By Andrew Frangos
image from executivegunrunners.com
The recent mass killing in Aurora, CO, reignited a long-running but dormant conversation about guns. The gun debate is a tricky one where divergent views lead to such polarization that potential action is completely paralyzed by the debate. We have vastly different mental models – the gun rights side that takes an individualistic view of defense and the gun control side that takes a collective view of crime prevention. Each side finds the other’s solution to be ineffective at best and detrimental at worst.
The Two Mental Models
Put simply, extreme advocates for gun rights view the world like this:
Mental Model of Gun Rights Advocates
An increase in crime should lead to an increase in defensive measures taken by individual which would deter potential criminals from even trying, knowing that their guns will be challenged by others’ guns. Further, an increase in crime should lead to loosening up gun control (let everybody bring guns to the movies!..1 somehow the fact that many movies involve real sounding gunshots makes this idea a little too confusing and scary to me), which would both increase the individual’s ability to defend herself and eliminate “safe-havens” for crime, which should in turn keep crime in check. While these acts of self-defense keep crime in check, they also generate heroic stories of modern day vigilantes which the gun rights advocates would use to prove the accuracy of their mental model and recruit more vigilantes to take up arms with ever more zeal, ultimately leading to more defense and crushing crime.
On the other hand, staunch gun control advocates view the world like this:
Mental Model of Gun Control Advocates
More crime should lead to more gun control, which decreases the number of guns available to criminals, decreasing crime. Gun control advocates see enthusiastic vigilantes as mostly ineffective against crime, and if anything contribute to accidental death and suicide. Unfortunately for gun control, proof of concept is not as immediate or palpable as in the case of the gun rights advocates. Compared to telling a story about a good guy shooting a bad guy, it is difficult to tell exciting stories about how many crimes were prevented due to barriers to gun possession. Effective gun control policy is really more of a non-story in the day to day sense. On top of that, the effects of increased gun control would not be immediately noticeable. Implementation of any serious control policy would encounter years of delays to achieve enforcement or phase out an existing class of weapons. Extracting the potential success story in the case of gun control would require patience from voters and policy makers to continue the new policies long enough to effectively measure the results.
The Debate
The gun control debate suffers from a system archetype called escalation that occurs when the state of one system variable is determined by trying to surpass the other. Escalation is exponential and all growing variables eventually encounter limits. Here for example are the google search queries related to gun control between leading up to and following the Aurora shooting, as an analogue for public interest.
Interest in Gun Control Over Time (Google Insights for Search). The red circle marks the date of the shooting in Aurora, CO.
The system structure that generates this steep exponential spike followed by decline looks something like this:
Escalation and Stagnation of the Gun Debate
When an event like a mass shooting happens, the gun control side calls for restrictions and monitoring while the gun rights side fears the creation of criminal safe zones and a slippery slope that infringes on their personal liberty. They in turn extol the role of guns in crime prevention and call for even further extension of their right to bear arms, which scares the gun control side even more. Each side feeds off the other, yelling louder and louder as and spending more lobbying dollars. At first the public listens, but as this debate escalates, the polarization leads declining political will and a general loss of interest as the public accepts the status quo.
The Status Quo
The status quo today is in favor of gun rights. The general public may believe stricter control, but they feel hopeless for policy change. And as long as change seems hopeless, incidents like Aurora will drive people to take matters into their own hands and purchase guns for self-defense, the tempting quick fix to the problem. For this reason, in lieu of control measures, gun ownership will simply continues to increase. Gun rights advocates say that this is a good thing but do we really want a society where everyone is carrying a firearm and anyone ready to shoot?
Data shows that most gun-related crimes happen in areas that have a higher prevalence of guns. This challenges the gun rights advocates’ mental model that having relaxed gun laws and more guns in the right hands will lead to lower crime. Unfortunately, the possession of guns for defense is not a great deterrent to crime – instead, it is often a selfish desire for gun owners to continue having free reign to obtain weapons that they have grown accustomed to using, whether for recreational purposes, hunting, family tradition, or an untested belief that opportunities for self-defense will save lives.
So guns lead to more crime which leads to more guns, and more guns lead to more suicide and accidental death as well. How can we stop this vicious cycle?
Some gun control advocates support a ban on semi-automatic rifles or stricter criminal background checks at gun shows, but gun rights advocates say “guns don’t kill – people do.” Criminals will find other ways to get the weapons they need. Essentially they argue that these policies cannot be successfully implemented. Further, the gun rights lobby uses rhetoric about personal liberties and paint the negative image of a big government overstepping its bounds. They have made it so that any talk about gun control is entrenched in a talk about Constitutional rights.
These arguments are great examples of the sort of polarization that leads to stagnation in a debate. The gun rights side does all that it can to shoot down gun control propositions rather build off of them and develop new counter propositions. The sides are strictly predetermined, there is no dialogue or negotiation, and as a result there is no evolution in the argument. The conversation quickly becomes disengaging and fizzles out.
Conclusion
As long as the public lacks faith our political system to deliver a real gun control solution, both gun rights advocates and moderates will continue to resort to more guns as their only hope to keep themselves safe. And as long as the loud voice of the gun rights fanatics polarizes the dialogue and befuddles open thinking, politicians will avoid gun control policy like the plague.
So what comes first, the people or the politicians? It is easy to blame the politicians, but as sympathetic citizens recognizing the pitfalls of elected positions with 2-6 year terms, we should take the first step. Guns can’t kill guns, but people can. Supporters of gun control need to present a sustained voice of urgency to politicians. This means they should disengage from divisive debates and discuss policies with people willing to compromise and think openly.
We can work together to develop sensible solutions rather than simply attack existing proposals. We can resist the self-interested urge to defend ourselves with guns . We can take steps in the less certain direction of gun control. We can be patient and rationally analyze the results of our policies. If you believe that escalating defense is not the way to peace and public safety, then speak up and find your voice among the masses and claim your stake in the U.S. gun policy.
–
1. “Actually a lot of gun owners are not satisfied with the status quo. and there is a
strong belief that the status quo is leading to the proliferation of these gun-free zones that turn into criminal safe-zones, where in Colorado it was a business decision that theater has a national policy against firearms, but the fact is that if there were a concealed carry holder in that theater with a 45 caliber handgun and a well-placed shot, that attack could have been stopped as soon as it began instead of lasting until 12 people were murdered.” John Valeco, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America. 23 July 2012. KQED Forum.
–
Related Posts:
