Well, here we are again.
And you know something? As soon as we'd heard there was a shooting... even before we
began scrolling down our Facebook pages, even before Senators began to talk, we all knew EXACTLY what would be
said, and what would be done.
Here’s what we knew would be said by both
sides:
(insert
inflammatory rhetoric here)
And here’s what we knew would be done:
Nothing.
And here, I think, is why nothing is done:
The inflammatory rhetoric.
It’s natural for us to feel strongly about
this issue. It strikes at our sense of safety, makes us afraid and angry. And
that activates the limbic system - the part of the brain that’s in charge of
safety and survival. Thing is, that also DE-activates the cortex – the part of
the brain that’s in charge of empathy and rational thought. The limbic system
takes over, and the limbic system only knows three tricks: Fight, flight, and
freeze.
And when we know that flight or freeze
won’t keep us safe, we’re down to one option.
And we can’t fight the killer who shot (insert large number here) innocent
people, since he (invariably a “he”, have
you noticed? But the subject of toxic cultural expectations of masculinity
would require a separate post all to itself…) has already either killed
himself or been killed/captured by law enforcement.
But the limbic system is screaming that we
NEED to fight to protect ourselves.
So we fight each other about what needs to
be done to make future recurrence less likely.
And because the limbic system has shut off
the part of our brain that might have empathy for whoever we fight, and might
be able to appeal logically to common ground, the fights get REAL ugly, REAL
fast.
And here’s the thing:
When we begin a discussion by making the
other person feel attacked, we are NOT going to end it by convincing them to
agree with us, or compromise with us, or even listen to what we have to say.
I wish to God that both sides of the gun
control debate would be silent for a week after the shooting, take the time to
mourn and to de-escalate, and THEN begin discussing the issue. And I wish both sides would
begin the discussion by at least admitting these things:
1.
Neither side are stupid. Both sides certainly have
stupid people and trolls, and those tend to be the loudest and to post online
the most… but the average gun owner, and the average gun control advocate, are
intelligent people, with valid and logical reasons for believing as they do.
2.
Neither side are evil. Again, truly horrible
people exist on both sides. And I’m convinced that the politicians involved (on
both sides) are simply doing what they know will get
their constituents to re-elect them, just like they do on every issue. But most
of the voters supporting the politicians – most of the ordinary people on both
sides of the debate - are decent human beings, genuinely horrified by each
shooting, genuinely wanting to ensure things like this stop happening,
genuinely afraid that things like this will NEVER stop happening if the other
side gets their way.
3.
Neither side wants people to be hurt or killed. For
God’s sake, we’re not Facebook friends with sociopaths, right? And our Facebook
friends must have reasonably good taste in friends, since they’re friends with
us, right? So our Facebook friends aren’t friends with sociopaths either…
right? All the people we’re debating… They’re human beings with families and friends
that they love and want to protect, and they are terrified that their families
and friends might be the victims of the next shooter. Just like us.
4.
Both sides are passionate about their view because both sides are concerned
about safety. Gun owners are convinced that the only
way for them to be safe from a shooter is to have the means to shoot first. Gun
control advocates are convinced that the only way for them to be safe from a
shooter is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to acquire something
to shoot with. The common theme is that we feel our safety is threatened, and
that we can NOT tolerate a threat to our safety.
5.
Both sides are coming at the issue based on their own valid needs and
experiences.
A lot of the people who
most want gun control live in cities or suburbs – places where the only
possible reason to own a gun would be to shoot a person. We don’t have deer
roaming my neighborhood waiting to be turned into venison. We don’t have
cougars roaming my neighborhood waiting to get our chickens – or our children. The
only threatening creatures we have are human beings; and if they have a gun
that they intend to use, they intend to use it on a person. So of course we
don’t want the damn things in other people’s hands. Of course we feel unsafe
knowing that out of the thousands of people we encounter every day, any one of
them might have a deadly weapon and a grudge. And the mass shootings happen in
cities – because you can’t commit a mass shooting unless you go someplace where
there are masses to shoot.
And a lot of the people
who are most opposed to gun control live in rural areas – places where they
might need a gun to hunt for food because that’s a cheaper and fresher option than
the grocery store; places where they might need it to kill foxes that are
stealing chickens, or wolves that are stealing sheep, or bears that would
happily eat humans. So of course they feel unsafe without a gun, and are
worried that it could be a slippery slope from banning assault rifles to
banning all rifles. And they don’t get mass shootings in the country – the mass
shooter wants high body counts and lots of media coverage, so they go to the
city where they can get those things. Mass shootings just aren’t a danger they
face in the country. But cougars are.
Then, too, there’s the
home defense angle – it looks different in a city than in a rural area. If I
look out my window and see a prowler, my best bet is to get away from the
windows and call 911. A SWAT team can be there in 5 minutes. Even if I had an
assault rifle and was 100% accurate with it, why would I increase the danger
by getting in the line of fire when I can call in several well-trained, heavily
armed and armored people who will do a much better job of neutralizing the
threat? In the country, on the other hand, there might not even be a police
department in town. The nearest cop might be over an hour away on the other
side of the county. So there, the best bet is to take cover and shoot through
the windows. With the biggest gun you can get.
See, there’s a cultural
divide between these groups of people:
To the average gun control advocate, a man with a gun is a bad guy. He’s a mass
shooting about to happen. That’s been our only experience with guns. That’s why we can’t imagine ever wanting them around.
To the average gun rights advocate, a man with a gun is a good guy. He’s
going hunting or defending himself from predators (human or otherwise). That’s been
their only experience with guns. That’s why they can’t
imagine ever being without them.
I’m in favor of tight gun
control. At the very least, banning the kind of guns that are designed for the sole purpose of killing lots of people. And I feel that way because
in my world, the only possible scenario in which I might conceivably need an
assault rifle would be a scenario in which someone else is already firing one
into a crowd. And by the time I was able to get the thing ready to fire, the
shooter would have seen me and shot me, so the gun would DECREASE my safety.
Let’s take the Orlando
shooting for an example of why “good guys with guns” is not an argument that
convinces the anti-gun crowd, particularly those of us who live in heavily
populated cities or suburbs. Let’s say I take the advice of my pro-gun friends
and I get a 9 mm, I get a concealed carry permit, I practice and practice until
I’m deadly accurate with the gun, and I keep it on me everywhere I go. Let’s
say that all good guys do this.
So I’m in a club now, and
someone opens fire. I’m a good guy with a gun… but right now, the room is dark,
noisy, chaotic, and full of people. If I draw now, I’m not gonna have a clear
shot at the killer, but the killer will see the glint of metal and aim for me. My gun won’t help me yet.
So I take cover. (Right,
I’ve also gotten some training in tactical maneuvering… I’ve never been a cop
or a soldier, but let’s say the hundreds of hours I spent playing Contra as a
kid have somehow prepared me for this moment, and I somehow know what I’m doing
here.) Now I’m in a position where I’m hard to hit, and trying to find the bad
guy so I can gun him down.
But … all the other good
guys with guns have done the same thing. The room is now full of angry,
panicking people who have drawn weapons. How do any of us know which ones are
good guys with guns, and which ones are bad guys with guns?
All we know is which guys
have guns.
And if they’re firing, I
don’t know if they’re firing at the shooter or at victims.
And I still don’t
have a clear shot, because they’re behind cover and there’s still panicking
people running around trying to find the exits.
So … do I hesitate,
holding a gun, until all the other good guys with guns start firing at me
because they can’t tell by looking at me that I’m a good guy? Or do I start
firing at whoever seems to be firing?
And then, let’s say the
police arrive. Now the first officer comes in and bellows “POLICE! EVERYONE
DROP YOUR WEAPONS!” But… will we hear him, through the sound of gunfire and
screams and dance music? Will we see, through the fog of adrenaline, in a dark
room with strobe lights, that this new figure entering the room is a cop? Or
will I see someone in body armor holding a big-ass rifle … and remember that
the Colorado movie theater shooter was dressed like that… and realize that I
have a clear shot at an apparent threat who’s standing outlined in the doorway?
And will the cop be able
to look at me and see “good guy with gun, probably couldn’t hear me”? Or will
he see “White male suspect, holding firearm in a threatening manner, did not
comply with order to drop weapon”?
In the city, “good guys
with guns” wouldn’t stop a bloodbath. They’d turn a bloodbath into an even
bigger bloodbath.
BUT: If I lived in the world of the person who
lives an hour or more from the nearest police station… if I knew the time might
come when the only thing I could do to protect myself and my loved ones would
be to shoot a bear, or shoot a 300-lb felon… I would NEED a gun. I really
would.
And I wouldn’t want to be
using a little handgun, or a shotgun that would take time to reload if I missed
the first shot (or one shot wasn’t enough to kill). I’d want something that
would reduce the threat to a red mist on the first hit. And I’d want it to hold
enough bullets in the magazine, and fire rapidly enough, to guarantee a hit. And
I’d want it to have enough range to hit the felon before he got close enough to
return fire.
Does that mean I should be
allowed to have an assault rifle? Hell no.
But it does mean I can imagine why a
sane, decent human being might want one. If I can’t offer empathy for that
guy’s need, and offer him something to assure him that he can still keep himself
and his loved ones safe, then I’m just not gonna convince him to help me get
the laws changed. And if I can’t get that guy to work with me on getting the
laws changed, then I’ll be SOL at keeping myself and my loved ones safe.
6.
Both sides are attacking each other because both sides are tired of feeling
attacked by each other. We’re tired of being
painted as clueless hippies or dumb hicks, tired of being told we’re stupid or
evil or everything that’s wrong with America. We’re tired of the straw-man arguments
and the memes and the inflammatory rhetoric. We’re tired of people telling us
we’re the bad guy. We feel attacked, so we counter-attack, because that’s the
only way the limbic system knows how to deal with an attack.
If everyone would at least give each other
that much basic respect and decency, and see that the common ground is "We’re
concerned about our safety", we MIGHT manage to begin a productive
conversation about how we can all BE safer. We MIGHT stop seeing the other side
as enemies and start working jointly on solutions. No solution will be perfect,
no solution will eliminate all shootings, and no solution will make everyone
happy. Chances are, no solution will fully satisfy anyone. But there MUST be a
solution that everyone can live with, and that will at least improve our odds
of living out our expected threescore and ten. We will NOT find that solution
if we keep shouting at each other. We MIGHT find it if we listen respectfully
to each other. We will NOT find that solution if we keep posting memes that set
up straw-man arguments. We MIGHT find that solution if we all decide to stop
being manipulated into stalemate by politicians who profit on polarization, and
we all start demanding that they knock off the posturing and start doing real,
bipartisan work on laws that make sense for both sides.
Until then, it's gonna keep going exactly
as it has been going. Lots of the same old rhetoric on both sides, and lots
more mass shootings.
© John M.
Munzer
No comments:
Post a Comment