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)
The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This right, which has a long history in classical philosophy and common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms), exists to secure the freedom of the state, not to satisfy hunters or collectors or whatever. That is, at its core, this right is a right to be armed for military purposes. Any arguments about restrictions against military-style weapons or high-capacity clips run counter to this right. Until Congress grapples with this fact, any debate about gun control is rooted in fallacy. If you accept the 2nd amendment at face value, then you accept the right to own military-grade weapons and ammunition. If you wish to oppose military-grade arms, you must first repeal the amendment. It's that simple.
ReplyDeleteBennette,
DeleteAlong with the "military" right you mention, I believe that this also involves a corollary right - the right to defend yourself against potential threats.
This right doesn't just extend to repelling foreign invaders or combating tyrannical governments, it also extends to protecting yourself from pirates, rogues, burglars, thugs, and other such nasties who would threaten your life, home, and property. (Ref: My "Little Old Lady from Pasadena" example.)
IMHO, without the right to defend yourself, the right to keep and bear arms becomes just a hollow shell of the right our founding fathers intended it to be.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
I certainly disagree with anything based on the premise of the constitution being some infallible document. Or any document for that matter. For example, I'm a Christian and believe in the bible, and believe it takes precedent over the constitution. However, despite the old testament authorizing and even commanding me to stone prostitutes to death, I fully expect to be constrained from doing so, and certainly arrested and strung up by the nuts if I did. This despite it being a God given command, a little more weighty than the constitution. That's because the majority of no extremists, political or religious, have come to value common sense over ancient wisdom, and further believe that any law is subject to change based on prevailing current wisdom. So like it or not, despite the fact that you and others may site the second amendment as a right to carry ANY kind of weapon that could be classified as a firearm, the day will come when that right is curtailed. Yes, you can and always will be allowed to defend yourself or hunt. But no, you can't have a surface to air missile launcher, nor some future hand help laser gun that might slice a field of humans in half in seconds. I also think that guns capable of shooting 50 rounds in the blink of an eye fit that category.
ReplyDeleteNow the issues of enforceability of course have merit. But just so you know, the vast majority of street crime in big cities like New York is due to already illegal hand guns trafficked from other states. While you have to jump through 100 hoops to legally own a gun in New York, I can tell you that here in Florida I can buy just about any gun in any quantity, and it matters not how crazy I am as long as I'm not already a convicted felon.
Randy,
DeleteNobody ever said that the U.S. Constitution was "infallible". However, with respect to the United States, this document is what we owe our fidelity to - in essence the Constitution is our "sovereign" authority. Frankly, I believe that it's better to have a (reasonably) clearly written document as our sovereign, rather than some fickle monarch.
Back when I was working at Gull on Long Island building avionics for commercial and military aircraft, the head of QA had a poster taped to the file cabinet next to his desk. It read:
"Perform exactly like the specification, or get the specification officially changed."
However, all Constitutional issues aside, I believe that one of the main fallacies of gun control is the idea that restricting guns will reduce gun related crime. And that's just not so. As you pointed out, criminals will get guns, come Hell or High Water.
I also believe that these criminals know that they can operate with a relative degree of impunity because they know that it is very unlikely that anyone else will have any kind of firearm to resist them. And if they do, and they use it, the burden of proof will be on them to justify the use of deadly force in defense of their lives or property.
By the way, "self defense" is not an affirmative defense in just about every state in the Union. If you injure or kill someone, even if clearly in self-defense, you still have to go through the wringer to prove that your use of force in self defense was justified. The fact that the criminal was carving his initials in blood on your wife's body while you watched, is not sufficient in many places.
Because of the many roadblocks placed in the ordinary citizen's path when it comes to owning a firearm, or protecting themselves, criminals are effectively given the "Keys to the City" and invited to come and do whatever they please.
And this is wrong.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
Hello Jim,
ReplyDeleteI've searched my brain, my conscience, my heart, and cannot find an answer to this problem. It's just too darned complicated.
I hope that your statement:
"More laws.
More crime."
doesn't lead some readers to conclude (a post hoc fallacy if I ever saw one) that, "more laws lead to more crime." I know you didn't intend that.
Of course, there is the issue of gun accidents. We believe, as a society, that gun safety training, the use of gun safes, and the removal of, and separate storage of ammunition from guns, can go a long way toward eliminating gun accidents, but it can also go a long way toward preventing gun theft, which, of course, is how many criminals obtain guns. Responsible hunters, target shooters, law enforcement personnel and other gun enthusiasts probably do take those precautions. But the guy who puts a gun in his night table drawer, fully loaded, is just looking for either gun theft or and accident, or a situation like you described in which he will claim self-defense and then have to jump through hoops to prove it. Personally, I would never own a gun. I did some target shooting once, and I was very happy when I could stop. I just get nervous as heck around guns, and that probably makes me a very poor candidate to own one. So, nobody's going to steal a gun from me :-)
I used to think that there were so-called "root causes" of crime. Those included, poverty, poor education, parental neglect or abuse, hanging with the wrong crowd, bad karma, whatever. But when it became apparent that criminals were let off the hook by juries, even by judges, because the defense attorneys for those criminals cited those "root causes" as operating in their clients' backgrounds, and when I realized that poverty, poor education, etc., were societal ills with no magic cure at hand, I was stumped about how to stop crime.
The newer gun-control laws, which call for mandatory background checks, can go a long way to preventing former criminals from obtaining gun permits, but they cannot check a person's background if that person already had a gun that he, or an associate, or some underground dealer sold him. Nor can any test of a person's present emotional state predict what that person's emotional state would be at some time in the future, or what might cause a change in that emotional state.
Nope, I don't have any answers, but I believe the discussion should continue. And I congratulate you for taking that Second Ammendment off the table as well as for starting this discussion.
Take care.
Alan
Alan,
DeleteIf I had the answers to questions like these . . . One of two things would be true - either my last name would be "Christ", or I'd be a gazillionare! (Or, I'd be in a mental hospital somewhere for being a total whack-job!)
Seriously? Over the years I have learned to have very little confidence in my fellow man - and the thought of these "fellow men" running around loose with loaded weapons is scary!
The only thing that scares me more than that is the thought that they don't have weapons, and only the criminals are "allowed" to possess them.
Either choice is fraught with danger, and the consequences of guessing wrong are not trivial. Though I believe, (at this point), that making firearms easier to get would actually reduce the problem; I'm not God, nor do I have entire planetary populations to experiment with.
What really burns me up with regard to topics like this is the whole polarized "Cold War" attitudes about it - the Commies are bad simply because they're commies, and we're holy simply because we're NOT commies, etc. etc. etc. - with no more thought going into the issue than you'd put in your cup of morning coffee.
With people getting slaughtered in schoolyards simply because they came to school that day - it's time for people to dust off their thinking caps, sit down at the table, sweep the crap and polarized thinking out of the way, and have a reasonable and reasoned discussion about this problem.
I have gone to great lengths to express my opinion - and I have tried to express WHY I felt that way. What I would love to see is for someone to be able to sit down here and write a reasoned reply explaining WHY my reasoning is incorrect - with a view toward showing me a better way to understand this issue.
General George S. Patton (Jr.) is credited with saying: "If everyone's thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
Oh, and by the way. . .
DeleteMy statement
"More laws
More crime"
. . . was intended to be reflexive, reaching back to the statement before it. What I am trying to say here is that, (again IMHO), the more gun control laws we put in place to prevent gun related crimes, the greater the number of gun related crimes there seems to be.
If you look back in history, we have never had such a restrictive gun-law environment as there exists today, and we have never had such an outbreak of senseless gun related crimes as we have now. Maybe this is post-hoc as you said, but this is the way I see it.
As I said in my reply to Randy:
". . . .these criminals know that they can operate with a relative degree of impunity because they [also] know that it is very unlikely that anyone else will have any kind of firearm to resist them. . . .
[I]f they [the common citizens] do, and they use it, the burden of proof will be on them to justify the use of deadly force in defense of their lives or property. . . . The fact that the criminal was carving his initials in blood on your wife's body while you watched, is not sufficient in many places."
As much as the seemingly indiscriminate use of firearms scares me, this scares me even more.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
Hello Jim,
DeleteI finally got a chance to answer your reply. What I intended to do was to stimulate a conversation about possible solutions to the gun problem. That hasn't worked. My message and your replies were followed by Chris, who invoked the Second Amendment, even after you took it off the table. Randy wrote a whole lot of philosophy and theology in a three-part statement that ended with "something has to be done." So, failing to get any concrete or even potential suggestions about what can be done, I'm going to answer your headline question:
"Has 'Gun Control' shot itself int the foot?"
My answer is no -- a concept can't shooot itself in the foot, and neither can a law. Leave it to people to do that.
Take care.
Alan
Jim, having gone through your base article and skimming through the comments made here i can understand why this issue is so damned hard to talk about. On the one hand I kind of understand the need for gun control but lets look at it in this way
ReplyDeleteLong time ago, not long after the bible began, We as a country decided that there was just too much drinking and decided to do something about it. We called this prohibition. What happens when we try to ban something, well we find ways to get it anyway. aka, moonshiners. These moonshingers continue to exist do this day (someof it is quite tasty too) sorry I degress.
Anyway it seems to me that the more we try to control or ban something, alcohol, guns, drugs, the easy it is to find on the open market.
Anyway I personally do not own a gun, though agreed knowing how to use one would be an interesting thing to do, but it is necessary to be able to protect oneself, if this means I have a gun to protect my family then so be it.
Now Bennette mentions the idea if the well regulated militia we have the right to bare arms. This does NOT!!!!! include the army, a militia by its very definition is an orginzed group outside of this. It was put there not to stop guns but to allow the citizens of this country to a. defend itself against all enemies including foregn and domestic but also to keep the government from getty to high on itself and allows us at citizens to fight back. As long as we can have guns then we have the ability to overthrow any government that is hurting this country. The government does not want us to realize this as then we have all the power as we are supposed to. This is a government of the peoply, by the people and for the people, lest we forget this.
Chris,
DeleteIf the apple-jack moonshiner was the biggest problem we had with Prohibition, we'd be lucky. Instead, Prohibition provided the catalyst for organized crime, (The Mafia, etc.), to infiltrate this country - a scourge that haunts us to this day.
A similar sentiment is expressed in a line I have read several times in the past: "If you make it illegal to get guns, only criminals will have guns."
When I first read that, (innocent me), I thought "That makes sense. If guns are illegal, and you own one, you are obviously breaking the law."
Being a bit more jaded, and perhaps slightly less innocent, I now understand the full import of that line:
The criminal elements of society really don't care if the mere fact of owning a gun is against the law - if you're going to stick a pistol up someone's nose and blow their brains out, the fact that the gun itself might be illegal is trivial.
The other side of that is this: If owning a gun is illegal, then the "honest, law-abiding citizens" won't have them - because they're forbidden. However the criminals, gangsters, thugs, Mafia types, etc. will still have them because they don't give a damn if the gun is illegal. In fact, they prefer them that way - it makes them harder to trace back to the killer.
With regard to what Bennette said, you mis-read him. He is saying exactly what you said - albeit differently. What he tried to say is that since the Founding Fathers valued a "para-military" militia, the right to have guns was not limited to hunters and collectors, and as a result, the types of guns were also not limited. In fact, his thesis is that the civilian population has an intrinsic right to have military grade weapons, for just the reason you cite - the ability to suppress a government gone rogue.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
My response, part 1...
ReplyDeleteI hesitate to answer because most of my deep thinking on all subjects related to human nature is rooted in my Christian faith, additionally complicated by the fact that "Christianity" means different things for me than what the word conjures up in the minds of many. But I simply have to start there in forming an answer to you, and its fair that I start with that declaration.
My faith includes this brief history of interaction between God and man, with respect to law and enforcement. At first, there was no law save one... that humans don't get involved with judging good and evil. Leave that to God, and everything else was fair game for people to figure out on their own. But humans chose to be the judge of God and evil anyway, and as the story goes soon followed by the first recorded murder. Later, laws were God given. Then more laws, and more, and more.
These laws were a double edged sword. On the one hand laws made for ordered society but on the other, it was impossible for anyone to actually keep all the law. In my view, Christ came to offer a different and better path. Each individual needed to acknowledge that they are not perfect and in need of guidance. Before judging others each person needed to understand their own shortcomings. Further, if they invited God to come inside their hearts to be their central inner authority, they were granted absolution from adherence to written law, and in like manner expected to offer similar grace to others. The law after all was imperfect, being a "one size fits all" solution. The new approach offered by Christ was for God, dwelling inside each person, to guide them on an individual basis. Your "law" then may be different from your neighbor's, but the common benevolent spirit guaranteed peace between you an your neighbor. Does it work? Not immediately, but rather in the long term promise that a day of reckoning will one day come, for all those that won't get on board with the plan. Until that enforcement comes, only limited peace is possible.
Now substitute government for God in the above and you'll get an inkling of where I'm going with this. For purposes of this argument, lets look at a gun as a tool allowing someone to enforce their personal view of what is good or evil. We can't reverse history, so our starting point is somewhere after man's original decision to judge (and enforce) that for themselves. So what is good, and what is evil and what justifies killing? For one it is purely a matter of defense or in emergency situations. Indeed, if everyone else has a gun, they you'd better have one yourself! because for others, "good" might be stuffing their own pockets and "evil", anyone who resists their attempted robbery. And at the outside fringe, important since we are talking about humans here, there are even people who find killing other people AMUSING.
Now in our society, we have created our own god: "government". It is there for attempting to ensure the common welfare of everyone, recognize what we believe to be inalienable rights, and provide rules, laws, and enforcement to that effect. The constitution is a kind of bible in my analogy, and has become our central reference point. In that document "We the people" have built in the safeguards to better define the "common good", and regulate just how much power this "GOD-vernment" can yield.
ReplyDeleteThat last point is important, because we have a situation which could be likened to a child being able to decide the limits of a parent's power. But it is also a good system, and in my view the best, provided it never becomes so dogmatic that like a religion, it is no longer subject to revision.
But I digress. We need not get bogged down in constitutional arguments here. I'm just drawing the analogy that our created GOD-vernment enacts laws, then more and more laws, in a seemingly endless cycle. We try to fix a problem, then watch the effectiveness of the "fix", then alter the law again in search of a better fix. An important part of the mix, of course, is enforcement of each provision of the law, often necessitating the creation of more laws just to help enforce the ones already laid down.
In the case of guns, what I'm calling the great "enforcer" of what is good and evil in the mind of the holder, we have a worsening situation dually caused by the increased power of hand held weapons, and a society that has somehow managed to generate more and more insane or deeply disturbed people. Like global warming or climate change, we can debate on and on about the cause, but sooner or later we have to recognize that the problem is real and see if a world effort can somehow begin to reverse it. It may even be too late, but there is good reason to try!
Now in the "gun and god" analogy I'm stating, we already have a situation where everyone can access guns, legally or not, and therefore can enforce what is right or wrong in their own eyes. Like the nuclear arms race, I say peace in this situation is an illusion, and a dream regularly shattered by yet another terrible gun related event. And no "Savior" can come and bring overnight peace, any more than Jesus could bring overnight peace to the world some 2000 years ago. But, we can still consider something in Christ's approach as a model.
My response, part 3...
ReplyDeleteRecall Jesus proposed that people should allow God to dwell inside them. The analogy here would be allowing government to monitor every citizen's possession and use of guns, to the point where it would be like "big brother" living with you. But as with Christ, only limited peace could come even from such deep oversight, because too many citizens will NOT buy into the plan. Enforcement would not be easy, and criminals will still obtain and use guns as they choose without anyone's permission. Like Christ's offer, the only peace possible, even with such a drastic solution, requires a day of reckoning. And unlike the bible's climactic "Armageddon", our day of reckoning would be a slow process, where it might take many generations to get the lions share of gun ownership under control. But now the the bigger question is not so much whether we think there needs to be enforcement of common sense laws regarding guns, but whether we trust our government to do it! Come on now... THAT is the REAL question that jumps into people's minds as I describe such government oversight, isn't it?
Now just like the effects of climate change, we already are having the effects thrown in our face again and again. There are people sufficiently insane that we KNOW we don't want such a person to have a gun. So like it or not, we are continually confronted with the need for some kind of oversight solution, for which we want our government to DO something. And we just don't want to take the bitter pill that having more protection means losing SOME freedom. How do we as humans (and maybe particularly Americans) fare with the idea of giving up ANY control over OUR empowerment (to decide and enforce good and evil, guns in this case)? Well the words from the old Rock Opera "Tommy" come to my mind: "we're not gonna take it!!!". And if humans would not take such direction from a God or savior, they certainly won't grant such power to the government.
So an enforced government oversight, sufficient to be able to say we truly have done EVERYTHING we can to curb gun violence is something that won't go over, at least not all at once. It will take many many slow voting cycles over a great deal of time to make effective change here and sadly, many repeated reminders born out of future horror stories in the news to drive it. So what can be done right now? Many say Nothing, but I disagree. Some laws can be added or modified, and many more need to be enforced.
Moreover, such change HAS to be done on a federal level. Otherwise obtaining a gun that is illegal in your state will be as simple as a road trip to Florida. Granted only small incremental fixes to anything are likely to occur. The tidal majority is thankfully turning, however slowly, on this and many other important issues. And granted, the effectiveness of whatever laws we CAN tweak right now are no more guaranteed than our more efficient cars are guaranteed to do anything to reverse climate change. But if we can't do everything, lets do SOMETHING. It may be too late, but there is good reason to try!
p.s. Sorry about the multiple replies. This blog does not allow me, (or anyone else, for that matter!), to edit replies. The only way to edit a post is to delete it, re-post it with the edits in place, and hope you got it right that time.
DeleteRandy,
I really wish it was as simple as you suggest: Get the Federal Government on board, pass universally stringent laws, and the problem magically goes away.
Unfortunately, I do not believe it is that simple. In fact, I believe that this kind of solution would only serve to make the problem worse.
The essence of why I believe this way can be summed up in several paragraphs I have posted in reply to the postings that you and others have placed here.
Viz.:
My reply to you on Feb. 7th:
[quote]
I . . . believe that these criminals know that they can operate with a relative degree of impunity because they know that it is very unlikely that anyone else will have any kind of firearm to resist them. . . .[I]f they [the ordinary citizens] do, and [if] they use it, the burden of proof will be on them to justify the use of deadly force in defense of their lives or property.
By the way, "self defense" is not an affirmative defense in just about every state in the Union.
If you injure or kill someone, even if clearly in self-defense, you still have to go through the wringer to prove that your use of force in self defense was justified. The fact that the criminal was carving his initials in blood on your wife's body while you watched, is not sufficient in many places.
Because of the many roadblocks placed in the ordinary citizen's path when it comes to owning a firearm, or protecting themselves, criminals are effectively given the "Keys to the City" and invited to come and do whatever they please.
[/quote]
My reply to Alan on Feb 13th:
[quote]
If you look back in history, we have never had such a restrictive gun-law environment as there exists today, and we have never had such an outbreak of senseless gun related crimes as we have now.
[/quote]
My reply to Chris on Feb 13th:
[quote]
The criminal elements of society really don't care if the mere fact of owning a gun is against the law - if you're going to stick a pistol up someone's nose and blow their brains out, the fact that the gun itself might be illegal is trivial.
The other side of that is this:
If owning a gun is illegal, then the "honest, law-abiding citizens" won't have them - because they're forbidden. However the criminals, gangsters, thugs, Mafia types, etc. will still have them because they don't give a damn if the gun is illegal. In fact, they prefer them that way - it makes them harder to trace back to the killer.
[/quote]
Seriously Randy, do you actually believe that more stringent gun control laws will make it more difficult for criminals to get guns?
Criminals don't care what the Federal Government, or State Governments do to control guns; *they* will get whatever weapons they want or need, military grade or otherwise. As I said before:
"The criminal elements of society really don't care if the mere fact of owning a gun is against the law - if you're going to stick a pistol up someone's nose and blow their brains out, the fact that the gun itself might be illegal is trivial."
The entire point I am trying to make is that Gun Control - as attractive as it may be on the surface - does not work, will not work, and cannot work because (IMHO) it is based on a false premise:
If guns are controlled or banned, those elements of society that we don't want to have guns, (criminals, etc.), will be unable to get them; which is patently false.
The fallacy of this thinking was proved time and time again during Prohibition If we rigidly control, or totally ban guns, we will see it proved yet again.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
Playing devil's advocate here, Randy. Implied in your response is that ultimately you DO trust government to do this. This is exactly the point where many will disagree. Government is a human institution and subject to human frailties. Just as all humans sin, so too all governments "sin" against their people. Once granted authority to monitor every citizen's possession and use of guns, this authority would surely be abused. So any plan to grant government this authority must be based on a careful risk/benefit analysis. Do you believe the gains offered by gun control outweigh the risks? The framers of the 2nd amendment did not. Have governments become more trustworthy since then?
ReplyDeleteAt risk of beating a dead horse here, I saw something on the news last night that made me sick to my stomach.
ReplyDeleteSvetlana likes to watch Russian TV, and she is particularly fond of one channel in particular - NTV. They have a nightly news program called Syevodnya, ("Today" or "This Day")
Last night, (3/24/2013) they aired a news article about a woman who was mugged in the Moscow Subway - and they even had footage from the surveillance cameras showing exactly what happened.
The video-taped footage shows:
* A group of about four thugs attacking this young woman with knives and other hand-weapons, trying to steal her purse. The had tossed her to the ground and were trying to take her purse when she managed to escape their grasp. Regaining her footing she stood up and pulled a small pistol from her purse and opened fire on the thugs, wounding one and scattering the rest.
* During all of this, there were several policemen standing around watching what was happening, **making no move to interfere**.
* Only after the woman began acting to protect herself - the police obviously having no desire to protect her - did the police act. They attacked and arrested **THE WOMAN** and took her to jail.
* During the subsequent trial, the defense attorneys brought up the point that she had no choice but to protect herself since the police were obviously not going to help her.
* The prosecutor showed at trial that, (and this is NOT BULLSHIT!), that the police had **specific orders** not to interfere! And, because of this, "failure to protect" was not allowed as a defense.
* The muggers got off scot-free, and the lady is now doing **hard time in prison** because she tried to defend herself.
This makes me absolutely sick to my stomach, and the message being sent here should be absolutely clear to anyone with half a brain: Criminals have the governments permission and blessing to do whatever they want, because if their intended victim does anything to protect themselves, it is the victim, not the criminal, who gets sent to prison.
IMHO, this should make the fallacy of "Gun Control" obvious on it's face.
As I said in my comment of February 7th:
(quote)
I also believe that these criminals know that they can operate with a relative degree of impunity because they know that it is very unlikely that anyone else will have any kind of firearm to resist them. And if they do, and they use it, the burden of proof will be on them to justify the use of deadly force in defense of their lives or property.
(/quote)
Later in that same comment:
(quote)
Because of the many roadblocks placed in the ordinary citizen's path when it comes to owning a firearm, or protecting themselves, criminals are effectively given the "Keys to the City" and invited to come and do whatever they please.
(/quote)
I believe that this is horribly, even tragically wrong, as it sends the wrong message to society, and it sends it loud and clear.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
As has already been pointed out by others, a major part of the rightness or wrongness of new gun legislation hinges on how much much we trust the government. The honest truth for me is that i can't paint all of government with the same brush. Our government is neither pure good nor pure evil, and unless you view government on one of those extremes, the discussion is complex. However, as much as I hate to just wave the flag here, this is gun legislation in the USA we are discussing here, not the USSR. You are correct to observe that what you saw is horrendous. But in my opinion, to further complicate this already complex debate by comparing our government to any other government, or allow what happens in another country to shape your opinion is counter productive. There are only so many factors you can take into account.
ReplyDeleteRandy,
DeleteYou are perfectly right in your statement that comparing Russian gun control to U.S.A.'s gun control is like comparing apples and motorcycles.
What I had hoped to do was to use this as another example of "self defense is not a defense".
As Bennette said in a seperate e-mail to me, the BEST scenario would have been for the police to actually do their job.
Since that is not something we have any control over, I believe that makes the case against gun control even more acute.
but that's my opinion.
What say ye?
Jim (JR)
Oh, and on the subject of trusting the government. . .
DeleteIt reminds me of a bumper-sticker I used to see years ago, which I will paraphrase here:
The more I learn about governments, the better I like my dog!
Maybe that's cynical, but I have learned to trust government - any government - about as far as I can throw a fit. Under water.
Jim (JR)