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. 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.
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.
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.
------
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.
------
Jon Stewart on the intersection of Open Carry and Stand Your Ground (a.k.a. Perpetual Violence Machine):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
"You guys are idiots there are kids in here." - Chili's patron
No comments:
Post a Comment