Selling a new generation on guns

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Kashai

 

In relation to your thoughts on genetic markers, for possible violence . . . if you are testing for that you will probably be running screens for all issues. If that's the case, it sounds like we are getting into Eugenics and I don't see the purpose in even opening that possiblility. For instance, how do we know the gene for violence or anything label detrimental won't be advantagous in coming generations (in case of environment or societal change) . . . with out the ability to adapt that these genes provide for some and allow us as a species to go on, we simply die out.

Don't mess with nature kid!

And therein lies a dilemma.....

Have you ever seen a dog that hallucinates???

Oh sweet blooming magnolias on a biscuit!!

Many states also have youth shooting safety courses - state sponsored ones. They are actually fine courses. Here is theMN Firearms Safety Certification for Youth

Instead that article in the OP maybe we might want to look at the Actual Boy Scouts Shooting Sports Manual?!?! Its 133 pages of good solid safety oriented instruction.

As for me I shot my first gun at age 8. I've been shooting every year since then. I've yet to kill or shoot anyone. I did manage to go to college, get a grad degree, get a nice job, work with people all over the world, get married and all do of that stuff as well.

reply to post by Kashai


Only under medication, as my mom is a vet . . . not as a result of inherited condition.

What I was hoping to get through in my last post was that there will always be a fraction of the populace that has something that makes them come unhinged. And it's a proven concept that the unhinging happens more easily the more "tight" that person feels (over-population, personal space, restrictions placed on). Look into Behavioral Sink Theory, as well:
Behavioral Sink

We should never let the possiblility of future events demonize or elevate a person, regardless of genetic markers. It is a distinct possiblility that regardless of genes passed on that the prediction never comes to pass, the gene may lay dormant or not have the effect it has on others. It's entirely possible, as well, that you create a self fulfilling prophecy, if that kid is reminded of or told what is expected of him . . . so, what was the real cause?

I'm not even going to get into the aborting portion of it, as it makes me sick, and I am a pro-choice atheist.

EDIT - that's why I get scared when I see people in the media or gov start talking about mental health for gun owner and "catching signs of trouble early" . . . too much ethical weight involved for politicians and pundits to shape the argument.

reply to post by Kashai


Well, now you are into the DNA theory.

Quite the slippery slope, don't you think?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kashai

 

Well, now you are into the DNA theory.

Quite the slippery slope, don't you think?

Give it a second and we will be neck deep in how wonderful pre-crime screening is... its fer da chilluns to live all safe and stuff.. ya know.

reply to post by solomons path



In nature animals do not care for there parents and in so far as offspring? It is certainly noted that in relation to issues of psychosis, in general, the study of psychotic animals is a waste of time.

We humans are of loving a child despite these issues and there are many occasions where a person who is psychotic, lives there lives without killing anyone. When it comes to criminal behavior that could be the next issue on the list,. of reasons to treat such problems as a cancer.

From my perspective its is impossible to conclude how a specific child will respond to, the capacity to commit violence. When it comes to development, I feel that consideration should be given to the issue
of the human condition being more than just the sum of the parts that work up to our expectations.

The problem at present is the apparent increase in violence.

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kashai

 

Well, now you are into the DNA theory.

Quite the slippery slope, don't you think?

Give it a second and we will be neck deep in how wonderful pre-crime screening is... its fer da chilluns to live all safe and stuff.. ya know.

I am certain all of us feel the same way.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kashai

 

Well, now you are into the DNA theory.

Quite the slippery slope, don't you think?

Yes, which is why I asking all of you to consider these issues every seriously.

reply to post by Kashai


If this doesn't sell 'em forget it.

reply to post by Kashai


Let’s face it. You can’t Pre-crime everybody. Some are psychotic and some are not. Often it is how we are raised.

My Dad gave me my first .22 when I was eight. That was normal in that time period and expected as well. He also whupped my ass when I displayed any unsafe behavior.

I’m pretty sure that I have not gone on any shooting spree…not even after 30+ years in the Army.

I do think that maybe the HIPPA should be revised concerning firearms, but that leads down a slippery slope as well.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by solomons path

 

In nature animals do not care for there parents and in so far as offspring? It is certainly noted that in relation to issues of psychosis, in general, the study of psychotic animals is a waste of time.

We humans are of loving a child despite these issues and there are many occasions where a person who is psychotic, lives there lives without killing anyone. When it comes to criminal behavior that could be the next issue on the list,. of reasons to treat such problems as a cancer.

From my perspective its is impossible to conclude how a specific child will respond to, the capacity to commit violence. When it comes to development, I feel that consideration should be given to the issue
of the human condition being more than just the sum of the parts that work up to our expectations.

The problem at present is the apparent increase in violence.

I don't know if you meant this as a response to my posts or not . . . however, I didn't say anything about research on animals . . . you asked about dogs and I answered, but nothing I posted compared animals to humans. I'm talking about human psychology and human genetics. I'm arguing against screening for behavioral genes and placing any sort of expectation on these markers, due to the multitude of factors that go into determining behavior.

At this point, I can't tell if you are for or against pre-cog screening and restricting people for it . . .

I've given evidence why kids should be taught about guns (Reactance Theory), as well as some conditions that effect violence besides inherited mental issues (and will make these issues more likely to surface). If your animal refernce was to Behavioral Sink, there has been plenty of work done on this with humans and in regard to personal space, restrictions. Everything that goes into Sink Theory . . . I gave you the wiki just to introduce you to the concepts, but you'll have to do the rest of the leg work on your own.

Here I thought we were in agreement about the OP, but I guess not.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Kashai

 

If this doesn't sell 'em forget it.

Kind of a "dual sword," I mean from the idea of victim vs threat and given the victim does not have the time to reach his or her weapon. I mean if my gun is at my waist and the threat as a gun pointed at my head, the only hope for many of us is that there is a misfire.

Imagine a scenario where a person who is not psychotic or a criminal is in a Mall. There is also a psychotic person in the mall who plans to kill as many people as he or she can. He or She sees you and choses you as the first target and then kills 50 people after that person. The strange this is that in the old days one had to park his or her weapon as well as ones horse in many establishments.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kashai

 

Let’s face it. You can’t Pre-crime everybody. Some are psychotic and some are not. Often it is how we are raised.

My Dad gave me my first .22 when I was eight. That was normal in that time period and expected as well. He also whupped my ass when I displayed any unsafe behavior.

I’m pretty sure that I have not gone on any shooting spree…not even after 30+ years in the Army.

I do think that maybe the HIPPA should be revised concerning firearms, but that leads down a slippery slope as well.

One of my best friends is a Marine

I would trust him with my life

In relation to the clinical issues were talking about Pediatrics and related clinical settings. The really terrible part of Eugenics is that in nature one does not find issues like Dolphins that steal from the group they are traveling with.

I was intending on waiting a few more months at least, but recent events and opportunities after a teachable moment led me to allow my 7 year old daughter to fire her first rifle this past Sunday. She already knew what to do if she found a gun--don't touch, leave the room, and tell an adult. Closely supervised, I let her fire a few rounds from a bolt action .22. We probably spent 30 minutes talking safety, muzzle discipline, and dry firing before I loaded and allowed her to shoot. She did very well and I was extremely proud of her.

After getting back in the house and getting down to having supper. I told her how proud I was of her and the way she listened and obeyed while we were shooting guns. Then she really surprised me. She said "Daddy, maybe if I practice some more we can go hunting." I'm not a hunter though I thankfully accept venison and boar from friends and family that do. (I've been thinking about taking the hobby back up of late though). I said to her "Baby if you do practice more, and we do go hunting what would you like to hunt?" She says,"I don't know maybe deer." I said,"Baby why would you want to hunt and kill a deer?" Without a seconds hesitation she said "Because deer tastes good."

So, I did my part in passing down a tradition this past weekend. We'll see where it goes from here.

reply to post by jefwane


Star for you sir . . . This is exactly what I was saying in my first post. Teach the kids and you have no problem, they are perfectly capable of being responsible around guns. Take the mystery away and kids actually do quite well with the responsiblity and, at least in my experience, it actually is a self-esteem boost (much like any other accomplishment in their lives).

reply to post by jefwane


Here in Miami, back in the 80's a person could literally live on the blue crabs, mangoes, oranges and fish that one could catch, we still have lobster season but it is really short. No more blue crabs running wild, as far as oranges forget it. With respect to mangoes, I mean unless you have a tree on you property.

This analogy hopefully fits in relation to what I feel is slowly happening, as opposed to going to a supermarket.

The problem is not solvable with medication alone.

I mean one can take two children that are raised by the same parent one could find the cure to cancer, while the other,ends up with the 30 year sentence in prison. Geniuses have been born of schizophrenics , some have worked in law enforcement, military, science and so on...

That makes whole issue problematic

Understandably a woman would come in for her vitamins and be told her child will be equivalent to Hitler in 150 years, based on DNA analysis.

As a parent what would you do??

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by jefwane

 

Star for you sir . . . This is exactly what I was saying in my first post. Teach the kids and you have no problem, they are perfectly capable of being responsible around guns. Take the mystery away and kids actually do quite well with the responsiblity and, at least in my experience, it actually is a self-esteem boost (much like any other accomplishment in their lives).

Yes but what about the percentage of the Earth population that do not respond the same way?

Animals can exhibit psychotic features when exposed to a diseases like Rabie. But this idea of a Tiger running after a hallucinatory food source is absurd.

Unless they have been infected with a disease that has a biological origin.

reply to post by Kashai


I'm really not sure I understand your post. The first part in relation to my prior post at least.

In regards to the second half of your post, I don't believe our actions are solely determined by the genes that make up our biology. There is no doubt that they have an effect, but I am wholely unqualified to determine which weighs more in the "nurture vs nature" debate.

I do however believe in right and wrong. I teach my children the way to treat others, how to be kind, to show mercy, that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and most importantly that all actions have consequences.

I do not believe medication can solve all or even many social ills.

We may find that DNA can tell us about potential character flaws, but I would not make a decision about what could happen only what is certain. Being able to identify areas that might need further nurturing to offset natural propensities for unwanted attributes could be helpful, but we don't know DNA that well and wont anytime soon and such questions totally disregard the affects of environment beyond that encoded in a persons genome.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by jefwane

 

Here in Miami, back in the 80's a person could literally live on the blue crabs, mangoes, oranges and fish that one could catch, we still have lobster season but it is really short. No more blue crabs running wild, as far as oranges forget it. With respect to mangoes, I mean unless you have a tree on you property.

This analogy hopefully fits in relation to what I feel is slowly happening, as opposed to going to a supermarket.

The problem is not solvable with medication alone.

I mean one can take two children that are raised by the same parent one could find the cure to cancer, while the other,ends up with the 30 year sentence in prison. Geniuses have been born of schizophrenics , some have worked in law enforcement, military, science and so on...

That makes whole issue problematic

Understandably a woman would come in for her vitamins and be told her child will be equivalent to Hitler in 150 years, based on DNA analysis.

As a parent what would you do??

edit on 29-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content

You arent making much sense in your last few posts.. ideas are disjointed and nothing supported by actual science... or youre being disingenuous and only pointing to a small portion of the studies ( which some of us have actually read here) to add to your pet theory. Isolating a potential "gene" for violence isnt like looking for birth defects. We are by far more than our physiology and genetics... regardless of a test proving missing 5-HT genes... we are not mice. WHen they compare this to human populations, they can note this.. and it is coupled with traumatic events in childhood that show a perentage of the original group were violent in varying degrees. The studies with genes effecting serotonin and the potential for violence..again.. these are not across the board evidence of a potential killer.

What that has to do with dogs hallucinating or animal social behavior who the hell knows... now we're onto the infant Hitler at 150 yrs old.. wtf...