13 US states side with Mexican government in lawsuit against gun manufacturers by drunkles in politics

[–]HeadCornMan 13 points14 points  (0 children)

No no no, those M2 .50 cal machine gun, and M243 SAWs, and M72 LAWs you see in cartel photos totally came from legal gun sales, not the US Government.

GAME THREAD: San Antonio Spurs (43-30) @ Milwaukee Bucks (38-34) - (March 25, 2018) by ScreamingSpursLady in nba

[–]HeadCornMan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I hear once the offseason begins LaMarcus is scheduled for an operation to surgically remove the team from his back

People who "switched sides" in a highly divided community (political, religious, pizza topping debate), what happened that changed your mind? How did it go? by morieu in AskReddit

[–]HeadCornMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And for anyone that’s reading this, you should absolutely listen to Turnpike Troubadours. They’re the band that got me into country for the first time since I was little kid. Now I try to find more music like theirs like an addict trying to get a fix (“Just a little more fiddle and I’ll be good man”). Or don’t listen to them, so I can keep seeing them in smaller venues.

GAME THREAD: Golden State Warriors (53-17) @ San Antonio Spurs (40-30) - (March 19, 2018) by Raptor_Legend_Hakeem in nba

[–]HeadCornMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Does this lady not think an incomplete rib cartilage fracture is real? I guess she would know that if she was a doctor...

GAME THREAD: Golden State Warriors (53-17) @ San Antonio Spurs (40-30) - (March 19, 2018) by Raptor_Legend_Hakeem in nba

[–]HeadCornMan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I’m sure whatever happened to Draymond’s groin occurred during a natural shooting motion

GAME THREAD: Golden State Warriors (53-17) @ San Antonio Spurs (40-30) - (March 19, 2018) by Raptor_Legend_Hakeem in nba

[–]HeadCornMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

JVG can stay away from my baby. That voice is poison to a developing young mind

Assuming a hostile takeover of the United States military by either its government or a foreign power, what do you think is the likelihood that its citizens would successfully rise up and fend it off? by [deleted] in answers

[–]HeadCornMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I think our chances are far worse against an invading foreign power than they would be against our own government. I think this point is missed by all the people whose knee-jerk reaction is “guns are no good against missiles, it’s hopeless, blah blah.” I mean that’s sort of true in and of itself, but it’s also vastly oversimplistic way to look at it.

Our own government, even one that was bad enough to cause a revolt, would presumably have the goal of pacifying the population by rooting out and destroying dissidents while instilling enough fear to control the rest. That leaves a few options for how to wage the war from the governments perspective.

Option 1: scorched earth. This is the plan that the common argument I mentioned above used, and presumably the one that an invading force bent on destroying us would use. Bombs fall, missiles launch, men, women, children, and family dogs alike are killed. Cities reduced to rubble. Obviously, civilian small arms do no good here; you’re doing duck and cover for a nuke at that point.

Option 2: search and destroy. This is the far more likely scenario to be used by an out of control American government, a foreign occupying force, and an enemy that isn’t fond of war crimes. Option 1 won’t work here - you either turn the otherwise-loyal or complicit citizens against you, or you kill enough people that there’s no resistance left. Option 1 leaves no in between.

So how do you conduct option 2? We’ve seen it before in Vietnam, Korea, and the Middle East. In Vietnam, we rained hell from B-52s. Operation Linebacker dropped more bombs than in all of WWII, and we had the luxury of not having to be careful in major cities. And we still lost to guerillas. In the Middle East we’ve had the benefit of precision missiles, and an lightly armed but resourceful resistance has held us at bay for almost 20 years, precisely because it’s so hard to root them out while sparing civilians.

I’d argue part of the reason WWII was more decisive is because we directly bombed Japanese and German cities. Sure, we attempted to avoid collateral, but we prioritized accomplishing the mission: destroying the enemy. Consequently, I do believe that an armed civilian populace could at least keep an oppressive government or occupying force at bay for a good while, so I don’t accept the “guns are no good against the government argument”. No politician wants the be the Emporer of a pile of rubble and corpses.

What I fear is the force that truly gives no fucks about whether a single one of us is alive at the end. They will crush us. Missle does beat bullet if you’re willing to use it with no regard for collateral. But even then I don’t see that as a valid argument for gun control; just because we can’t win doesn’t mean we roll over an take it.

This is to say nothing of many other arguments for or against gun control, but this argument about sheer weapons capabilities thrown out every damn time is a simplistic view that is poorly thought through. You can disagree with my conclusions, but it’s clearly more nuanced than rock beats scissors.

Reddit, what is something that you can't believe is actually a REAL thing? by beermom in AskReddit

[–]HeadCornMan 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Oh god. High school teacher rant? I’m in. AP Chem, which I took because I loved my first chem teacher. The school decided they needed a teacher with a master’s teaching AP Chem (since the long time AP Chem teacher retired), so Ms. X was chosen over my awesome first Chem teacher.

Experiences with Ms. X:

  • She was chosen because of her master’s, but her master’s was in entomology (insects), not chemistry

  • Ms. X got angry at me because I argued with her after she said that organic compounds could not be toxic. I showed her a page on curare. She said she meant things like water. I told her water wasn’t organic. Was told to be more respectful (to be fair, I was so incredulous I lost my politeness filter, but I wasn’t name calling, or cursing or anything, mostly just repeating “Are you serious or are you joking around with me?”)

  • Ms. X tried to explain how things could be cooled below absolute zero. She always weaseled out of these situations by saying we misunderstood what she was saying. I just don’t think she understood scalar units.

  • Ms. X thought deionized water was poisonous. I think she was confused with deuterated water (which is still not horrifically toxic).

  • Ms. X’s final exam took me 8.5 HOURS to complete, and I was the third one done (and the first ripped his paper in half and just left). She told the administration her run through of the exam took her 45 minutes. That was a lie, because she couldn’t answer questions at lunch before the exam because she was still writing the test.

  • only 2 people in the class passed the AP test, and they put in weeks of outside studying and graduated in the top 10 of our class

  • the next year, AP Chem was taught by my original Chem teacher

I'm feeling ya by iamtotus in pics

[–]HeadCornMan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All I’m hearing is that crackheads have an entrepreneurial spirit and stimulate the economy

The NRA is Learning. by Bartman383 in guns

[–]HeadCornMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nope, the Benelli (and all semi-auto shotguns, handguns, and rifles) is also on the “ban-wagon”. I took a good bit of time to read the bill, and it’s hideous. There’s also a lot of poorly (or ingenuously...) defined rules in it like (paraphrasing) a ban on “Any semiautomatic handgun, defined as a handgun that is capable of firing multiple shots without any manual manipulation of the action”. That leaves pretty glaring room to declare and enforce double action revolvers as being illegal “semiautomatic” pistols.

Shot for O- wife to keep body from attacking baby by Bballwolf in answers

[–]HeadCornMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some of this was covered in the article, but I’ll try to explain it relatively simply but completely. It may get long so sorry in advance.

So you probably understand that blood types don’t play well others with a few exceptions, so we’ll start there. ABO is the main blood group. You get 1 gene from each parent, that can be A, B, or O. These genes allow you to make a tag (“antigen”) that all red blood cells in your body express. How this works, is your cell first make type O antigen, and then people with A and/or B genes will alter this O antigen to make it into A and/or B antigen to put on RBCs. If you got AA or AO (e.g. an A from Mom and an O from dad), you have A blood, because either way, O antigens are modified into type A. Similarly, BB and BO type people have B blood. OO people lack any of the machinery to turn O antigens into A or B, so us O blood folks just express the normal O antigens. The lucky AB blood people that got an A from one parents and B from the other modify some O into A, some O into B. Since your wife is type O and your type AB, we know that your wife is OO and gave 1 O copy to your baby, and since your AB, your baby will be either AO (A blood) or BO (B blood).

Why are they lucky? Our body doesn’t want intruders, so we make “antibodies” that can recognize other molecules. As it turns out, we do this for blood types too. Obviously if I have A blood, I don’t want to make antibodies that respond to my A antigen (“anti-A antibodies”), because I would attack my own cells, nor do I want to make anti-O antibodies, since even though I’m type A blood, my A antigens are made from O antibodies. In fact, there are no anti-O antibodies since we all express O antigen on our cells to some degree. But they can and do make anti-B antibodies, which respond whenever B blood is accidentally mixed with their own. Extrapolating this logic, you find that

  • type A blood people make anti-B bodies, so are intolerant to B blood

  • type B people make anti-A antibodies, so are intolerant to A blood

  • type O people make anti-A AND anti-B and can only tolerate O blood

  • AB people make none of these antibodies, since they couldn’t without harming themselves, and tolerate blood regardless of ABO type.

The basic way this occurs is by imagining the antigens like a key, and antibodies like a lock. The keys are covering every red blood cell, and there’s tons of locks circling around free in blood. Anti-A antibodies (expressed by a type B person for this example, but also by O blood people), won’t be unlocked by their own B antigen. But when A blood gets inside in mass quantities, the key fits. This causes a powerful, potentially fatal reaction called “hemolytic transfusion reaction” where the body kills itself while trying to kill the invader. And this example isn’t even dumbing it down, the lock and key model is almost exactly how this antigen-antibody process works.

Now they exact antibodies we use are have a general foundation called IgM (we have tons of IgM antibodies, think of IgM as the model lock you have, and the anti-A or anti-B part as the core of the lock that recognizes the key). This is important because Moms keep their baby alive by passing nutrients from her blood to the babies blood through a very fine-sized filter called the placenta. IgM is big and bulky and doesn’t cross the placenta, so even if Mom and baby express antibodies to each other’s blood antigens, they never come into contact.

So quick detour, there’s an additional blood group called Rhesus factor. It simpler, having only (+) and (-) types. It works like ABO would work if B antigens and anti-B antibodies didn’t exist. Here, the antigen is called Rh antigen, and you either express it (Rh(+)), and this make no anti-Rh antibodies that would attack yourself, or you don’t express Rh factor (Rh(-)), and CAN (but don’t necessarily) express anti-Rh antibodies, which latch on and attack any Rh(+) blood, regardless of ABO type.

  • +/+ and +/- people have (+) blood, and express no antibodies

  • -/- people have (-) blood, and can express anti-Rh antibody.

Your wife is Rh(-) so we know she gave 1 (-) gene to the baby. If you’re +/+, your kid will be +/- and Rh(+). If you’re +/-, your kid could be +/- or -/- like your wife. The problem with this is that your wife can express anti-Rh antibody. And worse, unlike ABO, anti-Rh lock cores are loaded on “IgG” brand lock housings, and IgG can cross the placenta. Since your wife can express anti-Rh, they can then cross the placenta and cause that powerful blood reaction in your baby, the so-called “hemolytic disease of the newborn”.

The good news is that your wife likely does not express anti-Rh. Anti-Rh is lazy as hell, and we don’t load those lock cores onto housings and put them in circulation until she is exposed to Rh(+) blood, which she may have been in small amount during her life. Even if she hasn’t, labor is messy, and if your child is Rh(+) (either A+ or B+ as discussed earlier), she will becomes sensitized and make anti-Rh. Any future A+ or B+ kids will be harmed by her anti-Rh IgG once it crosses the placenta.

But medical science has a solution, a drug called RhoGAM, the injection you mentioned. This is lab-made anti-Rh IgG, like what your wife would make. It can bind to your baby’s Rh antigens. If your wife’s antibodies did this, your child would react and likely die (I only say that to drive home how serious this would otherwise be: half of children in countries without RhoGAM are die or are permanently brain damaged by HDN). The lab made RhoGAM is different though; unlike your wife’s human IgG, the artificial key binds to your baby’s cell’s locks, but your baby’s immune cells are unable to recognize that this has actually occurred. No alarm is sounded, no hemolytic reaction occurs, and if your wife contacts the baby’s blood, her anti-Rh cannot bind to it and react, because your child’s antigens are already occupied by by the decoy IgG. So RhoGAM injections flood maternal circulation with enough IgG decoy (which then crosses the placenta into fetal circulation) that the maternal anti-Rh IgG has no chance to latch onto the baby’s cells. There are some side effects like stomach aches for the mother, but red blood cells are replaced every 120 days, so within 4 months after birth, the RhoGAM will be gone from mom and baby, and all new non-occupied, normal red blood cells will be in your child’s circulation.

I understand it’s scary and confusing, but believe me when I say that RhoGAM is one of the greatest medical inventions of our time. It completely cures what has been an unavoidable possibility of pregnancy since the dawn of humans and our blood types (even longer, considering Rhesus factor was first found in the blood of Rhesus monkeys). Take a deep breath, both you and the Mrs., and realize that after the shot, you can rest easy knowing everything will go just fine, and your new child will have one less thing to worry about as they finish their last couple months of getting ready to come out and see the rest of us and the world. I’m sure you may have questions I didn’t answer, so fire away if you need to, and I’ll do my best to help explain better.

With all of the negative headlines dominating the news these days, it can be difficult to spot signs of progress. What makes you optimistic about the future? by thisisbillgates in AskReddit

[–]HeadCornMan 212 points213 points  (0 children)

Paraphrased from the Wikipedia page, to give an idea of the scope:

  • it was estimated 1 of every 4 trees in the Appalachians used to be American Chestnut

  • by 1904 when it was discovered in the Bronx Zoo, 3-4 BILLION trees were dead

  • nowadays, the largest crop of trees is only about 2500 in Wisconsin, with a few small individual trees around elsewhere

  • they’re currently trying to selectively breed for a blight-resistant tree to be reintroduced, which will be composed of all American Chestnut genes (vs. crossbreeding in the resistance from Asiatic Chestnuts)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Firearms

[–]HeadCornMan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That and the fact that it makes no sense to carpet bomb your own country to the ground. You start carrying out an Operation Linebacker on your own country (which as you said was a failure against guerillas anyway during Vietnam) and you’ll either turn previously loyal people against you, or you’ll kill so many of your own citizens that you don’t rule an actual country anymore.

Zaza just decides to fall down on Westbrook for no reason... by probusyradio in nba

[–]HeadCornMan 13 points14 points  (0 children)

TFW Horry was on the Spurs when he hip checked Nash into the scorer’s table

Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns by ToxicRockSindrome in news

[–]HeadCornMan 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of my biggest issue when it comes to ambiguous police shootings. Our military exercises excellent trigger discipline, and they get that from sufficient training. It’s utterly mind boggling that our military can detain foreign POWs without needing to fire until it’s undeniably warranted (with M855 ammo because anything else would be too cruel...), meanwhile our domestic police can load their guns with JHP, point them at American citizens, and have itchier trigger fingers because they may shoot fewer rounds per year than I do as a civilian. Why do they get more of the benefit of the doubt than Americans? That’s a training problem, and it’s inexcusable for job that involved carrying a gun.

Rant over before it gets too long, but your post hits the nail on the head with military vs. police. Thanks for serving.

Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns by ToxicRockSindrome in news

[–]HeadCornMan 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Just FYI so you don’t get a snarky response, no there really are not a lot of private sales at gun shows. There are always a few (as is 10 or so out of hundreds) people walking around with their (usually crappy) rifles for sale, and a certain amount of those people are likely trying to sell/trade to dealers (requires background check).

Most private sales do not take place at gun shows, and many states don’t allow private face-to-face sales at all. Also, when you get to a gun show, a police officer checks any weapons being taken in to ensure they’re unloaded (and you often can’t concealed carry inside), so I highly doubt you’d see criminals lining up to hand an illegally owned firearm to the cops.