GUN CONTROL - EMOTION, REGULATION, AND ESSENTIALS

GUN CONTROL – EMOTION, REGULATION, AND ESSENTIALS

INTRODUCTION

This essay uses the gun control debate as a platform to examine two, more fundamental, philosophical issues. First, an epistemological (look it up) discussion of emotion and cognition, because so many people seem to abandon reason in favor of feelings in this issue. Second, an examination of a seldom discussed political conflict – protecting a community by the regulation (legal exceptions to liberty) of all citizens versus the simple punishment of criminals, I believe this is the underlying essential in the gun control debate. If you feel strongly about one side or the other on gun control, you should get something out of this – but, I hope you will also consider and spend some time thinking about the two basic philosophical ideas that underlie the wider issue.

After the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT, the gun control debate exploded in the media, and among my friends on Facebook. I enjoyed a few really great posts from FB friends, reasoned discussions that made me stop and consider my own position. Unfortunately, most of what I read was a waste of time because most posts were based on feelings and not reason. The hallmark of these emotional remarks was that they were pure opinion. They didn't include reasons for the opinions, so that readers could mimic the writer's thought process. Also, the adverbs and adjectives used in the writing, indicated an argument from anger.

Well, I think emotion and anger is reasonable and to be expected in the wake of such a senseless tragedy. However, that same combination is not a good basis for policy discussion. Passion is admirable, but no substitute for reason. Reason requires that we seek out the underlying essentials in a political debate. The whole experience gave me the motivation to investigate emotion, the enemy of reasoned debate, and regulation, a communities attempt to proscribe the behavior of all in order to make negligence and crime less likely.

Disclaimer - I believe writers, especially journalists, should qualify their comments – are they observing and reporting facts, or simply expressing opinions – both can be valid and interesting, but the point of view should be revealed. Here is a breakdown of what I intend in this essay. I'll first examine emotions – although this information may be new to you, I consider this section to be a recognition of biological facts rather than opinion. Then I'll describe the gun control debate – I'll try not to express too many opinions here, but only report both sides. Next a look at regulation versus criminal punishment that may include opinion and this may tell you something about my take on gun control which you can use to evaluate whether I was fair in the gun control debate. Finally a conclusion that is full of opinion. I don't want to change the way you think based on my opinion – then you'll just change your mind again based on the next idea. Change your mind or not, based on what you conclude, on your personal evaluation, with your reason. I hope to give you grist for your reason's mill.

EMOTION AND COGNITION – FEELING AND REASON

Have you ever seen a TV news segment, where a person in the crowd at a meeting of a local school or county board, is shouting in the microphone about one side or the other of an issue? You may happen to fall on the same side of the issue and you hope she will prevail, but, then you think, they won't take her seriously, she's too passionate.

Well, I disagree. Passion is not her problem. The problem is that the source of her passion is not based on a reasoned argument, but on emotion. She doesn't know that passion, while admirable, is not a substitute for reason. We can't know how to get beyond this flaw unless and until we define and understand the specific identities (natural characteristics) of the entities (human beings) involved in the scenario. So, here we go.

Emotions (feelings) are immediate and automatic biological responses to environmental stimuli. Some people will be uncomfortable with the idea that emotions are beyond their immediate control, but that's the fact. You may be thinking, “Hogwash, I can control my emotions.” Sorry no. You can control what you choose to do, after having felt the emotion, but you have no immediate control over whether you will feel it or not.

Emotions have a mental and a physical component The mental component is the sum total of all the influences, chosen or not, that live in the background of your mind – that is, your subconscious. The curious thing biologically, and evolutionarily, is that this complex mental process then leads to physical changes that have survival value.

Somehow, this subconscious thought process results in the autonomic stimulus of several body organs that release chemicals called hormones. These substances effect the function of body systems in ways we can perceive and in ways that are beyond direct perception; increased heart and respiration rate, changes in the chemistry of digestion, and perhaps the instant desire to hug or hit someone.

The physical component can be modified by pharmacology, but probably shouldn't be unless there is an organic illness. The mental component can be modified over time by changing what one chooses to think, but only for those few (self-aware) individuals who actively seek out basic knowledge about valid ways to think, the branch of philosophy called epistemology. Only with a conscious knowledge of the workings of this mental component, can you begin to exert conscious control over the inputs that influence your subconscious.

The automatic and instant nature of emotions has potential survival benefits. It shortens the time between stimulus and response in organisms whose neuro-biology is based less on instinct and more on cognition. Emotion gives you an instant assessment that doesn't require the time to think. Great when your kid is about to be attacked by a wild animal, but there is also a danger. Emotion is not evaluation, feelings are not reason. Even people who live a life in which they usually make their choices based on reason, tend to fall back on feelings when the stimulus evokes a strong, visceral response like the safety of your spouse or children. There are also some community issues that tend to draw the same strong response from a large number of otherwise reasonable people – the most famous issues that have recently caused this are abortion and gun control.

FIREARMS AND FEELINGS

The gun control debate provides a perfect example of the emotional process in action. Hold a firearm in your hands and examine your feelings. Most people's feelings fall into one of two categories. If you grew up without guns around, were exposed to the media in the last 50 odd years, and especially if the firearm is a handgun, you probably feel very uncomfortable; not just cautious, but a little fearful. That's reasonable, see how your automatic emotions are a protective mechanism?  Firearms are dangerous.

The first time I held a firearm was a .22 rifle in Boy Scout Camp at about age 12. The next time was a deer hunt in grad school. In both instances, the emotion was similar to that experienced when holding a snake – two words come to mind: danger and evil - it's not reasonable and it's not a comment.  Even today I am very cautious around firearms because my emotional response is generally negative. However, my reason tells me that law enforcement cannot protect me at the moment of home invasion. So, I have a German shepherd, a marine air horn to mimic a sophisticated alarm, and I have owned firearms. I've never had the experience that leads to a desire to possess firearms for recreation. To those of us who fit on this side of the issue, a firearm is a tool to be cautious with, at best, and a killer at worst.

If you grew up with firearms, were taught how they work, were taught safety, and have used them for sport or recreation, you have a different emotional reaction. There is still caution, but not fear. If you've been properly coached, you probably notice when a person hands you a firearm, whether he/she first clears it of ammunition and opens the action. If you fit on this side of the argument and you don't recognise this feeling, you may be part of the problem. To those of us who fit on this side of the issue, a firearm is a tool – and like many tools, it has to be given respect because it is inherently dangerous. Table saws make me as nervous as firearms.

Remember, my point here is not to change your mind about gun control. But, did you recognize your elevated heart rate and respiration, the mild to moderate feeling of discomfort, when I made statements that, while not opinions about gun control, did seem to support one view or the other? That emotional response and an understanding of it, is one reason for this essay. I think life is better when you know this stuff about yourself.

You may look at the two general groups I have discussed and say, “Yea, but those are normal people; raised in differing situations, but raised to be responsible at some level. What about the people not raised right, or who have mental problems?” That's a reasonable question, but is it the essential gun control question?

REGULATING ALL CITIZENS VERSUS PUNISHING CRIMINALS

I do have a strong opinion on gun control. I have not yet revealed it overtly, but you may think you have detected it. My opinion is not based on guns, it's based on two other ideas that are necessary for a free society. Liberty and good government.

First, it is almost always wrong to punish all citizens because some citizens are not suited to live in a voluntary, free community. There are two ways that communities can strive to protect themselves from the bad acts of members. The first and most obvious is to codify unacceptable behavior, tell the community what the consequences of these bad behaviors will be, and then institute a subgroup in the community to apprehend and punish those that engage in the unacceptable behaviors. These behaviors are almost always some derivation of the initiation of force or fraud on other citizens and the subgroup designated to deal with the criminals is called government. Folks, that's the first and most important function of government.

The second method of protection was almost done away with in communities that were established after the Enlightenment Period with the exception of communities established on the basis of a religious prejudice like the Puritans of colonial Massachusetts. This second method is when communities, through their governments, establish limits on human behavior that does not constitute force or fraud. It sounds complicated, but it's not. I'm talking about community regulations. No one has done anything wrong, but they might. Here are some examples: all licensing laws (barbers, doctors, insurers, banks, small businesses, etc, etc, etc.), legal requirements to insure, leash laws, state mandated marriage contracts, sharing of medical info, who can buy what investments, can an RV stay overnight in a Walmart parking lot, are you wearing your seatbelt, we could go on and on and on and on. Also, some regulations just make it easier for government to punish offenders by making the regulated, proximate act, the offense, rather than the result. Now government only has to prove the regulated act took place, regardless of whether it resulted in a criminal act.

Regulation is an attempt to head off bad behavior before it is committed. It proscribes or limits the behavior of all citizens because of a fear that some will act badly. There are so many different motivations for this method of social restraint, that it would take a series of books to describe it today. Avoidance of this method of social organization was the reason, in part or in total, for the political birth of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, the Carolinas, Georgia, Canada, and Australia.

THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE

The set of regulations that I am using today, as illustration, is gun control. The basic argument against any gun ownership is as follows: firearms are dangerous by their nature; some people will mishandle firearms and injure themselves or others in error; some people will use firearms to hurt other people on purpose; the need to own a firearm is outdated, we don't need citizen militias anymore; civilized people don't need firearms; they should be heavily restricted or banned altogether.

On the other side, of what I suspect is a bell curve of opinion, are gun owners who fear that any regulation will be a stepping stone to virtual abolition. These people own firearms for a variety of reasons, protection, sport, recreation, and criminal activity. They believe their strongest argument is the 2^nd amendment of the Constitution - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Both sides argue about what those words mean. Gun owners believe it is self-evident, “shall not be infringed.” Those who advocate control believe the clause is about gun use as part of a “well regulated militia,” not a right of individuals. So who is right? Well, it depends on whether you're asking about constitutional interpretation or the issue of gun control generally.

The constitutional issue is easy. If you spend any time reading the works of the founding fathers, and if you use your knowledge of English grammar, you will find that the phrase about militia is subordinate both grammatically, and was in the minds of the founders, to the idea of individual liberty. So here the “gun wackos” win. However, I believe that the 2^nd amendment is a bad argument for individual gun ownership because it is not an argument using essentials.

This 2^nd amendment argument throws out the process of reason in favor of what a bunch of guys thought in the 18^th century, guys who accepted slavery and the disenfranchisement of women. The founders did stop and think – they tried to reason outside of the day to day distractions – but, they didn't get it all right and they knew it. They (maybe because some saw the contradictions) did not expect the ideas in the constitution to be written in stone. They provided for a process of change through amendment, but they made the process difficult, in an attempt to discourage frivolous, short-term cultural changes. In any case, the 2^nd amendment is only one fact to be considered in the debate.

ESSENTIAL ISSUE #1

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown are evidence of failure on many levels – parents, family, neighborhood communities, the mental health system, etc. My brother, David, posted a passionate and reasoned letter on FB concerning these social levels. He pointed out that the parents in our neighborhood, growing up, all new each other; everyone took an interest in all the children; the oddballs and troublemakers were known and watched.

When all these potential safeguards fail, when citizens become criminals because of evil intent or mental illness, we have a mechanism we depend upon to protect us. Citizens surrender the right to use force for the sake of peace in their communities – in return they give the right to use force to a government – we give up a small amount of self-agency for government protection. Folks, it's not the only reason for these tragedies, but it's one of the reasons that never comes up. The gun control debate is a smokescreen for the fact that our government has failed us. Our representatives have been too busy debating policy with the NRA and gun control advocates – real debate about law-enforcement solutions has been lacking.

I actually heard more than one politician, just after Newtown, say that putting armed security in all the schools was too expensive. WHAT??? Protecting citizens from violence is the #1, #2, and #3 duties of a legitimate government – not protecting forests, not providing recreational activities, not protecting endangered species, not going to the moon, not studying pork or milk production, not providing food to hungry citizens, not providing jobs for the unemployed, etc., etc., etc., ...

I morn, I cry for the children of Newtown and their families – but, I cry for the next time too. It will come because people don't see that the problem is not the availability of guns, it's the preoccupation of elected representatives with getting re-elected. The level of partisanship in recent years is both cause and effect. It is an effect because we now have career politicians who want to get re-elected (not predicted or intended by the founding fathers), and it is a cause of the lack of compromise that could meaningfully lower the threat of mass shootings. You think we'd have the same gridlock if we had what the founding fathers intended, citizen legislator who served a couple of terms and then went back to their real careers?

I think the gun rights side won't budge because the gun control side is arguing from emotion and not reason. The control side keeps shouting about assault weapons – folks, an assault weapon, legally available today, is a fashion statement, it looks military, but it is no more lethal than the rifle used by your average deer hunter. You want the rights side to give into the reasonable limitation on liberty that result from total and strict gun registration? You want recreational firearms owners to think, “well, maybe we don't need 30 rounds in a clip?” Then you have to show that it is not the intent of the control side to disarm law-abiding citizens because an occasional nut will illegally modify the mechanism of a firearm.

ESSENTIAL ISSUE #2

The most famous image on the gun rights side is Charlton Heston holding some antique muzzle loader over his head at an NRA convention – he says, “From my cold dead hands.” Many people see that behavior as simple arrogance being used to satisfy a like-minded audience. Well, there's a little more to it. I believe when many people think of that image of Heston, they are thinking of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pot, and those like them.

I want reasonable people to own guns because I don't trust government to always protect the people I care about. If the original, magnificent system of government that was created in our country can be perverted to the point that it is today, then I worry how much further liberty could be infringed. There are so many things that government does today, things that your average citizen thinks is commonplace and acceptable, things that would have been considered deplorable and immoral by our founding fathers – and remember these were guys who allowed slavery. Our government has gone so far outside it's basic, natural function, that it is not unreasonable for many people to question the government's commitment to the protection of citizen liberty. The proof of this is that the last sentence sounded natural to you, didn't it? I drew a clear distinction in that comment, a line between the government and the citizen population. That distinction was suppose to be eradicated by the ideal of the United States and you read it and accepted it as normal and common. It is now a common idea that the people is us and the government is them. This is proof that the great system, the hope of the human race, the monument to liberty and reason has stumbled. You don't trust your government and it's suppose to be yourself.

Oh, don't over play it, you think, government is safe. Perhaps you consider historical trauma and think, it could happen today. Study history, when every civilization decided it was so modern it didn't have to pay attention to the essentials which caused it's success, it collapsed. If you think we are too advanced to be fearful of government power then you have forgotten concentration camps, Japanese internment, Irish internment, African internment, the Civil Rights struggle, Pol Pot, apartheid, and the current situation in North Korea, Iran, and a dozen other locales.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have a problem in America with mass shootings. Emotions are an important survival mechanism, but not a substitute for reason. Some people want to outlaw firearms, but gun owners want to keep their weapons. Laws that restrict the choices of law-abiding citizens to participate in activities that do not constitute force or fraud on others, are a threat to liberty, the single most important life enhancer in our society. Citizens on either side of the gun control debate don't understand each other's life styles and don't trust each other's motivations. Political support for gun control is an attempt to re-define the issue and direct the blame for mass shootings away from government – the issue is the primary role of government is the protection of citizens from force and fraud and the government is failing because the system has been corrupted and is giving too much of it's attention to issues that are not a proper function of government. Compromise is not possible

I believe enough gun owners would be willing to accept reasonable restrictions if they felt that gun control advocates had no desire to strip them of the dual desire to protect themselves and to carry on a treasured cultural and historical idea. What would that take?

• We need a bipartisan committee of politicians, community advocates, and NRA officials to meet to discuss gun ownership, not gun control. These people would not recommend regulations, but outline what firearm rights should not even be debated.
• Because this is an emotional and national issue, we would need a president who can use the bully-pulpit to sell this initial compromise.

The proposal above could change the nature of the discussion in a way that could bring opposite sides together to discuss meaningful reform. So, after this conclave to promote compromise, what restrictions could actually have an effect on mass violence?

• All firearms should be registered and attributable to a citizen legally authorized to own – proven not to be criminally violent or mentally ill.
• Record of gun ownership should be available to the general public like sex offender records – that way, each citizen could know if some weirdo in the neighborhood owns a firearm. This idea may seem ridiculous to citizens living in a rural community, but those people should consider the legitimate concerns of their urban fellow citizens.
• People who use firearms (excessive force) in the commission of crimes, should receive very strict penalties. No “three strikes,” use a firearm in the commission of a felony, your intent is obvious – clear the prisons of drug users and incarcerate firearm felons for life. This should be publicized like the fire prevention campaign of Smokey the Bear in the 1970's.
• Gun owners will have to compromise on the legality of high round capacity and automatic weapons. Recreational use of such weapons could be restricted to private regulated sites, as they are in military training. It may be fun to shoot an automatic weapon with a high round capacity, but you just can't do it in your backyard and you have to give up the idea of having that capacity in your home Ted Nuggent.

But wait, if you're a control advocate and you're saying yes, yes, yes to the last part of my essay – you've got to decide that guns are here to stay and you're going to shut up about law-abiding citizens owning firearms for whatever legal purpose they desire.

Liberty does not require you to agree with all or any ideas except the prohibition on the use of force and fraud.

Now go make your loved-one a sandwich.

11 Mar 2013 - Test comment