Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[Michchamp]

it's amusing that the real gun/wingnuts out there are big on the "law of the jungle" right now.

don't bother them with "laws" and "rules" and "talking" and that sort of thing... those are just some "pieces of paper" that don't mean nothin'

the only thing that gets the job done is brute force and violence. How it always was and how it should be, right?

 

[redandguilty]

depends on if they are able to recognize the changeover and apply their resources quickly enough. some might go the way of the dinosaurs, some might prefer using fear tactics (Big Brother Boogeyman). others might invest early and others may just buy up the tech companies creating the chips or nanobots.

still, i'd rather have a microchip and nanobots than popping who knows how many pills, especially since the nanobots will not have a domino effect of problems that lead to more and more pills. then there is the question of how effective the pills are in reality. i'm betting the nanobots will have a far greater chance of success, especially with cancers and blood clots.

You can't program a nanobot to fix a problem you don't understand. You can't program a microchip to regulate brainwaves you don't understand. Figuring this stuff out is no trivial thing. Knowing what we'd want these devices to do is more than a ten year project even if we could build them that quickly.

 

[redandguilty]

it's amusing that the real gun/wingnuts out there are big on the "law of the jungle" right now.

don't bother them with "laws" and "rules" and "talking" and that sort of thing... those are just some "pieces of paper" that don't mean nothin'

the only thing that gets the job done is brute force and violence. How it always was and how it should be, right?

I don't think it's that or the 2nd amendment or any other specific argument. We have a gun culture. People like to keep their culture.

 

[zyxt9]

Or Big Brother.

big brother is already watching everything, the chips won't have any different outcome than we already find in our lives provided we stop the likes of Bloomberg implementing laws like sugar and sodium reductions for everyone, regardless if necessary or not for the individual. in that sense the chips would actually be less Big Brother and more pro-individual nutrition based on a given person's needs at a given moment. sometimes people need to drink sugared drinks or eat salt to return to a healthier balance. having access to info regarding what one's body is needing would likely lead to healthier eating in its own right, not to mention helping to monitor mental abnormalities such as depression that lead to overeating.

the incredible benefits across a myriad of potentialities far outweigh all the fears about big brother. admittedly people will be hesitant about using them, especially older people. nonetheless, those who embrace the technology will advance while those who don't get left behind.

 

[Michchamp]

Now, I consider myself a pretty bright guy, but I have a hard time understanding how a law prohibiting you from doing "X" under penalty of criminal law is somehow more intrusive on your personal freedoms than a microchip implanted in your brain that dictates how and when you can act.

you're kidding us, right?

 

[zyxt9]

You can't program a nanobot to fix a problem you don't understand. You can't program a microchip to regulate brainwaves you don't understand. Figuring this stuff out is no trivial thing. Knowing what we'd want these devices to do is more than a ten year project even if we could build them that quickly.

Closer than you think. The following was from 2009...

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ee-particles-venom-target-diseased-cells.html

It's a terrifying prospect - a swarm of bees engulfing a victim to inflict hundreds of potentially lethal stings. Scientists, however, have taken the idea and used it to inspire a treatment to take on cancer tumours.

They have developed microscopic 'bees' armed with the poison that causes the pain of stings to target cancer cells while leaving healthy tissue unharmed. The 'nanobees' - thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair - rapidly shrank breast and skin tumours in tests.

They home in on the diseased cells before pumping out the melittin venom, delivering a deadly 'sting'. At their core are beads made from perfluorocarbon, an inert material used in artificial blood. The nanobees are tiny enough to pass easily through blood and attach to cells but big enough to ferry drugs into the body.

Researcher Professor Samuel Wickline said: 'They fly in, land on the surface of cells and deposit their cargo of melittin, which rapidly merges with the target. 'We've shown the bee toxin gets taken into the cells where it pokes holes in their internal structures.'

The nanoparticle packaging stops the melittin doing any damage as it travels to the tumour as well as protecting it from being broken down by the body. Other compounds are added to the package to guide it to exactly where it is needed.

When mice with cancer were given injections, the particles zeroed in on the tumours. Growth of breast tumours slowed by almost a quarter and skin cancer tumours shrank by 75 per cent, the Journal of Clinical Investigation reports.

The two forms of the disease affect more than 55,000 Britons a year and kill 14,000. Many other cancers, including prostate and bowel, may also be cowed by the 'sting'.

Importantly, the drug did not appear to cause side-effects, cutting the risk of symptoms such as hair loss and nausea. Dr Paul Schlesinger, another researcher at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, said melittin was proving to be a formidable weapon. 'It has been of interest to researchers because, in high enough concentration, it can destroy any cell it comes into contact with. 'Cancer cells can develop resistance to many agents that alter gene function or target a cell's DNA. 'But it's hard for cells to find a way around the mechanism that melittin uses to kill. 'Nanobees are an effective way to package the useful, but potentially deadly, melittin so that it neither harms normal cells nor gets degraded before it reaches its target.'

The scientists said melittin was 'easily and cheaply produced'. They also believe that nanobees could stop the spread of damaged cells which have the potential to become cancerous. Further tests on animals are needed before the nanobees can be given to people and the technology is still several years away from being marketed.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think it's that or the 2nd amendment or any other specific argument. We have a gun culture. People like to keep their culture.

not to "blame Bush" but wasn't he the one who famously (or perhaps apocryphally) said the Constitution was just a piece of paper?

We've had laws now for 1,000s of years... but it seems like some people need a refresher course on why.

 

[zyxt9]

Pretty sure the deaths from cancer far exceed those of killers using assault weapons, and usually it is a much longer and painful death. Not that any death is pleasant, I've lost relatives who preferred stopping their meds and ending the suffering as opposed to continuing treatments that were proving ineffective and causing other problems on top of the cancer. Most of us don't make our pets suffer to the extent I've seen cancer patients suffer, deeming the suffering of the pets to be inhumane.

 

[Thumb]

What's interesting to me is how zxyt9 keeps insisting I think ANYTHING will stop crime. No legislation or constitutional amendments will ever stop gun violence, but that does not mean we should not try to reduce the number.

I don't. I also am not a gun hater, as I have posted before, I'd be willing to wager I have more guns than anyone who posts or reads here. The difference is, I don't think this is the old west and every rootin' tootin' hombre should go around flashing iron, or needs to play John Rambo with his assault rifle and 30 round clip of AP rounds.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, I believe in hunting, and even sport shooting, by responsible people, but I don't believe every Tom, dick, Harry and Jane out there needs to carry a gun in public, responsible gun owners don't go around begging for more ammo capacity, more concealment, or more overall firepower, that's what irresponsible gun owners do. We would have far less crime (but not 100% less) if only Law enforcement and security personnel were allowed to physically carry a firearm.

The problem with the idea that people should carry guns to "defend themselves" is it contributes to the issue of gun violence, and does nothing to help it. Ask George Zimmerman how well it worked out for him. And you guys can keep spouting your bullshit about how if the guy with the shotgun had tried to carjack you while you pumped gas, it would have ended differently. No, it would have taken two ambulances, one for each half of you. Pistol vs. Shotgun, you lose 99.9% of the time.

And finally, this nanobot idea if just plain stupid. Assuming the technology could even be perfected, you still will have to burn the constitution in order to make use of them, and that seemingly runs contrary to your views.

 

[zyxt9]

not to "blame Bush" but wasn't he the one who famously (or perhaps apocryphally) said the Constitution was just a piece of paper?

We've had laws now for 1,000s of years... but it seems like some people need a refresher course on why.

Seems a good time to quote Pirates of the Caribbean...

"They're more like Guidelines."

Always have been, which is why more and more laws get created in the attempt to clarify the boundaries of those Guidelines. A true law would not require follow up clarification. Alas, it is human nature to look for ways to bend the rules, find loopholes, or some other miscreant method of not following the law, especially in our youth when we are most rebellious by nature. Even in science, the Laws only work in most situations. Examine the incredibly small or incredibly large and the Laws break down, hence the need for additional theories like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

The Universe seems to not like being restrained by Laws, but that will never stop the attempts to refine the definitions nor intent.

 

[zyxt9]

And for the record, I've given the impression that the ban on assault weapons should not be made into law. This is an inaccuracy I wish to clear up.

Go ahead and create the law, I have zero issue with it in actuality. Where I find issue is the perception that it will solve the problems that are being used as validation to have the law created. After it is created and the problems persist, what then? That is the reason I'm pushing you guys so hard to think beyond a mere law and search for a more concrete resolution. Are microchips THE solution? Maybe, maybe not. But it sure seems like the root cause is more about the mental state of the individuals performing these acts than what a law will be able to fix, so we need to work at how to fix the underlying problem.

 

[redandguilty]

Now, I consider myself a pretty bright guy, but I have a hard time understanding how a law prohibiting you from doing "X" under penalty of criminal law is somehow more intrusive on your personal freedoms than a microchip implanted in your brain that dictates how and when you can act.

you're kidding us, right?

It's the Unabomber argument, if the Unibomber, in reaction to his vision of the future, was happy instead of enraged to the point of murder.

 

[zyxt9]

And finally, this nanobot idea if just plain stupid. Assuming the technology could even be perfected, you still will have to burn the constitution in order to make use of them, and that seemingly runs contrary to your views.

The Constitution will survive the same as it has through the centuries before despite Big Brother's surveillance. There wouldn't need to be a law forcing the implementation of micro-chips for starters, unless someone without one commits a felony then maybe there would be the requirement to have the chip implanted as opposed to perpetuating the overcrowding of jails, which would actually reduce the size of law enforcement while putting more people in the workforce. This reduces government expenses and lowers taxes as well, helping to balance the budgets, perhaps even reducing the national debt. Naturally politicians will do everything possible to spend that money elsewhere and even raise taxes for other things, so there is that side of the coin to recognize, but if 90+% of inmates were instead part of the workforce, each contributing to the government budgets instead of those budgets being used to house, feed, and protections for themselves and society, then each person would in theory be forced to contribute less in taxes.

 

[Thumb]

The Constitution will survive the same as it has through the centuries before despite Big Brother's surveillance. There wouldn't need to be a law forcing the implementation of micro-chips for starters, unless someone without one commits a felony then maybe there would be the requirement to have the chip implanted as opposed to perpetuating the overcrowding of jails, which would actually reduce the size of law enforcement while putting more people in the workforce. This reduces government expenses and lowers taxes as well, helping to balance the budgets, perhaps even reducing the national debt. Naturally politicians will do everything possible to spend that money elsewhere and even raise taxes for other things, so there is that side of the coin to recognize, but if 90+% of inmates were instead part of the workforce, each contributing to the government budgets instead of those budgets being used to house, feed, and protections for themselves and society, then each person would in theory be forced to contribute less in taxes.

You're still talking about forced modification of a human body. I mean hey, Hitler only wanted to give out a few million tattoos....

Seriously, you must smoke some awesome dope.

 

[redandguilty]

Closer than you think. The following was from 2009...

Man it's not often someone accuses me of not being optimistic enough about the pace of technology.

But I'm fairly aware of this stuff. I've been exposed to some of this 1st hand. The man-made portion of these "nanobots" are very simple. Microscopic spheres is generally all they are. The ones I saw were hollow. Making a sphere hollow or coating each side of it with a different material or having better control over particle size distribution is the state of the art mechanically.

All the biological work comes from the drugs you attach to the sphere. You find one molecule that kills cancer and one molecule that selectively binds to cancer more often than healthy cells, figure out how to attach both molecules to the same nanoparticle...boom...call it a "nanobot". If you describe what those drug/biological molecules are doing mechanically, it makes for a good nanobot writeup, but you could describe past drugs the same way. There's no obvious path from this to a general purpose nanoscale device that diagnoses and cures more than a handful of things. Don't get me wrong, it's a powerful and exciting technology, but it's no K. Eric Drexler nanobot.

 

[redandguilty]

not to "blame Bush" but wasn't he the one who famously (or perhaps apocryphally) said the Constitution was just a piece of paper?

We've had laws now for 1,000s of years... but it seems like some people need a refresher course on why.

Sure, but without that refresher course, people are going to support whatever argument maintains whatever they're comfortable with. Weren't we both recently trying to argue that fair trials are important before the government kills people?

 

[Michchamp]

What's interesting to me is how zxyt9 keeps insisting I think ANYTHING will stop crime. No legislation or constitutional amendments will ever stop gun violence, but that does not mean we should not try to reduce the number.

I don't. I also am not a gun hater, as I have posted before, I'd be willing to wager I have more guns than anyone who posts or reads here. The difference is, I don't think this is the old west and every rootin' tootin' hombre should go around flashing iron, or needs to play John Rambo with his assault rifle and 30 round clip of AP rounds.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, I believe in hunting, and even sport shooting, by responsible people, but I don't believe every Tom, dick, Harry and Jane out there needs to carry a gun in public, responsible gun owners don't go around begging for more ammo capacity, more concealment, or more overall firepower, that's what irresponsible gun owners do. We would have far less crime (but not 100% less) if only Law enforcement and security personnel were allowed to physically carry a firearm.

...

My name is zyxt.

I read this and I come to these conclusions:

- you think some measly pieces of paper (laws) are going to stop gun violence, violence in general, and even crime in general. I don't need to say it, but this shows how irrational you are and means no one should listen to you.

- you hate guns. I cannot say this enough times. You. just. hate. guns.

- any restrictions of gun ownership is a slippery slope toward total prohibition and an outright (and unconstitutional) seizure of our private property... i.e. our guns. This is not an unreasonable argument, despite the fact that it is completely unprecedented, would require a massive undertaking by law enforcement personnel. Even though the current numbers of law enforcement officers/ATF agents are far from adequate to the task, plenty will come from abroad, possibly through the UN... because, well... why not?

- you are saying that it is possible to eliminate 100% of gun violence. Again, that is just silly. No one should listen to you. Na na na. I am not listening, the brain waves in the nanochip in my head are playing smooth jazz right now.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I read this and I come to these conclusions:

Originally Posted by Thumb
"No legislation or constitutional amendments will ever stop gun violence"

- you think some measly pieces of paper (laws) are going to stop gun violence...but this shows how irrational you are and means no one should listen to you.

"I also am not a gun hater, as I have posted before, I'd be willing to wager I have more guns than anyone who posts or reads here. ."

- you hate guns. I cannot say this enough times. You. just. hate. guns.

"I believe in the 2nd Amendment, I believe in hunting, and even sport shooting, by responsible people"

- any restrictions of gun ownership is a slippery slope toward total prohibition and an outright (and unconstitutional) seizure...Even though the current numbers of law enforcement officers/ATF agents are far from adequate to the task, plenty will come from abroad, possibly through the UN... because, well... why not?

"We would have far less crime (but not 100% less)"

- you are saying that it is possible to eliminate 100% of gun violence.

God, this is hysterical. You couldn't hear stupidier, crazier shit than this from the homeless sitting outside the subway in the Bowery.

 

[Thumb]

I am not listening, the brain waves in the nanochip in my head are playing smooth jazz right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy6KWBEoDRU

 

[Michchamp]

sorry zyxt. sometimes I get an inspiration to pose as someone else. whether its funny or adds anything to the conversation,, I dunno. guessing u.and kawdup would say no.