down for cleaning, and general maintenance were like riding a bike. Price was right too.\n\nAs to what I use it for...target practice of course, but also my dad has something of a bad varmint problem on his farm, and I'm able to reach out and touch assorted vermin at ranges that I otherwise could not hit. As a result, his cattle are much less likely to end up stepping in holes and breaking their leg, the grand kids don't have to worry so much about running across a coyote or a rabid animal, and his farm pond doesn't get undermined by muskrats.\n\nAs for background checks, I've undergone one for all of my firearms, save for a double barrel shotgun that was a gift from my father, who got it off an older gentleman that didn't want it anymore. As a principle I don't mind background checks, the problem is that people here are afraid the system will be abused by others with political agendas, seeking to ban or restrict firearms generally instead of merely keeping them out of the hands of people who should never have them. Speaking of that, I also have concerns about the effectiveness of the system, given the number of illegal guns floating around that aren't part of the system. Bad guys don't play by whatever rules the government sets up, yet we're expected to follow the law to the letter.\n\nAlso, it's not a badly worded line at all. It was written in the manner it was because there was an intent that the citizenry be armed. Period. Yes, it also talks about the establishment of a militia system and in the 1790s that was critical given the small size of the US Army. But make no mistake--the fact that the militia system has more or less faded away at no point removes the right to bear arms from the citizenry, nor is a disarmed citizenry a mark of a \"more civilized society\".\n\nIndeed I would ask you this...how could you allow your government to restrict your gun rights so casually? Safety? I'm not seeing it. If anything you traded the perception of more safety in one area for a lot less in another.",
"It's pretty easy to see our government is growing out of control, and really has been since day one. That won't ever stop.\n\nThat is why. ",
"I'm a Canadian and I've lived the whole firearms licensing and background check crap. Here, we don't have a right to firearm ownership, it's considered a privilege (as is driving a vehicle).\nIn our system, you have to give up the name of any person you had a relationship with in the previous two years to apply for the license. So, if you had a relationship with some nutjob that claims you abused them (on record or not)...well, your likely looking at a license denial.\nI've known 4 other couples (besides my wife and I) that applied for firearms licenses and only 1 of those couples had their mandatory references checked out. 1 out of 4. Even my wife and I never had discussions with authorities to determine relationship stability. That's observational just in the circle of people I know and who went through the process.\n6 years after I sold a gun (legally) the person I bought it from (legally) was contacted by our RCMP (federal police agency) to inquire where the gun was...as the mandatory registration record of it was 'lost'. They contacted me about it, although I had sold the gun 4 years before the contact. Luckily I still had the transfer number from the government registry for that gun. They claim they have no record of it.\nMoral of the story? Lots of folks look to the Canadian gun laws and system. Don't. It's broken. And it's never helped a single person to my knowledge avoid being a victim of gun crime. Not. A. Single. One. And even if it had, don't you think the gov't would be riding that high and mighty to justify not only the system itself, but also to justify the stupendous amount of money they wasted on implementing that system?",
"One of the founders - I think Benjamin Franklin - actually killed a bear with his bare hands and tore the fuckers arms out as a souvenir. Since he was a major player in the constitutional convention, he made a deal with Thomas Jefferson. If BF gets the right to bear arms, TJ gets to right to own and bang his slaves without a condom. ",
"The government has guns. The bad guys have guns. Why on earth should I not be able to equally defend and protect myself?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAw3VWVyD8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj7dj3Ki71A"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/10/06/enter-at-your-own-risk-police-union-says-war-like-detroit-is-unsafe-for-visitors/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkBGQx3HAc",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.counton2.com/story/26851008/1-dead-after-nc-grandfather-fires-back-at-trio-in-attempted-rape-of-teen-granddaughter-sheriff-says"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/1GNu7ldL1LM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://patriotpost.us/alexander/13407"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.tastyislandhawaii.com/images10/violets/spam_license_plate2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/POmSZ5RoI4Q"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/watch-video/#id=2082675582"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ytib-XCeY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBntnnCFvOk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU"
],
[
"http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf",
"http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting#West_Ambler_Johnston_shootings",
"http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130402222609/walkingdead/images/9/98/Ruger-Mini-14.jpg",
"http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/images/5846.jpg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&t=1m13s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgnfQKJEJ2g&t=1m",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/62ytib-XCeY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study",
"http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/2014/06/10/320575201/second-amendment-s-only-sentence-generates-recurrent-debate"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KihAwNn-zoM"
],
[
"http://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Right-to-bear-arms.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"weapon.it"
],
[],
[
"http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM",
"http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5tsh0l | when my smartphone's battery dies, i have to wait a few minutes to use it again when it's on charge. when my laptop's battery dies, it works right away when on charge. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tsh0l/eli5_when_my_smartphones_battery_dies_i_have_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddoninw",
"ddoo9zp",
"ddq7dp7"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Lazy ELI5 but. Laptops are designed to draw power straight from the cable so they are still usable without a battery. A Mobile phone only draws power from the battery so it needs power before it can power the device. ",
"it depends on battery management, when properly designed your phone or laptop will shutdown even if there is still enough energy to switch on device secret plugging it, though some phones can be programmed to shutdown when reaching real zero battery without any reserve",
" > When my smartphone's battery dies, I have to wait a few minutes to use it again when it's on charge\n\nThat's not the case for all phones. My phone (Nexus 5X) works on the charger right away even if my battery has been depleted dry.\n\nI guess some devices can switch their power source on the fly between battery and straight from the power cord.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4iuv5g | why do game companies not release finished games sooner? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4iuv5g/eli5_why_do_game_companies_not_release_finished/ | {
"a_id": [
"d318zro"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's usually to find bugs before its considered \"done\". The open beta gives many people a chance to find bugs and strange errors they may not have come across in testing, this way, they can basically have the best testing done where it's free for both parties, as opposed to releasing a game full of glitches they never knew about."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
bu6mgv | how do concerts blast music so loudly that you can hear it loud and clear in the back? | I would think it would be pretty hard to get music that loud. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bu6mgv/eli5_how_do_concerts_blast_music_so_loudly_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"ep7kun9",
"ep7l659",
"epc8kci"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually they use many different groups of speakers, some located partway back.",
"Speaker systems throughout the venue! Usually the instruments are wired into amplifiers along the stage and then depending on the venue there are secondary speakers midway through the crowd!",
"The very big columns of speakers used at festivals have very tight control of how much the sounds spread out.\n\nWithin the array of speakers, each speaker is aimed at a different part of the coverage area (eg the field at the festival). The whole array is angled downwards slightly and the lower boxes angle down more, typically forming a J shape.\n\nSo when you are near the front, you don't hear the speakers aimed at the back, and vice versa.\n\nThe speakers covering the front section can be set to a lower intensity level if needed.\n\nAny areas that will be too quiet can have more speakers placed to fill in those areas. Eg. Very close to the stage maybe outside the coverage of the main PA, so front fills will be added.\n\nFar away from the main PA may be too quiet so more speakers are added further back. Because the signal has to be delayed in time to compensate for how long it takes for the sound from the main PA to reach these sepakersym, they're called \"delays\".\n\nThe changes that have occurred that allow relatively small speakers to get so loud include : more powerful amplifiers, computer aided design of speakers, DSP processing of signals to each speaker to control how they interact with the other speakers and more powerful neodymium magnets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1yo045 | how come that, no matter how hard i shake, squeeze, push or try, i always manage to piss a little bit in my pants when i finished urinating? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yo045/how_come_that_no_matter_how_hard_i_shake_squeeze/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfm71x7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If only there were some kind of absorbent paper, in the vicinity of the toilet, that you could use. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1tc39q | why has bas landorp decided to try to colonize mars instead of the moon, which could be an easier feat? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tc39q/eli5_why_has_bas_landorp_decided_to_try_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce6fzmm",
"ce6ih0x",
"ce6kxr2",
"ce6mcra",
"ce6p4hs",
"ce6rcem"
],
"score": [
51,
6,
8,
6,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The moon has no atmosphere and very limited resources. Mars has a thin atmosphere and we can extract water from the soil. And once you're in space the effort to get to mars is not much more than getting to the moon. Launch is the hardest part of most space missions. Mars is also a much better candidate for future terriforming. ",
"Man has already been on the moon...",
"Gravity.\n\nAtmosphere.\n\nWater.\n\nEDIT: AND it's closer to the asteroid belt.",
"Not because it is easy, but because it is hard. ",
"[This is a documentary about colonizing mars.](_URL_0_) Not sure if completely relevant, but it kind of indirectly explains why Mars is more logical than the moon for colonizing. Basically, it has an atmosphere that we can use to create fuel from. This would reduce the weight of the rocket when it leaves Earth because you wouldn't need to take the fuel with you like you would for a trip to the moon. Also, the trip would only take about 6 months, not 8-12. Terraforming would be easier on Mars because of the CO2 in the atmosphere. By pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the planet would heat up and over time, we would be able to walk around on the surface without pressurized suits. Than we could start using plants to convert the CO2 into oxygen. Since there's already a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere and there's no competition like there is on Earth, plants would thrive and cover the surface of Mars.",
"While it is far easier to travel to the moon, the real challenge of colonization is not the \"getting there\", it's the \"living there\". From a life-sustaining standpoint, the moon is a dry, dead rock. Literally. You could never hope to build a sustainable civilization there.\n\nMars, on the other hand, is far more earthlike.\n\nMost importantly, it has an atmosphere. At first glance, the atmosphere isn't really that useful, because it is super thin, and mostly carbon dioxide. And to be honest, the whole \"thin atmosphere\" thing is a problem. Everything will need to be built underground or under a pressure dome.\n\nThe carbon dioxide composition turns out to be really useful though, assuming we have a large, stable source of electricity (like a small nuclear reactor brought from Earth), and some hydrogen (also brought from Earth).\n\nThis is because of some nifty 19th century chemistry. I'm not a chemist, so I don't really know how this crap works, but [there is a reaction](_URL_0_) that converts carbon dioxide into methane and water. Water, in turn, can be converted to breathable oxygen via [electrolysis](_URL_1_).\n\nThis chain of processes actually works out really well, because the end result is that we end up with the following products:\n\n* Oxygen (for breathing)\n* Water (for drinking and cleaning)\n* Methane (for fuel, when combined with oxygen)\n* Hydrogen (to recombine with more carbon dioxide to keep the process going)\n\nAdditionally, Mars has a ~25 hour rotation and over 1/3 earth gravity (vs 28 day rotation on the moon, and 1/6 gravity), so Terran plants and animals (including humans) will adapt to Mars far easier. Self-sustainable agriculture is a possibility on Mars.\n\nAnd there's the long-term economic viability to consider as well. Consider Mars' size and position in the solar system. It is the planet closest to the mineral-rich asteroid belt, and due to its smaller mass, it is dramatically easier to launch robotic mining ships from Mars than from Earth. Advocates for Martian colonization envision a triangular trade route between Earth, Mars, and the asteroid belt - raw resources from the asteroid belt are brought to Mars for processing and then traded to earth in exchange for finished goods. If this echoes strongly of colonial America's relationship with Europe and Africa, that is not coincidental.\n\nFor more information, I highly recommend reading *[The Case for Mars](_URL_2_)* by Robert Zubrin.\n\nTL;DR: _URL_3_"
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWvsdEYSqg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water",
"https://openlibrary.org/works/OL3281435W/The_case_for_Mars",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5sWfhkpE0"
]
] |
|
1r06dr | why is it that search engines do not block results to their competitors' sites? | For example, if I put "Bing Maps" into Google, it faithfully churns out the correct result. Why not take advantage of the situation, and put Google Maps as the first result? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r06dr/eli5_why_is_it_that_search_engines_do_not_block/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdi8esy"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"1) google doesn't lose if you use bing\n\n2) as soon as they start restricting or modifying search like this, people leave"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6bgf8q | why can my eyes selectively focus on close or distant objects and see them both in focus (one at a time), but people needing prescription glasses can't? (nb: i have 20/20 vision) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bgf8q/eli5_why_can_my_eyes_selectively_focus_on_close/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhmdxux",
"dhmfn5q",
"dhmkx10"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are tiny muscles around your eyeballs that squeeze/pressure it a bit, depending on how far the object you're focusing is. It works somewhat like moving a magnifying glass closer/further, so the focus of your eye can change in distance. These muscles stretch with age (and get worn out faster in certain circumstances), and just can't squeeze your eyeballs properly anymore, leaving you with a magnifying glass tied to a particular distance from you.\n\n(pardon my English, it's not my native language)",
"It is much easier to think of a camera lens since it works on pretty much the same principle as your eyes. A lens have a certain area it can focus. If an object is too close or too far you can not focus the lens on the object. As a lens age it also gets worse as there can be dirt or damage preventing it from focusing all the way. You can buy extra lenses for your camera like a macro lens. A macro lens will allow your camera to focus on things that are closer but will no longer be able to focus on things far away. This is exactly how reading glasses work and you can use a macro lens to help you read. The most common fault in human eyes are however the other way as your eyes might not be able to focus all the way on long distances. However if the eyes are healthy someone with prescription glasses usually see things on close distance better then someone with normal vision.",
"I need prescription glasses to see far away, but I can still refocus my eyes to see any particular distance. It's just that the further away it is, the more blurry it becomes. \nYou can think of it like a camera in that each person has one pair of lenses (one for each eye) that they use for their entire life. With you, having 20/20 vision means that your lenses are about average. With me, my lenses are somewhere around 20/50, which means they're about half as good as yours are. If you were standing 20 feet away a regular old sign on a doorway, you might be able to read it, but I'd have to get up to about 8 feet away to see it as clearly as you.\n\nIt isn't that we can't change our depth of focus, it's just that our lenses don't magnify things as well as yours do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
44xjnr | why are some websites updated with "© 2016" at the bottom while others may say "© 2012" or whatever year, when clearly they're still copyrighted? | I've been wondering this for a while now. For example, some pages on my college's website still say © 2012. I would think these would all have to be updated, right? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44xjnr/eli5why_are_some_websites_updated_with_2016_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cztlrvv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The copyright date establishes the beginning of the copyright (this is very simplified, but go with it). If I write something in 2012 and never change it, it stays with that copyright and it will eventually come out into public domain. If I continue to update the same site or information, the copyright updates as well and pushes back the date when I (or more specifically my estate) loses copyright."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
221tx6 | why do some people believe microwaves can cause cancer? | Some of my mom's friends and herself included don't like using microwaves because they believe it leads to developing cancer. Why would they believe this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/221tx6/eli5_why_do_some_people_believe_microwaves_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgiipf1",
"cgij53i"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Because it is a type of radiation and most people don't understand radiation.",
"It's just an incomplete understanding of science. It happens to everyone in one form or another.\n\nTerms like \"cancer\" and \"radiation\" are commonly associated with one another, so if a person doesn't have a good grasp on what these terms actually mean, it leads them to form ideas like \"all radiation causes cancer\".\n\nIn this situation, it's not too big of a deal, I think. Worst case scenario is that your mother and her friends continue to have an irrational fear of microwaves. No real harm done.\n\nHowever, this is also the type of situation that causes things like the anti-vaccination movement. Only real solution is to try to educate people and hope the information gets through."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
64i3ou | how do they measure direction while in space since there's no north, south, east, or west? | And if they use a 360 heading, what is the center point and what about lateral movements? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64i3ou/eli5_how_do_they_measure_direction_while_in_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg2bn8y",
"dg2c8xd"
],
"score": [
2,
14
],
"text": [
"Up, Down, Left and Right. For more information check out, Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a half Century. Warner Bros.",
"It's by using the 360 degree twice. For instance; if you are in a spaceship heading directly forward, you would be on a heading of \"Zero point Zero\". If you wanted to travel to something on your immediate right, it would be 90 point zero. Of you wanted to go to your immediate left, 270 point zero. Directly up would be 0 point 90, straight down, zero point 270.\n\nSo, a direction of 45 point 45 would be halfway to your right, looking up - like looking at the corner of a room by the ceiling. \n\nThose can also be expressed as \"by\" instead of \"point\", i.e \"45 by 45\"\n\nThe same basic was is used on a static map - there is an arbitrary North to the Milky Way. Earth is located South of the galactic center at 0.0 degrees. Everything else is compared to Earth.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
brkbf0 | when investing money how can you tell the difference between a good stock and a bad one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/brkbf0/eli5_when_investing_money_how_can_you_tell_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"eoel89a",
"eoem03o",
"eoem97a",
"eoeu9d6",
"eof9rke"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can't, and neither can the \"experts.\" Buying shares is always a gamble.\n\nYou're better off investing in an index fund. An index fund is an account that has bought shares in many, maybe hundreds, of companies. So when you invest in an index fund you're gambling that a large swath of the stock market will increase in value, which is much more likely than any given single stock.",
"Research. There’s no way to judge a stock by looking at its price history or by which industry the company is in. A company’s history is what got it to the stock price that you can purchase it at today. A company’s future is what will determine the price you can sell it at tomorrow or next year or in 20 years. \n\nThe only way to know what’s in a company’s future is....... surprise! There is no way to know. The market is entirely speculative. The only thing that can give anybody an edge is uncovering information about a company and accurately deciding how valuable that information is. Weighing the information you collect and deciding if it’ll positively or negatively affect the value of a stock or a market is the foundation of earning money from the stock market.",
"Just a disclaimer, people much smarter than me or you have worked countless hours to determine the value of each company. It is unlikely for you to discover a “good deal”.\n\nYou can look at the fundamentals of a company, such as its leadership, how their industry is doing, if they are over/under-leveraged, their revenue growth etc. This gives an overall impression if the company will be successful or if they have a serious problem.\n\nThen you can look at performance indicators like Price/Earnings ratio or dividend payout rates. You can check against competitors if the company is overvalued.",
"One philosophy of thought is that the price of a stock reflects all the information known about the company. So it is \"impossible\" to out play the market - the price is exactly it's value.\n\nThat being said, \"good\" and \"bad\" are subjective to your personal goals. Your investment horizon, your risk tolerance, your lifestyle requirements. \n\nA \"good\" stock for a youngish person securely working full time with a long investment horizon (say for retirement) probably involves higher growth, higher risk/volatility etc. They can afford the downside better. This would be nearly the complete opposite for a person nearing or in retirement with no additional income sources relying mostly on their investment income in the near term. \n\nGood and bad, therefore, is going to be relative to the \"fitness\" to your specific goals and your personality. Having said all that, there are some \"universal\" traits that are considered good for investors - being patient, don't obsess, spread your investments (diversify), prudence (don't buy stuff with money you are going to need in the near term). Take a good look at yourself and decide how much time/effort you are willing to put in to this profession (investing). The answers to your self assessment should guide you on your investment decisions.",
"Protip: don't believe anyone, ever, who tells you to buy something because it's a good stock. 9 out of 10 times they are going to profit of you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2509tp | what toddlers are doing, pre-language, when they hold entire "conversations" with us and sometimes themselves, including shrugs, hand motions, and tonal inflections. do they really think we can understand them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2509tp/eli5_what_toddlers_are_doing_prelanguage_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"chce8n8",
"chcetq4",
"chchy8f"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Most babies can learn simple sign language before they're a year old. My own daughter started understanding and using signs when she was 11 months old. (Although, at that stage, everything that had a tail was a dog, including cats.)",
"They are trying hard to learn language. Their mouths and brains aren't up to the job of creating actual language sounds, but they are trying. When that happens, they'll 'get it' and start blabbering incessantly for the next 10 years, at which point they will suddenly shut up and start wearing black.\n\nThey are also looking for signs that they are being understood, looking for a reaction. At this point, they are already fairly advanced when it comes to understanding speech.",
"MOst of it is mimicking. They are hearing, and trying to replicate the cadence and structure of language. It starts off as babble, and evolves into single words, and then into sentences. Babies are always practicing their communication."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3hp8of | how do some posts skyrocket to the front page, while other seemingly similar posts fade into obscurity? | I presume this post will end up in obscurity, but I'd love to know how/why posts from some users are always on the front page and others might aswell not exist. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hp8of/eli5_how_do_some_posts_skyrocket_to_the_front/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu9bkfh",
"cu9bq05",
"cu9cc1e",
"cub9qdk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Peak times. Right now it is the peak time in Australia so the number of hugely upvoted posts will be smaller. ",
" > Some users\n\nI assume we're talking about /u/GallowBoob and /u/iBleeedOrange here. They tend to post in the peak times for the USA, which is where the majority of redditors are. There is also an 'upvoted because GallowBoob' mentality, but to a far lesser degree. Finally, they do make good posts. ",
"It's part luck and part method. Luck because, well, obviously. Method, it varies. You can use [redditlater](_URL_0_) to pinpoint when your ideal post time. You can ask friends to upvote you, or abuse alternates (both unethical but you know it happens sometimes). Some sites even sell upvotes.\n\nMostly, though, it's luck. And pandering, in certain cases.",
"In my experience, it really depends on the first few crucial upvotes. I decided to test this out on /r/pcmasterrace and made a decent post. Upon posting it the 1st time, the first person who saw it must have downvoted immediately as I noticed it went to 0 points under a minute of posting. I deleted the post, waited 10 minutes and posted again. The exact same post with the exact same title ended up getting over 3000 points and reaching frontpage. Generally if you get for example 100 points in 1 hour, reddit will give it lots of attention and the points will work with a snowball-like effect (Getting larger as it rolls). Also depends if it's on peak times and your title. Even a small change in your title could completely change the outcome."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.redditlater.com/"
],
[]
] |
|
5cxeq7 | why can an infant who doesn't possess enough motor control to do any thing deliberately, rub their eyes when they're tired? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cxeq7/eli5_why_can_an_infant_who_doesnt_possess_enough/ | {
"a_id": [
"da048wd",
"da0eg6w",
"da0js6w",
"da0jw5h",
"da0rwr1",
"da0z3a8",
"da0zlf8",
"da136tv"
],
"score": [
800,
60,
11,
31,
43,
12,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Eye rubbing relieves the mild stress that your eyelids feel when you are tired, can scratch an itch, remove some small speck causing pain, or simply be something that feels good. Young babies aren't very good at it though. You need to keep their fingernails clipped very short because they have a tendency to cut their faces when rubbing their eyes.",
"It is an autonomic reflex, all normal infants possess it. Such as a 'startle reflex' and a 'grasping reflex'. When you throw an infant into a swimming pool (only to be done under expert supervision) its autonomic reflex will be to automatically swim.",
"Seems like they wouldn't be able to rub their eyes unless they had at least some measure of motor control. Since they do it, maybe they aren't as inert as believed. ",
"Give baby bath. Put in ear plugs. Clip nails while soft with baby nail (rounded tips) scissors. That's it. ",
"My girl never rubbed her eyes. When she was tired she would cross her legs and put her arms behind her head. We knew it was nap time when we saw that",
"Newborns can't rub their eyes. They kuds of move their hands towards their face and either scratch themselves or suck on whatever part of their hand or arm tat comes close to their mouth. But they can't even navigate their hands to their mouths on purpose. \n\nThey are able to rub their eyes when their motor skills get better. \n\nSource: had infants. ",
"Cause they're super deceitful and lazy. Their laziness and attempts to not do anything for themselves becomes apparent in their teen years. That's how long it takes the veil of sweetness to drop from parents' eyes.",
"I wonder whether proprioception has something to do with this? The infant doesn't have a sufficiently developed model of the world around them to be able to interact with it with any degree of accuracy. However, their physical sense of their own body develops much earlier (or is in some way innate?) thus allowing them to perform actions like this more easily than interacting physically with the outside world. I'm just speculating here really, so don't take any of this as gospel... more like a SLI5."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1n1hsp | why do people tend to have a "rising inflection" towards the end of verbally asking a question? | To clarify, I'm talking about how, towards the end of asking a question, people tend to have an upwards inflection towards the end of asking a question verbally, whether it be through increased volume or emphasis.
It's something that everybody notices at one point, but is it just a trend spawned similarly to how accents are created? The weird the thing about it to me is that it is spread across multiple accents and multiple locations all over the world, which seems a little out of the ordinary. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n1hsp/eli5_why_do_people_tend_to_have_a_rising/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccejs3q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's a common feature in much of the Indo-European language family (and some others). Not all do it though - Russian, for example, does not. It's entirely arbitrary, and just happens to be a tone that is used for a specific purpose in those languages. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1zs4t5 | why does club soda want to explode when i crack the seal on the cap? | I always forget everytime I buy Club Soda that it likes to explode when you first open the bottle. Why is it fizzier than flavoured soda pop? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zs4t5/eli5_why_does_club_soda_want_to_explode_when_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfwge08"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First off, it is not sentient, so it doesn’t *want* to do anything—it *tends* toward a certain behavior.\n\n\nIt is fizzier because it is nothing more than water and carbon-dioxide. The concentration is inhibited in other beverages by such solutes as sugar, flavoring, coloring, preservatives, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2rljr3 | taxes and obamacare | First off, I mean the Affordable Care Act and apologize for using *slang* for uniformity.
There are certain (intentionally unmentioned) tax preparers advertising this like it's a big deal. Is this advertising BS, or are there real impacts to the average person? Special cases that should be more concerned?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rljr3/eli5taxes_and_obamacare/ | {
"a_id": [
"cngzzmg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes it will have an impact. Whether it is a big as certain companies are making it out to be is another story. Every taxpayer will have to check a box on their tax return about whether they are covered. For those that with insurance through their employer or who are self-insured that may very well be the end of it. The big questions come for those making use of the ACA and enrolled estimating their income and now have their actual income in hand. Reconciling the disparity between their actual income and the subsidies they were given based on their estimated income can be a pain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2p2kaj | if i were to drink water at the same rate at which i simultaneously peed would i just be stuck in a satisfying loop of drinking and peeing? | I legit wonder this on a daily basis | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p2kaj/eli5_if_i_were_to_drink_water_at_the_same_rate_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmsqmvf",
"cmsqqhb"
],
"score": [
39,
8
],
"text": [
"No, and the reason for this is that it takes at least a couple hours for water to work its way through your body. So in order for you to actually get stuck in a loop you would have to be drinking water continuously for hours. However, the amount needed to do this would kill you well before you got close to finishing.",
"Not possible.. you can only drink and pee at such a slow rate.. and if you drink too much water [it can kill you](_URL_0_). Wikipedia says you can only drink around 1L/hour before your body starts to uptake it.. And well, [uroflowmetry](_URL_1_) puts the average rate of peeing somewhere above 9ml/sec, dependent on age and gender..\n\nEven if you had a *really* slow pissing rate of 5ml/sec, you would still piss out 18L an hour.. Since you can't drink that much water an hour this means you would either have to stop pissing, or die from hyperhydration while trying."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication",
"http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003325.htm"
]
] |
|
5omgpf | who is chelsea manning and why is he/(she?) relevant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5omgpf/eli5_who_is_chelsea_manning_and_why_is_heshe/ | {
"a_id": [
"dckf9k4",
"dckfb5y"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"She was a US government official who was charged with giving the first classified information to Wikileaks. Obama commuted her sentence today. ",
"Chelsea manning previously Bradley Manning (now identifies as female), released three-quarters of a million classified and unclassified but sensitive military and diplomatic documents to wikileaks, such as this [footage] (_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.