🔥 Popular | Latest

Bodies , Children, and Climbing: Drowning in real life looks nothing like in the movies, and in fact many parents actually watch their children drown, having no idea that it's happening Ultrafacts.tumblr.com faikitty: mermaibee: ultrafacts: According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this: “Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.” This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc. Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water: Head low in the water, mouth at water level Head tilted back with mouth open Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus Eyes closed Hair over forehead or eyes Not using legs—vertical Hyperventilating or gasping Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway Trying to roll over on the back Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why. Source/article: [x] Follow Ultrafacts for more facts! BOOST FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Can I just say thank you to OP for putting such a detailed description on this? I’ve been a lifeguard for 6 years now and of all the saves I’ve done, maybe two or three had people drowning in the stereotypical thrashing style. And even those, like the save I made last weekend, it was exactly like OP describes where the person’s head is going in and out of the water but it isn’t long enough to get any air. Mostly you recognize drowning by the look on someone’s face. If someone looks wide eyed and terrified or confused, chances are they’re drowning. That look of “oh shit” is pretty easily recognizable. And even if you can’t tell for sure: GO AFTER THEM ANYWAY. I’ve done “saves” where a kid was pretending to drown and I mistook it for real drowning, but that’s preferable to a kid ACTUALLY drowning. Also please remember that even strong swimmers can drown if they have a medical emergency, get cramps, or get too tired. If your friend knows how to swim but they’re acting funny get them to land. And even if someone can respond when you ask them if they need help, if they say they do need help? GO HELP THEM. However . If the victim is a stranger, I can’t recommend trying to get them. Lifeguards literally train to escape “attacks,” because people who are drowning can freak the fuck out and grab you and make YOU drown as well. If you do go in after someone, take hold of them from the back and talk to them the whole time. IF YOU ARE GRABBED: duck down into the water as low as you can get. The person is panicking and won’t want to go under water and should release you. Shove up at their hands and push them away from you as you duck under. Don’t die trying to save someone else. Please guys, read and memorize this post. Not all places have lifeguards. Being able to recognize drowning is such an important skill to have and you can save someone’s life.
Save
Children, Christmas, and Cute: BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 7 miles away BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 1 7 miles away 5th annual 4th of July BBQ June 30th from1 until ? Why do 90% of u think this is an orgy? t's not t's open to all Is it because I'm on this app? I try to invite all types of people men, women, gay, bi, str8, trans doesn't matter to me. Height Weight Ethnicity Body Type 6'0" 240 lbs White Stocky Gender Man BBQ not n ORGY 7 miles away Sun, Jun 17 Hey 2:47 PM Today I'm having my annual BBQ June 30th from 1pm until? slow cook pig, chicken wings, hamburgers, fish and vegetarian meals. No cost just bring your own booze. Sodas, tea, water is provided. Please feel free to bring ur wife, partner or just a date. This party is open to men, women, families. Gay, str8, bi, and the unknown. 3:48 PM Say something i-care-to-live: culdeefell: lumbaghini: consultingdoctorwholock: loki-against-onision: libertarirynn: keyhollow: klubbhead: gaypussyretard: panzerkampfwagentigerrausfb: libertybill: cecaeliawitch: radical-f: girlsmoonsandstars: kittyit: darren-fucking-chriss: verysiriusly: legendarylangst: mnemophile: gonefashion: psyducked: heterophobiac: This is the most bizarre yet pure thing I’ve ever encountered on grindr Are you going? these guys went and said it was wholesome and fun! and look what he said https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/grindr-bbq-not-orgy?utm_term=.ur27oKlpv#.yfXpzGdkZ update: he had a thanksgiving dinner and is having a christmas dinner in case y’all missed out on the bbq!! lgb-bq :’) The guy is a registered sex offender. Kidnapping of a minor and sexual assault. http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/details.aspx?SRN=011019S7 a serial child rapist trying to get “families” to attend his bbq. jesus christ god damn it it was literally shady from the fact that he posted it to Grindr like of course he was trying to reach a specific audience no wonder his family doesn’t talk to him Holy fuck i used to really like this post, thought it was cute. shame. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan Well this took an unpleasant turn since the last time I saw it No worries @loki-against-onision , I got one Ok, so, I researched this. I read his court files. What this guy did was he let two young couples who wanted to have sex away from their parents’ eyes into his house. Here’s a “statement of the facts” from an appeal after he was convicted: “Fourteen-year-old Stephanie was dating 18 year-old Timothy Cutshall; fifteen-year-old Rachelle was dating 23 year-old Chris Hall.  On the night in question, Hall and Cutshall asked the defendant to let them use his house for a liaison with the girls. The girls lied to their parents about where they were going, went to the defendant’s house, and had sex with Cutshall and Hall; the defendant never had sex with either girl. “The evidence was in conflict as to whether the defendant knew that the girls were underage.  There was no evidence that he knew they were younger enough than the men to render their otherwise consensual intercourse statutory rape.  Finally, there was no evidence that he knew that the girls did not have their parents’ permission to go to his house. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting statutory rape, second degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with children.” The person who shared his sex offender registry completely made up the “sexual assault” charge, and “kidnapping” didn’t sit right with me, so I looked into it. What actually happened was complicated. What it looks like to me is this dude, possibly under the influence of the alcohol he said ruined his life, made a stupid decision to trust these kids and had some creative prosecutors throw the book at him in every way they could think of. Wow that’s way worse. BBQ man is un-canceled. Let’s try and give him some happiness, he’s had shit luck. can we acknowledge how important CONTEXT is when we are “exposing” peoples lives, past, and especially convictions? thanks.
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
Apparently, Ash, and College: its-bewitched: anti-fem-anti-stupid: jalopyrustbucket: anti-fem-anti-stupid: pesthouse: classic-ash: wtfokcreepy: poppunkvampire: well I found my high school rapist on okcupid which allows me to out this fucker this man is named Ian Dickinson. he lives in Vancouver WA and he is 24 years old. when I was 16 and he was 19, he and an accomplice (who I will not out for personal reasons) assaulted me in his bed while I cried and begged them to stop. when I told him afterwards that what he had done wasn’t ok, he told me I shouldn’t have worn the skirt I had on and I deserved it, and then he laughed. we were both sober. he’s studying Engineering at Clark Community College in Vancouver. stay away from him. Stay safe, ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I live on the other side of the continent, but I’m still reblogging this because this man is a straight up cunt and deserves to be signal boosted. I hope you never have sex again. Ian Dickinson do not employ Ian Dickinson he is a rapist use his name as many times as possible so this post shows up when you google him So when his employer googles him they will see Ian Dickinson is a rapist Ian Dickinson rapes women Ian Dickinson is a criminal Ian Dickinson should have an arrest warrant Ian Dickinson should not have a job Ian Dickinson is in Vancouver WA What the fuck is wrong with you people? You’re trying to out this guy as a rapist with no evidence that he’s actually a rapist. One person makes an allegation, work am attempt are an emotional story behind it to drum up support, and several other people decide to smear this person.I hope their using the wrong name.For all we know, this person is just angry at an Ex. If the allegations are true, then law enforcement would know it, and there’d be controls on his behavior. That’s what’s fairly likely. Especially since there’s an “accomplice” that doesn’t matter apparently. It doesn’t make any sense. How could people go along with this? So don’t name the accomplice due to personal reasons, though ruin this guys life? I can taste fuckery all around. “Let’s just casually try to ruin this random person‘s life just because another random person says he’s a rapist while providing absolutely no proof whatsoever.“ -Tumblr
Save
Friends, Hello, and Science: car & friends - prehistory HELLO, I'M GRANK, AND DONT WATCH A LOT OF TV. NO ONE DOES! IT'S 16O00 BC! THE SENSE OF SMUG SATISFACTION GET FROM NOT WATCH NG TV IS BETTER THAN ANY TELEVISION SHOW, THAT'S LIKE... 18000 BTV. I'M SURE. YOU ARE SUCH A ZOE. O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com car & friends - prehistory GRANK HERE, AND TODAY I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT NVESTMENT BANKING WHAT? WE DON'T HAVE AN ECONOMY WE JUST STARTED US NG PILL BUGS AS OUR CURRENCY TWO WEEKS AGO PROVIDING A LITTLE ATMOSPHERE CAN GO A LOOOOONG WAY. OBVI USLY YOU'LL WANT YOUR ASSETS TO GROW N NUMBER OVER TIME, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT IDLY BY AND WAIT FOR THE BUGS TO, WELL, DO THEIR THING. MARVIN AYE O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com car & friends - prehistory Mllred IM GRANK THE CAVEMAN, AND I CONSUME ONLY THE FINEST ORGANIC PRODUCE. UMM... WE EAT STUFF WE FIND ON THE GROUND, THERE'S BASICALLY NO EVIDENCE THAT ORGANIC F DS ARE HEALTHIER THAN THEIR CONVENTIONALLY GROWN COUNTERPARTS... BUT THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE SCIENCE HASN'T BEEN INVENTED YET! O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com car & friends - prehistory GRANK HERE! SIGN UP WITH ME TO BE YOUR OWN BOSS SELLING ESSENT AL RED WATER! EARN THOUSANDS OF P LL BUGS A MONTH IN YOUR SPARE T ME! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO GET THREE PEOPLE TO SIGN UP UNDER y U. THEN EACH F THEM W LL GET THREE MORE PEOPLE, AND THEN-- HOLD UP... GRANK, WE ONLY KNOW OF SIX PEOPLE BESIDES US, AND YOUR "ESSENT AL RED WATER" LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE SQU RREL BLOOD. NATURALLY-HARVESTED SQU工RREL BLOOD!! O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com Four caveman comics for your reading pleasure (+ bonus panels in comments)

Four caveman comics for your reading pleasure (+ bonus panels in comments)

Save
Af, Apple, and Church: an entomologist rates ant emojis Apple Beautful big almand eye, realistic and fuil of espression as she gazes gently at you. Ebowed antennze and delicately segmented legs and body. Gorgeous pearascent shean lke slhe is glowing This ant moisturizes. This ant is round and huggable. This ant is a star 11/10 Google Beautfully detailed, elike pose but with an unexpecled neck and odd antennae, perhaps scared straight. Her eyes sugpest she has seen things. Her eepression confirms she has seen too much, Sha is haunted and I want to know more7/10 Microsoft Floppy antens pointy muppet fsc, oddy posed legs. What is she? She has no waist. May be she ls some kind of bee in doguise? l ind her unsetting 3/10 This ant has an unexplained, double jointed thorax, and no evidence of a ist Her four-looled pose suggests that she s centaur rather than an ant ants would be re what was iniended here. 2/10 WhatsApp Good rst impression, kind of bland in the details. This ant has no parscular waist to speak of, floppy rather han ebowed anlennae, and an inexpressive face. Her color scheme is soft and hazy. Iike the sharp angles of her styishly sophisticated laga. This ant may not know quie were she is going, but she knows how she is geting there.6/10 Twitter Were you even trying 0/10 Facebook Gasp This ant is elegant. This ant has a beauttul tapered thorax, a segmented abdomen, alert, ebowed antennae, and a ight-looled pose. This ant's face supgests ouriosity and a desire to explore the world. This ant nspires me. I want to be ike her 10/10 EmojiOne 3-legged. waistless centaurant with strange, linp antennae and a beak. I囟n't know what this is kind af reminds me of & Hork-Bair 1/0, not n ant emojidex This ant... makes me sad. All of her legs are broken The MS Paint art style and gradent abuse cowey distress. She has a duck beak Despie his, her expresnon suggests perseveranoe and determined deertless י want this ant to have a better Iite.I am rooting for her. 3/10 Messenger This ant is a bold and challenging mbture of photorealism and caricature. She is broad and low-bull and seerns very sturdy. She looks like sh๑ would help you mave. This ant is a dependable friend. 9/10 LG A picture of an ant from a children's book. She is wearing Ittle boots. This ant is wrong irevery way, and yet I can't stay mad齜her. T/10 HTC An interesing, op-down view of an ant, her legs are postioned with sighdy iamng symmetry Nevertheless, her overal impresson that of a gracett stylzed design, lke a piciograph. She is sutable for adorning fine garments and jewelry ar parhaps gracing the wals of a Sny ant church 1ike this Mozilla This is a Sermile-1010 An entomologist rates the ant emojis

An entomologist rates the ant emojis

Save
Af, Apple, and Church: an entomologist rates ant emojis Apple Beautful big almand eye, realistic and fuil of espression as she gazes gently at you. Ebowed antennze and delicately segmented legs and body. Gorgeous pearascent shean lke slhe is glowing This ant moisturizes. This ant is round and huggable. This ant is a star 11/10 Google Beautfully detailed, elike pose but with an unexpecled neck and odd antennae, perhaps scared straight. Her eyes sugpest she has seen things. Her eepression confirms she has seen too much, Sha is haunted and I want to know more7/10 Microsoft Floppy antens pointy muppet fsc, oddy posed legs. What is she? She has no waist. May be she ls some kind of bee in doguise? l ind her unsetting 3/10 This ant has an unexplained, double jointed thorax, and no evidence of a ist Her four-looled pose suggests that she s centaur rather than an ant ants would be re what was iniended here. 2/10 WhatsApp Good rst impression, kind of bland in the details. This ant has no parscular waist to speak of, floppy rather han ebowed anlennae, and an inexpressive face. Her color scheme is soft and hazy. Iike the sharp angles of her styishly sophisticated laga. This ant may not know quie were she is going, but she knows how she is geting there.6/10 Twitter Were you even trying 0/10 Facebook Gasp This ant is elegant. This ant has a beauttul tapered thorax, a segmented abdomen, alert, ebowed antennae, and a ight-looled pose. This ant's face supgests ouriosity and a desire to explore the world. This ant nspires me. I want to be ike her 10/10 EmojiOne 3-legged. waistless centaurant with strange, linp antennae and a beak. I囟n't know what this is kind af reminds me of & Hork-Bair 1/0, not n ant emojidex This ant... makes me sad. All of her legs are broken The MS Paint art style and gradent abuse cowey distress. She has a duck beak Despie his, her expresnon suggests perseveranoe and determined deertless י want this ant to have a better Iite.I am rooting for her. 3/10 Messenger This ant is a bold and challenging mbture of photorealism and caricature. She is broad and low-bull and seerns very sturdy. She looks like sh๑ would help you mave. This ant is a dependable friend. 9/10 LG A picture of an ant from a children's book. She is wearing Ittle boots. This ant is wrong irevery way, and yet I can't stay mad齜her. T/10 HTC An interesing, op-down view of an ant, her legs are postioned with sighdy iamng symmetry Nevertheless, her overal impresson that of a gracett stylzed design, lke a piciograph. She is sutable for adorning fine garments and jewelry ar parhaps gracing the wals of a Sny ant church 1ike this Mozilla This is a Sermile-1010 An entomologist rates the ant emojis via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2AJ9ifk

An entomologist rates the ant emojis via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2AJ9ifk

Save
Fall, Fbi, and Kim Jong-Un: Trudeau, Merkel and Macron are now the leaders of the free world. Because Trump is an unstable, infantile, bully who works for Russia instead of the American people. ge Credit: wI h /eptod hitips/ /ortiy/ ad Hitj/ /bit.ly/23potou macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would you give G status to a country that invades to annex another nation, hacks your voting systems, meddles in your election, and who knows what else? This line of reasoning that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin is a level of red baiting, hive mind, groupthink  that is just frightening. it’s sad how liberals fall for this nonsense. I am no conservative nor Trump supporter but this has got to stop. Also the homophobic undertones that the “resistance” are promoting with Trump and Putin being in love has got to stop (to be fair in this post it is not used).  My opinion is that Trump and his lackeys did money laundering in Russia. There is ample evidence of this. There is, so far, a lot of nothingburgers when it comes to the claims that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin and even the more simple claim that Russia is working hard to appease Putin. If Putin and Trump are so cozy and so in bed with each other then answer this: 1. why did Russia not vote with the USA in regards to Israel? 2. Trump is also nice to Duerte, Kim Jong un, and Netanyahu. is he their puppet too? 3. Trump is being more hawkish to Russia than Obama was. The Trump administration has sold weapons to Ukraine something Obama did not take a side on as to not exacerbate the separatist tensions why would a putin puppet do that? 4. Trump admitted a new NATO member, Montenegro, despite Russia’s objections 5. He has increased NATO military numbers outside of the border of Russia  6. Trump has bombed Syria multiple times against Assad while Putin supports Assad, what kind of great relationship is this? Trump is increasing the proxy war not deescalating it. 7. Trump appointed Mattis and pentagon say that Russia and China are a greater threat to national security than terrorism 8. John Bolton is pushing for increasingly hawkish measures on Russia and many other countries 9. There is ample evidence that Trump administration officials including Kushner were manipulated by Israel, yet no one is complaining about that. Israel the sacred cow of both parties isn’t seen as an issue since it’s all Russia. Also after a year of investigating the 19 or so indictments, and the guilty pleas involved, NONE of them have anything to do with Trump Russia Election conspiracy ie- Manafort and Gates were accused of money laundering for funds in Ukraine (as ive been saying for months money laundering is where the evidence points to). With Flynn and papadopoulos both lied to the intelligence agencies but none of it directly pointed to election meddling. In flynns case it was to undermine obama in Israel and one step was to talk to a Russian ambassador the second convo was about sanctions. There is speculative evidence that perhaps was being so nice to Putin because Trump thought he wasn’t going to win and he wanted to push a Trump tower in Moscow and also money laundering. But the evidence that Putin or the Kremlin is controlling Trump and colluded in overturning democracy is weak. Meme farms have not been connected to the kremlin and even if they were . come on give me a break. Memes did not change the election. Democrats need to take responsibility for pushing a lifeless corpse of a candidate who colluded with her party to win, shunned progressives while pretending to be one, and who was known for lying, scandals, and flip flopping. Democrats are just embarrassed that they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an “inevitable” candidate who lost to a reality TV star.  Liberals should focus on Trump’s corruption, his policies, and their own policies as a more effective way of galvanizing people. The democrats need to stand up for something besides Russiagate hysteria and Trumps tweets. Immigrant families are being pulled apart while Rachel Madow and the liberals go full on looney tunes with Russia hysteria. Also note how Obama made fun of Romney for being so ardently against Russia even calling it McCarthyism and now that Trump rhetoric-wise doesn’t want to murder Putin in his sleep, the same democrats who laughed at Romney now want Trump to be hawkish and antagonistic towards Russia, which ironically, at least policy-wise, he has been. Also I love how liberals now in a tribalist reversal revere the FBI and CIA, two very corrupt agencies that have lied to us many times before, have spied on activists, leftists, and its own citizens, and responsible for regime changes around the world. Liberals also now love Mueller who lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. This is insanity. I am not saying it is impossible that Trump and Putin can be working together, What I am saying is that is seems based on the evidence highly improbable. Skepticism is an important tool in the toolbox of critical thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here are some sources that might whet your appetite for an alternative view of this nonsense  1  (author on collusion fails to show how Russia and Trump colluded. offers no evidence 2  (an hour long debate on Russia and Trump being a traitor; both sides discuss evidence; it is clear which side is lacking in evidence at least to me) 3   (a year after the Russia Trump investigation: an analysis)  

macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would you ...

Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Save
Children, Funny, and Saw: "Gun control doesn't currently exist l mean sure l've never looked this up and I have absolutely no evidence to back it up but it has to be true because I saw something on Jimmy Kimmel live that said Republicans don't want gun control and we don't have enough so you need to listen to me because I car about children and-" MARCH FOROUR LIVES <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172655026164/origamirosefactory-libertarirynn-have-a-spicy" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://origamirosefactory.tumblr.com/post/172648085970/libertarirynn-have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">origamirosefactory</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172643558684/have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Have a spicy new reaction image</p></blockquote> <p>K yeah but when I looked up gun laws in Arizona i was actually astounded at the lack of regulations that are in place to buy a gun but go off I guess</p> </blockquote><p>I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my students: if it doesn’t apply to you then I wasn’t talking to you.</p><p>Also Arizona also has a much lower number of gun homicides than a place with stricter gun control like DC. Funny how that works, ain’t it?</p></blockquote> <p>Updated this to compare AZ to DC rather than NY because it better illustrates my point. I figured someone might bring up murders per capita and for that DC is much, MUCH higher than Arizona despite strict gun laws.</p>

libertarirynn: origamirosefactory: libertarirynn: Have a spicy new reaction image K yeah but when I looked up gun laws in Arizona i was a...

Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Save
Being Alone, America, and Anaconda: asic KOSHER DILL SPEARS 2924 8 924 1 <p><a href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135827422115/garregret-therevenantrising-garregret" class="tumblr_blog">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135810589826">garregret</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135540905500">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://garregret.tumblr.com/post/135517237536">garregret</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/135479826270">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pushingpin.tumblr.com/post/135479128813">pushingpin</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jingle-brrrrt.tumblr.com/post/135448815816">jingle-brrrrt</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://metal-queer-solid.tumblr.com/post/134386190976">metal-queer-solid</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://0122358.tumblr.com/post/134383153016">0122358</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134381412470">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://shelovespiano.tumblr.com/post/134380537619">shelovespiano</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kaisernighthawk1996.tumblr.com/post/134342240504">kaisernighthawk1996</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://feels-by-the-foot.tumblr.com/post/134299613814">feels-by-the-foot</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/134299542770">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://neuroxin.tumblr.com/post/134298026257">neuroxin</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134294057737">pizzaotter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://madmints.tumblr.com/post/134293259422">madmints</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://pizzaotter.tumblr.com/post/134280963537">pizzaotter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bolt-carrier-assembly.tumblr.com/post/133694853738">bolt-carrier-assembly</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689796940">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://therevenantrising.tumblr.com/post/133689234535">therevenantrising</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Mak N Cheese<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Not to be confused with Mac N Cheese.</p> <figure data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="3264" data-orig-height="1840" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/49bb53d1810cdc4a6c5f1fa9e40355ae/tumblr_inline_ny6xsoZgNT1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure></blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e723085af378cad726af085c2220068f/tumblr_inline_ny72aotJ7s1r4zl7m_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1802" data-orig-width="3246"/></figure></p> <p>Also in the Big Mac variety</p> </blockquote> <p>WhY do you people have automatic weapons</p> </blockquote> <p>Even if they are automatic (which they most likely aren’t), why does it matter to you?</p> </blockquote> <p>Look at all these gun nuts coming out the woodwork cause I asked why people randomly have automatic weapons on cheese</p> </blockquote> <p>Gun obsession is so fucking gross. There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings. Do not try to give some weak ass justification when “because I like them” is all it actually fucking boils down to. A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives. That trumps your ill-chosen hobby. </p> <p>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</p> </blockquote> <p>This was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun joke post, but fine.  Let’s do this.<br/></p> <h2><b>There is no valid logical rational reason why any normal US citizen should own a machine literally designed for no other purpose than to kill human beings.</b></h2> <p>I own several guns and have shot literally thousands of rounds over the last couple of years, yet I haven’t killed or even harmed a single living creature.  Huh…  I guess my guns must be broken since they can’t even fulfill their “only purpose”.</p> <h2> <b>A disgustingly huge amount of people are DYING to these things every month, just trying to go about their normal lives.  That trumps your ill-chosen hobby.</b><br/></h2> <p>Many anti-gun advocates will point out that there were 33,000 people killed by guns in 2013.  While this is a terrible number, we must also put this number into perspective against the grand scheme of things.  There are an estimated 340-370+ MILLION legally owned guns in America, not even including illegal black markets that we cannot effectively track.  This means that, even if we use conservative estimations, literally over 99.99% of the guns in America didn’t kill a single person in 2013.</p> <p>When we look at the big picture, your chances of being harmed by a gun are actually very low.<br/></p> <p><b>Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:</b></p> <p><b>Death by gun, suicide excluded:</b><br/>0.0032%</p> <p><b>Death by gun, suicide included:</b><br/>0.0095%</p> <p><b>Death in a mass shooting alone:</b><br/>0.000032%</p> <p><b>Injury by gun, no death:</b><br/>0.024%</p> <p><b>Death of injury by gun including suicide:</b><br/>0.033%</p> <p>Gun deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little change to the average numbers used above.</p> <p><b>Guns compared to other ways you can die:</b></p> <p><b> Unintentional fall deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 26,009</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4</li> </ul><p><b>Motor vehicle traffic deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,687</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9</li> </ul><p><b>Unintentional poisoning deaths: </b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 33,041</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7</li> </ul><p><b>All poisoning deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 42,917</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9</li> </ul><p><b>All Drug poisoning deaths:</b></p> <ul><li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)</li></ul><p><b>All firearm deaths (suicide included):</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 31,672</li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3</li> </ul><p><b>All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):</b></p> <ul><li>Number of deaths: 12,664 <br/></li> <li>Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6</li> </ul><p><b>Firearm deaths broken down completely:</b></p> <p>3.6 for homicide <br/>6.3 for suicide<br/>0.30 for unintentional <br/>0.10 undetermined</p> <p> 10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns but are not even protected by the constitution and isn’t a right, and are less regulated than guns! </p> <p> <i>[Sources are <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">FBI</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">CDC</a>]</i></p> <p>Many people will also cite mass shootings as a reason that guns are evil and should be banned, but this assertion also falls flat and looks ridiculous when put into perspective.  While these stories draw media attention and are absolutely horrible, you seem to have casually and conveniently left out the part where these attacks account for less than even one quarter of 1% of America’s overall murder rate.  About 0.2% to be more exact.</p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500"><img data-orig-height="317" data-orig-width="500" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc45a6b149582a24ee012977c76ca402/tumblr_inline_nynm1mUXyB1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>Now, let’s compare this, how often guns are used to harm innocent lives, to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives.</p> <p>Guns help protect innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.   There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country alone every single year.</p> <p><a href="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/">http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w">http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VcYed_lRK1w</a></p> <p>Quite simply put, guns save innocent lives.  And they do so far more often than they hurt them.  When guns are harming more innocent lives than they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to further limit guns.</p> <p>But for now, it’s not even close.  Moving on…<br/></p> <h2><b>There is no solution better than the one that several European countries and the Australians have proven works, anything else is a less-effective compromise so that you, again, can get off on owning a literal killing machine.</b></h2> <p>Sorry, but strict gun control has been an absolute failure in both Australia, The UK, and everywhere else it has tried.  It has done nothing to effectively reduce murder, violent crime, suicide, or even gun violence rates.  It has done nothing to achieve its desired goal of creating a safer society.  It is, and always will be, a complete failure.</p> <p><b>Australia:</b></p> <p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://lee-enfeel.tumblr.com">lee-enfeel</a>]</i><br/></p> <p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/is-australia-staring-down-the-barrel-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325">People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act</a>, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.</p> <p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument">total firearms death rate in 1995 </a>- the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime. <br/></p> <p>It should also be noted that around the same time, New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well, and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.</p> <p>The <i>“australia banned guns and now they’re fine”</i> argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of opportunities, and lack of education.</p> <p>You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.</p> <p><i>[this segment brought to you by <a href="http://tmblr.co/m9F_132GzodNt-UaipnK67g">cerebralzero</a>]</i></p> <p>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-37">[37]</a></sup> noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence</p> <p>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-40">[40]</a></sup></p> <p>A study coauthored by Simon Chapman <b>found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms</b> accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-43">[43]</a></sup></p> <p>Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in <b>Australia and New Zealand</b>. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. <b>That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand</b>. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-44">[44]</a></sup></p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="261" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cdc45e76a09651676eab1f058341110c/tumblr_inline_nynm84pBjF1sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure><p>We see the same trend in The UK.</p> <figure data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="500" data-orig-height="373" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf599e784e9963b91a4e4f245fed90f5/tumblr_inline_nynm9wKrKT1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><figure data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="458" data-orig-height="366" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/279f61b9c596b97badd4bc465cc46b60/tumblr_inline_nynm9zWkxr1sh8jq3_540.png"/></figure><p>And Ireland and Jamaica…</p> <figure data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" class="tmblr-full"><img data-orig-width="453" data-orig-height="714" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4914c912d5690b40a382b90cf18c646f/tumblr_inline_nynmakqIup1sh8jq3_540.jpg"/></figure><p>And on and on and on…  Gun control simply does not create a safer society and often times actually has the opposite effect.</p> <p>At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia.  <a href="http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/">In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.</a></p> <p>All of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost of implementing Australian style gun control in America.</p> <p>I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big picture of that plan.</p> <p>Australia had far less guns per person and people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up respecting The 2nd Amendment.  The culture of Australia is very different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun ownership and self defense.</p> <p>Because of this, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia">the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about <b>$500,000,000.</b></a>  You read that correctly, <b>500 MILLION</b>.</p> <p><a href="http://cerebralzero.tumblr.com/tagged/australia">And even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, </a>despite being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.<br/></p> <p>There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America.  If we go by Australia’s numbers (<b>$792.39 per gun</b>), these guns would cost our government <b>$285,261,489,698.89</b> to buy back.  Almost <b>300 BILLION dollars</b>, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns…  Which is a very slim to nothing chance.</p> <p>Who’s going to pay for that?  Anti-gunners?  I think not.</p> <p>So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars <b>AND </b>has already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?</p> <p>Seems pretty silly.</p> <h2>Get dunked on, nerd.</h2> <figure data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188"><img data-orig-width="250" data-orig-height="188" src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/36a75ffd7a3ce392092201d3769d443e/tumblr_inline_nynmeusS661sh8jq3_500.gif"/></figure></blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500" data-tumblr-attribution="eonline:S4A57ljapSvQXLPM7Jsomg:ZCTZKx1sDpydf"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/5b521c18948099c6594a510905c6dfe9/tumblr_nt8sq3NZGm1qlgbzbo1_500.gif" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>Teehee, Mac ‘n’ cheese</p> </blockquote> <p>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table. Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable. Gun shows have too many loopholes. America has a specific culture that is unique when it comes to guns. Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try. Thorough background checks are reasonable. Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</p> </blockquote> <h2><b>Would make it clear that a gv’t buyback has never been on the table.</b></h2> <p>Maybe not a mandatory federal one, no.  But government gun buybacks are most certainly a thing here in America.</p> <h2><b>Also, cars are registered, which is reasonable.</b></h2> <p>You know that guns are not cars, right?</p> <h2><b>Gun shows have too many loopholes.</b></h2> <p>What loopholes would those be?  Please enlighten us.</p> <h2><b>Not sure anything we do will make people feel truly safe, but reasonable measures are worth a try.<br/></b></h2> <p>The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.</p> <p>Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone?  Anyone?</p> <p>From 1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in America.  They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.   An “assault weapons” ban.  Magazine capacity limits.  All of that.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">Guess what?</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf">IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE.</a></p> <h2><b>Thorough background checks are reasonable.</b></h2> <p>We already have mandatory federal NICS background checks, where the buyer’s criminal and mental healthy history are reviewed and have to be approved by the FBI, for every FFL purchase.</p> <h2><b>Taking away all guns? Not so much. Good thing is, very few advocate for that.</b></h2> <p>Except for people in politics, the media, and every social media platform I can think advocate for just that every single day.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Rekt</p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/06dc5d6fb9a872f66494555df3d8e68d/tumblr_inline_nyq063shKC1qmqn62_540.jpg" data-orig-height="500" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-tumblr-attribution="sweetnighttheorist:iC3ZUAaLREBo5eAyAtwOWw:Z_9d1l1pDjh9p" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_inline_nzkb0efWgQ1t5zudu_500.gif" data-orig-width="300" data-orig-height="152" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/68abc0e9798bcb3c43bc230a5ab9e9e0/tumblr_nr9gyqXCqt1uqa8bho1_400.gif"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>but like if you could save 33000 peoples lives a year, by giving up a hobby would you?</p> </blockquote> <p>A hobby?  Sure.  No problem.</p> <p>However, me owning a gun is not merely a hobby.  It is the most effective tool at protecting my life, the lives of my family, and the lives of innocent lives around me.  I’m sorry, but self defense and self preservation are not “hobbies”.</p> <p>Furthermore, it’s a bit of pipe dream anyway considering that we have decades of evidence from all over the world that proves that gun control and even gun bans do not effectively reduce murder or violent crime rates.  They do not create safer societies.  Sure, it might look good on paper and feel good to think about, but reality just doesn’t align with those dreams.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>hey I’m glad for all the sources because this is changing my perspective but you gotta admit that at the very least requiring extensive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, and registering guns would help at least reduce gun violence a little bit and would help solve cases b/c registers guns</p> </blockquote> <p>No, I do not have to admit that at all because all of these measures are in place in states like California, New York, and Washington DC, yet they have not made these societies any safer from murder, violent crime, or even gun violence.</p> <p>So, no I do not have to nor will I be admitting that at all because it simply isn’t true.</p> </blockquote> <p>oh? is that so? so if buying an automatic weapon is as easy as picking up a prescription that’s <i>not</i> going to make it easier for anyone who’s upset to get a gun and then fire it on people??? o k</p> </blockquote> <p>Automatic weapons are extremely regulated for civilian ownership in America.  They cost tens of thousands of dollars on the low end all the way up to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the high end, they are registered with the federal government, the owner must apply for a special NFA license which requires a thorough background check that takes months or even years to get approved, paper work must be kept with the weapon at all time, the weapon cannot have been manufactured after 1986, they require a federal tax stamp to own which also can takes months to over a year to get processed, the owner must also designate a licensed gun dealer who will take possession of the weapon in the event of their death, and on and on and on…</p><p>If you truly believe that acquiring an automatic weapon in America is as easy as “picking up a prescription”, then you are simply ignorant to the subject of automatic weapons and just do not know what you are talking about.<br/></p><p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa">https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act</a></p><p><a href="http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years">http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171047/-There-are-240-000-fully-automatic-guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years</a><br/></p></blockquote> <p>Pretty sure I’ve shares this before but it’s never a bad time.</p>
Save
Facts, Family, and Fucking: 10:49 PM Tweet BuzzFeed News BuzzFeeD NEW S @BuzzFeedNews I didn't realize this needs to be said, but before you decide to stan Kim Jong Un's sister, please remember to NOT do that. Her family literally runs gulags. Before You Decide To Stan Kim Jong Un's Sister, Please Remember To Not Do That Tweet your reply @frakincaprica Replying to @BuzzFeedNews The US literally allows slavery by using prisons and it's in the constitution. But yeah, give us that scare word about "gulags" The US has the highest rate of prisoners per capita in the world. It's not close.How about figure that out 2/10/18, 8:42 PM Mike Freddoso @MikeFreddoso Replying to @frakincaprica and @BuzzFeedNews Scare word" implies that NK is not as horrible as "gulag" implies. But the existence of gulags doesn't begin to capture the all-encompassing repression of body and mind that NK imposes on its people. Not that your criticism of the US is baseless, but there's no comparison. 2/10/18, 9:58 PM standalone.exe汁 pE15 @standalone exe Replying to @MikeFreddoso @frakincaprica and @BuzzFeedNews this person came with facts and your reply basically reads "yeah but dprk is worse" followed by no evidence 2/11/18, 1:29 PM 5 Likes John Jasper @johndjasper Replying to @standalone_exe @MikeFreddoso and 2 others No evidence? He repeated the applicable anti-DPRK rhetoric! What more do you need 2/11/18, 4:11 PM <p><a href="https://guns-garlic-and-glory.tumblr.com/post/170787018573/laughs-while-deporting-shadowfromthestarlight" class="tumblr_blog">guns-garlic-and-glory</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://laughs-while-deporting.tumblr.com/post/170784922054/shadowfromthestarlight-libertarirynn-people" class="tumblr_blog">laughs-while-deporting</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://shadowfromthestarlight.tumblr.com/post/170783677948/libertarirynn-people-are-literally-acting-like" class="tumblr_blog">shadowfromthestarlight</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/170783094654/people-are-literally-acting-like-nk-has-done" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY ACTING LIKE NK HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG I WANT OFF THIS HELL PLANET</p></blockquote> <p>What do you expect from commies?</p> </blockquote> <p>Wasn’t there a NK defector at the SOTU?</p></blockquote> <p>Yes. A double amputee that Democrats refused to stand for, and the media mocked. His name is Ji Seong-Ho. </p><p><br/></p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="342" data-orig-width="512"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/4570c7b66734fe38c6ccc6accd8e96c4/tumblr_inline_p40wsoT56K1usps85_500.jpg" data-orig-height="342" data-orig-width="512"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="545" data-orig-width="750"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/6fad0fa5e41f500b177e591c83cdfee9/tumblr_inline_p40wsolq7g1usps85_500.jpg" data-orig-height="545" data-orig-width="750"/></figure></blockquote> <p>What on the fucking hellshit is wrong with these people???</p>
Save
Facts, Family, and News: 10:49 PM Tweet BuzzFeed News BuzzFeeD NEW S @BuzzFeedNews I didn't realize this needs to be said, but before you decide to stan Kim Jong Un's sister, please remember to NOT do that. Her family literally runs gulags. Before You Decide To Stan Kim Jong Un's Sister, Please Remember To Not Do That Tweet your reply @frakincaprica Replying to @BuzzFeedNews The US literally allows slavery by using prisons and it's in the constitution. But yeah, give us that scare word about "gulags" The US has the highest rate of prisoners per capita in the world. It's not close.How about figure that out 2/10/18, 8:42 PM Mike Freddoso @MikeFreddoso Replying to @frakincaprica and @BuzzFeedNews Scare word" implies that NK is not as horrible as "gulag" implies. But the existence of gulags doesn't begin to capture the all-encompassing repression of body and mind that NK imposes on its people. Not that your criticism of the US is baseless, but there's no comparison. 2/10/18, 9:58 PM standalone.exe汁 pE15 @standalone exe Replying to @MikeFreddoso @frakincaprica and @BuzzFeedNews this person came with facts and your reply basically reads "yeah but dprk is worse" followed by no evidence 2/11/18, 1:29 PM 5 Likes John Jasper @johndjasper Replying to @standalone_exe @MikeFreddoso and 2 others No evidence? He repeated the applicable anti-DPRK rhetoric! What more do you need 2/11/18, 4:11 PM <p>PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY ACTING LIKE NK HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG I WANT OFF THIS HELL PLANET</p>

PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY ACTING LIKE NK HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG I WANT OFF THIS HELL PLANET

Save
Curving, Elf, and Fall: Theory: Nobody who writes a physics textbook gives any fucks 3 Legolas the Eit claims to beable to accuratel count boeemen and discen thelir hair oolor tyel w) 5 leagues away on a bright, suny day Make pprepriahe estetes and anque that Legilas must have vesy strange looking cyes, have some means of onvisal pendeption oe have made a lucky Update: Legolas pupils are about 3.5 cm wide each. Now drawing kawail Legolas on physics And they told you science was no fun. IR I'm going to do it. I'm going to hand it in Legolas's pupil size isn't the problem here, though $leagues is 17,262 miles. The curvature of the Earth means that for a person of average height, the visual horizon is less than three miles away Even if your vision is telescopic and the atmosphere is perfectly clear, you can't see around the planet. If they were standing on a hill, it would have to be at LEAST 19B feet above sea level in order to see the horizon at 17.2 miles away, with nothing tall in between. Which knowing Rohan, isnt impossible But consider Elven satellite eyeballs you mean like @sidereanuncia it's back the post that I can only imagine haunts your nightmares I shall never fiand peace Also, for what it's worth, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the curvature of Midde Earth is the same as that of Earth There's no evidence that Middle Earth curves. Yeah there is. The Silmarillion states that the world was curved after the fall of Numenor (I believe preventing access to Valinor. But Elves (among others) can travel the straight path across it So middle earth is round, but not for Elves because magic So wait, the reason he can see that far is because Elves just have the ability to ignore the curve of the earth? That's awesome. It also means that no matter how good your optics got, you would always want olf oyes manning the spyglass because they can see arbitranily far while everybody else is limited by this horizon bullshit Oh thank God, my poor elf prince has seen to0 much in this post Elves are flat-earthers This post went from amusing to horrifying, to be brought back down to amusing sprinkled in with some cannon explanation, and then you leave me here in fucking outrage Source siderearuncia What do your elf eyes see?
Save
Alive, Anaconda, and Clothes: Sweater curse From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The "sweater curse" or "curse of the love sweater" is a term used by knitters to describe the belief that if a knitter gives a hand-knit sweater to a significant other, it will lead to the recipient breaking up with the knitter [11 In an alternative formulation, the relationship will end before the sweater is even completed.2 The belief is widely discussed in knitting publications, and some knitters claim to have experienced it.[31415] In a 2005 poll, 15% of active knitters said that they had experienced the sweater curse firsthand, and 41% considered it a possibility that should be taken seriously I6 Despite its name, the "sweater curse" is treated in knitting literature not as a superstition governed by paranormal forces, but rather as a real- world pitfall of knitting that has rational explanations. 3I7 Several plausible mechanisms for the sweater curse have been proposed, but it has not been studied systematically. 5 eartheld: elodieunderglass: alittlemothboy: that is some next level knot magic.  it isn’t though!!! it’s because most relationships aren’t worth the effort. The “sweater curse” is actually most commonly called the “BOYFRIEND sweater curse.” Which=heteronormative, but the curse most often falls on a woman knitting a sweater for a boyfriend. Before she finishes the sweater, they break up - pop culture would have you believe it’s because the boyfriend freaks out do to the weirdness/clinginess of having a sweater made for you, but I think knitters are wiser than that. It’s because after spending serious £££ on materials, and then HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF LABOR on the creation of the item, with every stitch a prayer of totally focused intent, creating a large display of technical skill - it is then gifted to a non-knitter who does NOT APPRECIATE the work/effort/skill/cost/TIME it took to make it, and in fact thinks you’re a bit weird and making a big deal out of a piece of clothing, and after they go “oh thanks” and shove your creation in the cupboard next to a sweater they got for £15 at an MS sale, then they never wear your sweater because it’s too tight because when you asked them how their favorite sweaters usually fit they said “I ‘unno” and when you measured them for the fifth time and asked, rather tersely, if they had enough room in the chest, they said “I guess,” and then if pressed they say they don’t really like the sweater design, but then you point out that they were supposed to participate in helping you design it and they say they don’t really care about how things look, and when you say that you tried to match it to their other clothes so how can they hate it, then they say that honestly their mother still buys all their clothes because they hate going shopping, and that they hate all their other clothes too, well. That’s when a sensible knitter goes “Fuck this shit. And you know what? Fuck this man.” This is what happens when someone posts in a knitting forum “Attack of the sweater curse!” - this is the usual story. It has a rigid plot. It is as old as myth. That’s when you look at the time you spent and realize, “I could LITERALLY have written the first draft of a novel instead of doing this.” That’s when you go “I could have taken that £200 and bought myself a new wardrobe.” That’s when you go “I could have taken all that intent, all that willpower, all that creative force, and laid down some fucking witchcraft, all right?” That’s when you go “I basically spent 100 hours straight thinking about this bastard while making something amazing for him, and I have no evidence that he ever spent 10 hours of his life thinking about me.” And “I could spend this time and energy and money in making myself an enormous, intricate heirloom silk shawl with just a touch of cashmere, in elvish twists and leafy lace in all the colors of the night, shot through with subtly glittering stars, warm in winter and cool and summer and light as a lover’s kiss on the shoulders, suitable for draping over my arms at weddings or wrapping myself in to watch the sea, a lace-knotted promise to myself that I will keep for my entire life and gift to my favorite granddaughter when I die, and she will wear it to keep alive my memory - but instead I have this sweater, and this fuckboy.” The sweater curse is a lesson that the universe gives to a knitter at an important point in their life. It is a gift. Knitting a sweater for a husband or wife generally doesn’t call down the curse, because the relationship is meant to be stronger than 4-ply. (Although I say this, but I’ve taken over 5 years to finish a pair of mittens for my husband, because he casually asked me to do something customized with the cables, and I still can’t get the math to work on the right hand.) this post is so much better with that commentary
Save
Arguing, Curving, and Elf: Theory: Nobody who writes a physics textbook gives any fucks Evidence Q2S.12 In J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (volume 2, p. 32), Legolas the Elf claims to be able to accurately count horsemen and discern their hair color (vel- low) 5 leagues away on a bright, sunny day. Make appropriate estimates and argue that Legolas must have very strange-looking eyes, have some means of nonvisual perception, or have made a lucky guess. (1 league3.0 mi.) Update: Legolas pupils are about 3.5 cm wide each. Now drawing kawaii Legolas on physics assignment And they told you science was no fun THEY Sciencel I'm going to do it. I'm going to hand it in Legolas's pupl size isn't the problem here, though. 5 leagues is 17.262 miles The curvature of the Earth means that for a person of average height, the visual horizon is less than three miles away. Even if your vision is telescopic and the atmosphere is peifectly clear, you can't see around the planet. If they were standing on a hill, it would have to be at LEAST 198 feet above sea level In order to see the horizon at 17.2 miles away, with nothing tall in between. Which knowing Rohan, isn t impossible But consider. Elven satellite eyeballs. you mean lke @sidereanuncia it's back, the post that I can only imagine haunts your I shall never find peace Also, for what it's worth, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the curvature of Middle Earth is the same as that of Earh sindri42 There's no evidence that Middle Earth curves Yeah there is. The Silmarillion states that the world was curved aner the fail of Numenor believe), preventing access to Valinor. But Elves (among others) can travel the straight path across it So middle earth is round, but not for Eves because magic sindri42 So wait, the reason he can see that far is because Elves just have the ability to ignore the curve of the earth? That's awesome. It also means that no matter how good your optics got, you would always want er eyes manning the spyglass because they can see arbitrarly far while everybody else is limited by this horizon' bulshit Oh thank God, my poor ef prince has seen too much in this post Elves are fnat-earthers textbook tolkien
Save
Arguing, Curving, and Elf: Theory: Nobody who writes a physics textbook gives any fucks Evidence Q2S.12 In J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (volume 2, p. 32), Legolas the Elf claims to be able to accurately count horsemen and discern their hair color (vel- low) 5 leagues away on a bright, sunny day. Make appropriate estimates and argue that Legolas must have very strange-looking eyes, have some means of nonvisual perception, or have made a lucky guess. (1 league3.0 mi.) Update: Legolas pupils are about 3.5 cm wide each. Now drawing kawaii Legolas on physics assignment And they told you science was no fun THEY Sciencel I'm going to do it. I'm going to hand it in Legolas's pupl size isn't the problem here, though. 5 leagues is 17.262 miles The curvature of the Earth means that for a person of average height, the visual horizon is less than three miles away. Even if your vision is telescopic and the atmosphere is peifectly clear, you can't see around the planet. If they were standing on a hill, it would have to be at LEAST 198 feet above sea level In order to see the horizon at 17.2 miles away, with nothing tall in between. Which knowing Rohan, isn t impossible But consider. Elven satellite eyeballs. you mean lke @sidereanuncia it's back, the post that I can only imagine haunts your I shall never find peace Also, for what it's worth, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the curvature of Middle Earth is the same as that of Earh sindri42 There's no evidence that Middle Earth curves Yeah there is. The Silmarillion states that the world was curved aner the fail of Numenor believe), preventing access to Valinor. But Elves (among others) can travel the straight path across it So middle earth is round, but not for Eves because magic sindri42 So wait, the reason he can see that far is because Elves just have the ability to ignore the curve of the earth? That's awesome. It also means that no matter how good your optics got, you would always want er eyes manning the spyglass because they can see arbitrarly far while everybody else is limited by this horizon' bulshit Oh thank God, my poor ef prince has seen too much in this post Elves are fnat-earthers textbook tolkien
Save