Let's start working together to stop gun violence
Mass shootings are in the news every few months, and this justifiably sets off a gamut of emotions in the mainstream media and on social media. The gun issue isn’t a perfect split between the two dominant ideological subcultures in the United States, but it comes close. Both sides typically condemn the mass shootings, but they fight over where the fault lies and how to prevent the next one. When issues become contaminated with social meaning, rational arguments take a back seat to group identity. The following is my attempt to distill this issue down to general principles in order to make sense of it. We all want to stop mass shootings from happening, so let’s understand each other, have empathy for one another, and figure out how to work together on this.
The emotional response to guns makes sense in terms of the Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert’s (not the owner of the Cavs) Personal, Abrupt, Immoral, and Now (PAIN) model. It’s personal; guns are used by other people with intent to harm. It’s abrupt; one moment you’re going about your business and the next you could be running away from a shooter. It’s immoral; killing innocent people is immoral, and we should exercise extreme caution when rationalizing exceptions to this rule (e.g. euphemisms like collateral damage are a form of denial). And it’s happening now; guns are regularly in the news.
Both sides are motivated by dread risk — a risk that people have a strong aversion to, that is usually based on fear. On the pro-gun side I often hear the argument that people need guns to defend themselves from shooters. On the anti-gun side I hear that there would be fewer shooters if it wasn’t so easy for would-be shooters to obtain a firearm. Both of these responses make their respective groups feel like they have more control over the situation and can alleviate the dread.
People are afraid of shootings, but is this a rational fear or an irrational fear? I looked up the stats here https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3. My odds of being killed in a mass shooting are pretty low (1 in 11,125) but I was surprised to find that the odds of being killed by a gun in the US is 1 in 315. I would expect that once I account for demographics the odds will be slightly lower for me personally. But the psychological distance of the threat decreases when a group you identify with is attacked. The resurgence of white supremacists is troubling, and certain political language seems to be “raising the temperature” and increasing the likelihood for these types of attacks to occur. Are we willing to give up any of our freedoms for a greater sense of physical security? Guns are a part of this equation even if other factors are involved too.
The difference in how each group approaches the solutions to the problem is rooted in their values and identity. On the right, a sense of belonging to American cultural traditions pivots the discussion toward our forefathers’ intent while writing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. To the right, the country is sacred, and so is anything that is symbolic of the country like the flag, anthem, and the Bill of Rights. Guns are part of that culture. The left doesn’t typically share the same sacred values, and has a different social construction for their sense of national identity. They are more concerned with minimizing harm and take a more direct, regulatory approach. Many also see our current system as unfair in that it favors conservative outcomes since it is more difficult to make a change than to preserve the status quo.
Personally, I don’t care for guns, but in order to understand what another group is feeling, I like to find analogies that I can relate to. If instead of guns, video games were being blamed for an increase in homicides, how would I feel if video games became severely regulated or even banned? As a responsible, former gamer, I wouldn’t appreciate a ban, but I might approve of restricting sales based on a criterion like age if I thought it would make society safer or wouldn’t cause me to make too large of a sacrifice.
I also would like to comment on my approval of Marco Rubio when he conversed with the Parkland school shooting victims. This shows integrity, and I find it unfortunate that this caused his approval rating to drop. But one thing that I do not agree with him on is that his NRA funding doesn’t pose a conflict of interest. It very well could even if he doesn’t realize it. Money in politics is a major threat to our democracy, and we should focus on fixing it.
So where do we go from here? We need to stop focusing on our differences and collaborate based on what we have in common. Most of us, regardless of political affiliation, want expanded background checks — requiring background checks for all gun sales. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 that passed the House may also be something that we can find compromise on, and perhaps we could also agree on mandatory wait periods. Let’s start working together as Americans.
The emotional response to guns makes sense in terms of the Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert’s (not the owner of the Cavs) Personal, Abrupt, Immoral, and Now (PAIN) model. It’s personal; guns are used by other people with intent to harm. It’s abrupt; one moment you’re going about your business and the next you could be running away from a shooter. It’s immoral; killing innocent people is immoral, and we should exercise extreme caution when rationalizing exceptions to this rule (e.g. euphemisms like collateral damage are a form of denial). And it’s happening now; guns are regularly in the news.
Both sides are motivated by dread risk — a risk that people have a strong aversion to, that is usually based on fear. On the pro-gun side I often hear the argument that people need guns to defend themselves from shooters. On the anti-gun side I hear that there would be fewer shooters if it wasn’t so easy for would-be shooters to obtain a firearm. Both of these responses make their respective groups feel like they have more control over the situation and can alleviate the dread.
People are afraid of shootings, but is this a rational fear or an irrational fear? I looked up the stats here https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3. My odds of being killed in a mass shooting are pretty low (1 in 11,125) but I was surprised to find that the odds of being killed by a gun in the US is 1 in 315. I would expect that once I account for demographics the odds will be slightly lower for me personally. But the psychological distance of the threat decreases when a group you identify with is attacked. The resurgence of white supremacists is troubling, and certain political language seems to be “raising the temperature” and increasing the likelihood for these types of attacks to occur. Are we willing to give up any of our freedoms for a greater sense of physical security? Guns are a part of this equation even if other factors are involved too.
The difference in how each group approaches the solutions to the problem is rooted in their values and identity. On the right, a sense of belonging to American cultural traditions pivots the discussion toward our forefathers’ intent while writing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. To the right, the country is sacred, and so is anything that is symbolic of the country like the flag, anthem, and the Bill of Rights. Guns are part of that culture. The left doesn’t typically share the same sacred values, and has a different social construction for their sense of national identity. They are more concerned with minimizing harm and take a more direct, regulatory approach. Many also see our current system as unfair in that it favors conservative outcomes since it is more difficult to make a change than to preserve the status quo.
Personally, I don’t care for guns, but in order to understand what another group is feeling, I like to find analogies that I can relate to. If instead of guns, video games were being blamed for an increase in homicides, how would I feel if video games became severely regulated or even banned? As a responsible, former gamer, I wouldn’t appreciate a ban, but I might approve of restricting sales based on a criterion like age if I thought it would make society safer or wouldn’t cause me to make too large of a sacrifice.
I also would like to comment on my approval of Marco Rubio when he conversed with the Parkland school shooting victims. This shows integrity, and I find it unfortunate that this caused his approval rating to drop. But one thing that I do not agree with him on is that his NRA funding doesn’t pose a conflict of interest. It very well could even if he doesn’t realize it. Money in politics is a major threat to our democracy, and we should focus on fixing it.
So where do we go from here? We need to stop focusing on our differences and collaborate based on what we have in common. Most of us, regardless of political affiliation, want expanded background checks — requiring background checks for all gun sales. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 that passed the House may also be something that we can find compromise on, and perhaps we could also agree on mandatory wait periods. Let’s start working together as Americans.
Comments
Post a Comment