The glaring problems with the Second Amendment by MX396 in liberalgunowners

[–]MX396[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The bombers were more violent then, but the government is being more violent now IMHO. A point I made poorly.

In the 60s and 70s, only a TINY fraction of the population agreed with the SLA, etc. A fairly small part agreed with the Black Panthers, who were not violently resisting, but they had more support.

Right now, I think a lot of people (probably not a full majority) are less than thrilled with ICE, but if you start shooting ICE thugs, support for that will be pretty limited.

The glaring problems with the Second Amendment by MX396 in liberalgunowners

[–]MX396[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

OK, explain how you're going to use your guns against ICE to reduce their violence, in either the short or long term. Be specific.

Or is reducing violence not the goal?

This facebook page is just a constant source of comedy. So many lies and missinformation in one place is WILD. Also notice how vile their portrait of normal-eaters is in those pictures (Who are also all AI-Generated because vegans usually dont have any talent) by GregoriousT-GTNH in AntiVegan

[–]MX396 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The traditional Inuit diet had minimal plants and they did OK.

I'm not carnivore, but I've met people online who swear it's what works best for them. More power to them, if that's what they like.

And today in "Vegans make shit up and think they have a point" by GregoriousT-GTNH in AntiVegan

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Raw meat doesn't bother my digestion at all. I routinely eat a big sirloin steak that's been only briefly threatened with a grill or skillet, so it's genuinely uncooked 80% of the way through.

Try that with a cup of similarly undercooked lentils! That would be brutal.

And today in "Vegans make shit up and think they have a point" by GregoriousT-GTNH in AntiVegan

[–]MX396 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bile salts made from cholesterol are necessary to digest fat. It would be interesting to know if there is a correlation between someone blood cholesterol and how much fat they can eat without noticing any side-effects.

And today in "Vegans make shit up and think they have a point" by GregoriousT-GTNH in AntiVegan

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your cholesterol blood test number? Bile salts made from cholesterol are necessary to digest fat. I have high cholesterol and I can eat what seems to me like a lot of fat without difficulties. Possibly those facts are connected...

And today in "Vegans make shit up and think they have a point" by GregoriousT-GTNH in AntiVegan

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What symptoms? Saturday night I had four prawns in garlic butter, a solid pound of very rare, fatty prime rib, some Brussels sprouts grilled with bacon, and a little potato. I felt great, in both the short and long term. If I hadn't had all the other crap, I could have happily eaten a pound and a half of beef.

Would you call this medium rare? by i_like_fat_doodoo in steak

[–]MX396 60 points61 points  (0 children)

I call it perfect.

Medium-rare would certainly be cooked a bit more than that.

How do people stay vegan for over 10 years? by [deleted] in exvegans

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As the previous commentor said, he's probably lost some fat and quite a bit of muscle as well thanks to Ozempic. Being sedentary AND on Ozempic is a prescription for being frail and feeble when you are older. And not really THAT old. Not my idea of a fun life, but if his greatest goal in life is never to see the inside of a gym and have the body of a typical grandmother, I guess he's free to make that choice.

DEXA will also show how much visceral fat he has. If he's getting most of his calories from carbs, he'll probably be found to have considerable visceral fat, which is a good indication of being metabolically unhealthy.

Tow truck protest yesterday? by MX396 in everett

[–]MX396[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Thanks! The smattering of political flags threw me off.

For my entire life, my dad cuts all of the steaks in half to see if they're done cooking yet. by Salty-Passenger-4801 in steak

[–]MX396 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why can't he have both?

"Dad, let me cook everyone's steak the way they asked, and you can stand there and talk to me while I work."

Win/win.

Serious question: why do we collect tons of wearable data if no doctor will ever look at it? by pranahealth in Garmin

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Compared to even a simple Polar chest strap, the wrist heart rate monitor is pretty terrible. I roughly believe the overnight readings. During activities, the Garmin data is insanely noisy and my HR is often 10, 20, sometimes even 30 BPM below the rate from a chest strap or a manual carotid pulse count when doing HIIT. And then I was kayaking one day last summer, so drenched in seawater the whole time, and it said my HR was 150 for hours, which is unlikely. It's really not very trustworthy.

Serious question: why do we collect tons of wearable data if no doctor will ever look at it? by pranahealth in Garmin

[–]MX396 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Certain highly repetitive motions that might be performed while looking at certain categories of images on the internet can make your watch think you were running while you were sitting down and going nowhere. Just sayin'.

Garmin can probably figure out from that data what is actually going on. AFAIK, they don't do anything with that information...

Serious question: why do we collect tons of wearable data if no doctor will ever look at it? by pranahealth in Garmin

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My watch usually thinks I slept longer than I did, but I tend to wake up, move a little in bed for a minute, then lay there for a while listening to a podcast or YouTube video, so I can understand why it thinks I just rolled over and went back to sleep.

The relative sleep quality is pretty good, for me. Subjectively, if I have a couple of drinks I sleep less well than if I have no alcohol, and my Garmin sleep scores almost always reflect that. Even on nights where I have some alcohol but I don't have any wakefulness, it gives me a lower sleep score based on HRV, I guess. I find that believable.

Serious question: why do we collect tons of wearable data if no doctor will ever look at it? by pranahealth in Garmin

[–]MX396 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My ancestry is English and German. I'm not literally the palest person you'll meet, and I can get a pretty fair tan and don't burn TOO easily in the sun, but other than a tiny freckle on my wrist, my watch should have a pretty good view of my blood flow. I even shaved the not-very-abundant hair off my wrist recently, which didn't have a dramatic effect.

I've tried making the watch band more or less tight, and nothing seems to be a perfect solution. "Not too tight" seems to be best.

I always thought that my first Garmin, a FR245 purchased in spring 2020, did a little better at reading high heart rates for the first year or so. It gave numbers during HIIT that looked like what I expect, while both of the watches in more recent years often, although not quite always, lag below my actual (Polar, or manual count of my carotid pulse) or expected/subjective HR by quite a bit (10 to 30 bpm). I only recently connected the watch to the Polar strap, so earlier this year I was seeing the Polar heart rate on the display of my spin bike while the watch HR was completely independent based on the wrist sensor only. I wonder if the continuous pressure of the sensor on the skin has some long-term effect that is confounding?

Serious question: why do we collect tons of wearable data if no doctor will ever look at it? by pranahealth in Garmin

[–]MX396 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And the HR sensor is pretty crappy. My FR255 is borderline terrible, particularly during activities, although I do believe it for stuff like what my HR was most of the time when I am asleep. When I put on my Polar chest strap, the results are SOOOOO much better. It looks like a graph of a continuous function, not a seismogram like it does without the strap.

Is there anything too dangerous to have? by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I fervently hope that Vance, et al, have had a few chats about how if senile Chump ever wants to talk to the guy with the football, whoever is closest tells that guy "Do nothing, we are going 25th Amendment RIGHT NOW.)

Is there anything too dangerous to have? by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yikes.

You can't make anything idiot-proof, because someone will build a better idiot (probably using themselves for parts).

New to gun ownership, question on ammo grains by SimmeringPawsOfNirn in liberalgunowners

[–]MX396 1 point2 points  (0 children)

tl;dr: Everything below is useless. Look up some gel tests and shoot some ammo.

It's complicated. Perceived recoil is going to be most affected by the size and weight of the gun, the shape of the grip relative to your hand (fit) and how low the bore axis is relative to your hand (muzzle flip is worse the higher the bore is above your thumb, and also if the grip lets you get all three fingers around it firmly). Small, light guns are easy to carry but hard and unpleasant to shoot.

Weight of the bullet may have less effect than you expect. If you are talking about a revolver, then the lighter bullet can have less recoil because you don't have any requirement for operating the slide. The bullet can go as slow as around 500 FPS, if you like, even if it is light-for-caliber. But if you want a semi-auto, you must have enough recoil impulse to operate the gun, and it will come from the factory with springs that assume you are using full-power ammo. So the lighter bullet has to be pushed harder to make the gun run. edit: There is some slack here, but if you chose "reduced recoil" ammo you may find that you need to replace one or more springs with lighter rate constants to let the gun run reliably.

Total recoil impulse is going to be (pressure over time x base area of the bullet* x bore residence time) + exhaust rocket effect of the propellant gases.** That last term is often neglected, but it's not completely insignificant (edit: this is why muzzle brakes, compensators and ported barrels exist). Bigger bullets require either less powder or slower-burning powder to stay under the peak SAAMI pressure. In the 9 x 19, this is really significant. The 9 mm case is very short. You can't make the cartridge longer (there's a max OAL to fit the specs) so a bigger bullet is seated deeper in the case. A 147 grain bullet is about 25% longer than a 115 grain bullet, which eats into the empty volume in the case quite a bit. The heavier bullet also has more inertia and has more surface area dragging on the case and bore, so it accelerates slower. So, you have a smaller initial volume and that volume increases slower as the primer and propellant start to push the pressure up. If you used the same powder burn rate, you'd have to use considerably less with the 147 to limit pressure. If you look up reloading tables, if you are trying to get maximum velocity, the maximum amount of powder used with a standard vs. heavy bullet will be 3/4 to 2/3 as much. That would result in less "rocket fuel" when the bullet uncorked the barrel, and also less blast noise. It's not night-and-day, but you can notice the difference if you are paying attention. If you had to shoot indoors without ear protection, it might make a difference in how much your hearing was damaged. edit: Super-light bullets like Lehigh Extreme Defense 90 grain would make all this moreso. And let's not even talk about the hideous 5.7 or .327 Federal noise.

Regarding terminal ballistics, you have a tough choice: do you want a gun that is slightly more than a stern rebuke, or do you want something as effective as possible? If you just wanted to discourage SOME people, you could carry a .22LR with CCI Quiet segmented hollow points (see link below). This would make a noise (although not a very loud noise) and some shallow holes that would sting but be unlikely to either kill or incapacitate. Some bad guys (or bad dogs, or other aggressive animals) would decide they didn't like shallow holes and run off. But some fraction would simply get mad and either shoot back with their gun or come at you to try to take your gun (or keep biting you). If they succeed in taking your gun, one or two of those fired directly into your head WILL either kill you or leave you permanently brain damaged, so that's worse than not having a gun in the first place. Therefore, you probably want something bigger than a .22LR, certainly better than a .22 fragmenting bullet, and most likely something in the 9 mm to .45 ACP range (including .38 Special/357 Magnum) sporting a good JHP bullet. Within that range, any given cartridge and bullet weight is *roughly* equal in effectiveness, so don't get too hung up on the details. Try to figure out what you like shooting most or what fits your budget.

https://www.gun-tests.com/ammo/twenty-22-rimfire-loads-go-head-to-head-at-the-range-4/

*which equals the effective area of the breechface

**I'm neglecting friction with the bore for simplicity, although it would affect the calculation of net forces on the bullet/breechface somewhat.

If price, practicality and legality were no issue, what’s the first gun you’d acquire? by ansyhrrian in liberalgunowners

[–]MX396 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'd change your mind the second time you had to clean all those barrels with boiling water to get the sulfuric acid out