Selling a new generation on guns

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
There are many who would suggest that George Smith Patton, Jr. , who believed in reincarnation, once kicked the hell out of a solder, who stated he was suffering from Traumatic Stress Disorder? Could fall under the category of being deficient somehow in relation to genetic markers.




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


You have totally lost me now . . . I don't see what your animal analogies have to do with what we have been discussing.

In regard to your direct question to me . . . the simple answer is who cares. I don't care about the percentage that don't respond like jefwane's daughter or my son. My responsiblity is to my son and making sure he is a responsible member of society, but even then I don't have control over what he does. I have influence and that is what being a responsible parent is. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all kids could become mentally unhinged as we won't know "for sure" until they develop? If so, I've already disagreed with that concept and given my reasons.

Beyond that I don't let things I can't control drive my decision making . . . that's how crazy people think. You have control over one thing in this world yourself; meaning, your actions, thought, feelings, emotions, speech. You have influence over many things (family, friends). You have no control over almost everything else in life. There will be people who do crazy things and events that cause death and harm . . . no control, so why waste so much time trying to bring millions down to the lowest common denominator when the lowest common denominator is not common?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
There are many who would suggest that George Smith Patton, Jr. , who believed in reincarnation, once kicked the hell out of a solder, who stated he was suffering from Traumatic Stress Disorder? Could fall under the category of being deficient somehow in relation to genetic markers.



What? Patton or PTSD? So, Patton should have been kept from being a soldier/general and responsible for defeating European tyrrants, if he had this marker? Or the soldier shouldn't have been in the Army for a PTSD marker (which isn't how PTSD works by the way, it's not inherited in any way).

Sure sounds more and more like you think we should test kids for "markers" and then give them a list a life privilages they qualify for. That's Eugenics. That my friend is the stuff tyrrants and dictators are made of . . . maybe you should go get checked for any genetic markers that would keep us safe from you ever rising to power?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Kashai
 


You have totally lost me now . . . I don't see what your animal analogies have to do with what we have been discussing.

In regard to your direct question to me . . . the simple answer is who cares. I don't care about the percentage that don't respond like jefwane's daughter or my son. My responsiblity is to my son and making sure he is a responsible member of society, but even then I don't have control over what he does. I have influence and that is what being a responsible parent is. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all kids could become mentally unhinged as we won't know "for sure" until they develop? If so, I've already disagreed with that concept and given my reasons.

Beyond that I don't let things I can't control drive my decision making . . . that's how crazy people think. You have control over one thing in this world yourself; meaning, your actions, thought, feelings, emotions, speech. You have influence over many things (family, friends). You have no control over almost everything else in life. There will be people who do crazy things and events that cause death and harm . . . no control, so why waste so much time trying to bring millions down to the lowest common denominator when the lowest common denominator is not common?


From a clinical standpoint 3% of the earths human population is psychotic so multiply 7 billion by 3%. Of that amount roughly 30% are very capable of committing a violent act. This unrelated to the an actual threat but rather, a perceived threat that is unrealistic. In nature ,this is not a problem. So on way of looking at it, is that Eugenics resulted from an attempt to copy nature.

The problems with materialism is kind of an agenda of mine.

As a result of developments in DNA analysis it could be possible in say 100 years, for us to identity through that analysis? People who will based upon that analysis, will be capable of being psychotically or criminally violent.

This despite the fact they are raised by Loving families, or even if they are raised by parents who have psychotic symptoms, or suffer from a Neurosis and/or Personality Disorder
edit on 29-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


But . .. genes alone don't determine behavior. Not only the old nurture/nature argument, but environmental factors, diet, stress levels, etc. So, predispositon really means nothing but a chance. Geneticists, Biochemists, and Psychologists all understand this. The only people that are in favor of regulating based on genetic markers usually have political motives (even when it's a scientist who proposes) and believe in Eugenics.

I've said I don't agree with that tract. For me at least that's not even a subject up for debate. I can see screen for defects and disease, so the parent is informed and can prepare. But, that should be the end of it and there really is nothing more to ponder or consider on that subject, IMO.
edit on 1/29/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Would offer that in respect to your argument that Psychosis is currently acknowledged as a Disease.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The majority of psychotics never commit a violent crime.. so advocating for extermination of the innocent on what they MIGHT do even when statistically proven the opposite...wow. I dont think there is any rational or informed argument to be had here.

A quick google will clue you into the transparency of the whole eugenics argument to prevent violence.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


I'm talking about genetically inherited diseases like MS, Down Synd, Sickle Cell. Psychosis, as I've stated, can not be easily diagnosed by a marker because there are too many factors that determine how severe (or even if) those issues manifest. It's not a black and white thing . . . just like there are varying degrees of MS, Down Synd, etc.

If you point is just to tell the parents "hey your son/daughter may develp psychosis as they develop" for the purpose of informing the parents . . . sure. But, as I posted earlier, I don't really like that idea because a genetic marker doesn't not a psychotic make.

If you inform a parent that their child may develop a physical disease, even if you tell your child they told you that at his birth, and they don't develop the disease . . . no harm no foul. Your child knowing or you treating them like thay may develop it won't bring that disease on. The same can not be said for psychological issues. You run the risk of creating a crazy person/psychotic through self-fulfilling prophecy. Just like if you tell a kid he is stupid over and over again, chances are he will not become a Rhodes Scholar. He will conform to the expectations.

Is your goal to kill these kids off early or talk them into killing later? Still not sure.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
The majority of psychotics never commit a violent crime.. so advocating for extermination of the innocent on what they MIGHT do even when statistically proven the opposite...wow. I dont think there is any rational or informed argument to be had here.

A quick google will clue you into the transparency of the whole eugenics argument to prevent violence.


Animals do not protect there parent when they grow old. An example being a Tiger running into its Mother once it is grown. If the mother is healthy she is capable if killing the child if it get to close. The problem being that at some time in ancient human history mankind realized this was a problem and allowed human to be born that behaved violently.

That could actually change with time as we develop the means to identify.

So the schizophrenic mother and the bipolar father has thee kids, one of them went to Harvard and the two other ended up in San Quentin on rape and murder.That would make them part of the 30% of the 3% potentially, of the population.

What then?
edit on 29-1-2013 by Kashai because: added and modifed content



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Guess what? Lots of parents let their children learn to cook in the kitchen. They allow them to cut with knives and use hot burners. They let them try out driving on a country road while the child sits in their lap. They let them play with pitchforks and throw darts. Swim in the dark, play with hot glue guns and ride bikes around alone. Don't even get me started on what they do with fireworks.

OMGerd that's just not safe!!!!
edit on 29-1-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Guess what? Lots of parents let their children learn to cook in the kitchen. They allow them to cut with knives and use hot burners. They let them try out driving on a country road while the child sits in their lap. They let them play with pitchforks and throw darts. Swim in the dark, play with hot glue guns and ride bikes around alone. Don't even get me started on what they do with fireworks.

OMGerd that's just not safe!!!!
edit on 29-1-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)


My upbrining included being taught by Taino Indians, between the ages of 4 and 7 so I can relate.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
In 200 years it could be possible not to need an abortion. Geneticists could simply modify the markers and provide one with a child that would "not" have a problem.

It could become that simple and while I feel this mater of the Constitution is not an issue, this one is another matter.

And in consideration being a parent will get more compicated as time goes on.

Any thoughts?
edit on 29-1-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Who is to say what may be disadvantageous to our survival now, will be in the future? Our genome is the result of billions of years of evolution. Sometimes genetic traits that are meaning less or even harmful under one set of conditions is advantageous under another. If we are intentionally eliminating genes for the sake of some sort of perfection, we are messing with our evolution. There is no way of knowing if that would really lead to an Utopian society or our extinction.

Let's say a virus comes along and the only humans that don't die from infection are those with a gene for a certain psychosis? Sure some survivors will be psychotic, but those that aren't will live to rebuild the human race. If we are eliminating these genetic markers . . . well then we're just dead.

Don't mess with nature kid!



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Lets say the Pacific rift decides to erupt and the only survivors are people who were in really well built prisons?

But there is still the problem of what actually happened at Sandy Hook?


When it comes to inner city problems small children die consistently every year in relation to numbers. The truth is more children die per year in cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Miami to name just a few. Many of those children die because of very sick people.

I am aware of an incident where a 7 year old child (when I was 7). that was killed by a shotgun because he claimed, to teenage members of another gang. That he was part of a Puerto Rican gang in that neighborhood.

He was just a kid, in reality was not involved with any gang, in any sense.

All of you have a goodnight



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by Advantage
The majority of psychotics never commit a violent crime.. so advocating for extermination of the innocent on what they MIGHT do even when statistically proven the opposite...wow. I dont think there is any rational or informed argument to be had here.

A quick google will clue you into the transparency of the whole eugenics argument to prevent violence.


Animals do not protect there parent when they grow old. An example being a Tiger running into its Mother once it is grown. If the mother is healthy she is capable if killing the child if it get to close. The problem being that at some time in ancient human history mankind realized this was a problem and allowed human to be born that behaved violently.

That could actually change with time as we develop the means to identify.

So the schizophrenic mother and the bipolar father has thee kids, one of them went to Harvard and the two other ended up in San Quentin on rape and murder.That would make them part of the 30% of the 3% potentially, of the population.

What then?
edit on 29-1-2013 by Kashai because: added and modifed content


What then? Who knows... Your reply has NOTHING remotely to do with my post.

Plus, Im Blackfeet.. as in a CDIB card carrying, parents born on rez, Siksika/Blackfeet.. doesnt really give me some all knowing last word of infinite knowledge on anything just because of my parents culture or my heritage or my race... and I was raised by them and with them for almost 50 yrs now. Stop pretending it has ANYTHING to do with lending you any credibility. When I hear this offensive crap on here it absolutely makes me want to puke.
Since you just had to go there.. I read up on the Taino.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.smithsonianmag.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mountainmeg
"what to do if you find a gun" - don't touch, leave the room, get an adult.


And this is expert knowledge? LMAO



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


All I can say to that is whatever scenario happens won't be imagined..And the 911 no. won't help at that point either.
edit on 30-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I started shooting even before boy scouts. My dad and my uncles taught me, my brothers and all of my male cousins how to shoot. Now, aside from active military duty, care to guess how many people I have killed? Get it through your head. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


So why not do BACKGROUND CHECKS on "the people" before you hand them a gun?
That's all anybody wants. And people with automatic weapons kill lots of innocent people before they can be stopped even if by another gun - so lets reinstate the assault weapons ban. Especially since mass shootings have doubled since it was lifted. Clearly that was a bad idea.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by Mountainmeg
"what to do if you find a gun" - don't touch, leave the room, get an adult.


And this is expert knowledge? LMAO




I LMAO at you!

You don't know that advice for kids is straight from the NRA....?
You don't call them experts?

Me neither.
I call them gun salesmen.





edit on 30-1-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
After I read this from the link in the OP...


Wow. A semiautomatic, not any different from a baseball bat? Mister Fink, a semiautomatic gun is to a baseball bat what a tank is to a basket of feathers. How the hell do people get so twisted up into their agendas? Or am I all twisted up in my agenda here? And speaking of agendas, can you believe Wal-mart is still selling the AR-15?


...My solid opinion about this article is that it was written by nothing short of an uneducated fear mongering individual trying to side with an agenda he has no true knowledge of.

Blunt objects accounted for over 100 more deaths than ALL types of rifles which include bolt-action, lever-action, semi-automatic, and automatic.

Here: FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


Homicide by blunt objects: 496. Homicide by rifles: 323


So using more accurate logic than what was used in the article provided in the OP, a semi-automatic rifle is to a baseball bat as a baseball bat is to a semi-automatic rifle.

When that author says

Or am I all twisted up in my own agenda here?
I just want to say... "Yep".
edit on 1/30/13 by SmoothRhythm because: Punctuation






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join