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.

The biggest civil rights violation you've never heard of

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/10/200644779/history-professor-kept-mexican-repatriation-alive
http://public.csusm.edu/frame004/history.html

"If we were rid of the aliens who have entered this country illegally since 1921, stealing in as burglars might enter our homes, our present employment problem would shrink to the proportions of a relatively flat spot in business." - J Quinn, LA Supervisor

CA and the US southwest have historically had a higher % of Latino residents due to proximity to Mexico and former Spanish-Mexican sovereignty. Since the first days the US settled the West, we have been importing cheap Mexican laborers. Some of those people had children here who were born US citizens, supposedly with full legal rights on paper. They didn't sneak in here... they were asked to come here and had families in accordance with US laws. They helped Americans survive and prosper, despite often being treated inferior.

The "Mexican Repatriation" under Hoover during the Depression was an outrageous response by a desperate nation to keep "American jobs in the hands of REAL Americans." Where have we heard that before? As if getting rid of Mexicans would have ended the Depression - it probably would have exacerbated it! Next there was the illusion of immigrants "sucking America dry" and living off the gov't teat. People of Mexican descent were only 12% of the welfare rolls, consuming on average $20/month of gov't assistance (and that assistance was passed on in the form of consumer spending, often to white businesses). Yet deporting them cost taxpayers $68/family. So what were we gaining? Some of the people we kicked out were taxpayers and "job creators" too.

During 1929-1944, over 2M people were deported under this program, and 1.2M of them (60%) were US CITIZENS. It's not like they got rid of all Latinos, so in some cases families were broken up in the indiscriminate dragnet and never reunited (like ICE's rounding up of illegals today). The social climate was so hostile to Latinos that many of them voluntarily left the US too, at the rate of 10K/month in 1931. Similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Latinos who weren't rounded up were often blocked or intimidated away from gov't services and employment. So if US society wasn't letting them make a living, is it any wonder why some of them ended up on welfare? A self-fulfilling racist prophecy. The "we're getting rid of criminal Mexicans" myth was pervasive, but it was likely that more crimes were being committed against Latinos than by Latinos at that time (Latinos rarely reported crimes against them to authorities, and witnesses would rarely stick their necks out for them).

The program explicitly targeted Latinos, and I am sure they were dispossessed of their legal property like what happened to the interned Japanese-Americans (we often forget that they were US citizens too). It is a tragedy of our education system that me as a US-born citizen didn't learn of this until I was 34. Speaking of Japanese Internment, some speculate that the Mexican Repatriation was a "warm up" and learning experience for the US gov't so they were more able to efficiently handle the Japanese-Americans.

After what happened during the Depression, it is an amazing display of grace and forgiveness that Latinos still want to live here, especially when they have had to put up with similar shit over the decades (physical laborer and domestic worker abuse, prop 187, border fence, Arizona law, the Tea Party, etc.).

And here is the official US gov't response:

In February 2005, California State Senator Joseph Dunn (D-Garden Grove) introduced Senate Bill 670 to apologize for the "unconstitutional removal and coerced migration" of Californians during the Great Depression. Before "The Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican Repatriation Program" was passed on February 22, it had twice been vetoed by Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis. - C Frame, CSUSM

They were supposed to erect a plaque commemorating this tragedy, but so far nothing has been done.