Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Eej
Jun 17, 2007

HEAVYARMS
Thought I linked this here but re: gene editing

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/glybera

tl;dr Canadians at University of British Columbia invent a drug that is a virus which inserts a gene to code a protein that removes fat from the blood in people with the generic disorder that kills them because their blood turns white with fat. It only takes one dose and fixes the problem forever but only 31 patients got the treatment ever because they priced it at one million dollars because capitalism (they had to give it to a European company to manufacture)

quote:

The decision to price Glybera at $1 million was based on a business calculation, according to van Deventer.

To set a price, they compared Glybera to other drugs that treat rare diseases.

Because Glybera is a one-time treatment that can last at least 10 years (according to patient data collected so far), the $1-million price seemed reasonable, van Deventer said.

"It's not a crazy price," he said. "People say it's the most expensive drug in the world and what have you, but in the end, all of these products, even priced at $1 million, are going to be generally cheaper than replacement therapy."

Replacement therapy refers to drug treatments that replace missing proteins rather than repairing defective genes. Unlike Glybera, most replacement therapies must be given for the rest of a patient's life. Many of those drugs cost more than $300,000 per patient per year.

Eej fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Nov 29, 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hexyflexy
Sep 2, 2011

asymptotically approaching one

Eej posted:

Thought I linked this here but re: gene editing

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/glybera

tl;dr Canadians invent a drug that is a virus which inserts a gene to code a protein that removes fat from the blood in people with the generic disorder that kills them because their blood turns white with fat. It only takes one dose and fixes the problem forever but only 31 patients got the treatment ever because they priced it at one million dollars because capitalism

You just shoot them and take the data. This isn't difficult.

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

Makes that HepC drug that costs $40k/dose seem reasonable in comparison.

Flikken
Oct 23, 2009

10,363 snaps and not a playoff win to show for it

Hexyflexy posted:

You just shoot them and take the data. This isn't difficult.

Yes and when the Virus mutates and we turn into zombies?

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


To be somewhat fair, making a tailored virus, testing and purifying it, etc. Is an expensive process and the people doing it spent a lot of time getting it right. That's a lot of payroll alone to cover even if you just break even.

LtCol J. Krusinski
May 7, 2013

by Fluffdaddy
$1 million to essentially cure a disease for at least 10 years sounds crazy until you factor in that protein replacement drugs run about $300k a year, or $3 million dollars over 10 years.

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.

That Works posted:

To be somewhat fair, making a tailored virus, testing and purifying it, etc. Is an expensive process and the people doing it spent a lot of time getting it right. That's a lot of payroll alone to cover even if you just break even.

They didn’t price it because of cost if you read the article. All the testing, purifying, etc. was done at a university research center in canada on the government dollar. The euro corp only had to produce and market it. They priced it at $1m per because average treatment prior was $300k/year and the new drug was effective for at least 10.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with development costs as those were borne by the canadian government.

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


Like, taking legacy drugs where R&D is done and jacking up the price is one thing but if you had private development of a new viral treatment for a small group of patients there's not much way to do that cheaply at all even if profit becomes non-existent.

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.

That Works posted:

Like, taking legacy drugs where R&D is done and jacking up the price is one thing but if you had private development of a new viral treatment for a small group of patients there's not much way to do that cheaply at all even if profit becomes non-existent.

It wasn’t privately developed. It was developed at a canadian university. The people that charged a million per dose bought the rights to produce and market it for 31 million and then priced it so absurdly high (because they compared it to long term treatments for the drug) that no one was able to pay for it.

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


Mr. Nice! posted:

It wasn’t privately developed. It was developed at a canadian university. The people that charged a million per dose bought the rights to produce and market it for 31 million and then priced it so absurdly high (because they compared it to long term treatments for the drug) that no one was able to pay for it.

Ah, yeah that's poo poo then.

I run an academic research lab and have to get grant funding to pay overhead / graduate students etc, so I have a pretty good grasp of what it takes to run even a minimal lab that could develop something like this. If it was federally funded and they sold the rights then the company that bought the rights is just maximizing profit. Unclear how Canada works with private corps buying rights from gov. sponsored labs.

Edit: My 2nd post was made before I saw your earlier reply. Apologies.

E: guillotine

my kinda ape
Sep 15, 2008

Everything's gonna be A-OK
Oven Wrangler

Eej posted:

Thought I linked this here but re: gene editing

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/glybera

tl;dr Canadians at University of British Columbia invent a drug that is a virus which inserts a gene to code a protein that removes fat from the blood in people with the generic disorder that kills them because their blood turns white with fat. It only takes one dose and fixes the problem forever but only 31 patients got the treatment ever because they priced it at one million dollars because capitalism (they had to give it to a European company to manufacture)

Neat, hadn't heard of that! Guess it IS within our reach to do some editing in adults.

Sucks about that who capitalism thing though.

Nostalgia4Infinity
Feb 27, 2007

10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING
Eagerly awaiting the oath keeper/NRA denunciation of Trump :allears:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1067985270304194561?s=21

Hot Karl Marx
Mar 16, 2009

Politburo regulations about social distancing require to downgrade your Karlmarxing to cold, and sorry about the dnc primaries, please enjoy!
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1067894023350829056?s=19

That Works
Jul 22, 2006

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy


Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Eagerly awaiting the oath keeper/NRA denunciation of Trump :allears:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1067985270304194561?s=21

lol this is more than Obama ever did and the Chuds will still support this idiot.

Flying_Crab
Apr 12, 2002



Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Eagerly awaiting the oath keeper/NRA denunciation of Trump :allears:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1067985270304194561?s=21

Wait how is this even legal.

Handsome Ralph
Sep 3, 2004

Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!



It's funny, four years ago the majority of people I knew in Scotland were anti-independence because they didn't see the point and realized that they benefited more from staying connected to the UK than gaining independence.


Now? hahahahahahahahahahaha Not saying Indref2 would pass, but it would be a lot loving closer than it was before.

Mr. Nice!
Oct 13, 2005

bone shaking.
soul baking.

That Works posted:

Ah, yeah that's poo poo then.

I run an academic research lab and have to get grant funding to pay overhead / graduate students etc, so I have a pretty good grasp of what it takes to run even a minimal lab that could develop something like this. If it was federally funded and they sold the rights then the company that bought the rights is just maximizing profit. Unclear how Canada works with private corps buying rights from gov. sponsored labs.

Edit: My 2nd post was made before I saw your earlier reply. Apologies.

E: guillotine

It's all good, man. This was just a subject of conversation in the healthcare reform megathread in dnd (I think) for a few days. The research was done in a specific part of Canada where the largest population of people in the world that suffer from this particular affliction. It works amazingly well, and people have gone on to live normal lives. But profit motive killed the drug even though it was extremely effective.

For those not in the know, this genetic disorder makes it so people cannot properly process fat, so their blood stream just gets filled with fat cells and turns white. As a result, the people that suffer cannot eat any food with fat in it, cannot drink alcohol, women cannot have kids (almost certain miscarriage) and many people die very young from it. All of the people treated have had no-recurrence and seem to be permanently cured. One of the clinical trial people from Canada now has two kids, even.

Flying_Crab
Apr 12, 2002



https://twitter.com/gstephanopoulos/status/1068143172524609538?s=21

Eugene V. Dubstep
Oct 4, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 8 years!

DoktorLoken posted:

Wait how is this even legal.

Have you been in a coma for the last 14 months?

FAUXTON
Jun 2, 2005

spero che tu stia bene

DoktorLoken posted:

Wait how is this even legal.

Bump stocks? Well technically they aren't altering the gun itself, they're just a thing that makes it pull its own trigger really fast.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

DoktorLoken posted:

Wait how is this even legal.

Essentially using positional power to tell the DOJ and ATF to go relook their previous finding about legality of bump stocks and see if there's any way they can find a way to deem them machine guns.

Eugene V. Dubstep
Oct 4, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 8 years!

mlmp08 posted:

Essentially using positional power to tell the DOJ and ATF to go relook their previous finding about legality of bump stocks and see if there's any way they can find a way to deem them machine guns.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, DoctorLoken is amazed that bump stocks are legal, not that banning them is.

FAUXTON posted:

Bump stocks? Well technically they aren't altering the gun itself, they're just a thing that makes it pull its own trigger really fast.

:goonsay:

Flying_Crab
Apr 12, 2002



^ I mean as ridiculous as that sounds it's true.

"26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. ​"

I mean the NFA is pretty clear on what constitutes a machine gun, so I've gotta imagine this isn't going to work out well legally. I'm curious how they can retroactively ban/confiscate them without any legislative moves.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
That's part of why even a lot of vehemently pro gun control advocates are opposed to this idea. They foresee costly lawsuits and possibly an eventual loss in court. Plus, it's a way for the admin to do "something" while giving top cover to GOP legislators to never have to go on record voting for it. And if it all goes to poo poo, throw the DOJ and ATF under the bus.

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

mlmp08 posted:

That's part of why even a lot of vehemently pro gun control advocates are opposed to this idea. They foresee costly lawsuits and possibly an eventual loss in court. Plus, it's a way for the admin to do "something" while giving top cover to GOP legislators to never have to go on record voting for it. And if it all goes to poo poo, throw the DOJ and ATF under the bus.

Pretty much this. Nobody will accuse Trump of trying to take away all their weapons, but many legislators don't want to vote in favor of a gun control law that could be used against him in primaries or general elections.

Eugene V. Dubstep
Oct 4, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 8 years!

DoktorLoken posted:

^ I mean as ridiculous as that sounds it's true.

"26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. ​"

I mean the NFA is pretty clear on what constitutes a machine gun, so I've gotta imagine this isn't going to work out well legally. I'm curious how they can retroactively ban/confiscate them without any legislative moves.

Right below that line is this one:

quote:

Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or

The bump stock is a "part," and insofar as it "converts" a weapon into one that fires more than one shot per "function of the trigger," it falls under the NFA. So some lawyer has to argue (1) that the change to the weapon is great enough to count as a conversion (probably not too hard, given how differently a semi-auto with a bump stock functions in practice), and that (2) the definition of "trigger" extends to whatever you squeeze to fire the gun, not just the trigger assembly on the base weapon.

To most people it's just common sense that something with a trigger you can hold down to shoot multiple times is effectively an automatic weapon regardless of how goofy a workaround it is.

Flying_Crab
Apr 12, 2002



Except the firearm itself is literally having the trigger pulled every time by your finger in a bump stock. This is going to be a legal mess, regardless of how stupid bump stocks are.

EBB
Feb 15, 2005

DoktorLoken posted:

^ I mean as ridiculous as that sounds it's true.

"26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. ​"

I mean the NFA is pretty clear on what constitutes a machine gun, so I've gotta imagine this isn't going to work out well legally. I'm curious how they can retroactively ban/confiscate them without any legislative moves.

If the piece of string machine gun gets cited in the inevitable lawsuit I'm gonna laugh so hard.

Oh and hey it's been a while since gun chat and I forgot what y'all decided last time. Just keep it civil. :)

BigDave
Jul 14, 2009

Taste the High Country
Hey so Michael Cohen pled guilty...again.

quote:

Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, who pleaded guilty in August to breaking campaign finance laws, made a surprise appearance in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday morning to plead guilty to a new criminal charge, the latest turn in the special counsel’s investigation of Mr. Trump and his inner circle.

At the court hearing, Mr. Cohen admitted to making false statements to Congress about his efforts to pursue a Trump Tower deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. That real estate deal has been a focus of the special counsel investigation into whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russian operatives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-russia-mueller.html

Eugene V. Dubstep
Oct 4, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 8 years!

DoktorLoken posted:

Except the firearm itself is literally having the trigger pulled every time by your finger in a bump stock. This is going to be a legal mess, regardless of how stupid bump stocks are.

But you don't move your finger, that's the point. You just keep squeezing. Of course it's going to be a legal mess, and I agree it would be better addressed by legislation, and so on, but you don't have to pretend not to understand the mechanical and qualitative difference

Internet Wizard
Aug 9, 2009

BANDAIDS DON'T FIX BULLET HOLES

You also have to maintain forward pressure with your other hand and you can’t just squeeze and hold, there’s a reset you have to ride. It doesn’t fall under the legal definition unless you squint so hard you can’t see the words anymore.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost

Eugene V. Dubstep posted:

But you don't move your finger, that's the point. You just keep squeezing. Of course it's going to be a legal mess, and I agree it would be better addressed by legislation, and so on, but you don't have to pretend not to understand the mechanical and qualitative difference

Historically, the reasoning has been that even if your finger simply remains flexed, maintaining that forward pull on the firearm as well as maintaining your flexion on your finger is the human component. Sure, there's room to disagree. But that's been the prevailing legal argument. It's also why crank fire is not considered a machine gun. It requires continuous cranking. On the other hand, continuous pushing on a button that uses an electric motor to fire the gun doesn't count.

Essentially, yeah, a legally fraught mess. Also, in my mind, probably easy for the right judge to just say "gently caress it, you must pull the trigger each time individually with your finger moving." Similarly, it would not terribly surprise me if at some point "pistol braces" which happen to look a whole hell of a lot like a stock and which people are constantly shouldering or bringing deliberately into contact with their chests on AR pistols get reclassified as stocks at some point, making the pistols into SBRs. Plus, you know, the ATF letter explicitly states that:

"The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked."

But there are a ton of videos on YouTube of people using pistol braces as such, and they aren't in any real trouble. Yet?

The initial claim for the pistol brace was for handicapped people to strap the pistol to their arm to help stabilize it.

mods changed my name
Oct 30, 2017
the gun weirdos will probably just blame the blue wave/aoc for this somehow, it's not strong daddies fault

Flying_Crab
Apr 12, 2002



Did they change their opinion on braces for a third time? Because they said that the use of a brace doesn't change the definition of what it is. IE it's either a brace or a stock, but not both regardless of how it is used.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
I don’t even know what the most recent ruling is anymore.

Internet Wizard
Aug 9, 2009

BANDAIDS DON'T FIX BULLET HOLES

It would be better if the legislature would actually pass small changes/updates to laws on a decent timetable instead of trying to force through gigantic doorstoppers that are mostly pork but here we are. We're left with enforcement agencies making up whatever they want and claiming that was the intent of a 100 year old law and just running with it. One day you're a law-abiding citizen and the next you're a felon and don't even know it, and the laws never even changed, an agency just decided to mail somebody a letter redefining something completely.

Defenestrategy
Oct 24, 2010

Black Powder weapons only, it's what the founders would have wanted.

edit: If you can't dispatch your enemy with one shot from a minnie ball followed up by a bayonet charge you have too many enemies and should have friends.

Flying_Crab
Apr 12, 2002



I'd be cool with a rewrite of the NFA that makes all semi-auto centerfire rifles to include AR15 pistol abortions into (with some exceptions for historical stuff) NFA items. On the flip side the C&R FFL gets changed into a general gun collecting license which allows you to own MGs, etc. and also maybe nationwide CCW reciprocity written into federal law.

Also much better record keeping and stricter universal background checks, let the ATF keep digital records for firearms traces, etc.

Vasudus
May 30, 2003
I will laugh if the goddamn Trump administration of all things actually does some firearms regulations. What in the gently caress is reality anymore.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Wasabi the J
Jan 23, 2008

MOM WAS RIGHT

Vasudus posted:

What in the gently caress is reality anymore.

A cruel mockery

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply