The idea of control is absurd, guns or not. The world is far too complicated to predict events, system behaviors, or whether even your email will send when you hit the send button. Prediction is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of control. And when we say “gun control” we believe we can predict who would be a responsible user of a gun and who wouldn’t. We believe with the proper equipment features we can control what happens when a user pulls the trigger or that it’s actually the user who owns the gun… and so on. It’s literally all based on an absurd premise.
And yet, control is exactly the fallacy of our political and social systems. Guns and other tools of destruction provide the operator the illusion of control. Lightweight, homage regulating laws provide the population the illusion of control. These illusions really just mask the chaos of a contingent world. Any distressed person operates under highly conflicting contingencies or has lost the ability to recognize contingencies (of behavior and consequence). In fact, this happens to all of us all of the time. We live under near constant confirmation and related behavioral (cognitive biases) as a result of our limited perceptive systems and neural componentry (and often sick and broken bodies). Our system constantly pattern recognizes incorrectly (we think God helps us score touchdowns….). These incomplete interpretations of the contingencies of the world become especially problematic in a stressed and distressed situation. (I’ll skip a deep discussion of behavioral, physical and chemical science and just lump all of it in an idea that we are all systems ecologically looking for homeostasis/equilibrium.)
When contingencies conflict or get very confused and the environment is primed properly disaster is more likely to occur. Priming includes a cultural dimension, accessibility of destructive tools, lack of obstacles to act, etc. Combined with stress, illness, and chemicals (drugs/booze/etc) in a person and a more combustible situation emerges – this is the nature of probability and complexity.
Proponents of guns and various “let’s all pack heat” strategies suffer from the same delusions of control as perpetrators of mass killings and gun murders. The world is not fundamentally controllable – in situations with guns and situations without guns. Every person and system is a collection of contingencies – the collective probabilities of circumstance and events. For instance, at Christmas time if you have hot colored lights plugged in, faulty electric outlets and dead, dry pine trees in your living room you have increased the chance of burning your house down. I assure you there are lower probability of raging fire decorations you can display in your home.
The key to dealing with our uncontrollable world isn’t pretending control exists. We either increase or reduce probabilities of events by changing ourselves and/or the environment. Changing the contingencies is non-trivial and multifaceted. One key is to not put too many degrees of freedom between an act and the experience of the consequences of that act. This is a subtle but very important point. Many studies show humans are not good at anticipating delayed consequences – delay in time and in-directness (associations) of consequences. This truth is at the heart of addition formation, financial debt, wars, education and literacy, and so on. You can do your own study on this truth by reminding yourself of your last Vegas trip, checking your alerts for all those idiot Candy Crush notifications from your “friends,” looking at your credit car bills or reviewing your local church (and bible!) for policies on tithing and confession and promises of heaven and hell.
Guns are so easy (very few contingencies) to obtain and use (poorly) that there is almost NO PERCEIVABLE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE to gun ownership relative to THE DELAYED ULTIMATE CONSEQUENCE of gun usage. Pulling a trigger is such a simple act…. even gun makers and the NRA know this. It’s why they attempt to stratify guns into level of effort to use: manual, semi-automatic, automatic and so on. The delay in round expulsion is built on the idea that if you add more work for the user the less they can kill and the more time it takes to load and fire rounds the more the prey and other contingent circumstances can adjust in response. This is all highly consistent logic and observable phenomena.
Most systems, including individual people, operate on a strategy of efficiency AKA the path of least resistance. We resolve our stresses efficiently (according to our own weird histories/abilities). When guns are easy to get then that’s an outlet we go with (replace guns with drugs, TV, gambling, sex, food, yoga, etc). We know this truth. We’ve used it forever… Grocery stores get ya every time with this. And so does the government. Some things it makes hard to do or get (more contingent): health care, food stamps, driver’s licenses, info on NSA programs. Somethings it makes easy (less contingent): paying your taxes (do it online! send cash!), getting parking tickets, buying lottery tickets, campaign donating!
Never underestimate the power of laziness! (capitalism and governments/kings and religion don’t!)
If people generally didn’t operate this way voter turn out would be 100%, education rates would be off the charts and no one would ever buy a lottery ticket or use a slot machine again (well at least they might pull the handle instead of auto spinning).
I firmly believe in the complete disarmament and aggressive buy back and destruction of all arms – civilian and otherwise. For this country and all of them. I believe in trying to get the probability of widespread carnage and unintended consequences as low as possible. While compromise is inevitable my position is not one of compromise.
If you’re for guns or even a gun apologist you really just don’t trust the world and believe in control and want to maintain what you perceive as a competitive advantage to the unarmed or the less well armed. Perhaps it is a competitive advantage, local to you. System wide you’re increasing the chance of unintended disasters and you’re partially complicit more or less in the continuing violence against kids and students. You are also probably ok with it or don’t believe it because the consequences of your slight increase in probability of someone else’s disaster don’t register in your pattern recognizer.
p.s.
As I said earlier… lowering the probability of gun violence takes more than gun laws. It takes education, first and foremost. And it takes economic opportunity, better health care, jobs, love, and everything in between. I chose to be complicit in increasing those things at the expense of my right to bear arms. We’re all just a small piece of a contingent and uncontrollable world and I’d rather stand in perspective and connection with people rather than behind armor, triple locked doors and concealed weaponry.
Violence is the issue, fear the focusing lens. I would argue it’s easier to drive over someone, or a bus stop full of kids, vs shoot up one because:
A. people would run from gunfire, not from cars driving right by them.
B. cars are readily available to anyone 16 or older, no psych check/background
C. you have to actually prevent yourself from doing it, even just casually driving by, by steering and applying brakes, etc.
Tragedy like this even happens due to distractions, dwi, human error, pure happenstance. No evil intent required.
Shootings sprees are not accidental, they require intent. We in the US are the most armed per capita nation. But what happens more, accidents or gun death? Even all violent deaths in aggregate pale before accidental tragedy, not to mention preventable deaths (100,000s/yr)
Also, studies and departments often include self directed gun violence in deaths and injuries statistics, inflating them.
Guns violence is an issue. But it’s measured cost to society is tiny compared to even accidental death.
They are using fear to inflate the perceived threat.
This is about control. But what of our control relinquished by banning guns from only those who would agree to the ban in the first place?
I support firearms specifically for women, as they are at marked disadvantage vs men in physical altercation.
“God didn’t make us equal, Sam Colt did”
I myself carry as I’ve been victim to various crimes of violence, even random.
1v5? Been there. Knife at my throat another time, waiting to see if a crazy guy will kill me, or if one of my 3 friends there would stop it -they had phones out to call 911, that’s all.
My 5ft 85lb gf can stop any sized man with her gun. How would she do, without one? What about if there were 3 guys?
I once had to watch 6 guys beat a young man almost to death, unable to prevent it. The feeling of weakness, powerlessness, helplessness…it’s what nightmares are made of.
Today, I would have an option. I would do everything I could to prevent hurting anyone, but I would do everything I needed to prevent that man’s death.
Yes, I actually consider it my personal responsibility to carry, if only to possibly prevent ANY VIOLENCE or equally evil crimes from being committed, which have already happened to me, to either myself again or anyone around me.
If violence went extinct today I would recycle my gun tomorrow.
More violence occurs WITHOUT guns.
Guns even the playing field, reducing a disadvantage 51% of the population has, or the disadvantage of numbers (1v3, 1v10)
They help protect and preserve equality by allowing the small and the weak to compete with the big, the strong, or the many.
In conclusion,
End violence and you have no gun issue.
Even if you could erase every single gun, that would not end violence.
Also this part contradicts itself:
The key to dealing with our uncontrollable world isn’t pretending control exists. We either increase or reduce probabilities of events by changing ourselves and/or the environment.
We have no control, but we control our lives by increasing or reducing probability?
I agree with the latter, which is why I wear a seatbelt, quit smoking, and carry a concealed pistol.
We don’t have 100% control, I agree with you on that.