ELI5: Explain Like I'm 5
Do you demand a simple and concise explanation of complicated and complex topics?
Fret not, dear voater, for ELI5 is here! Ask a complex question, and get a simple answer!
General guidelines:
Your explanation should be friendly and straightforward, but not condescending.
- 1.1. Above all, you're here to answer questions concisely. Don't get needlessly hostile or complicated in your response.
- 1.2. We aren't literally 5 year olds. Well, most of us aren't. We can handle big words and long sentences. There's no need to dumb down an explanation unless specifically asked to do so by the asker.
- 1.3. If specified by the asker, responses to particular levels of expertise are encouraged.
/v/ELI5 is a place to get simple explanations of complex topics.
- 2.1. Yes/no answer questions, and questions pursuing an answer without an explanation of that answer, are not allowed.
- 2.2: If it doesn't have an explanation, it isn't an explain like I'm five question.
- 2.3. Refrain from posing hypothetical or personal questions. Ideally, every question should have a factually based, reasonable explanation.
Feel free to send prohibited questions to /v/nostupidquestions, they'll help you out instead!
This isn't a debating subverse:
- 3.1. Don't ask for personal opinions (and don't ask potentially loaded questions)
- 3.2. Don't present a biased response
Top-level comments should be on-topic.
- 4.1. Self-explanatory, really.
- 4.2. Jokes are allowed and appreciated if they're on topic and not a whole top-level comment.
Someone came here for an answer, don't send them somewhere else.
- 5.1. Your response should not consist wholly of a redirection link within a sentence.
- 5.2. It is acceptable to link to outside sources for singular words or concepts. This can be done to save you explaining concepts that are non-central (yet still important) to your response.
- 5.3. Don't copy+paste from outside sources without paraphrasing. Outside sources don't always explain concepts in layman's terms.
Don't know? Don't teach.
- 6.1. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to teach someone else about it.
You are allowed to post a question that's been posted before, but to save your own time, search for it before posting anyway.
Tag your post as "Explained" once you're satisfied with an answer
All moderation decisions are made at the moderation team's discretion. You won't be protected by loopholes if you're using them to a detrimental effect.
Now featuring CSS, by /u/jvanderb!
The Questions Network
Own a questions subverse? Doesn't match any of the ones above? Send a mod a message, and we'll gladly add a link to it!
Sort: Top
[–] HitlerIsBlack 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
Banning guns has little to do with mass shootings.
[–] oaken [M] 1 point 7 points 8 points (+8|-1) ago (edited ago)
I'm going to allow this question, but for future reference, ELI5 is for explaining well known but hard to understand concepts. Hypotheticals like this would probably fit better somewhere like /v/askvoat.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] oaken ago
Yep. I wanted to give him a heads up first but I've actually deleted his newest submissions here. He made a vague post about me being a left-wing power mod but oh well :P
[–] alexandertwentytwo 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Guns have no other use than shooting. Shooting is deadly and kills people. Most will advocate for things like, no handguns, no semi-autos, no shotguns, smaller caliber and things of the like to make them able to be used for hunting and that's about it.
Cameras are used for much more than CP. Guns are special because they're so specialized for murder. Cameras can be used to produce CP, but the real crime is the crime against a child, which the camera has little to do with.
Another thing to look at is what's to lose. If we ban cameras a majority of visual media is gone. Evidence of crime is gone, the memories you make with them are gone. It would be a different world without cameras just day to day. Banning guns wouldn't affect too many peoples lives too much. The problem is that we already are so supersaturated with firearms that getting rid of them would be too much a logistical nightmare.
[–] Mecha_Dunsparce 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It's a lot harder to revolt against government overreach with cameras.
[–] ScreaminMime ago
I don't know, that last few years has shown publicizing police misconduct has done a great deal. Can you imagine what the response would had been if people just shot cops that were suspected of abusing their powers?
[–] l23r ago
You can use a video camera to take pictures of anything. Other than causing damage to a person, animal or thing, what can you do with a gun?
[–] captbrogers 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Guns are designed to kill, there is no other purpose for a gun. When making the assertion that guns should be banned, using that reason is rooted in logic.
For the record, I am heavily in favor of any citizen not convicted of a violent crime (debatable as to what kind of violent crime) owning any firearm or some explosives.