Look At Sick People To Give Your Immune System a Boost

Scientists at the University of British Columbia have found that looking at someone who appears sick boosts your immune system. Subjects had blood taken before and after watching a 10-minute slide show that contained disturbing images including people who appeared sick. Results of the blood tests showed people who had seen the sick people had a stronger immune system. From the article: "In the study, young adults were asked to watch a 10-minute slide show containing a series of unpleasant photographs. Some pictures included people who looked obviously ill in some way. The subjects' blood samples were then tested for levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a substance produced by the immune system that indicates your immune system is ramping up to more aggressively fight infection. As a control, pictures of people brandishing guns were also used on some participants—and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production, signifying that IL-6 production is not simply a reaction to stress."

Comments

Alternate interpretation

[Minwee]

As a control, pictures of people brandishing guns were also used on some participants--and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production, signifying that IL-6 production is not simply a reaction to stress.

You could look at it that way. Or you could see that the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Thanshin]

Or you could see that the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets.

That's not completely true. The problem is with the visibility of the bullets. At the subjects weren't able to see the bullets in movement, their bullet resistance didn't raise.

To prove that theory we shot them with visible bullets and, as postulated, they were indeed immune.

You can check the results in our full analysis: [i]"Bullet resistance to bullets slowed down to improve their visibility"[/i].

Re:Alternate interpretation

[eclectro]

Or perhaps the subjects have seen so much gun-play on TV that seeing guns in pictures no longer evokes a stressful response.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[clone53421]

the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets

Yes, and also that their immune systems were programmed to already know this...

Re:Alternate interpretation

[plague3106]

Right, because we almost never see sick people on TV, or anywhere else for that matter.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[religious freak]

and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production

I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....

Re:Alternate interpretation

[blair1q]

Security through obscurity. A bullet has to hit certain critical points in order to be fatal. Most of the body is a decoy. And it's covered by an opaque curtain. You have to have specific, inside information about anatomy, or have been clued by experienced hackers, to know where to aim your bullets. But, like all matters of security through obscurity, once the truth is out there it's like no security at all. Even swapping your heart for your brain won't make you more secure.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[KingOfTheMoon]

From TFA: "Our participants rated those guns pictures as more distressing than the disease-y pictures."

Re:Alternate interpretation

[hitnrunrambler]

I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....

Not a biologist.....
but, If an immune response to other stimuli causes a increase somewhere between X and Z then a "significant increase" is one that either falls within that range or at least approaches it.

So if the increase reaches X.01 it has matched the "significant" criteria, but just barely.

like I said, not a biologist, but semantically speaking that's what the statement means.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[X0563511]

Erm... there's a significant increase. Only barely, but still significant.

Was that so hard? You read the words, and you understand what they mean.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistical significance does not imply practical significance.

Car analogy: You study a large number each of the same model car from two different factories. You then find with high probability that one of them produces at least 0.1 horsepower more on average. For most purposes, this information is completely worthless.

The devil is in the details.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[somersault]

I dunno.. the video of the actual experiment seems to indicate otherwise.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Angst Badger]

My first thought was that pictures of people brandishing guns are so ubiquitous -- a large portion of the entertainment industry is devoted to exactly that -- that they're not necessarily a source of actual stress in most people. The researchers would have been better off using a loud, unexpected noise (dropping a heavy book on the floor behind the subject has been used in some experiments) or requiring the subjects to complete some arbitrary puzzle with a time limit if they wanted to generate stress in their subjects.

Personally, I'd have used a photo of a client demanding IE6 compatibility for their new web app.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanshin, you are a motherf*cking nerd.

I'd shoot you with a real sawed-off if I could.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullets aren't bad if you mix then with yogurt. As long as you don't bite down on the primer. of course.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[dugeen]

Participants who are also gun enthusiasts might not have been sufficiently stressed by these photos. Just aroused.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[jonadab]

> The researchers would have been better off using a loud, unexpected
> noise (dropping a heavy book on the floor behind the subject

You can do much better than that.

If you want to use sound to introduce stress into a person's life, you *start* by introducing a crying infant that cannot be comforted (e.g., because it's undergoing severe nicotine withdrawal after being borne by a chain-smoker mom) into the situation. Most people are unable to completely tune out the sound of a crying infant, even when there's absolutely nothing they can do about it, so it creates more stress the longer it goes on. Bring them into a room decorated like a nursery, with a baby bed and everything; give them the kid and a diaper bag (containing a bottle and a rattle as well as diapers and wipes and stuff), indicate that you're coming "right back", and leave them for about four hours. (Position yourself behind locked doors and vacate the accessible areas of the building, so they can't find anyone else to hand off the baby to.) Stress is guaranteed. (Just be sure you monitor the situation so you can intervene if the stress becomes an all-out rage. You don't want them to *kill* the kid.)

If the subject is a computer geek, the warning signs of failing computer components can also induce stress. The sound of a floppy drive trying over and over again to read a bad sector, the intermittent rattling grind of a dying CPU fan, the clicking sounds a dying hard drive makes, images of small children inserting foreign objects into slot-load CD drives, the smell of magic smoke, the unmistakable sound of a CRT going out for the last time, a video clip of a clueless user fumbling around and spilling his beverage into the case of a running computer, ...

I'm told the sound of someone hyperventilating through a harmonica also works.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[AgentSmith]

Personally, I'd have used a photo of a client demanding IE6 compatibility for their new web app.

AUUUUUGGHGHGHGH!! AUUUUUGGGHHH!! AAAAAAAAAHHHH!!

[Goes running down the hall. Jumps out of a window.]

Later autopsy concludes the decedent had an increased immune response.
Congratulations gentlemen! We've found the ultimate control stressor!

Woo!

Re:Alternate interpretation

[ukyoCE]

Do you have clients who don't demand IE6 compatibility??!! :(

Where can I submit my resume!

Re:Frist Prost

[Lunix Nutcase]

I'm sorry, but the answer was Naggers.

Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[EmagGeek]

I don't get it. When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the internet to get the specs to see if it's something I'd want to buy.

The fact that the majority of the world has denied the human right of self defense to its citizens is the only thing I can think of that would be a cause of stress with respect to guns.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does looking at penises make heterosexuals stressed? because they are closet homos.

So by analogy the people who get stressed when look at guns recognize internally that they are living a lie and their current position is untenable.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really funny to me that you don't realize that the idea of having defend yourself (ostensibly from death or some other dangerous contingency) with lethal force is very stressful.

Or maybe you're just a little kid that likes the idea of guns. And doesn't realize that the purpose of a gun is to kill.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

oops that was supposed to be +1 insightful :p

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that fear of guns is learned? At least that part of your governments propaganda didn't win you over. Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people. A car is just as much a weapon as a gun (hell, it's 1 ton of metal flying at 70mph).

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything besides suckling is learned.

Guns are used to kill people like trains are used transport people. If you cannot at least acknowledge the purpose of the tool you are not qualified to own one. Grow up and respect your weapon. Don't jump around like a giddy child giggling about a toy.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Lunix Nutcase]

I would question the mental state of someone who doesn't think having a gun brandished at you with the intent of doing you harm isn't considered a stressful situation.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The guns I've been around have never be shot at or near someone, only used for food that night. (Sorry you never ate fresh game as it's delicious.)
2. I've almost been killed by a car twice in my life from being hit by it as a pedestrian.
3.The immune system response they speak about is NOT LEARNED, but innate. That's the point of the article. Dumbass.
4.Which one do you think I fear? The gun that put food on my table or the car that almost killed me?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Really? because I have been a gun owner for about 15+ years and my guns have never maimed or killed anyone. Maybe I should return them for a refund??

I enjoy target shooting. I don't even hunt, and have never shot at a live animal or human being before. I bought MY guns for the sole purpose of shooting at cardboard targets. So to be honest, it is YOUR opinion that is twisted - if you think the only purpose for guns is killing or harming other human beings, that says a lot more about your psychological profile than anything. And if you can point to any case where a gun killed somebody by itself, with no additional human interaction, I will eat all of my guns. You see, people kill people. There was murder and violence (and a lot more of it) before there were guns. Given the choice, would you rather be run through by a sword and die slowly, or be shot by a gun and die quickly??

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Not really

A gun is just a tool. The purpose relates to the intent of the person with the gun.

My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals. If you have to go to south Phoenix with a lot of cash, or happen to be walking your dog and happen upon a herd of Javilina in the spring, you'll see what I mean.

My intent with my rifle, and therefore the purpose is recreation. It's fun and challenging to shoot targets 100s of yards away with iron sights.

My father's intent with his rifle is to shoot, and subsequently eat a deer, therefore the purpose is hunting.

A criminal's intent bay be to kill a competitor or rob a store, therefore the purpose is to kill or at least threaten people.

Tools do not have intent; they are inert. It takes a person to bring intent and purpose to the tool.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Lunix Nutcase]

Really?

Are you really asking this? Yes, guns are for maiming and killing people. This is the whole point of how they are a deterrent to people who would want to harm you. If they weren't for such a purpose exactly what is the point of carrying one around?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Lunix Nutcase]

My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals.

And how is it going to provide self-defense if not for the threat of maiming or killing the person who would be attacking you?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK! So you would rather people use swords as self defence again? Let's compare the two: possible instant death to bleeding and in pain for an hour while you bleed out. You pick which is more "humane" for self defence.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you are deliberately ignoring the point that the weapon's purpose is to kill and should therefore be respected terrifies me. Maybe this is why people cannot NRA types like you. Not once did I ever suggest that guns be restricted: just respected.

The point of the article is that signs of illness (but not stress) cause the reaction. There is no mention as to whether the response is innate or learned. They didn't test it on infants, so there is no way to know if it is innate or learned. Maybe you should rethink your insult?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Can you even read? If so, go back and read my entire post. I believe your question is answered. My guns are not a deterrent to anyone but cardboard targets. I did not buy my guns for defense, or for offense to or against any living person or creatures. I bought them to shoot at targets, which is what I do with them. It is a hobby, or even a sport to me. So take your self-righteous attitude that anyone who buys a gun wants to kill someone, and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. You are not going to convince me. I know exactly why i bought my guns and what I use them for. For you to tell me otherwise is arrogant, self-serving, and ridiculous on your part.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Lunix Nutcase]

No, I'm not against people having or carrying guns. I object to people who attempt to try to claim that guns aren't made for the specific purpose of maiming or killing things.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

He won't answer. I asked the exact same question earlier. He will only repeat his talking points, and not address any actual logic. Forget it.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[clone53421]

You said its sole purpose is “to maim and or kill people”. This is incorrect.

A weapon worn for self-defense has two purposes.

Its primary purpose is to show the threat of maiming or killing the would-be assailant. Its secondary purpose is to maim and/or kill an attacker who was not deterred by its primary purpose.

However, the “sole” purpose (nor the primary purpose even) is NOT to maim and/or kill.

Besides all of which, you say “maim and or kill” as if maiming and/or killing an attacker in self-defense is wrong.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[PopeRatzo]

When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the bathroom to jack off to pictures of burly men in paramilitary clothing

FTFY

If you own a gun, you are much more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one accidentally than you are to ever find yourself in a situation where the gun will provide you with any self-defense. I wish people who call themselves "2nd Amendment Advocates" would just admit that the reason they want guns is because it makes them feel less insignificant and powerless over their miserable lives. The notion that guns are bought for "self-defense" is just not holding up. And the assertion that by buying a handgun they are making sure the government doesn't become a tyranny is too ridiculous to comment on. If you don't believe that most gun ownership is driven by feelings of sexual inadequacy, just watch how differently a gun owner moves and walks before and after he puts on his holster.

If you really want to see a gun nut flinch, just tell them you want to start an organization that advocates for gun ownership for poor minorities, and will train minorities in the safe and effective use of guns and marksmanship. Ask them if they'd be interested in donating.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Drethon]

No, the purpose of a gun is to propel a lead slug at around super sonic velocities in the direction the gun is pointed. Much like a nail gun is used to propel a nail.

An arrow can be used to kill a person or used to hunt or these days more for target practice, much like laser tag. I don't usually get stressed looking at a laser tag gun or any other kind of gun because their common use of that tool in my world, much like British Columbia, is non-lethal.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Thud457]

Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.

sometimes, dogs shoot their owners.
just sayin...

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[clone53421]

Perhaps you should reconsider. Do you understand the difference between:

a gun brandished at you with the intent of doing you harm

and

photos of people who were brandishing guns (most of which were pointed right at the camera, which means they were aimed right at participants themselves)

?

The gun can harm you. The photograph cannot, regardless of which direction the gun in the photograph was pointed.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[PopeRatzo]

It takes a person to bring intent and purpose to the tool.

And if the "tool" happens to be designed to be lethal, do you have any problem with the ownership of that "tool" being carefully regulated by civil authorities, including licensing?

This is the question that separates the responsible gun owners from gun jackoffs.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[aristotle-dude]

Why does looking at penises make heterosexuals stressed? because they are closet homos.

So you are saying that everyone is a homo? A more likely explanation is that it is an instinctual reaction to a perceived rival for potential female mates.

If you enjoy looking at penises, then you are probably a homo.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

"I said that the point of a gun is to kill or maim someone."

That is inferring that the only reason to buy a gun is to kill or maim someone. So yes, technically you didn't say those exact words, but you sure meant them. I use my gun expressly for the purpose that I bought it for - target shooting.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are much more likely to hurt yourself

Playing the ambiguous "more likely" card?

A gun owner is SO much more likely to be injured in a car accident than from his/her gun that any comparison is silly. Incidentally, non-gun-owners are equally likely to be injured in a car accident. If you are so concerned about personal saftey, why aren't you using public transportation exclusively, and advocating that everyone get rid of their cars?

The notion that guns are bought for "self-defense" is just not holding up.

Well your "more likely" argument doesn't really make any sense. Besides that, the risks associated with owning a gun don't change the intentions of people who buy guns. You see, they aren't afraid of guns. They are afraid of criminals. So they feel like they can mitigate the risks of owning a gun (by being responsible) and gain a means of protecting themselves from criminals. Whether or not YOU think it works that way doesn't change the way gun owners think it works, nor the intentions that gun owners have.

So when a gun owner says (s)he owns a gun for self-defense, (s)he means it. You have no business putting false words in his or her mouth.

If you really want to see a gun nut flinch, just tell them you want to start an organization that advocates for gun ownership for poor minorities

Now you are playing a racism card...and a bogus one at that. You are putting words into the mouths of faceless, unidentified people who have only gun ownership in common. What a crock.

I am a gun owner. And I am white. And I will happily donate to your gun-training program for poor citizens, in areas dominated by racial minorities, so long as white people are allowed in too. If it is built on racist policies by excluding poor white people then I want nothing to do with it.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[rcuhljr]

I'll take ignorant rants for 500$ Alex? Should I congratulate you on hitting every incorrect stereotype and unsupported argument in one single post, this has to be a record. I'm almost impressed at the amount of fail you've managed to concoct, just well done sir. Let me know if you get your organization going, I'd gladly donate.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow clever. You'd think that hollow point bullets aren't intended to inflict maximum damage to their target too? Just, you know, impact in the way that they do? How about you REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE USING and RESPECT IT FOR ITS LETHAL PURPOSE?

I never suggested banning guns. Just respecting them. GROW UP AND ACCEPT THE REALITY OF YOUR WEAPON.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BobMcD]

Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.

Which is nothing more than a cute attempt at trying to deflect the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.

This doesn't seem to be true on its face. You could modify the tail of the statement to include animals and you'd be okay, but you're specifically omitting this.

To make your statement true, you'd need to assume that guns were created to serve the needs of modern society. They weren't. The first projectile weapons were designed for harvesting animals from the wild. Animals, being faster and more wary than humans, needed to be killed at range. Humans, not so much. However, even in the traditional human-only weapons you'll find examples of converted tools. Swords are really just big knives, axes were used to work wood initially, etc. Now it is true that the first guns were probably cannons used on things like castles and the like, but the concept of propelling a solid object to collide with something and harm it had been long established beforehand. A world that would invent this concept only for killing humans is one where you can buy your food at a grocery store. This isn't where the gun comes from, historically speaking.

A gun is a tool just like any other. Using your line of assessment, one could look at online pornography and conclude that the computer was invented solely for this purpose. You could do that, but only by ignoring history.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.

Which is nothing more than a cute attempt at trying to deflect the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.

Which is a cute attempt to ignore the fact that a gun by itself is nothing more than a paper weight. But when you add human to mix...

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BobMcD]

The gun can harm you. The photograph cannot, regardless of which direction the gun in the photograph was pointed.

While your line of reasoning works, you took it a step too far. Or, better put:

Can photos of illness make you sick, then?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck if I care? The moment someone tries to "attack" me (maiming or killing? should use those now too!!) they are fair game.

Didn't know sheeps could use a PC.
Btw, this comes from a Brazillian, so no bashing "crazy gun-loving rednecks"

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BobMcD]

When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the bathroom to jack off to pictures of burly men in paramilitary clothing

FTFY

The problem with your position is that your passion has caused you to break the threshold of belief.

You've opened your argument with the inference that 'gun-nuts' are closet homosexuals. If you had evidence to support it, you should have presented such, but as it stands the casual reader will simply dismiss your entire comment as being both sensational and ignorant.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[X0563511]

So, the point of these are to maim and/or kill people?

No.

A guns entire purpose is to accelerate a projectile. What the purpose of this acceleration is rests entirely upon the user.

Jeez. You don't think the same way about knives do you? Sharp objects? How about rockets? Those do a lot more than make things explode.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nutcase (how apt), bear in mind that people leave pythons in stores overnight to guard the place, and many people have the same reaction to a pet rat on one's shoulder that they have to a gun. Guns are not the only, nor even the major, instrument of fear in the world. Personally I'm more afraid of people like you procreating.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[X0563511]

You, by both your behavior here today, and your account name, is to troll.

Guys, stop feeding the troll.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Drethon]

Hollow point weapons are also ideal for minimizing unintended damage, when they hit their target they tend to expend all their energy right there and not to go much further like solid bullets can. Much better for target practice actually.

There is a difference between fear and respect.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[maxwell demon]

I don't get it. When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the internet to get the specs to see if it's something I'd want to buy.

That's consumer stress. And it's obviously caused by the photo of the gun.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Thiez]

The first time I saw tubgirl I felt like I was going to be sick. Does that count?

Of course these days I can browse 4chan without feeling anything. Oh, to be innocent again... :D

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BobMcD]

I don't think she's at all well, so she'd probably fall under the original set of images, rather than the control.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[clone53421]

No. It can’t make you sick.

A photo of a gun can’t hurt you and a photo of a sick person can’t make you sick. Thus, they are similar in that respect. Both are harmless.

But the subjects reacted differently.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not once did I ever suggest that guns be restricted: just respected.

Yeah, you implied it pretty well. Way to try and strongarm a discussion:

...having defend yourself (ostensibly from death or some other dangerous contingency) with lethal force is very stressful [...] and doesn't realize that the purpose of a gun is to kill.

Saying a gun's ONLY PURPOSE is to KILL PEOPLE is akin to saying they serve no other purposes. In other words, they should be restricted to only killing people uses? See how you barked up the wrong tree? If you don't, then know that your arguments simply contradict themselves.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals.

And how is it going to provide self-defense if not for the threat of maiming or killing the person who would be attacking you?

How is this different than brandishing a hammer for self defense? Does this mean the hammer's only use is as a weapon? What about a steak knife, or a baseball bat, or a length of chain?

I know the gun's use is more limited, in that it's only real use is in putting holes in things at a distance, but that doesn't make it any less of a tool. It's just a more specialized tool, like a post digger.

People holding guns wouldn't be any more stressful than people holding baseball bats. If you react differently to them, then that's because of you.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Twinbee]

Just to play devil's advocate here, in this day and age, isn't it possible to use a harmless weak laser burst instead, and the target can detect the wavelength? It would seem easier to set up, more accurate, and probably a boat load of other advantages. Kinda makes guns seem a bit pointless after all.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Vancorps]

I'm not sure you've ever fired a gun judging from your statements. Just about everyone I know doesn't buy a gun for self-defense. They buy it because taking to the range and shooting it is a lot of fun and as a side benefit they have a level of protection should the shit hit the fan.

Most people I know would support such an advocacy program as states with the best education programs are states with the least amount of gun problems like Vermont for example. We love our guns and as long as we respect the responsibility they require it all works out. We take our guns seriously as they are serious business and we recognize that having that much power in your hands can be fun, like driving large machinery. There's something primal about it but I see a lot of parallels now that I live in Arizona too. If people do go through the trouble of getting a CCW they aren't likely to always be packing, they merely like having options. I see nothing wrong with this provided they get time in at the range to maintain proper skills.

I won't say all gun owners are the same, there are definitely lots of people out there with lots of different reasons but most are much more level-headed than you give them credit for.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[publiclurker]

That's not entirely true. Guns are also used for people who's medical insurance does not cover Viagra, and your basic coward who needs the compensation just to make it in a world where women and children are able to go out every day without cowering in fear.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[purplepolecat]

It's not just a guy with a gun. It's a guy in a stocking mask with an angry expression, pointing a gun directly at the viewer. If you ever find yourself in this situation in real life, the appropriate response is to feel threatened. Just so you know.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're gay if you don't like looking at penises and what are you if you do.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Notquitecajun]

No it doesn't. Just about every gun-owning American is a responsible gun owner WITHOUT the need for careful regulation.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Notquitecajun]

Actually, states with CCW and more free gun laws have less crime.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Eternauta3k]

My guns are not a deterrent to anyone but cardboard targets.

So, because carboard targets are deemed "acceptable targets", you're just gonna shoot them? 200 years ago, we might be having this conversation about black people.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to chime into an Anon argument. But he said the only purpose is to KILL. Not KILL PEOPLE.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Chees0rz]

{citation needed}

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

No. A laser isn't affected by gravity, moves faster than bullets, and the guns do not have any kick to them. I have shot using lasers before and comparing them to real firearms is like comparing apples to oranges. If that is your thing, play laser tag. I like shooting actual guns.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Chees0rz]

Using your line of assessment, one could look at online pornography and conclude that the computer was invented solely for this purpose.

that would make my parents' christmas present from my sister and me very, very awkward.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody finally comments on the flaw in the logic, as well as the flaw in its parent post.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, and 500 years we would have been too busy worrying about falling off the ends of the flat Earth. Good thing it is now, and not 200 or 500 years ago, huh?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Tekfactory]

A lot of people, probably way more than you are aware use guns for target shooting, they shoot at paper targets, metal animal silouettes, and ceramic frisbees flying through the air. Some shoot at balloons in Cowboy Action Shooting quick draw competitions, and compete in Biathalons.

There is a very large contingent of people that use guns to hunt animals, not people.

And then there are folks that carry them around as deterrents, in which case the purpose is to be used as a deterrant, with the secondary effect that should it fail as a deterrant, it could be used to stop whatever crime it was supposed to deter.

Its worth noting that people die more from things they consider safe and in control of like their cars, than things they consider dangerous and out of their control (random gunman).

At a conference I was at recently a speaker talked to us about risk assessments, and how bad people are at judging risk, he said you are way more likely to die at the beach from suffocation, drowning or having a soda machine fall on you, than a shark attack. People however were more afraid of the shark attack, its a powerful image, something they feel powerless to stop.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone able to spell projection? what about ad hominem?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[jimbolauski]

Really?

Are you really asking this? Yes, guns are for maiming and killing people. This is the whole point of how they are a deterrent to people who would want to harm you. If they weren't for such a purpose exactly what is the point of carrying one around?

Here are a few other reasons to carry one around
A) Hunting unless of course you are a peta nut-job who thinks animals and people are the same
B) Target shooting (some of these guns are specifically made for this task)
C) decoration (old firearms many still fire they are more valuable if they do)

More than 99% of all personal guns have never been used to kill or maim, I don't ever recall a gun manufacturer claiming their product was excellent at killing or maiming people. So almost no personal guns are used to kill or maim and gun manufactures don't advertise that their guns kill more people then any other gun, but all guns are specifically made for maiming and killing people. You sir are a dumbass!

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

And I object to you thinking you know every gun owner's intention. You don't.

IF you truly believe the only purpose for guns is maiming and killing people AND you claim you are not against people having or carrying guns, THEN you don't seem to have a problem with people wanting to maim and kill others. Pretty messed up logic there pal. So as long as someone admits they want to kill or maim someone, you have no problem with them owning a gun. Please do us all a favor and have lots of children.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Tekfactory]

Maybe the body knows Interleukin-6 won't stop bullets.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[publiclurker]

Exactly, these failures of manliness are projecting their insecurities for he entire world to see. And I'm afraid that statements of fact are not ad hominem, no matter how small they make you feel.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

I agree that anyone that says the purpose of a firearm is to kill is taking an extremely narrow view. I would suggest anyone who wants to take up that argument should state that "lethal projectiles" are intended to be used to kill. You can target shoot all day with firearms that have little potential to severely damage a living animal.

Personally I think we should have no restrictions on the sale of firearms at all, whether it be fully automatic, high caliber, or what ever. On the other hand, ammunition should be highly regulated. No one needs a .50 Caliber high velocity projectile for target practice, and no one needs hollow point ammunition unless they are intending to kill living animals without the purpose of retaining them for food.

And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen (as I doubt most people have a need to set off avalanches or some other obscure use), other than to harm living animals, then you can start comparing them to knives or other tools that can be used to harm.

And just as a side note, I really have no opinion on the regulation of firearms, it just makes for a good argument.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

I have never personal read any news articles about someone being hurt by a stray sword. Or a child accidentally killing themselves or a friend by playing with a sword. (I imagine there have been some cases of accidental sword injury but I'm pretty confident they are usually less serious and considerably less common than with firearms).

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

You do realize that Troll is not the same as "You don't agree with me"? Personally I think you are all nut jobs, but that, in itself, doesn't make any you Trolls.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Notquitecajun]

Seriously? Common sense doesn't tell you this?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=83&issue=010

"Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually.

Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million; 40-45 million own handguns.

You'd have to go a LONG way toward showing otherwise...

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Twinbee]

I suppose out of those, the recoil is going to be the most difficult to simulate. One would need something heavy inside and at the back of the gun which could move forwards to the front (but not outside) upon firing.

Simulating gravity, sound, and a slower projectile speed (why would that be desirable?) should be fairly trivial though, given advanced enough electronics.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was an incident in the news recently about a dog shooting his owner. Does that count? :)

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

It is desirable becasue that is all part of shooting real bullets out of a gun. If I wanted to shoot lasers, I would. The recoil isn't that hard to simulate - I shot a gun loaded with blanks that had a laser targeting system on it. Probably the closest you can get to simulating the firing of a real bullet. That said it still wasn't even close to the real thing, but closer than some other alternatives.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Twinbee]

I suppose my basic point is that all these things can be (at least eventually) theoretically be simulated, even down to the whiff of smoke if need be. Though by that point, that could make it cost an order of magnitude more than a real gun which, sigh, okay, would defeat the purpose I guess.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Well, in that case the dog had requested real bacon, and got Beggin Strips instead. It was a justified shooting, so no it doesn't count.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[spazdor]

Or even "whose"?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Do not be obtuse.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even a big fan of guns, at least not in the real world. But after playing STALKER for a while, I do now have a habit of trying to identify the type of gun used when I see them in the movies.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

And do you realize that "you don't agree with me" and "I refuse to address any of your points and just keep repeating the same mantra over and over again without ever adding anything new or answering any of the questions you asked me" are not the same?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Ok, so to recap an extremely narrow view on firearms=bad but an extremely narrow view on firearm ammunition=good. How is that any better? What if I want to shoot targets with a .50 caliber (I haven't yet, but would love to try) or with hollow points (which I have shot targets with)? The whole point is you cannot regulate intention with laws.

And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen

Good god is it international illiterate day? Here you go TARGET SHOOTING. I would say that your view is also pretty narrow on what firearms can be used for.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

I think the problem here is that you don't realize that words have multiple meanings and you are refusing to use the context of the word to determine that actual meaning, such as in the word "practical". In the above sentence I was using the meaning "Concerned with the production or operation of something useful". For Example, A Knife can be used to create a meal, or in carving a boat. Shooting a target is not "Concerned with the production or operation of something useful". (You can argue that it is useful in that it perfects someones abilities, but then we are right back to the only practical purpose for those abilities, which is to cause harm)

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[severoon]

The gun can harm you. The photograph cannot, regardless of which direction the gun in the photograph was pointed.

Spoken like a man who's never had a paper cut. Especially by heavy photo paper...I'd wager that's more painful than many bullet wounds. This is why I ~always~ carry a picture of a gun. If I get attacked, I whip it out and my attacker is both terrified of the photograph itself and confused by the fact that there's a gun on it (which is not scary, as previously pointed out, so why that instead of doubling down on something like a fang-laden bunny). The storm of activity in my attacker's brain will undoubtedly cause him to suddenly stab me several times. Wait...where was I going with this...?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Oh, Ok I get it. I didn't realize you were the sole person who decides what is "the production or operation of something useful" or in other words "practical". Now that I understand it in that "context", I understand the actual meaning.

If you don't like something, it isn't "practical".

I am glad I live in a country that guarantees me freedom for the pursuit of happiness, and I don't need a "practical" reason to do things. I like to target shoot. Something that makes you happy doesn't need any other purpose. I care very little if you think it is useful to society or not. I am sure there are things that you do that I don't deem practical, but I know you have the freedom to pursue them if you wish. I wouldn't want to interfere with that.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BikeHelmet]

denied the human right of self defense

It's sad that you feel you need a gun to defend yourself. That is how ingrained it is in your culture.

Tip: When the "majority of the world" does it one way, and it's not your way, maybe you should examine that way objectively to see if it's better?

Where I live (in Canada) nobody has guns. Nobody has knives either. If you piss someone off, they might punch or kick you, but there's no worry that your internal organs are going to be shredded by a weapon. If you do get beat up, you just need a week of rest and you're good as new.

The worst thing you'd have to watch out for is someone trying to run you down with their car - but nobody is going to pull a car out of their pocket and hit you with it before their head cools off a bit.

I think the new danger up here is tasers. Those things can stop your heart - and who knows what kind of long term damage they cause if they don't? Way more than a bar room brawl, I bet! And unfortunately taser testing is pretty poor. "Up to 50,000 volts" is okay if the voltage actually drops to ~1500v by the time it hits your body - but it's not okay if the taser overshoots a bit, perhaps producing 500,000v.

No, I don't like tasers. I don't like other weapons either. I feel quite safe without them - but I might carry one around if I ever visit the USA. :/

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[PopeRatzo]

Playing the ambiguous "more likely" card?

No sir. That was the statistically "more likely" card.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Antony-Kyre]

A gun kills someone all by itself? Hmmm, I guess this doesn't count. I'm reminded of episode "The Cartridge Family" of The Simpsons. Specifically, the point where the guns fire by itself.

Go to: http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/scripts/cartridge-family
Do a find on: Listen, if it'll make you feel any better

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[PopeRatzo]

Actually, states with CCW and more free gun laws have less crime.

That's interesting. If you look at the statistics from the gun lobby, you would think that.

But if you look at the statistics from law enforcement, you wouldn't see the same thing.

Hmmm..

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Achra]

guns DO NOT kill people....

Guns don't kill people... Fast moving projectiles kill people.

or.. (the one I use when my daughter brings home boyfriends to meet dad)

Guns don't kill people... _I_ Kill people.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[lennier]

And as soon as you can give me another practical use of a firearm, for the average citizen (as I doubt most people have a need to set off avalanches or some other obscure use), other than to harm living animals, then you can start comparing them to knives or other tools that can be used to harm.

Sure! You can use them to:

* open grates
* clear jungle weeds
* start fires
* fry eggs
* trim your beard
* light your way in a cave
* make emergency access doors in AT-AT walkers

Wait, sorry, I'm thinking about lightsabers.

Firearms? Not so many alternate uses actually. You *might* be able to use one as a very clumsy and crude hammer, perhaps...

(if you want to play the '101 non-limb-slicing uses for a deadly weapon' game, I highly recommend the Timothy Zahn Star Wars novels. He's very inventive.)

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[lennier]

A guns entire purpose is to accelerate a projectile. What the purpose of this acceleration is rests entirely upon the user.

Well yes.... but exactly how many practical uses are there for a precisely targeted, rapidly moving small-arms caliber projectile are there which don't involve wounding or killing a carbon-based lifeform? Or practicing and training to do such?

I'll wait while you list them all off, shall I?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[John Hasler]

So the anti-gun lobby can produce statistice that contradict those produced by the pro-gun lobby. Amazing.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is nothing more than a cute attempt at trying to deflect the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.

You are a mindless, snotty, closed-minded, self-absorbed, solipsistic, knee-jerk son of a bitch.

I own a gun. I use it for target shooting.

I enjoy the sound it makes, just I enjoy the sound of firecrackers or the sound of a top fuel dragster or the sound of a close-in flyby executed by the Blue Angels.

I derive great pleasure from observing and understanding the engineering that makes them work as precisely as they do.

If I ever had to use them against a person, I would do my best to avoid killing them. If you take the time to learn how to use a gun safely and properly, you can indeed shoot-not-to-kill.

Buy yourself a new mouth -- your current one shows you to be an ignorant fool as soon as you open it.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

A guns entire purpose is to accelerate a projectile.

Actually they now have a secondary purpose -- they can be used to identify pompous, self-styled arbiters of the behavior of others.

Take out a gun and you will instantly flush out all the nearby control freaks who believe themselves to be the measure of all men.

Even if they turn up behind you, they will immediately be recognizable by their mewling cries, of which I here present a few for your edification:

"What need has anyone of a car that can move at seventy-five miles per hour?"

"Why would anyone have to ride in dangerous, open bicycles or motorcycles?"

"Why should society accept the risk of insuring people who speed downhill in very slippery snow with a mere board strapped to their feet?"

"Why would reasonable people be outside after midnight when that's well known as the time when most crimes are committed?"

"Why aren't others as meek and timorous and judgmental as I am?"

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, then. Explain to us why states like Illinois, New York, California and Washington D.C., all of which have strict gun control laws, have higher murder rates than states like Vermont and New Hampshire, which don't?

Yes, you *will* see the same statistics from law enforcement. That's where the gun lobby is getting *their* statistics.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[X0563511]

Oh yes. However, said suspect has done nothing but say "I am right, you are wrong" (ok, so that's a paraphrasing) and the nickname is a "Lunix freak" - unless by some weird chance we are talking about the experimental commodore OS, is a derogatory stab at Linux.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

I don't recall ever saying that you should not be allowed to own firearms. Even if you go back and read I never even said that you should be denied the right to purchase or pursue anything.

On the other hand there are plenty of things that people enjoy that we as a society have deemed it reasonable to infringe upon the freedom to do so. Like some people like to have sex, with unwilling participants, but we have deemed that restricted. Some people like to kill other people, but we have also deemed that restricted (there isn't even a full ban on it). Some people like to live without the fear of firearms, but god forbid we actually try and enforce their freedom to live without the presence of firearms.

I really don't care if people are allowed to own firearms at all, I seriously don't as it has so far in my life had no affect on my life what so ever. But if you are going to make an argument for something you better have a better reason than "because I want to" because no matter what it is, your right to do something is infringing on someone else's right.

And you can think what you want, but firing a gun at a target is not "concerned with the production or operation of something useful", because I hate to tell you this, but a shot up target is not all that useful (with the obvious exception being if your target is part of a Rube Goldberg device)

And it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about, having emptied multiple clips from an AR15, a Mini 30, a number of .22s and multiple 9mm handguns with in the last year alone, just to name a few.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

Lunix is a derogatory stab at Linux?

That is the most amazing Troll I have ever seen. It so obscure that one would actually have to be looking for a Troll to find it. And to hide that obscure assault on a minor subset of the population deep down in an off-topic thread about the Human Immune response. I'll tell you if they really are a troll, then they Deserver the Troll of the year award for that one.

Oh and really some times the only response to someone who keeps trying to divert your eyes from the man behind the curtain, is to just keep pointing at the curtain.

Guns are intended to kill... But some times they are used to defend oneself...by killing... but they are just a tool... for killing.

I'm not even saying if the argument is right or wrong, but until someone actual refutes the claim that firearms are designed to kill, then Lunix Nutcase really has no reason to say anything else, they're just trying to bring the conversation back on topic... well at least the topic of the thread they thought was being discussed.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[bronney]

I agree that anyone that says the purpose of a firearm is to kill is taking an extremely narrow view.

I agree bro! I use it to club people. I never shoot them. ;)

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[bronney]

Exactly! These little nerds piss me off. Man I better make my life more "practical" by constantly reproducing.. hey not a bad thing lol. Let's make a Core2Duo more practical by constantly putting it under 100% load, and make my pet practical by I don't know wtf to do with goldfish lol.

It's pretty impossible to own real guns in Hong Kong but one time I had 14 airsoft guns and enjoyed every bit of target shooting on weekends. It's like golf! How practical is golf?

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[EmagGeek]

Why do you think other humans are the only possible adversaries? Why do you think guns and knives are the only weapons that might be used against you? You ever been hit in the head with a baseball bat? Wait, I think I know the answer to that.

Say you are out hiking and happen across a Grizzly bear shitting in the woods? There are huge expanses of wilderness where you may need to defend yourself from wildlife.

How the hell do you cook in Canada if you don't have knives, anyway?

I know to you leftists that humans are public enemy number 1, but there are an infinite number of situations where a firearm is an appropriate tool for self defense.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[PopeRatzo]

Explain to us why states like Illinois, New York, California and Washington D.C., all of which have strict gun control laws, have higher murder rates than states like Vermont and New Hampshire, which don't?

Are you kidding me? Gun laws or not, cities always have higher murder rates, even in countries with negligible murder rates.

You're comparing Chicago, New York, Los Angeles with New Hampshire?

Fuck off.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[X0563511]

You haven't seen the trolls running around here talking about "lunix" and bashing (and misspelling) Linus Torvalds? They were going crazy for a while.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

I hate to tell you this, but I am not going to lose any sleep over what you think I do is useful or practical or not. Pass judgment all you want, but don't expect me to care. And when you were shooting those guns, were you killing people, or shooting at targets? And if you were shooting at targets, may I ask why? Because firing a gun at a target is not "concerned with the production or operation of something useful", and I would hate to think you were just wasting time by doing something fun.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

I think this is why fanatics are so hard to argue with. They have this habit of reading or hearing things that where never actually said.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone said that you can't do things just for fun. The majority of my time is spent having fun, it's what I live for. The only reason the "practicality" of an item was brought into questions was to show that knives and firearms are not comparable, as one has many practical uses and the other, when using lethal ammunitions (as I will accept that flare guns though potentially lethal I guess, does have a practical uses as do some more obscure use), has exactly one practical use. That is it. This had nothing at all to do with your right to enjoy firing firearms.

All the original poster that started this was saying is that gun owners should accept that the intended purpose and design of their firearms is to maim and kill (obviously not true in the case of a air gun that fires non-lethal ammunitions, but that was not the origin of the topic).

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

Did anyone say that you could not enjoy target shooting? I ask because I have been back through this thread multiple times and so far have not been able to find it. This whole thread has had nothing to do with restricting your abilities to do anything or forcing that all activities be practical. The whole purpose, if I get the original posters comment, was to state that people who own lethal firearms should have the respect for the weapon they are using, by acknowledging that the intended purpose, based on design, of the firearm is to main or kill.

And you are correct that golf is no more practical than target shooting, but then again no one was trying to claim that the intended purpose of a golf club was anything other than hitting golf balls, so I'm not sure how that even applies to the conversation.

But somehow we get off track and people start name calling...

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Sorry, but you are wrong. I shoot regular "lethal" ammunition when I shoot targets. I never have, or intend to shoot at a person to maim or kill. So your statement - "when using lethal ammunition (as I will accept that flare guns though potentially lethal I guess, does have a practical uses as do some more obscure use), has exactly one practical use. That is it." is incorrect. The one practical use I have for my gun is shooting targets. Don't try to tell me the only use my gun has is maiming or killing. That is what I will not accept becasue it is blatantly false. And yes, a gun is a tool just like a knife (or hammer or screwdriver) and comparing the two isn't a huge stretch. Seeing as inanimate objects cannot have intent, if a person picks it up and uses it to kill, it is the person with the intent and not the gun. Just becasue you think a gun only has one practical purpose does not automatically make it true, and every gun owner's intent or reason for having a gun may be different. Don't lump every gun owner into one giant homogeneous category.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, because carboard targets are deemed "acceptable targets", you're just gonna shoot them? 200 years ago, we might be having this conversation about black people.

Congratulate yourself on being the source of the most bastardly, chicken-shit, non sequitur in the history of Slashdot.

Your pathetic, racist red herring is well beyond low. As a bar, it is set low enough to require digging a trench to properly position it.

Your meanness is truly soul-charring.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[xero314]

Seriously dude, pick up a dictionary, then go back an reread this entire thread. Apply some basic reading comprehension skills. Focus specifically on the difference between "practical use" and "use" as well as the difference between "designed purpose" and "user intent" as they have very different meaning.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BikeHelmet]

I don't think running into a grizzly bear is a valid excuse for carrying a weapon around, in most of the USA.

I would hope that if you were hiking in an area with grizzlies, you would get trained in how to not provoke them.

Most people in my town don't carry knives around. Of course we have knives in our homes. I'm sure some people have guns too - but we don't carry them around in public.

Who said I was a leftist? My point stands - it's so ingrained in your culture, that you can't comprehend there's another (possibly better) way of thinking. Because I feel this way, I must be a crazy leftist eco hippy. It's not possible that the USA has the strange mentality.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Just because I don't agree with your assessment of purpose or practical use of guns, does not mean I am automatically wrong and you are right. Nor does it mean I have a diminished vocabulary. Seriously dude, your opinion is not fact, nor is it shared by 100% of the population. You can believe anything you want, but you cannot tell me what I believe. My opinion is that guns were designed to fire bullets. Maiming and killing people falls clearly under "user intent" and has zero to do with "designed purpose".

Does it work on other things...

[Anonymous Coward]

...like politics? If you show people the horrendous effects on people of the policies of heartless, greedhead Repugnicans, do people become more liberal?

Re:Does it work on other things...

[Jeng]

Or are there images that would drop ones immune system?

Like perhaps rotten.com or goatse, or would those images still increase ones immune system?

Re:Does it work on other things...

[kyrio]

Why would the same types of images from this experiment have an opposite reaction? Images of unicorns, puppies and rainbows would give the the signal to lower the immune system. In reality, there would be no immune system response to lower immunity without the use of drugs.

Re:Does it work on other things...

[KingOfTheMoon]

A prior paper that they quoted suggested that "immune function, especially the innate (i.e., rapid) component, may be directly mobilized by cues that are disgust-evoking" Oaten et al. (2009).

So by that hypothesis, yeah, goatse might also boost the immune system. I'd speculate that revulsion to a greasy distended anus is strongly related to disease (or at least injury) at some level. But all that aside, I'd gladly take a bout of the flu to erase goatse from my brain.

Re:Does it work on other things...

[Notquitecajun]

Maybe it could do the same thing for policies of the conniving, stealing, irresponsible democrats.

Re:Does it work on other things...

[reboot246]

Nah, but people do have to actually experience the policies of the DEMagoguing autoCRATS to become more conservative.

Re:Does it work on other things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Memories can be changed. A person has to bring the memory up and replace it with something else. The more vivid, the more work to it. I even forgot the name goatse for a while on purpose. (until I returned to /.)My favorite way to erase a memory is to imagine painting white over it. Works with varying number of coats.

Re:Does it work on other things...

[John Hasler]

If it worked for any kind of 'at 'an, or 'ist the world would not be infested with governments.

Actually

[Monkeedude1212]

After watching a depressing 10 minute slide show of people who were feeling sick, all of the test subjects felt like getting drunk. Sadly, the only thing available was cough medicine.

Microsoft To Blame

[MyLongNickName]

Step #1: Fire up Linux box
Step #2: Hook up webcam
Step #3: Point webcam at co-worker's Windows box
Step #4: Linux more secure than ever.

Re:Microsoft To Blame

[Anonymous Coward]

I spanked one out to your comment

Re:Microsoft To Blame

[Anonymous Coward]

If your webcam works in Linux...just saying.

Re:Microsoft To Blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, all I had to do was recompile the kernel

Re:Microsoft To Blame

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...

Step #3: Point webcam at Linux user
Step #4: Only need to call in sick for hangovers.

Re:Microsoft To Blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you use Gentoo.

Apples

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I prefer eating apples to looking at sick people for immune system boosts. They don't make me feel crummy through empathy and they have the added benefit of being delicious.

...

Oranges can be substituted for apples if absolutely necessary.

Re:Apples

[jd]

Apples are good, yes. I suggest a glass of mead as well, as honey is believed to boost the immune system and act as an antibiotic in its own right. In fact, if you get really drunk on the stuff, you might never get sick again.

Re:Apples

[X0563511]

... or at least won't remember it.

On the positive side, it's also delicious!

Re:Apples

[Thiez]

> They don't make me feel crummy through empathy

Don't worry, with practice, empathy will fade! Consider this the first step on your journey to sysadminhood.

Re:Apples

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I suggest a glass of mead as well, as honey is believed to boost the immune system and act as an antibiotic in its own right.

It's interesting you would suggest that as it also works as a decent antihistamine if I recall correctly. Usually I reserve honey for when I get a throat cold and need a proper anti-septic/throat coat. But I agree, it, too, is amazing.

Stress?

[Nidi62]

If they wanted to control for stress, showing pictures of guns in not going to do it. The average person does not get stressed when they see a picture of a gun. For an accurate control of stress, they would need to have someone burst in with a prop gun. THAT will cause stress. In any case, is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat? I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.

Re:Stress?

[clone53421]

The average person doesn’t get stressed when they see a picture of a sick person, either. Nor is it a possible disease threat, unless a sick person had handled the photograph...

Re:Stress?

[AcidPenguin9873]

In any case, is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat?

No, that's not a surprise, but you missed the point of the study. The interesting part is that "when it detects a possible threat" can be triggered by images, rather than by physical exposure of your immune system to pathogens. That suggests that immune response has a pathway through your brain.

Re:Stress?

[tonycheese]

Is it surprising? YES. Sure, it's easy to say after the experiment, "hey, that makes sense" and then call it obvious, but this is a really amazing mechanism, and I would not personally have guessed that our bodies are able to anticipate disease just through an image.

Re:Stress?

[hitnrunrambler]

I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Origin of life" debates aside the "body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat" is an example of a system, not of an evolution.

Unless you are trying to imply that transforming to a different developmental stage by producing more IL-6, which would be sort of like saying that trees are evolving every time they produce leaves.

Words mean things, and meanings are important.

btw: I wouldn't be bothering to point this out... but someone already beat me to the more obvious flaw in your comment.

Re:Stress?

[Nidi62]

It's evolution in the same sense that dead and decaying humans smell so terrible: it's a warning of danger. Perhaps I should be more specific: it is not evolution itself, but rather a product of it. There is plenty of evidence that humans look at visible clues to determine whether or not another individual is dangerous. That is all this is. The brain recognizes that the sick person is a potential danger, realizes that person is sick, and starts protecting itself against any possible disease that might be transmitted.

Re:Stress?

[Nidi62]

Human's have had enough time to subconsciously see that a sick person is a threat. They have been a threat since humans began living communally. Guns are not inherently a threat, however. Even if you see guns as threatening in real life, a picture will not be threatening, consciously or unconsciously. Plus, guns have not been around enough to where a person can have a subconscious reaction to it. The fear of guns is a learned behavior. The fear of sick individuals is an evolutionary behavior. Maybe, if guns are around long enough and death by firearm becomes common enough(as in, 1-5 people being shot all around you, in any place in the world), humans may develop an unconscious fear or wariness of the general shape of a firearm. But right now, no.

Re:Stress?

[FiloEleven]

is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat? I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.

What is novel is the mechanism. We know that once nasties get into the body it starts pumping up resistance. Yet these people only looked at pictures. That means that a specific pattern of light can boost your immune system. That's crazy!

Re:Stress?

[clone53421]

Even if you see guns as threatening in real life, a picture will not be threatening, consciously or unconsciously.

Actually, the subjects reported that the pictures of guns made them feel more threatened than the pictures of the sick people did: “Our participants rated those guns pictures as more distressing than the disease-y pictures.”

Furthermore, just about anyone will feel threatened on a subconscious level if you point an actual gun at them, even if they consciously know that it is unloaded.

Re:Stress?

[hitnrunrambler]

It's evolution in the same sense that dead and decaying humans smell so terrible: it's a warning of danger. Perhaps I should be more specific: it is not evolution itself, but rather a product of it.

Well thank Darwin that humans evolved a bad smell after they die!

and yes I am being exceptionally pedantic about this; but Ive gotten tired of people who quote beliefs without understanding what they're saying; at that point it's just another form of religion.

Re:Stress?

[Nidi62]

You just reinforce my point, that people LEARN to fear guns. Fear of guns is a learned, conditioned reaction that takes some level of thinking to do. Fear of someone sick is an automatic, evolved action. Of course they will say they were more afraid of the gun, because the fear of the sick person is happening entirely without their knowledge. Fear of guns is abased upon some kind of experience, and they are accessing that experience for justification of that fear. This takes some sort of active thought, even if it is a low level of consciousness.

Re:Stress?

[BobMcD]

If they wanted to control for stress, showing pictures of guns in not going to do it. The average person does not get stressed when they see a picture of a gun. For an accurate control of stress, they would need to have someone burst in with a prop gun. THAT will cause stress. In any case, is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat? I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.

No, that would be an entirely different experiment. Think about what you would have used instead...

A) Photographs of ill people shown to group 1

B) Photographs of (people) shown to group 2

What do you use for option 'B' that doesn't also imply injury or illness, and yet is likely to be stressful?

There may be choices, but not too many good ones come to mind.

Re:Stress?

[BobMcD]

Hence the result of the study. It isn't as if they discovered that water is wet. They found people reacting in a measurable way to photographs of a certain type. It follows that other tests would also have to include photographs, does it not?

Re:Stress?

[Nidi62]

Really? Is your reading comprehension that bad? The dead did not evolve to smell bad, we evolved to interpret the smell of dead humans as bad. You're the type of person who would reply to "the sky is blue" with "no, it's actually more like robins-egg"

Re:Stress?

[BobMcD]

The problem lies in the assumption. You'd need evidence that humans existed without this ability, and thus died off while those that mutated the capability survived.

Without that it could be evolution or something else entirely, and you can't really say which.

Re:Stress?

[clone53421]

Yes, that was my point... the OP was saying that for a control to properly gauge stress they should have had someone burst in with a prop gun, which is absurd.

The picture of the gun and the picture of the sick person are equally threatening to the observer: they consciously know that neither is in the least threatening.

Re:Stress?

[BobMcD]

Ah, gotcha.

Re:Stress?

[clone53421]

And they don’t learn to fear sickness?

Would a baby react in the same way to a photograph of a sick person? Or is it learned: “that person looks sick”... just as “that person has a gun” is learned?

On a subconscious level we are just as innately afraid of physical harm as we are of sickness... e.g. the rubber hand illusion causes you to involuntarily jerk if you think your hand is being physically threatened.

However the warning signs... the actual image processed by the brain, the smells, the feelings, etc... we must learn to recognize and fear.

Re:Stress?

[hitnrunrambler]

I'm the type of guy who at this point says "BobMcD" said it best.

Re:Stress?

[PoolOfThought]

Maybe the wrong assumption is being made. Perhaps it is not a "fear" by the viewer of the sick person in the photograph possibly making the viewer sick. Instead, it might be "mirror neurons" doing their thing. The viewer sees someone ill and their own brains "experience" it therby mirroring (on a lower level) the processes going on in the individual they are viewing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Re:Stress?

[Anonymous Coward]

For an accurate control of stress, they would need to have someone burst in with a prop gun. THAT will cause stress.

It's also potentially dangerous for he person with the prop. Wait, was this study in England? Nvm...

Makes good sense

[querent23]

This makes perfect evolutionary sense for an emergent, highly social species. Without such a mechanism, it is possible that cities could never have occurred.

Re:Makes good sense

[sznupi]

Better talk about it the other way around, or some people might strenghten their weird understanding of evolution.

When our ancestors were encountering visibly sick individuals, those with traits of discovered mechanism were somewhat more likely to survive and leave offspring.

Re:Makes good sense

[doconnor]

This probably predates the evolution of humans as it would make sense for any social species, including most primates.

Re:Makes good sense

[querent23]

Right. Agreed. Which is why I called is a sine qua non. In agreement with sznupi, too. Forgive my biologists shorthand. :)

Re:Makes good sense

[Anonymous Coward]

What I thought immediately after reading the article was "cool, I'll just watch some disgusting pics every day and my immune system will work at 150% efficiency". My question, however, is why aren't our immune systems working like this all the time? Does "ramping up" your immune system have negative (long term?) effects as well?

Re:Makes good sense

[timeOday]

Look, I believe in evolution, but it "explains" almost anything you can imagine, such as why humans have wings (to evade predators, of course). (My remark is by no means a new insight). So we need to be careful about rationalizing things in retrospect.

Re:Makes good sense

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Just to be pedantic, evolution isn't something to be believed in its an explanatory model to be studied, criticized, critiqued, and, if something better comes along, replaced. That being said, the point of your post makes good sense. I am just asking you, too, to be careful about claiming to believe in evolution. Evolution is not a religion to be defended, it is a pretty cool (and so far as we can tell, accurate) model to be studied.

Re:Makes good sense

[timeOday]

I agree completely. But I thought if I offered my comment without something like an affirmation of faith I would be assumed to be making a different point, which would be modded into oblivion and subsequently ignored.

Re:Makes good sense

[bendodge]

Look, I believe in evolution, but it "explains" almost anything you can imagine, such as why humans have wings (to evade predators, of course).

Just to be pedantic, evolution isn't something to be believed in...Evolution is not a religion to be defended...

I agree completely. But I thought if I offered my comment without something like an affirmation of faith I would be assumed to be making a different point, which would be modded into oblivion and subsequently ignored.

Wow. I just want to print and laminate that or something.

Re:Makes good sense

[telomerewhythere]

I have a question. Would what is studied be rightly called a FAP (instinct) all the way through, or only after the brain consciously recognizes a potential(?) health threat? A reflex maybe?

Also could you point me to a good quality study of how FAP and reflex develop in the young and how it is passed on to offspring? Wiki was unsatisfying.

I guess we could see if a person uneducated in the principles of infectious diseases has the same reaction...

Re:Makes good sense

[querent23]

Heh. But I gotta say (to do the "other way around" thing that sznupi did), what I meant is that the model "evolution" is not contradicted by this data point. You have noted that many other (not observed) data points would also not contradict. But there are many things that the model would not "explain"...anything that contradicted it, in fact (like a species not responding to selective pressure over many generations). I'm just noting that this is another point that fits right on the line. That's all. :)

Re:Makes good sense

[sznupi]

It would be wastefull for starters. Wasting resources, energy which might be better used elsewhere, hence organisms which tone down their immune systems, when not needed, would also have some slight advantage.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it would give slight autoimmune symptoms or increased risk of some tumors (of immune system), in the long term.

Re:Makes good sense

[sznupi]

The example you have chosen doesn't strenghten your point (and is not an analogy of evolutionary psychology; which btw does't work only on the level of genetics, also memetics) - there are no animals of comparable weight to humans which can fly. Heck, the birds that do weight similarly to us...lost their ability of flight.

So no, evolution can't explain "almost anything you can imagine". It can explain how circumstances (and that includes fundamental physical reality) have led to the traits we observe. Those are traits are more restricted than our imagination.

and by that logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at fat people will make you thin,
  and looking at poor people will make you rich.

Re:and by that logic

[flanaganid]

I find that watching zombie movies really helps with immortality.

Re:and by that logic

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Your post would be funnier if they hadn't done an experiment and taken readings to assess that conclusion.

Re:and by that logic

[maxwell demon]

That's why I read Slashdot at -1: Reading stupid comments makes me more intelligent.

I've got to get busy!

[tpstigers]

I've got a bunch of unattractive poor people to look at!

Re:I've got to get busy!

[Tickety-boo]

You've come to the right place....

Re:I've got to get busy!

[timeOday]

I've got a bunch of unattractive poor people to look at!

Not really. If ramping up the immune system when necessary is an adaptive trait, then so is ramping it down when it's not needed (otherwise it would be turned up to 11 at all times). The immune system has costs, from metabolic (i.e. wasting energy) to self-damage (autoimmune disorders).

healthy enough already = ?

[jjeffries]

My immune system is currently plenty strong and I never get sick; if I look at sick people and boost it even further, will I get an autoimmune disease?

Re:healthy enough already = ?

[sznupi]

Uhm, not likely. Your immune system is simply working properly; that includes boosting its activity when its needed (and toning it down when it would be a waste of energy, high activity needlessly increasing the risk of some tumors, etc.)

Re:healthy enough already = ?

[blair1q]

no, but a "+1" will appear in the lower-left corner of your house

Re:healthy enough already = ?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I really hope that whoever modded this interesting and not funny was just trying to boost jeffries karma. If someone on slashdot, whom is armed with mod points, thinks this is a legitimate idea, I fear for the state of most users' karma.

I'd rather be sick...

[witherstaff]

Can anyone even stand 10 minutes of looking at goatse?

Re:I'd rather be sick...

[ArsonSmith]

My butt clinches when i see it so I think my immune system is having the described effect.

Correlation Is Not Causation

[shambalagoon]

I just noticed the "correlationisnotcausation" tag. Is that just a knee-jerk reaction to studies now?

Are we suggesting that an increase in immune system activity CAUSED people to view a slide show about sick people?

Re:Correlation Is Not Causation

[tonycheese]

Seriously, that tag is so overused now it's sickening (har har). It's used on Slashdot for practically anything, even if the study doesn't attempt to prove or claim causation. At some point, you have to admit that, you know, not all researchers are complete dumbasses.

In this case, how would you honestly argue that it's NOT causation? People were shown a slideshow, those people's immune systems had a response. THAT IS CAUSATION. We're not looking at survey results here, it's not like we can claim people who are more likely to look at pictures of sick people are more likely to have an immune boost from looking at anything.

Re:Correlation Is Not Causation

[Trepidity]

Haha yeah, it's pretty inappropriate in this case. This was a causational study, not simply a measurement of correlation in the wild: they varied a variable in a laboratory setting, and measured how varying it changed the response variable.

There are of course many ways the study could be flawed, but it's not a case of measuring a correlation and then inferring a causation from it.

Re:Correlation Is Not Causation

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I just noticed the "correlationisnotcausation" tag. Is that just a knee-jerk reaction to studies now?

Slashdot is the biggest Pavlovian experiment I have ever seen. For example: There was a story yesterday about iPhone contact syncing support for Ubuntu. In the middle of the summary it clearly stated that Android support is coming. Despite this, two people posted asking for Android support.

That's just one example. Knee-jerk is what people do to earn +3 Insighful tags on this site.

Re:Correlation Is Not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's used on Slashdot for practically anything, even if the study doesn't attempt to prove or claim causation. At some point, you have to admit that, you know, not all researchers are complete dumbasses.

Correlation is not causation!

Re:Correlation Is Not Causation

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I think we need to do a study on whether posting a study to slashdot has a correlative or causal relationship with the corelationisnotcausation chant. Furthermore, I'd like to see a secondary study that explores the correlative vs. causal relationship between the correleationisnotcausation meme and the reactions that occur decrying the correlationisnotcasuation meme.

Finally, I am going to end this post with a Google search on recursion.

Re:Correlation Is Not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the tag caused the study?

Laughter is the best medicine...

[igaborf]

...that's why when I look at sick people, I laugh.

150 years

[Tablizer]

If I put up a pic of Ann Coulter, I'll live to 150!

    -1 political jokes not allowed

Re:150 years

[blair1q]

what profit a man to gain living to 150 if he be turned to stone?

Re:150 years

[X0563511]

Medusa or basilisk?

I'm not sure which fits more.

Re:150 years

[ImprovOmega]

Basilisk. Medusa *used* to be pretty.

I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

... and ask, "Y'all got any folks here who look like real sick? I need to look at 'em to boost my im-ma-ume system, or sumptin' like that.

Maybe that's why Mother Theresa lived so long: "For over 45 years she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa " She must have had one tough bad-ass immune system.

So if I watch more NASCAR, will I avoid traffic accidents, and get cheaper car insurance?

Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?

That's Gonna Get Me Off To A Bad Start

[mindbrane]

I guess I'm gonna have to start shaving every day again, damn.

Correlation is not causation, but causation is.

[neonleonb]

Why the dickens are people tagging this "correlationisnotcausation"? It was a controlled experiment, so there weren't any hidden causes to explain away the causation. It's like people don't actually understand what "correlation is not causation" means... but I'd hoped that at least here on Slashdot folks would be cleverer than that.

Re:Correlation is not causation, but causation is.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Glad you made this post, I was about to say something similar when I saw it. I think it's some weird kneejerk reaction whenever a study is posted here. It's frequent misuse just shows that some taggers don't even know what the phrase means. When you have effect B that is demonstrably induced via cause A, then it's not a matter of correlation - it is causation.

The only thing I'd question here is the use of pictures of people w/ guns to produce stress, as there are many people for which this is not stressful (especially given the prevalence of the same in media). Screaming children, screeching brakes, alarm clocks, etc -- all of these would be more generally useful than pictures of people with guns.

Re:Correlation is not causation, but causation is.

[blair1q]

just to explain your comment: correlation can occur without causation. causation can't occur without correlation. in order to tell the difference you conduct a controlled experiment with cases that include the hypothesized cause and other cases that include the control, a situation without the hypothesized cause. when you observe the effect in the cases with the hypothesized cause, you have not disproved the hypothesis. when you do not observe the hypothesized effect in the control cases, you have differentiated the cause from random chance. this method isn't without its susceptibility to obfuscatory results. the control may include some other cause that prevents the effect, or the effect may occur due to other causes inseperable from the cases with the hypothesized cause. it takes some careful inspection to ensure that these unintended causes are not present in any of the cases. also, measurement and analysis errors may propagate in the experiments, but these can usually be averaged-out by statistical reliance on the "Law of Large Numbers" (which has its own caveats, P=0.002)

"I'd hoped that at least here on Slashdot folks would be cleverer than that"

clearly, you haven't run that experiment nearly long enough to determine such a correlation

needle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if sticking a needle into someone's arm to extract blood may provoke an immune response?

Re:needle?

[blair1q]

Yes, it will.

Provided you consider punching a mad scientist in the face to prevent being the subject of ill-conceived experiments part of the immune system.

Works for me

[Low Ranked Craig]

All I know is that when I go visit my 87 year old grandma at the old folks home, I develop a burning desire to go to the gym and eat broccoli.

Re:Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is that when I go visit my 87 year old grandma at the old folks home, I develop a burning desire to go to the gym and eat broccoli.

When you visit your 87 year-old grandma at the old folks home, you have a burning desire to increase your life span, so that you too will get to live for long?

Heh...I had the exact opposite reaction. When I go to visit my grandfather, and truly realize what he has been reduced to, I go home and eat some bacon-wrapped sausages. Enjoying your life now, and then dying quickly of a heart-attack or something is the way to go.

Games

[Darylium]

So, playing a shooter game with lots of blood and gore is actually good for your health?

Re:Games

[nevermore94]

Only if it is a Zombie game, pictures of people with just guns had little effect.
Perhaps the Resident Evil or Left 4 Dead games could be good immune boosters.

Maybe it was just drawing the blood?

[slacklinejoe]

I'll admit, I only skimmed the article, but wouldn't it make a lot more sense that the immune system would be boosted from the physical act of them taking the "Before" sample? The fact that you're missing blood is something the body would definately sense and react to. Not saying it's implausible, but it seems like a rather large hole in the logic.

Re:Maybe it was just drawing the blood?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The control would have covered that, and it could indeed have accounted for the "barely significant" raise in levels in the controls.

Re:Maybe it was just drawing the blood?

[sznupi]

They also took blood samples from the control group...

Of course it couldn't be

[MrBippers]

that people are more stressed out by the perceived danger of illness after giving blood (and soon to give again) than by *pictures* of guns. On a side note why on earth are they taking 10 mL of blood from patients when only 0.2 mL is being used in the assay?

Better control groups using /. readers

[RevWaldo]

1) 10 minutes of video of someone else using a computer. E.g. someone filling out billing and shipping info on a web form, using the mouse to move to one field to the next, then when all the fields are just about filled out, clicking Back because they forgot to add an item to the shopping cart.

2) 10 minutes of a PowerPoint presentation. Just about anything with lots of text. Have the presenter read out everything on the slides, word for word.

I am a MD

[messner_007]

I work with very sick people every day ...

Those nasty bugs can't hurt me, because my immune system gets high every day I see them.

Obligatory Simpsons

[uberjack]

"Sarge, we keep getting orders to let the virus win!" "Must be a school day. Lay down your arms!" "Alright! Let's make some puffs!"

Re:Obligatory Simpsons

[Brian Boitano]

"Puffs"? Don't you mean "pus"?

Re:I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ..

[ArsonSmith]

"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"

We did give them all Windows machines.

Good to know

[Toxicgonzo]

Note to self: Next time I'm feeling sick, stare at pictures of Amy Winehouse

Re:Good to know

[John Hasler]

Looking in the mirror should suffice.

I see dead people

[srobert]

If looking at sick people boosts the immune system, then looking at dead people should make me immortal.

Re:I see dead people

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... what about watching pron then? What will that give you?

New excuse to play violent video games

[CODiNE]

finally some research supporting "the other side" eh?

"This ain't pointless violence, it's immune boosting!"

Re:New excuse to play violent video games

[iammani]

Er, no, you should go on a real rampage for it to work. A virtual one does not count.

Re:I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"

We did give them all Windows machines.

Coincidentally, suicide rates among programmers skyrocketed....

Interestingly enough, as I write this, the captcha is "Dismember"... Go figure.

A Second Mind

[b4upoo]

That is evidence that we have some sort of second intelligence within ourselves that is not regulated by our conscious abilities. I sometimes get that effect when I choose the wrong note on my euphonium and my fingers disobey and play the correct note despite my conscious intentions. It is like the opposite of a mistake. I am familiar with the sheet music but get distracted and when my mind gets off track some sort of memory kicks in for me.

Yeah...so?

[Brain-Fu]

the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.

Just like swords. Or bows-and-arrows. Or any of a variety of weapons that civilians are allowed to own.

And why would a civilian want to own something which is designed to maim and/or kill people? Simple...some people are criminals, they intend harm, and the police are not around at the moment.

Survival is a real need. Some humans pose a real risk. Our protectors can't be everywhere at once. So, we must protect ourselves.

And before you start talking about being more likely to hurt yourself with a gun than protect yourself with it....consider that those statistics came from a source with an agenda. Consider further that a gun, sitting on a table, is just a rock. It isn't going to jump up and bite you. Since it has no will of its own, the risks of ownership can be mitigated by responsible care.

On the other hand, a criminal sitting on the table is not just a rick. The criminal has will of his own, and very well could jump up and bite you (or cause some kind of harm). Further, you can't tell a criminal by appearance alone, and you can't prevent one from happening by your property. So the risks of encountering a criminal cannot be mitigated. The best we can do is provide ourselves with a means of stopping a criminal, should one attack.

So what I am saying is...it does not make sense to be afraid of a gun. It does make sense to be afraid of a person. Therefore, provided you can be responsible, it makes perfect sense to own guns for purposes of self defense.

Re:I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ..

[marcus]

"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"

Believe me, it works. I've seen some seriously sad sh*t in my career. Definitely motivates to make sure your work does not look the same.

monkey see monkey do

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish this applied to intelligence... I see stupid people all day long, but I'm sure it isn't making me any brighter.

So...

[bobdotorg]

If I have the girlfriend watch a ten minute slide show of really pregnant women she can stop taking the pill?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

no she will stop having sex with you.

In fact, you don't have a girlfriend.

Re:So...

[John Hasler]

Yes, but not for the reason you hope.

Nicely done

[marcus]

His comment is the equivalent of saying "the purpose of a car is to take you to work and back home every day."

Sadly, he's just another victim.

Re:Frist Prost

[LanMan04]

Oh Randy, you do slay me.

this not new...

[bodland]

The famous gruesome crucifixion painting by Guenwald four hundred years ago was set at the foot of people dying of the black plague to show that Christ suffered more than you. Not sure what the healing aspect was for that...

http://www.gslcpc.org/Portals/12/CRUCIFIXION,%20ISENHEIMER%20ALTAR%20CRUCIFIX%20BY%20MATTHIAS%20GRUENWALD.JPG

Re:I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ..

[maxwell demon]

"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"

We did give them all Windows machines.

Coincidentally, suicide rates among programmers skyrocketed....

Interestingly enough, as I write this, the captcha is "Dismember"... Go figure.

I thought looking at Windows as it's dying should immunize you against dying.

Re:Frist Prost

[antdude]

Nager('s) Syndrome? I have that. :(

Healthy as else.

[Anonymous Coward]

I eat Apples for breakfast.

- PC

Stick People? Why stick people?

[Somegeek]

I wish I would have just stuck with my first read of the title. The real one is not nearly so much fun.

Vegetables

[czarspeed]

I like them, all kinds really. I like colored vegetables. Vegetables that are juicy and taste good. I like things that are good for you. Http://www.happyendingonline.com

Defn: Significant

[Anonymous Coward]

and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production

I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....

The increase was statistically significant, but very small?

Zombie Movies give you BOTH

[billstewart]

You get to look at really sick people, and you get to watch people with guns hoping they've got enough ammo to keep the zombies away before they need to break out the chainsaws, baseball bats, and golf clubs. Sounds like a win!

The Final Health Care Solution

[hackingbear]

Yeah... this is the best solution we will adopt in health care reform after the century/decade/year long debates! Just have healthy people looking at the poor uninsured sick people, and the healthy ones will never get sick -- problem solved! Move one to the next agenda, please.

"common sense"

[spazdor]

Okay, now where is the statistic which tells us what percentage of them are responsible?

Re:"common sense"

[Chees0rz]

No kidding.

Just about every gun-owning American is a responsible gun owner

I don't even think I could agree with

Just about every American is a responsible person

Re:"common sense"

[Notquitecajun]

All the ones that don't commit crimes with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

44 million gun owners.

10,100 homicides, give or take.

You do the math.

Re:"common sense"

[spazdor]

"doesn't end up involved in a homicide"

"responsible"

lol

N=28, P=0.008? Come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

P=0.008 is certainly below the typical significance threshold of 0.05, but not so far below that it can't be written off to non-causal, random fluctuations. Couldn't the authors have gone for a larger sample size than 28? I mean, if P=0.008 with N=28 is mostly a real effect, then the P value should have been much lower and very difficult to ignore with N=50 or N=100. How hard/costly would it really have been to gather those additional data?

Re:I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ..

[hallux.sinister]

Thanks to the ubiquity of Misro$soft WinDOS, they are. Oddly, it hasn't helped.

This makes perfect sense...

[hallux.sinister]

I noticed I too undergo certain anatomical changes in response to visual stimuli, though I did not need a blood test to figure it out. For example, whenever I see a cute, sexy blond girl... or a brunette... or a redhead... especially a redhead, for some reason... I develop symptoms vaguely akin to those experienced by people with certain lower back injuries, namely, a sudden and inexplicable stiffening of some particular tissues, making standing up and walking difficult, much like, (again) sufferers of certain kinds of lower back injury...

Hmmm...

[hyades1]

If looking at sick people makes you healthier, I wonder if the reverse is true. If so, staring at Heather Graham's rack is gonna be the death of me.

It's a joke

[penguinchris]

I think we've far surpassed the point where people are putting that tag on articles seriously. It's got to be a joke.

What's this about you libelling others here?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31744018

What's this about you libelling others here?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31744018

What's this about you libelling others here?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31744018