The psychology and sociology of gun rights

I was reading a short exchange on gun rights on FB (yes, with a kid now that is my only connection to the outside world LOL). I don't remember all the details, and either I or FB (or both) are too stupid to have comment searchability, but my thoughts were:

Gun rights proponents often fail to consider how other parties are impacted by their stance. Yes, I suppose it is important that they feel that their rights to have the option to commit violence (in a patriotic, lawful manner of course) are not infringed, but does that supersede the rights of others to feel safe, or even to live? And what about all the extra costs imposed on society to try to safely manage gun ownership/use? Maybe pro-gun folks would say that any regulation is unnecessary then - so would they be OK with their neighbors owning artillery and doing target practice in the church parking lot? In a society where none of us is king, we make rights tradeoffs all the time. We have the right to be offensive jerks in most situations, but we don't, often because of the self-serving (and totally valid) reason that it is not prudent. Unless you are a guy like Rush who gets rich by being a jerk.

We practice self-restraint and self-censorship when it serves our interests, so why can't we do the same when it serves the greater social good? First of all, we're selfish. And that is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if you decide to be good and a team player, you may get taken advantage of and end up worse off than if you continued to be bad, because everyone else is being bad. Of course gov't incentives and regulations could resolve the dilemma fairly easily, but the 2nd Amend., NRA, and such make that nearly impossible.

So who has the right to the option of violence in society? I remember in a previous email thread, J said something like in orderly societies, the state has a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you have Mad Max if citizens are permitted to resolve disputes and settle scores with weapons. We surrender some of our individualism and freedom to be part of society, because society confers some benefits and advantages that we couldn't get on our own. It's a good deal for many of us. Sometime we don't have a choice; if we want to be a recluse in the woods, I think we still have to file tax returns or the Feds may come after us. Maybe that is a violation of our individual freedoms, but as far as I know, no human has ever lived with absolute freedom (especially while having a family!). Even the cave men were restrained by the elements, hunger, and predators. Even Adam and Eve couldn't eat the apple. So this bizarre conservative fixation on absolute liberty as an attainable goal is puzzling to me, especially since many of them have a fairly negative view on human nature. Even the hardcore Marxists set limits on their grand plans to collectivize everything.

I know I am wading into philosophical territory where I am not knowledgeable enough to make much sense, but I hope you get my drift. Looping back on the "monopoly on violence" issue, obviously the risk is: what would happen to the poor citizenry if the gov't decides to abuse its monopoly and subjugate us? Well isn't that the whole point of political engagement and civic responsibility? Our gov't is of/by/for the people, so if we notice that it is descending toward tyranny, we take peaceful, proactive, corrective action. Relying on guns as a check on gov't abuse is like relying on surgery in medicine. Sure it may accomplish the goal, but there are plenty of less extreme, less risky alternatives that you can employ to fix the problem before ever needing to resort to the nuclear option. So gun patriots likely can do more good for their country and their loved ones by educating themselves, voting, and volunteering, instead of stockpiling more AR-15s and open-carrying them to Starbucks. But that is not glamorous enough I guess.

Obviously, the NRA and gun industry have pitched the "guns = freedom and defense of liberty" narrative pretty well, and plenty of politicians are echoing it. Now all of a sudden you are Capt. America if you buy a Glock (an Austrian product by the way). It's pretty intoxicating. Why go through the effort of doing all the boring, thankless work of being a good person/citizen when you can just arm yourself, and voila? It's like the choice between the unending discipline of healthy dieting and exercise vs. the one-off liposuction and surgery to look good. If you have the money, why not take the easier shortcut? It relates to the whole freedom argument - being good all the time is hard work; it cramps your style. I am not sure if this reflects the schizophrenia or genius of our system, but in order to ensure liberty and freedom for all, we have to sacrifice our freedom to diligently maintain it. Guns give us a lazy opt-out.

There is the whole potency and self esteem angle too. Somewhat related to the Rodger UCSB case, many men (and gun culture is overwhelmingly white male) probably feel emasculated and minimized by society at times (try being a woman, or an underprivileged minority then). That is partly due to unrealistic and frankly juvenile expectations. Nearly omnipresent messaging has told us that we are supposed to be "the man" with all the wealth, power, women, etc. We're supposed to be winners who get our way every time. Obviously that can't happen unless everyone's interests are aligned, and then we are back to Marxist territory. And a society of all alpha males is a scary thought to me (that is called frat row at USC).

It's frustrating and hard on the ego to compromise, feel disappointment, and get crapped on by others. So again, instead of doing the hard work of self-improvement, setting reasonable limits/goals, and strategic decision making so that we can feel happier and more successful, we lazily stay the course and blame everyone else instead if we're not living the perfect dream life. We buy a gun because the marketing tells us we'll be more of a man with it. And tragically, some of us may turn to that gun when things don't go our way, or we use it as a shortcut to get what we want unlawfully (or lawfully if you are in a Stand-Your-Ground state). That is one reason why guns are so dangerous - they channel all our internal insecurities, angst, and flaws into physical harm. Men just need Fight Club instead? But maybe that is why guns are so alluring too. They give some people an outlet to release all their baggage and demons to the world, and damn the consequences. Again, juvenile selfish thinking. Guns enable people, in their deepest moments of fearful desperation, to think they can employ violence to take back the power that society has unfairly deprived them.

So what is the remedy? Sadly, enough data suggests that more killings won't change our ways/laws, even if it worked in Australia and parts of Europe. We can't expect lawmakers and bureaucrats will solve the Prisoner's Dilemma for us. Unfortunately it has to start with each of us. We have to visibly commit to the hard work of being a peaceful, well-adjusted, engaged citizen (amidst all the dysfunctional messaging that continually tempts us to do otherwise). Noblesse oblige: we have to be happy and proud to give up some freedoms so that we can all have more freedom and liberty (same thing applies to the climate change and economic inequality issues, among others). That is why I personally do not think mental health is the main driving force behind America's gun violence epidemic. Most murders are fairly rational, which is the problem. We have to change people's values and mental calculus so that guns and violence are not the rational option. Of course changing minds is hard, but it can be done (racism, smoking, gay rights, etc.). Every revolution started with one person.

------

Jon Stewart on the intersection of Open Carry and Stand Your Ground (a.k.a. Perpetual Violence Machine):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/jon-stewart-open-carry_n_5457760.html

"You guys are idiots there are kids in here." - Chili's patron

Amazingly, some gun nuts are scary enough to even bully the NRA into submission! The Texas Open Carry club was first criticized by the NRA for drawing unnecessary, negative, risky attention to themselves and the gun rights issue (all true). But after an angry response from parts of the "gun base", they issued new statements supporting the right to Open Carry.

I hope Pope Francis delivers more hope and change than Obama

Not sure if you've been following some of the recent comments from Pope Francis, but he is definitely a better "Maverick" than McCain and Palin. I know there are many different levels of belief on this email list (each no better than the rest), so I don't mean to get too deep in the religion weeds here. But as a lifelong confused/jaded Catholic, I mostly just want to comment on the new pope's effectiveness vis-a-vis the core beliefs of the church, and what his org needs to do to be more successful in the 21st Century.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-church-cannot-obsessed-gays-contraception-abortion-163220900.html

Yes, Christianity has to be about more than quasi-arbitrary rules... all the things we are not supposed to do (and imposing that on others who are doing no harm). That is Taliban style. Faith isn't about prohibition and guilt - it's about being happy and doing good. And what is the point to fight for the welfare of unborn fetuses when you will turn your back on them after they are born into bad circumstances? Many Christians do act like Christ, but many more are astoundingly silent or complicit regarding greed (Francis spoke out), violence, and basically any other bigotry and injustice that doesn't directly affect them. But that is the strange marriage of Christianity and western free market & social conservatism - for them to pretend to be compatible, something's gotta give (and it's usually an abdication of core Christian values).

Francis is like the polar opposite of Benedict (the least inspiration pope since the Nazi appeasers IMO), and is more in tune with reality and modernity (and Jesus' teachings). I think some hardliners are seriously going to plot to kill him (it has likely happened before). Francis is saying/doing all the right things considering the constraints of his office, except really coming clean and contrite about the sex abuse scandals and the inferior role of women in the church. Maybe he's working up to that. But so far he has chosen to live like a common man (as opposed to Benedict's Prada slippers), literally washed the feet of his flock, and held a peace vigil and fasting for the people of Syria.

Other Christian denominations are leaps and bounds ahead of the Vatican on gender and sexuality tolerance, but on the record Francis said that he is not opposed to gay priests, and has no right to judge anyone who practices goodwill and searches for the Lord. Let's see if he actually implements this in the church. This contrasts Benedict's statement in 2005 that gays would not be welcomed in the priesthood (but bishops who cover up sex abuse are fine?), and that homosexuality is an evil disorder. Supposedly God loves all his children, so why would he create and curse some to lead "evil" lives just so self-righteous bigots can denounce them to feel better about themselves? Well, why would God curse innocent children to be born into starvation, war zones, and AIDS (and bless others with safety, riches, and opportunity)... but I guess we'll never have an answer for that.

He's also said that atheists can go to heaven just like believers. Doing good is the criterion, not some ceremonial label. Clearly stuff like this has ruffled some feathers among the stuffy establishment types. But the College of Cardinals picked this man to lead (and came to their decision rather quickly compared to Benedict). It's not like Francis was always a rebel, or he would have never risen in the church's ranks. As recently as 2010 Francis spoke out against gay adoption in his native Argentina, but apparently he has changed his views for the greater needs of the office (some might think divine inspiration, or just sensible rebranding?). Maybe the Cardinals realized that the church has pretty much been failing in every way, especially with the young, vulnerable, and poor of the world (the most blessed people according to Jesus). So a big change was needed, like Obama-sized change. I just hope at the end of his papacy, we have more to show for it than a health care policy mess and drone strikes.

So far Francis has been mostly talk, though that's kind of his job. He isn't the head of a state (well, not a very big one), so he can't really change our lives as much as civic leaders. He does have a lot of financial and human resources at his disposal that he could deploy. But in general he is there to inspire. And it seems he is doing a good job of that, especially in the "growth markets" that the church will depend on in the future. He's the first non-European born pope in centuries (though he is ethnically Italian), and he is a huge hit among the young of the developing world. During the Brazil protests, he mingled with the crowds and spoke about inequality (Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the world and also has one of the biggest wealth gaps). While the silver-haired septuagenarians in the west are the church's core following (and cash cow), everyone knows that their time is short (and their kids and grandkids are not going to church anymore). Maybe the pope's message doesn't resonate with them, and he may make them uncomfortable (not necessarily a bad thing for a leader to do at times). But where are they going to go... join the LDS? :) Maybe Francis could get some of them to rethink their antiquated and frankly un-Christian beliefs. Ironically or maybe not, most of this email has nothing to do with religion. It's about getting people to consider the benefits of not being intolerant, selfish pricks. If Francis can move the needle a bit there, then he should be canonized.  

Like the GOP, there is a struggle for the soul and future of the church. The hateful, egocentric, self-serving, and power-hungry factions of both the GOP and the Catholic Church may hold disproportionate sway now, but it can't last or their future is doomed. Just get back to basics: why does the church exist? Not to look after itself, conceal crimes/corruption, and act superior judging others. It should help people through education and compassion. I think Francis realizes that the bigger the leader, the more of a servant he or she must be. A servant, not a king. Any leader could benefit from that lesson, from POTUS to parent.

Intolerance, the GOP, and "Christian" values

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiU3maL6rzE

I totally missed this one, and shame on you all for not bring it up either. J/K :)

"The Newsroom" mentioned this in tonight's episode. Apparently at one of the forgettable and often pathetic 2011 GOP primary debates hosted by FNC, they aired a clip of a soldier serving in Iraq who just came out as gay on YouTube and asked the candidates if they would roll back the progress that gay and lesbian soldiers have made. Loud boos came from the audience, and not a single candidate had the courage (not even courage, but minimum human decency) to support that soldier - who was taking a major risk - and chastise members of the crowd who were disrespectful. At least in 2008 McCain had the decency to correct the people who were spouting Obama lies/hate/fear (much to his political peril among some conservatives, unfortunately). The question was directed at major bigot Santorum, who blah blahed a little about how sexuality has no place in the military (and he got cheers for that). Just like how racism is no longer a problem in the US, and abstinence is the best way to fight AIDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

I guess during that summer of GOP debates, there were also regrettable crowd reactions like cheers for TX's prolific executions and letting the sick uninsured die. But for the "pro-military" party, I can't believe how they handled the gay soldier issue. He had to hide who he was, and probably endure a lot of homophobic conversation weekly, just to live through 120 degree heat and get shot at/blown up. All that because he cared enough to serve the US in the armed forces. And I think this was the first time in a long time that the entire GOP field had not served in uniform at all. So yeah, they have every right to pass judgment and hang that soldier out to dry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xT1iMvTwYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

Well, after the repeal of DADT and various state and federal court rulings, one could argue that the LGBT crowd got the "last laugh" and are on a winning streak vs. the old, hateful ways of a certain wing of the GOP. Obviously there's a long way to go before sexual orientation discrimination is no longer an issue, but we have to hold people accountable when they are exhibiting shameful behaviors. I don't think Romney's trouncing has done anything to reverse the undercurrents of bigotry that exist in some of the GOP, and frankly I don't know what will. But for those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, a choice, a disease, a deviant lifestyle, etc... how is this for thought?

There are plenty more damaging and even deadly transgressions discussed in the Bible that we should probably address before we try to eradicate homosexuality from society. For those who are so against gays and the "sin" that they represent - are they just as intolerant and vociferously opposed to the rampant selfishness and greed that has caused great suffering and even deaths worldwide during the recession? Are they similarly protesting the brutality and violence of our penal system and foreign policies? And will they also boo those who show a total lack of Christian compassion for the poor, the sick, and the mistreated (and may even contribute to their pain)? Fight those fights first, because as far as I know Jesus didn't bring up homosexuality even once in all the Gospels. And if he did, I really doubt it was in the context of booing them.

----------

Come on, that's just LIBERAL MEDIA talk. The right and honorable Mr. Rick Santorum totally would have condemned those boos...if he had heard them.

"I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job; I hope he is safe and I hope he returns safely and does his mission well.

I have to admit I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them. But, as you know, when you’re in that sort of environment, you’re sort of focused on the question and formulating you answer, and I just didn’t hear those couple of boos that were out there. But certainly had I, I would've said, “Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.”

I mean, you could barely even hear those boos, how could he have known they were booing? Or what exactly they were booing? Maybe they were booing something else.:

"Kelly brings up an excellent point, sharing that it was unclear whether those booing were doing so because of the soldier, or the content of his question"

Because if that was the case, then it would have been totally okay right?

----------

Haha thx. Gotta love the excuse machine. That's kind of amazing that 10 candidates + the moderator didn't hear anything from what seemed to be dozens/hundreds of booers in the crowd. They were just too dialed in! They presumably heard the question (which they were concentrating on) and the video... so putting 2 and 2 together, could they at least acknowledge that soldier's patriotic service and legit concerns, apart from the issue of crowd boos? They acted like that man didn't even exist, and Kelly was giving them a hypothetical question. Humanizing an issue with an actual personal example makes it harder to blanket stereotype and hate (kudos to Google and Fox for that I guess). I guess that's debating for dummies 101 though: when you don't like the question or direction of the discussion, just pretend it never happened and talk about what you want to talk about.

At least in 2008 McCain had the decency to respectfully and diplomatically correct people who were spouting Obama lies/hate/fear (much to his political peril among some conservatives, unfortunately). And McCain was a fogey probably going deaf and senile at the time. He heard the boos and did the right thing. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc

Election comments

First of all, weed in WA and CO!!! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-marijuana-votes-20121106,0,3992024.story?track=rss

I'll just comment on the election and politics here, not necessarily on the merits of each party's philosophies and policy agendas.

I can't remember the last time I felt so proud of the American people. Personally, I think this is bigger than 2008 considering the current political environment. Voters rejected the GOP's schizophrenic candidate, as well as their policies of exclusion, obstruction, wealth/power inequality, obsolete beliefs, and scapegoating the wrong people for America's problems.

And ironically, the electoral college is now working in the Dem's favor! Romney almost won the popular vote but got wiped out in electoral votes. But now there are "structural" advantages for the Dems in terms of electoral vote distributions, similar to what the GOP enjoyed from Nixon to Bush Sr.

We worried that Cit. Utd. would change politics forever, and I do believe it had a noticeable effect. But Obama's campaign is the most sophisticated and effective grassroots, micro-donation, new media machine we've ever seen (and it's a platform that they can hopefully transfer to future candidates and continue to have an advantage vs. the GOP on). In the end, that beat out the Adelson, Koch, Trump, and Rove led money and misinformation blitz. Outside groups have to pay a higher fee for TV ads than campaigns, so $1 of money raised by Obama2012 equaled about $1.50-2.00 of Super PAC money. So once again, the GOP miscalculated. Everyone (but Nate Silver) predicted that the young people, poor, and minorities (who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008) are now disillusioned and unlikely to show up for Obama like that again. Well they did, and even more so for Latinos. 

But still, about as many people voted for Romney as Obama. A lot of white males, older folks, and the wealthy. Maybe the GOP will realize that America is not like "Leave it to Beaver" anymore and those groups are not enough to guarantee a win each time, but I doubt it. They chose Ryan over Rubio or a woman (and he didn't even deliver WI). Well, the Ryan pick was kind of forced by the nomination of Romney - clearly not the GOP's first choice. I guess Christie wanted to wait until Obama was termed out to give it a shot, probably a smart move. 

So did the "core strengths" of the GOP actually cause them to lose here? It gained them money but cost them votes, and fortunately votes still determine our leaders. The Tea Party, ties to big business, and pro-Israel lobby became liabilities. Most Americans do not feel directly threatened by Iran, do not believe that Israel will be attacked any time soon, and care more about domestic issues. Our foreign policy is far from comfortable, but Osama is dead, America is tired of war, and the focus on these narrow issues to placate their big donors and the hawks didn't persuade many voters who weren't already sure votes for Romney.

How about big business? A private equity mega-millionaire who outsourced jobs to China and didn't support the auto bailout may not be the most convincing messenger for the conservative solution to economic growth. Despite the latent displeasure with Obama over the economy, the "supply side" argument didn't gain traction among non-core GOP voters. And it's not really a great strategy to persuade disillusioned independents and liberals to vote for you when you accuse half the country of being lazy bozos with their hands out (the veterans, elderly, marginalized?), and when you accuse a key growth demographic (Latinos) of stealing jobs and undermining our recovery. 

And then there's the Tea Party. They energized the GOP and thumped the Dems in 2010, but became a liability now. The are too regressive, intolerant, exclusive, and hateful - just not very pleasant people you want to associate with. A lot of presidential elections is about getting casual or infrequent voters out for you. These folks have more centrist, timid views - which is of course anathema to the TP. They aren't winning friends and turning off a lot of key voters with stuff like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?ref=opinion&_r=0