Back at the beginning of January, Dr. Derek Lowe, a PhD drug-discovery chemist, (and one of my favorite blog authors!), wrote an article titled
Reactive Oxygen Species Are Your Friends!
In this article, he references a scientific paper written by Dr. James Watson, the Nobel Laureate who, with several others, discovered the structure of the DNA molecule.
Dr. Watson's article raises some serious issues about the effectiveness of "anti-oxidants" in the prevention of cancer.
His thesis is this: The current theories about anti-oxidants and their relationship to cancer are not only all wrong, they're completely upside-down with respect to the truth.
In his article he makes the case that "free radicals", (what biochemical scientists call "Reactive Oxygen Species"), are
actually a part of the body's natural defense system against cells gone rogue. He uses, (as an example in support of his theory), biomedical data about one of the most vicious and intractable cancers available; pancreatic cancer and it's various analogs.
He makes the point that these cancers are very difficult, (if not impossible), to treat and that the body is apparently defenseless to resist them. He also notes that these cancers create
huge volumes of "anti-oxidants", (that
destroy the free radicals / Reactive Oxygen Species our bodies
naturally produce to fight them), in the course of their survival and spread.
He also points out that cancers who produce relatively small amounts of anti-oxidants are more easily treated, and difficulty in treatment rises steeply in proportion to the volume of anti-oxidants produced by the cancer in question.
Without going into more detail than I already have, he makes the point that the Reactive Oxygen Species in our bodies are akin to "The Marines" - called upon to destroy rogue cells when the body's other defenses have proved inadequate.
Here's the link if you are at all interested.
How does this relate to the topic of Gun Control? Well. . . . .
I am sure that everyone will agree that both cancer, as well as the current wave of seemingly irrational gun-related mass-killings, are a scourge to mankind.
It doesn't matter if you are a Gold Plated Member of the NRA, or a life-long gun-control activist; no reasonable person could
possibly
approve of someone calmly strolling into a schoolyard, classroom, or workplace with
an Uzi and systematically killing everyone - young and old alike - on a grudge, or simply because he or she could.
And I am sure we all can agree with President Obama's statement: "
Something has to be done."
So, that begs The Musical Question: How do we go about doing this?
For as long as I can remember, perhaps even longer, various people and groups have been crying out for increased and more stringent gun control laws. And, to a greater or lesser extent, these laws have been passed, passed, and passed yet again.
It has gotten to the point where the process of trying to obtain a gun, or a gun permit, is about as difficult as trying to get a Republican Congress to approve ObamaCare.
It can be done, but it usually involves being on excellent terms with someone at the police department, blatant bribery, or going to court and invoking the Constitution.
OK, it might be easier than that in
your state, but in all the states I have lived in within recent times, both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, getting either a firearm, or a permit to use it, has been a daunting task.
And this is all in-line with the currently accepted conventional wisdom about firearms: The more difficult they are to obtain, the less likely it will be that people will use them for some nefarious purpose.
So it follows, according to this line of reasoning, that gun related crimes - especially the "senseless" type of crime - can and should be decreasing.
But that's not true. It seems that these kinds of senseless shootings are becoming more and more common.
So we enact even stricter laws banning or severely regulating guns, with the expectation that these "senseless acts of bloodshed", (
Senator Tom Kennedy in his eulogy of Robert F. Kennedy), will be on a rapid and steep decline.
But they aren't.
So we continue the cycle:
Laws restricting firearms.
Increased gun-related crime.
More laws.
More crime.
And so on, in what seems to be a vicious death-spiral of cause-and-effect.
This makes me begin to wonder. . . . .
Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, we're barking up the wrong tree?
Is it possible that maybe, just maybe,
we're pouring gasoline on a raging fire instead of the fire-fighting foam we want to be using?
At the risk of quoting my Calculus professor once again, it seems like it should be "intuitively obvious" that restricting access to firearms should reduce the unwanted side-effects of their use. That sounds reasonable. At least that's how it occurs to me when I think about it that way.
You want to keep drunks off the road? Confiscate their driver's licenses. You want to reduce gun related killings, reduce access to guns. Makes sense, right?
But then again, maybe not.
Taking away a drunk's driver's license seldom keeps a drunk off the road if he
really wants to be there.
And it seems that the more we restrict guns, the more it appears to
exacerbate the problem, instead of reducing it.
Which makes me wonder. . . . .
Maybe, just maybe, anti-oxidants are
NOT the answer?
One of Will Rogers famous lines was "This puts me in mind of a story. . . ." And so it is here.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer any references or citations for this particular story, but I have read it again and again at various times in the past, so I am convinced that there must be an authoritative source out there somewhere. If you find it, let me know.
Here's the story:
Somewhere out there, (Down South? In the Midwest? I don't remember), was a small town, relatively well isolated from it's neighbors by miles and miles of fields and croplands - which was nice.
Unfortunately, gangs of thugs and other such pond-scum would come roaring into town causing damage, destruction, and mayhem in their wake. Any attempts at resistance were dealt with severely, or worse. Which was NOT nice.
After repeated appeals for help to the State Police, the Governor, the State National Guard, (and God Only Knows Who Else), proved fruitless, the citizens of this town decided that enough was enough. So they passed a municipal law that required:
- Every adult citizen of the town was required to possess a firearm of some kind.
- The firearm was required to be real, not a replica or a fake.
- The firearm was required to be fully functional, operational and ready for use if needed.
- The firearm was required to be fully loaded at all times.
- The firearm was required to be fully loaded with real ammunition, not "blanks" or "range rounds". In other words, the firearm was required to represent a potentially deadly danger if used.
- With the exception of ladies, (who could place the firearm in their purse if they so chose), the firearm was expected to be conspicuously exposed and easily seen.
(Rumor has it that many of the ladies - in support of both the letter and spirit of the law - devised fashionable holsters that they could attach to the belts of their dresses or jeans, displaying their firearms for all to see.)
- The law provided for complete training on the proper use and maintenance of their particular firearm, (including time on the practice range), at no cost whatsoever.
According to the story, the next time a gang rode into town, they noticed that
everyone was "packin' heat" so to speak, (Maybe, just maybe, they heard some target practice too?), and as a consequence they just "kep' on goin'." They didn't even stop for gas, a smoke, or a soda. This supposedly happened several more times, until the gangs finally gave it up and stopped riding through that particular town.
As far as I know, these folks are still "packin' heat" to this very day. And the gangs of rogues and thugs still give that town a wide berth.
Now here's something I
can cite.
I love, and collect, episodes of the show "Modern Marvels" as shown on The History Channel.
One of these episodes is titled
Gangster Guns, and it discusses the technology and firepower used by thugs and gangsters in the early 1900's, and by both the citizens and law enforcement officers who went out to fight them.
Along with the discussion of the various forms of firearms used by both gangster and G-man alike, the various experts that the show interviewed made some other, rather interesting, remarks.
- One expert made the point that the ability of the various gangsters, thugs, and rogues to continue their nefarious careers, was directly related to the inability of the citizen or lawman to stop him. In other words, the more powerless the various towns and cities were, the more powerful the gangsters became because there was no effective resistance.
Conversely, (as the program went on to show), as both citizens and law enforcement agencies acquired better technology and more powerful weapons in response to the gangsters, they were better able to meet - and defeat - the gangster threat.
- These experts also mentioned the reluctance of the gangsters to engage with the ordinary citizens because, (for one), there wasn't much to be had and, (more important), since it was very easy to get a gun, and as a consequence virtually everyone was armed, attacking even one person would mean risking their lives at the hand of a multitude of people for a relatively modest reward.
In the same vein, (because it was so easy to get firearms), individual people were well equipped to defend themselves if necessary. If they decided to rob The Little Old Lady from
Pasadena; when she reached into her purse to give them her wallet, they ran the very real risk that she
might pull out a .38 Snub Nosed Terrier instead.
Obviously, since they were risking their life, they might as well risk it robbing a lightly guarded bank or payroll train.
The point, made again and again throughout the episode, was that the success of the criminal was
directly related to the citizen's inability to oppose him.
One final point:
We all know that municipal, state, and federal budgets are strained to the breaking point. A consequence of this is that many public services are being severely scaled back or eliminated entirely. And, as a result, the local police forces find themselves having to do more and more, with fewer and fewer resources.
Translation: The number of police per square inch is dropping, and dropping fast.
It also follows from the above that the ability of the police forces to protect individual citizens is greatly reduced.
Q.E.D.: The government's statement, "You don't need guns, we're here to protect you!" is rapidly proving to be a short-sighted fallacy.
And that's sad, because many people actually believed what the police told them, and trusted the local police to be able to adequately protect their property and their persons. This fact is underscored by the swift rise of both robberies and burglaries in our towns and communities.
"You don't need guns!" is rapidly proving to be a sick joke. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be a sick joke at our expense.
Note that I am giving the whole "Constitutional" aspect of this argument a wide berth, since it has not only been beaten to death, but also because
the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken authoritatively on the issue, time and time again.
However. . . . .
One thing I do know, and this is something that has been proved again, again, and yet again throughout the long and winding history of the world is this:
Whenever the citizens of a town, city, or nation had the will and the requisite firepower to resist and repel thuggery savagery, and gangsterism, they have successfully done so.
Likewise, those citizens who were ill prepared, ill equipped, and poorly armed - for whatever reason - rapidly fell victim to those who would prey upon them.
This is something that need not be elaborated upon as history, from the time of the Phoenicians and Sumerians until today, has proved this time and again.
So, just maybe, Reactive Oxygen Species
are our friends and, just maybe, we should re-think the whole gun-control issue in light of it.
Update: (February 12, 2013)
Since this article was originally published, there have been a considerable number of comments, both posted and private, citing both the authority of the Constitution as well as the fact that the Constitution is not God, nor is it infallible.
Which, IMHO, is inherently misguided. At least at this point in time.
Why?
First of all, the whole "Constitutionality" aspect of gun control has been beaten into the ground, time and again. Suffice it to say that whatever arguments there may be with regard to the Constitutionality of gun control, they have been made, made, and made yet again.
Second, raising the whole "Constitutionality" issue is, (IMHO), like the "Atari vs Commodore" or "Apple vs Everyone Else" kind of religious wars that go nowhere and solve nothing. More than that, it's inherently dismissive - "You're ugly, and your mother dresses you funny" - and that's that!
The problem is that it never really reaches the true merits of the issue - you just quote your magic words, wave your wand, and away you go without actually paying attention to the issues being raised.
Though I believe, (as I have said before), that the Constitution has spoken authoritatively on this issue, I really want to take the whole Constitutionality aspect of this off the table - take it completely out of consideration as an option or as an argument.
Rather than hide behind the Constitutionality - or lack thereof - I want to see us discuss this
functionally, that is, based on the merits. In other words, if the Constitution was not there to push things one way or the other, how would
YOU justify, or oppose, gun control
based on the facts of the matter?
As I have stated in my article above, based on gun control and its results
as I perceive them, I think gun control is actually counter-productive. Take another look at the article and let me know what
you think.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
