|
Also, still not keen on this "Psych says you're not stable enough, you go on a watchlist" nonsense.
In most states and countries, a psychiatrist can have you held temporarily (and apply for a court order to extend that indefinitely) if you are deemed "a danger to yourself or others".
Is it really to much of a stretch to have a lesser standard, still with court protections and an appeal process, where they can let you go but get you from buying guns?
Or should they just lock you up instead, since that's apparently less of an issue?
Problem lies in the fact that emergency certificates arise due to incipient personal harm to self or others. This person is extremely likely, right now, to hurt someone.
Having a single "psychiatric professional" stating a person may be a danger at some unspecified point in time/space just doesn't hold the same water.
Ciretose's assertion of "rubber stamp" signatures is also a scary (but true) facet of this.problem. If the people who are supposed to be the most impartial & fair in our society (judges) won't even read/evaluate such recommendations before enacting them, that's a serious flaw in the system.
TL;DR: one persons opinion on my future actions should not suffice to impinge on my rights.
But it's okay for that one person to have you confined? As long as you can still buy guns? Not that you can buy guns while locked up, but still.
We (or better yet legislators & psychiatrists) can argue about exactly where the bar should be set, but it seems to me that confinement would be a greater loss of liberty and thus a higher bar than not being allowed to buy a gun. And of course, as I've said all along, you could appeal the decision. Perhaps even require a second psychiatrist to extend the ban past the initial period, as is often done in involuntary confinement law.
The problem is in "proximity of danger". If one is in immediate danger, police, mds, and a few other people are authorized to limit their rights under specific, controlled circumstances.
I.e. you make threats against yourself where a cop heats you, here's your 72hr emergency psychiatric hold, welcome to the psych ward.
Having the authority extended because of an opinion of one "certified professional" (regardless of their training and skill, they can't know my thoughts or the future "beyond a reasonable doubt") is far and away infringement on the rights of the individual.
A better tactic to eliminate these kinds of threats is to ensure our people are happy, safe, and unafraid of their neighbours/police/government. Being American, I have a cynical doubt that will ever happen.
There are consequences. There always are. In Sweden, a country virtually suffused with firearms for hunting, we have this already. Doctors are FORCED to report that someone should not have guns. As a consequence of this we have entire regions where gun owners do not go to the doctor for fear of losing their license. They especially do not go to psychiatrists, and lonely, middle-aged+, men with an alcohol problem tend to kill themselves with their guns when they get depressions. There is a cost.
Second... We should trust a liberal socialist to design our genetics, when that person does not even know enough to get the science right? Getting rid of CP, a purely environmental effect, by fixingup the genome? Yeah. Keep dreaming of your little tawdry utopia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People kill people. Limiting gun ownership is not going to stop that.And vaccines don't stop diseases because people still die of disease.
I'm not a huge fan of restricting firearm ownership to those without a proven record of violence or mental instability. Or in other words, I believe that gun regulations should ONLY make it more difficult for those who in one of those two categories, and nobody else.
That being said, I think that *this* says something. I'm not saying it's proof of anything, but consider Europe vs USA. Europe as a whole is at 3.4 intentional homicides per 100k inhabitants. Excluding eastern Europe, that drops to somewhere around 1.3 per 100k. Compare that to the United States at 4.2 per 100k and all the sudden, such easy access to such a large variety of guns seems like a bad idea in 2012. This is a significant difference. If my math is anywhere near correct, that would equate to reducing intentional homicides in america from 12,996 to ~4100, a difference of ~9,000.
To ease any doubts look at *this* graphic which summarizes statistics from the Bureau of Justice. This just says that the overwhelming majority of homicides in America are committed with use of guns.
Anyway, this whole thing sucks, and it seems like with every passing day there's another terrible tragedy related to gun violence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must reject this logic. Basing any law on the irrationality of angry ex-wives is bad business.So in Canada, if you ever want to own a hand gun, do not divorce someone on bad terms, as they can stop you from owning a gun.
I think the US could learn a lot from Canadian gun control.
.
I was recently in Toronto (which is in Canada) and the news of the day
was several murders by knife attacks.People kill people. Limiting gun ownership is not going to stop that.
.
So your argument is that because a few individuals will always try to kill, we should let them have any tools to do so that they want?
Perhaps the proposal would be this: "If there were more legislation restricting access to guns, there would be a noticeable reduction in voluntary homicides with guns, but not a noticeable reduction in voluntary homicides."
Possible assumption 1. It's just as easy to kill someone with knives, blunt objects, and poisons as it is with a gun.
Possible assumption 2. Dangit, I can't think of one right now, so i'll defer back to 1.
edit: #gunsdontkillpeopledo
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing that people will break the laws anyway is no argument against laws - otherwise, why have any laws at all? Laws are for the most part intended to sanction people who did not behave as the society deems acceptable, and thus, will come into play after the crime. But if laws and regulations are intended to reduce the possibility of crimes by regulating the access to items and procedures that can easily be used in a criminal way, what is to say against it? I think the chance alone to reduce serious crimes before they even happen might be worth it, be it guns or driving licences.
Less guns around might even mean that less guns get stolen (from the very homes the guns are meant to protect from burglary) and less guns ending up being used by criminals. Of course, buying a gun illegally is still possible - but then, driving a car without a licence is as well. No law will succeed in preventing all crimes - but laws might just help reducing them. Ask the relatives of homicide vistims what they think about the issue.
Perhaps the proposal would be this: "If there were more legislation restricting access to guns, there would be a noticeable reduction in voluntary homicides with guns, but not a noticeable reduction in voluntary homicides."
Possible assumption 1. It's just as easy to kill someone with knives, blunt objects, and poisons as it is with a gun.
Possible assumption 2. Dangit, I can't think of one right now, so i'll defer back to 1.
edit: #gunsdontkillpeopledo
Except killing people with guns IS a lot easier than it is with knives. Just like it's easier to kill with a bomb, than it is with a knife or gun. Spree killers don't sharpen paper clips, they buy guns.
I was afraid of this. I was being sarcastic... I was hoping the hash tag would help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forced, reversible sterilization isn't necessarily a bad idea Lincoln.
Make breeding licensed, make the licensed based on as close to an objective set of criteria as possible, such as IQ, financial stability, personal education level etc. Avoid rulings based on ideology/religion etc.
Kind of prove you can raise a kid before you're allowed to have one.
Not to mention this allows us better control over the human genome so that we can fix it without the possibility of unsanctioned breeding ruining things.
We could finally wipe stuff like MS, CP, etc out of our genes without having to kill anyone.
And we could create a human race devoid of the mental components of crime and violence.
Imagine a human race with a genetic aversion to greed or want of material objects. With an internal revulsion to violence.
Then we won't need gun control as no one would want a gun.
Obviously this leaves us a little open for attack if some alien species were bumbling through the universe, so we could keep a genetic profile on hand of the opposite.
Genetically engineered humanist soldiers.
Most of the world's problems can be fixed by simply fixing the humans in the world, not trying to control the tools they use to commit harm.
Government folly gets the ban hammer but a friendly chat about NAZI eugenics is perfectly cool? WTF!?!?
EDIT: My first flag ever!
I still think it is quite interesting that a pro eugenics person would use cerebral palsy as an example of genetic defects that could be wiped out with eugenics. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed. Cerebral palsy is brain damage, i.e an environmental effect, not a genetic disorder.
Come live in Australia, bugger-all weapons allowed, jail time for having unlicensed weapons (even ornamental), and we's too backwoods to know what eugenics is...
If that approach did not fly in China, a country far more group oriented, centrally controled, and civil minded, than the United States, what would make you think that it would have a snowball's chance of working here?Forced, reversible sterilization isn't necessarily a bad idea Lincoln.
Make breeding licensed, make the licensed based on as close to an objective set of criteria as possible, such as IQ, financial stability, personal education level etc. Avoid rulings based on ideology/religion etc.
Kind of prove you can raise a kid before you're allowed to have one.
Not to mention this allows us better control over the human genome so that we can fix it without the possibility of unsanctioned breeding ruining things.
We could finally wipe stuff like MS, CP, etc out of our genes without having to kill anyone.
Well, step number one is working toward a world with no USA, or China, or Canada, or nations in general.
It's time for us to evolve into a planetary government, this nation state stage has taken WAY too long.
|
Also, still not keen on this "Psych says you're not stable enough, you go on a watchlist" nonsense.
In most states and countries, a psychiatrist can have you held temporarily (and apply for a court order to extend that indefinitely) if you are deemed "a danger to yourself or others".
Is it really to much of a stretch to have a lesser standard, still with court protections and an appeal process, where they can let you go but get you from buying guns?
Or should they just lock you up instead, since that's apparently less of an issue?
Problem lies in the fact that emergency certificates arise due to incipient personal harm to self or others. This person is extremely likely, right now, to hurt someone.
Having a single "psychiatric professional" stating a person may be a danger at some unspecified point in time/space just doesn't hold the same water.
Ciretose's assertion of "rubber stamp" signatures is also a scary (but true) facet of this.problem. If the people who are supposed to be the most impartial & fair in our society (judges) won't even read/evaluate such recommendations before enacting them, that's a serious flaw in the system.
TL;DR: one persons opinion on my future actions should not suffice to impinge on my rights.
You can be removed from your home if your wife (or roommate) goes to court and says you committed domestic abuse. You then get a hearing where the standard of evidence is raised.
Having a similar process where the doctor can apply for your access to firearms to be removed from the list with an option to appeal the recommendation isn't commitment or removal from your home.
It's just preventing you from buying a gun.
|
|
There are consequences. There always are. In Sweden, a country virtually suffused with firearms for hunting, we have this already. Doctors are FORCED to report that someone should not have guns. As a consequence of this we have entire regions where gun owners do not go to the doctor for fear of losing their license. They especially do not go to psychiatrists, and lonely, middle-aged+, men with an alcohol problem tend to kill themselves with their guns when they get depressions. There is a cost.
Second... We should trust a liberal socialist to design our genetics, when that person does not even know enough to get the science right? Getting rid of CP, a purely environmental effect, by fixingup the genome? Yeah. Keep dreaming of your little tawdry utopia.
I know, damn you Sweden and your top ranking in nearly every measure of happiness!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Serioiusly, no one in Australia feels, or bemoans, the lack of ease in buying and owning firearms. It's ridiculous. Stuff that makes it easier to kill people should be regulated. I don't know why that's debated. We still have hunters and sports lovers with guns. But that's about it. Why do I need to be able to buy a gun?
Oh yeah, Americans. Rights. Guns. Shooting massacres. I forgot, you guys are into that stuff ;-)
(Couldn't resist attempt to be humourous - as poor as it was, please don't take actual offence)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Serioiusly, no one in Australia feels, or bemoans, the lack of ease in buying and owning firearms. It's ridiculous. Stuff that makes it easier to kill people should be regulated. I don't know why that's debated. We still have hunters and sports lovers with guns. But that's about it. Why do I need to be able to buy a gun?
Its a bit of a catch 22. We need guns because people have guns. You can't ask regular folks to disarm while there are still armed criminals. You can't disarm the criminals without stopping the manufacture. You can't stop the manufacture without disarming the populace.
Its also a constitutional right. As hard as it is to get a regular bill through our dysfunctional government getting a constitutional ammendment through would be impossible: especially one of the bill of rights, which are effectively commandments from the founding saints of america.
|
|
Serioiusly, no one in Australia feels, or bemoans, the lack of ease in buying and owning firearms. It's ridiculous. Stuff that makes it easier to kill people should be regulated. I don't know why that's debated. We still have hunters and sports lovers with guns. But that's about it. Why do I need to be able to buy a gun?Its a bit of a catch 22. We need guns because people have guns. You can't ask regular folks to disarm while there are still armed criminals. You can't disarm the criminals without stopping the manufacture. You can't stop the manufacture without disarming the populace.
Its also a constitutional right. As hard as it is to get a regular bill through our dysfunctional government getting a constitutional ammendment through would be impossible: especially one of the bill of rights, which are effectively commandments from the founding saints of america.
However we should be able to agree that crazy people shouldn't have guns.
And we should also be able to agree that licensed mental health professionals should be able to diagnose what "crazy" is.
Because, you know, that is there job. And they have a license which says they meet the criteria to do that job and which would be revoked if they abused that power.
This should be a no brainer, particularly when Loughner, Cho, and Holmes all would have been restricted from buying guns (and if I had my way flagged as attempting purchase) and well...that would have been better than what happened.
If the upside is crazy people don't have guns to shoot lots of people and the upside is someone may have to wait longer to get a gun because he needed to request an appeal of his being labeled "crazy"...
No. Brainer.
Technically, it's only a constitutional right for those who are a part of a well regulated militia.
The 2nd amendment has a qualifier statement before the statement about owning arms.
Technically, it's being used extremely wrong and misinterpreted to grave consequence.
If the founding fathers simply wanted everyone to own a gun, they would not have included the qualifier statement.
|
Dingo, do you honestly think tyranny is such a pressing concern that resistance is the reason people arm themselves? I'm not arguing about what sort of arms the second amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear; I'm saying I own more than one firearm and rebellion against a tyrant had nothing to do with my reasons.
Yeah I agree - people who have weapons have psychological issues - mainly a lack of trust of their fellow citizen - and by addressing the causes of that problem - dispossession - and ending the culture of Tyranny that is painted up as the shiny hot-rod we all call Representative Democracy we can bring people back from planet stupid which doesn't need psychotherapists and psychologists. It needs decency and equality and responsibility and humanity and citizenship.
See. No need to employ people who profit from 'managing' the problem - not when we can cure the problem and bring it to an end.
|
|
I don't want to go down the road of "people who who have weapons are crazy" or have an argument over the definition of militia in 18th century America, or any of the usual strawmen that might show up.
I want to see who disagrees with people who are clinically diagnosed as severely mentally ill and potentially dangerous if not receiving proper treatment being able to be restricted from buying guns by licensed mental health professionals pending a review.
Who is against that?
And if no one is against that, why isn't it happening?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come live in Australia, bugger-all weapons allowed, jail time for having unlicensed weapons (even ornamental), and we's too backwoods to know what eugenics is...
Oo! you liar...stop messing with their heads and admit Australia has a secret eugenics breeding program. We practiced eugenics in our farming industry every day for a century...hell we all know Queenslanders are deliberately above average in height. That's our Super-soldier program.
|
|
I don't want to go down the road of "people who who have weapons are crazy" or have an argument over the definition of militia in 18th century America, or any of the usual strawmen that might show up.
I want to see who disagrees with people who are clinically diagnosed as severely mentally ill and potentially dangerous if not receiving proper treatment being able to be restricted from buying guns by licensed mental health professionals pending a review.
Who is against that?
And if no one is against that, why isn't it happening?
And its a short trip from benevolent tyranny to despotism. I suspect they would push it through government the instant you kill a few of them - whether you object or not.
What I find offensive is the same people who created the problem - making decisions for others.
Come live in Australia, bugger-all weapons allowed, jail time for having unlicensed weapons (even ornamental), and we's too backwoods to know what eugenics is...Oo! you liar...stop messing with their heads and admit Australia has a secret eugenics breeding program. We practiced eugenics in our farming industry every day for a century...hell we all know Queenslanders are deliberately above average in height. That's our Super-soldier program.
Shhhhh!
|
|
I don't want to go down the road of "people who who have weapons are crazy" or have an argument over the definition of militia in 18th century America, or any of the usual strawmen that might show up.
I want to see who disagrees with people who are clinically diagnosed as severely mentally ill and potentially dangerous if not receiving proper treatment being able to be restricted from buying guns by licensed mental health professionals pending a review.
Who is against that?
And if no one is against that, why isn't it happening?
And its a short trip from benevolent tyranny to despotism. I suspect they would push it through government the instant you kill a few of them - whether you object or not.
What I find offensive is the same people who created the problem - making decisions for others.
What the hell are you talking about?
Three diagnosed mentally unstable people were able to buy an arsenal and shoot lots and lots of people because the database sucks.
The database sucks because it is political suicide to cross the NRA.
So again, what the hell are you talking about?
Come live in Australia, bugger-all weapons allowed, jail time for having unlicensed weapons (even ornamental), and we's too backwoods to know what eugenics is...Oo! you liar...stop messing with their heads and admit Australia has a secret eugenics breeding program. We practiced eugenics in our farming industry every day for a century...hell we all know Queenslanders are deliberately above average in height. That's our Super-soldier program.
It would explain the teeth.
It's this odd thing that a few anthropologists have been trying to figure out, but Aussies and Kiwis have the largest teeth of those descendant from WASP stock.
It's such a noticeable increase in such a short time that it has really stumped scientists.
Do you guys have any particular food in your diet that requires a lot more chewing?
I find human genetics fascinating so something like that interests the crap out of me.
New Zealand has hardly any gun crime. There are also very few guns here, relatively speaking.
The problem with gun control isn't whether guns are restricted or not. It's about how many guns are already in the country. The US is inundated with guns. For guns to stop being a problem, the huge stashes of guns would have to retroactively disappear.
New Zealand has hardly any gun crime. There are also very few guns here, relatively speaking.
The problem with gun control isn't whether guns are restricted or not. It's about how many guns are already in the country. The US is inundated with guns. For guns to stop being a problem, the huge stashes of guns would have to retroactively disappear.
That's why I put forth my original idea to invent some sort of technology that can neutralize chemical propellants.
Let them keep the mouth, but pull out the teeth.
It would explain the teeth.It's this odd thing that a few anthropologists have been trying to figure out, but Aussies and Kiwis have the largest teeth of those descendant from WASP stock.
It's such a noticeable increase in such a short time that it has really stumped scientists.
Do you guys have any particular food in your diet that requires a lot more chewing?
I find human genetics fascinating so something like that interests the crap out of me.
Really? That is kinda fascinating. I admit, I have large teeth. Like, Tom Cruise large.
We do have pretty massive dairy intakes down this way. Perhaps it's all the calcium...
Is Gary Busey from Australia? Holy crap that guy has some chompers.
Is Gary Busey from Australia? Holy crap that guy has some chompers.
We'd make him an honourary Aussie if he wasn't so batsh!t crazy....
|
|
New Zealand has hardly any gun crime. There are also very few guns here, relatively speaking.
The problem with gun control isn't whether guns are restricted or not. It's about how many guns are already in the country. The US is inundated with guns. For guns to stop being a problem, the huge stashes of guns would have to retroactively disappear.
Or ammunition...
*honorary.
I kid!
It would explain the teeth.It's this odd thing that a few anthropologists have been trying to figure out, but Aussies and Kiwis have the largest teeth of those descendant from WASP stock.
It's such a noticeable increase in such a short time that it has really stumped scientists.
Do you guys have any particular food in your diet that requires a lot more chewing?
I find human genetics fascinating so something like that interests the crap out of me.
Really? That is kinda fascinating. I admit, I have large teeth. Like, Tom Cruise large.
We do have pretty massive dairy intakes down this way. Perhaps it's all the calcium...
It could. We sort of recently stumbled upon this field of genomics called "epi-genomics" or "Above genomics".
We found out that you can kind of change your DNA slightly through your diet and environment.
See, your DNA will expand or contract (thinking of the double helix) depending on outside stimulus. A contracted helix expresses its genes less, an expanded helix expresses genes more.
So you end up with these "epi-genetic tags" on your DNA that actually get caused by things like smoking, eating crap food (or doing healthy stuff for positive tags) etc.
Here's the issue, these tags aren't supposed to get passed on, but sometimes they do.
Hence your actions can directly modify the DNA of your children, quite rapidly, which allows for certain situations where creatures appeared to evolve exactly what the needed very rapidly.
So lots of swimming would work your shoulders and hips, which in turn would affect your epicgenetic tags, which would cause the DNA for your hip and shoulder to compress or expand, which means in a very short number of generations you could end up with a hip or shoulder mutation that assists in swimming.
*honorary.
I kid!
:)
You do realise that in the English-speaking world outside of the US (it does exist!), we all spell the same, and always have? Until some Americans misspelt some words and then decided that because they'd spelt them like that, that was how they were spelt... Then the Americans programmed all the spell-checkers, and the world was changed forever...
Kidding is fun!
Is Gary Busey from Australia? Holy crap that guy has some chompers.We'd make him an honourary Aussie if he wasn't so batsh!t crazy....
From everything you've said, I would have thought that was necessary for consideration. :P
From everything you've said, I would have thought that was necessary for consideration. :PIs Gary Busey from Australia? Holy crap that guy has some chompers.We'd make him an honourary Aussie if he wasn't so batsh!t crazy....
Lol, I think all I've said is that because we don't have many guns in Australia, we don't have as many gun-related killings, or as many killings whatsoever. And I'm crazy....
Don't get me mixed up with that yellowdingo fella!
Oh, I also said that maybe we have big teeth because of a huge dairy intake...
So... How am I crazy?
*honorary.
I kid!
:)
You do realise that in the English-speaking world outside of the US (it does exist!), we all spell the same, and always have? Until some Americans misspelt some words and then decided that because they'd spelt them like that, that was how they were spelt... Then the Americans programmed all the spell-checkers, and the world was changed forever...
Kidding is fun!
Well, I'm sure there's an alternate reality out there where Australia invents the modern PC and all the software that goes with it. They prolly code the spell checker to look for missing 'u's :P
Well, I'm sure there's an alternate reality out there where Australia invents the modern PC and all the software that goes with it. They prolly code the spell checker to look for missing 'u's :P
Don't forget changing all those pesky Z's (we pronounce, sorry, prononce them zed, not zee) to S's....
But we invent stuff. Like the refrigerator. And... Vegemite... And stuff...
It could. We sort of recently stumbled upon this field of genomics called "epi-genomics" or "Above genomics".
We found out that you can kind of change your DNA slightly through your diet and environment.
See, your DNA will expand or contract (thinking of the double helix) depending on outside stimulus. A contracted helix expresses its genes less, an expanded helix expresses genes more.
So you end up with these "epi-genetic tags" on your DNA that actually get caused by things like smoking, eating crap food (or doing healthy stuff for positive tags) etc.
Here's the issue, these tags aren't supposed to get passed on, but sometimes they do.
Hence your actions can directly modify the DNA of your children, quite rapidly, which allows for certain situations where creatures appeared to evolve exactly what the needed very rapidly.
So lots of swimming would work your shoulders and hips, which in turn would affect your epicgenetic tags, which would cause the DNA for your hip and shoulder to compress or expand, which means in a very short number of generations you could end up with a hip or shoulder mutation that assists in swimming.
Don't let Richard Dawkins hear you saying that....
But... Cool. I was aware that things like smoking could alter your genetics slightly, but not things like exercise.
It's a super new field of genetics, so most people know very little about it, even the guys working in it.
The nice thing is that they're working on using these tags as a sort of backdoor genetic engineering.
More genetic tweaking than engineering.
Every kid could be born with good tags, which wouldn't really affect how they look or anything.
Kind of like stealing the good parts of someone's genes but keeping your own genes at the same time.
It would explain the teeth.It's this odd thing that a few anthropologists have been trying to figure out, but Aussies and Kiwis have the largest teeth of those descendant from WASP stock.
It's such a noticeable increase in such a short time that it has really stumped scientists.
Do you guys have any particular food in your diet that requires a lot more chewing?
I find human genetics fascinating so something like that interests the crap out of me.
Really? That is kinda fascinating. I admit, I have large teeth. Like, Tom Cruise large.
We do have pretty massive dairy intakes down this way. Perhaps it's all the calcium...
It could. We sort of recently stumbled upon this field of genomics called "epi-genomics" or "Above genomics".
We found out that you can kind of change your DNA slightly through your diet and environment.
See, your DNA will expand or contract (thinking of the double helix) depending on outside stimulus. A contracted helix expresses its genes less, an expanded helix expresses genes more.
So you end up with these "epi-genetic tags" on your DNA that actually get caused by things like smoking, eating crap food (or doing healthy stuff for positive tags) etc.
Here's the issue, these tags aren't supposed to get passed on, but sometimes they do.
Hence your actions can directly modify the DNA of your children, quite rapidly, which allows for certain situations where creatures appeared to evolve exactly what the needed very rapidly.
So lots of swimming would work your shoulders and hips, which in turn would affect your epicgenetic tags, which would cause the DNA for your hip and shoulder to compress or expand, which means in a very short number of generations you could end up with a hip or shoulder mutation that assists in swimming.
Great...my kids are gonna have arms like Popeye.
Great...my kids are gonna have arms like Popeye.
My kids do have teeth like Gary Busey...
LOL
Fleshgrinder, do these epigenetics tags give you cerebral palsy also?
Epigenetics is a severely misunderstood field. The basics are that various cells use varying parts of the cellular genome, depending on the type of cell and the current needs of the cell. You know, skin cells are not liver cells and do not, for example, produce cytochrome P450-enzymes (AFAIK) used in the liver. The non-used genome is wound up around histones, which are basically genome spools.
Now, epigenetics is what you get when someone discovered that you could affect the histone-winding process in different ways, opening up other parts of the genome in experimental cell cultures for producing different proteins than usual for the cell type. So, for example, that skin cell could get access to the cytochrome P450-enzymes of the liver.
As usual, there is a huge misunderstanding at work, with an ideological snarl attached.
The genes you have do not change. Through some mechanisms, they may be otherwise expressed into proteins, but you are stuck with what your old genome carries. And if you get your muscle cells more active through epigenetic tags, well guess what, those muscle cells give your children zilch, zip, nada. Only your sperms and eggs do.
There are many who want so desperately for environment to be the only relevant factor in human functioning that epigenetics is being touted as the end of heredity. It is not. It's just easy to convince someone who longs for the days and principles of Trofim Lysenko that it is.
Fact remains: There have been studies on mice that seem to show a new paradigm in epigenetics. Prudence would mean not drawing too hefty conclusions until there is far more evidence.
|
I want to see who disagrees with people who are clinically diagnosed as severely mentally ill and potentially dangerous if not receiving proper treatment being able to be restricted from buying guns by licensed mental health professionals pending a review.
What makes you so sure that these wing-nutz would have just sat around knitting socks or tea-cozies instead of going out and procuring the firearm(s) they wanted illegally if they were not able to go and purchases them legally?
Given the sheer volume of gun violence by people that are already unable to possess firearms, it seems that it would be fairly easy to obtain one illegally...
We have a plethora of gun laws in place already, and like any law, we have those few who disregard the law. Adding more laws only further restricts those of us who abide by the law...
Fleshgrinder, do these epigenetics tags give you cerebral palsy also?
Epigenetics is a severely misunderstood field. The basics are that various cells use varying parts of the cellular genome, depending on the type of cell and the current needs of the cell. You know, skin cells are not liver cells and do not, for example, produce cytochrome P450-enzymes (AFAIK) used in the liver. The non-used genome is wound up around histones, which are basically genome spools.
Now, epigenetics is what you get when someone discovered that you could affect the histone-winding process in different ways, opening up other parts of the genome in experimental cell cultures for producing different proteins than usual for the cell type. So, for example, that skin cell could get access to the cytochrome P450-enzymes of the liver.
As usual, there is a huge misunderstanding at work, with an ideological snarl attached.
The genes you have do not change. Through some mechanisms, they may be otherwise expressed into proteins, but you are stuck with what your old genome carries. And if you get your muscle cells more active through epigenetic tags, well guess what, those muscle cells give your children zilch, zip, nada. Only your sperms and eggs do.
There are many who want so desperately for environment to be the only relevant factor in human functioning that epigenetics is being touted as the end of heredity. It is not. It's just easy to convince someone who longs for the days and principles of Trofim Lysenko that it is.
Fact remains: There have been studies on mice that seem to show a new paradigm in epigenetics. Prudence would mean not drawing too hefty conclusions until there is far more evidence.
While I'll admit that my understanding of this stuff is only slightly better than a total laymen I don't believe I asserted that the genes change in the person, only that how those genes are expressed through.
I did postulate that those epigenetic tags could mess with the genes of your children more substantially, but I am fully aware that we're stuck with our current genes until we develop better gene therapy techniques.
Regardless, it's something I find incredibly exciting.
The world has enough apathy and despair, no harm in becoming optimistic and excited about something.
I spent 28 of my 29 years of existence in apathy and despair, I prefer the new me.