Recommended Posts

sometimes when you are looking where you think you want to go, that's exactly where you end up.  ^^^ is the out outcome.

Lack of training and experience out out of his depth sent him there......Sound Familiar?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 686
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

She asked him, 'How much are you selling the eggs for?' The old seller replied, '$.25 an egg, Madam.' She said to him, 'I will take 6 eggs for $1.25 or I will leave.' The old seller replied, 'Co

Posted Images

44 minutes ago, boestar said:

sometimes when you are looking where you think you want to go, that's exactly where you end up.  ^^^ is the out outcome.

Lack of training and experience out out of his depth sent him there......Sound Familiar?

 

I watched him set up a line through multiple blind curves that used both lanes - very difficult to modify the line halfway through the curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, boestar said:

sometimes when you are looking where you think you want to go, that's exactly where you end up.  ^^^ is the out outcome.

Lack of training and experience out out of his depth sent him there......Sound Familiar?

 

If you come across an accident in front of you to always “look for the hole”. If you stare at the accident that’s exactly where you will automatically steer towards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jaydee said:

If you stare at the accident that’s exactly where you will automatically steer towards.

It's the concept of threat focus and we've referred to it here before. Only by acknowledging it and out training the tendency can it be overcome IMO. A bit like instrument flying for those caught in an inadvertent IMC experiment gone wrong. Find a spot on the pavement ahead and avoid it while still looking at it.... then do the short notice counter stearing thing around pinpoint (simulated) obstructions. I do that a lot.... but maybe it's just me. About twice a year I practice emergency stops in full ABS chatter from 110 KPH and I average one real one per year.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding BLM, racism and slavery in Canada. 

1. Canada never had slaves after becoming  a country.

2. The majority of blacks in Canada are not descendants of slaves but rather recent immigrants of Caribbean origin, the exception being blacks in Nova Scotia who are mainly descendents of slaves who escaped the US with the aid of Canadians or thousands of Black Loyalists (After the American Revolution) who were freeded and resettled by the British Crown in what is now Canada.

3. Is there racism in Canada, yes there is but it is not confined to Whites vs all others. Racism exists in many races against others.  Will this ever change?  Sadly not within our life time. So we need to sanitize history to remove examples of racism? No we do not and must not as to do so will remove all records of it and open us to repeating the same mistakes. 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-657-x/89-657-x2019002-eng.htm

More than 1/2 of the blacks in Canada are first generation. Less than 9% are 3rd generation vs the rest of Canadian at 58.4%

So I think our focus should be on our Native North Americans firstly, then other minorities.  

Chart 3 Distribution of the Black and total populations by generation status, Canada, 2016

Chart 5 Period of immigration for Black immigrants, Canada, 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been intrigued by the observed effect that people have the capacity to believe that something manifestly true can become untrue (or vice versa) by virtue of repetition.... or that something can be both true and untrue at the exact same time. 

Lot's of examples now but the most obvious one IMO is JT's assertion that no one hunts with an AR15 but indigenous people need them for hunting. The fact that they are restricted, must be double locked, can only be used at an authorized range, and can only be transported directly there and back by the shortest route (with no stops) by a card carrying gun club member utterly fails to register even though it's the law of the land. So how is it possible?

This might explain it:

https://exploringyourmind.com/illusion-of-truth/

I suspect the only counter to this is experience (mostly bad) of the sort that consistently proves that the law of unintended consequence has teeth. When that lesson is repeated enough times, the real and lasting question becomes "how can this go horribly wrong?" Maybe that simple question (and the failure to ask it) is the heart and sole of the matter.

For many military recruits now, basic training is their first exposure to the concept and for some, it's as simple as being cold, wet, tired and hungry for the first time in their lives and awakening to the old (land/sea/desert/arctic) survival training notion that "any damned fool can be uncomfortable."

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Lot's of examples now but the most obvious one IMO is JT's assertion that no one hunts with an AR15 but indigenous people need them for hunting. The fact that they are restricted, must be double locked, can only be used at an authorized range, and can only be transported directly there and back by the shortest route (with no stops) by a card carrying gun club member utterly fails to register even though it's the law of the land. So how is it possible?

 

The May 1st OIC was a mess, poorly thought out and poorly explained in the news conference.  I don't think the indigenous hunting exemption was meant to allow the AR15 to be used for hunting but rather the other rifles in the ban such as the Mini-14, Mini Thirty and any of the M1s, Garands, and especially the M14/Norinco M305 clones.  Apparently the M305 is quite popular in the indigenous community due to it's low cost.  I wouldn't use one for hunting only because of it's weight otherwise it's a perfectly fine deer/moose rifle.  Or, was a perfectly fine rifle.

Edited by seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the fact that they are now prohibited with exemptions based solely on ethnicity is problematic IMO.

If they are non restricted for some, then by extension, there is no prohibition on them being sold (even though they are illegal to obtain) and with the pending view (and I think the correct one), that future prohibitions will occur, there will be the motivation to sell them prior to that prohibition.... resulting in more distribution rather than less. In addition, access to the entire list of newly prohibited guns is virtually unavailable to those trying to remain lawful and the RCMP adds, subtracts and multiplies the prohibitions based on pure whim now.

If you are going to ban guns based on race, I think you have to subscribe to the theory of "illusion of truth" in order to defend the notion of it. You (not you BTW) would also have to suspend belief in the government's notion of violence against women as one causal element in the OIC's implementation and yet ignore that very "finding of fact" in a realm where they have already identified violence against women as problematic. Nothing they say or do makes any sense to me.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

Yet the fact that they are now prohibited with exemptions based solely on ethnicity is problematic IMO.

This goes back to the traditional rights to hunt and fish for the indigenous.  Any legislation that restricted that would have had the potential for a backlash - I mean an indigenous backlash which is the only concern the government had.

Don't even get me started on the contradiction between "traditional" hunting and fishing and using gill nets across rivers to catch thousands of salmon out of season and using a Chinese copy of an American semi-auto military rifle for hunting.

Edited by seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seeker said:

This goes back to the traditional rights to hunt and fish for the indigenous.

Treaty rights are a different animal and part of the problem here is the perceived overlap with the criminal code (which should be governing). To use a ridiculous example, they can't use an M72 LAW for moose hunting as a result. 

Prohibited weapons are (or should be) either prohibited or not as opposed to being subject to categories (especially if those categories are based on race). There is now the ability to warehouse these rifles due to the exemption and sell them illegally since they went directly from unrestricted to prohibited status and thus are not registered. In other words if you want to be rid of a newly prohibited gun and cash out your investment,  you know who to call. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Airband said:

"If you're explaining, you're losing"

 

 

Listening to the radio the other day and there was a lot of calls about the Police and one "Expert" said that the police should not be dispatched to deal with a metal health issue (not sure how that would be determined from a 911 call) but lets imagine that can be done.  So a Mental Health Expert would be dispatched to deal with the problem, during their interaction what if they are attacked?  Who then calls the police or as someone suggested the health worker would always be accompanied by police........ so they are available to help if the worker is attacked.   Not sure how this would solve anything but I guess it would create employment for more "Mental Health Experts" .  Hmmmmmmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deicer said:

Some need an explanation because they aren't learning.

 

Offensive.jpg

Unarmed???? not always.  but if indeed unarmed than I also find that offensive as do I find Police Killed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> or "Violent Protests".  I think you can see when I am coming from.  

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

In relevance to the current situation, one has to ask the question as to why the police get the violent reactions they do.  To address your point, are the police being killed because of the way they treat people?  A chicken and egg situation.

For your consideration...

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/
 
 
 
Home Page > Blog > Not just “a few bad apples”: U.S. police kill...

Not just “a few bad apples”: U.S. police kill civilians at much higher rates than other countries

Police violence is a systemic problem in the U.S., not simply incidental, and it happens on a scale far greater than other wealthy nations.

by Alexi Jones and Wendy Sawyer, June 5, 2020

 

There is no question that the number of police killings of civilians in the U.S. – who are disproportionately Black and other people of color – are the result of policies and practices that enable and even encourage police violence. Compared to police in other wealthy democracies, American police kill civilians at incredibly high rates:

chart comparing the rates of police killings in the U.S. with 9 other wealthy nations. The U.S. rate of 33.5 per 10 million people is over 3 times higher than the next-highest rate, which is 9.8 per 10 million people in Canada

The chart above compares the annual rates of police killings in each country, accounting for differences in population size. This is the most apples-to-apples comparison we can make. But the total number of deaths at the hands of police is also worth seeing in comparison with other countries:

chart comparing the total number of police killings in the U.S. with 9 other wealthy nations. U.S. police killed 1,099 people in 2019, while none of the other 9 countries compared had more than 36 police killings in the most recent year with data

The sources for these charts are listed in the table below:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone considered that hiring small men and little girls to be police officers results in increased incidents of deadly force?

Light and lean is what you need on tactical teams.... but that's a different thing. It doesn't work in parking lots with large, impaired, violent offenders who are resisting arrest and willing to take your weapon and use it against you. Most police officers aren't martial artists and damn few are expert marksmen. The shoot em in the leg or shoot the knife out of their hand notion is the exclusive domain of people who watch too much TV.

Imagine that Toronto rock throwing incident gone wrong, in the absence of immediate backup being available, either the girl is hit with a rock and the assailant gets her weapons and car or she has to use deadly force to stop him.... she was saved by the quick response of a full sized officer and the incident ended in seconds.... literally seconds, no injury to anyone; over, done, time for coffee. Change the circumstances and consider rural response times (about 35 minutes on a coded response where I live). Who would be putting the cuffs on him, her or the person who called her? If the poor response time is due to manning, and manning is a function of budgets, and you defund by 30% what happens? Well you add about 10 minutes to the response time.... so please (please, please please) keep the stupid in Toronto, I don't want it anywhere near me.

Most people simply don't realize how difficult it is to handcuff someone who is actively resisting. How did we collectively become so separated from reality as to consider that violent encounters are somehow subject to employment equity provisions. 

Defund TV and make military service compulsory; and it must include a minimum of one foreign deployment. 

 

  

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is what the Democrats are totally oblivious to.

Although Trump is his own worst enemy and may yet pull the roof down on himself, most reasonable people still recognize insanity when they see it. Never has an election been easier to win and never has a party worked harder at harnessing the forces of madness in sufficient quantity to lose it. Other than this forum, I no longer even discuss these issues with people and I suspect it's not just me.  

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/left-silences-silent-majority-watch-november-liz-peek

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 3:56 PM, seeker said:

I watched him set up a line through multiple blind curves that used both lanes - very difficult to modify the line halfway through the curve.

if you watch the video closely, in a valiant attempt to avoid the truck he steers to the right TWICE.  Turning the bars right at speed initiates a left turn.  This course of action fails him twice before he impacts.  This screams of a severe lack of rider training.  All he needed to do was push on the right bar and he would have made it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 7:59 AM, Wolfhunter said:

It's the concept of threat focus and we've referred to it here before. Only by acknowledging it and out training the tendency can it be overcome IMO. A bit like instrument flying for those caught in an inadvertent IMC experiment gone wrong. Find a spot on the pavement ahead and avoid it while still looking at it.... then do the short notice counter stearing thing around pinpoint (simulated) obstructions. I do that a lot.... but maybe it's just me. About twice a year I practice emergency stops in full ABS chatter from 110 KPH and I average one real one per year.

As a motorcycle safety instructor, I teach this every weekend.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.