The Great Gun Debate - Without the Insults

The Left and the Right often make bold and opposing claims. As always, this is from my own perspective as I hear people talking (and usually insulting). These are the two arguments I hear:

Left: More guns = more gun violence!
Right: More guns = less crime!

What is great about such claims is that the correlation between number of guns and gun violence as well as crime is 100% mathematically calculable. Hopefully you have noticed a slight discrepancy, however, in the arguments. Neither the left nor the right is talking about the same thing. If the left proves true, it does not disprove the right. And similarly, if the right is proven true, it does not disprove the left. The right thinks that more guns will prevent more crime as a whole since good guys have guns to stop it. The left thinks mass murder would stop if there were fewer guns. These are entirely different arguments. The left will show mathematical correlations of "mass shootings" and "gun prevalence and permissiveness" while the right will counter by showing rates of "crime" or "homicide" or whatever other non-mass-shooting statistic is in their favor. They're simply not talking about the same thing. And even with high correlation for either one, neither one has been proven for anything because correlations do not prove causation.

Imagine state X. In this hypothetical state, every single citizen owns a gun. Oddly enough, this state has a 0% homicide rate. Clearly this state proves that more guns = less homicide, right? Wrong. State Y also has a 0% homicide rate and yet nobody owns any guns. Then there are states W and Z where the homicide rates are astronomical and everyone owns guns in one and no one does in the another. In this example, a state-sample size of 1 (i.e. just looking at state X alone or state Y alone) will yield different results. Looking at the 4 states will yield a 0% correlation. But now, when we look at another 50 states, we might find a seemingly perfect match of correlation despite 2 of the 4 states being entirely antagonistic to the idea.

Taking all 54 states into account, we can be more assured that a correlation exists one way or the other, but this is clearly not a clear-cut causation since some states are going against the grain. How can it be? Simple! There is more than one factor. The existence of guns in and of themselves, in these made-up 54 states, is not the only factor in homicide. I forgot to mention that the populations were all children in one state, all intellectuals in another, all right-wing in one, all left-wing in another, all Hindu, Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindi, Sikhs, etc. All these factors might make a HUGE difference on whether or not the existence of guns will make that particular population or culture more or less likely to use those guns for violence. The larger the sample, the more likely that those varying factors get factored out, but if 90% of the world population has cultural element C, then even a 100% sample will be skewed and miss the partnering 10% element. Perhaps it's guns AND culture C that causes the shootings. And this is where the debate often occurs: guns vs minds.

From my own perspective, the right focuses more heavily on the culture aspect of guns and killings. People who go on shooting sprees have mental problems. I think this is quite an obvious statement. Anyone on the left would require their own mental problems to believe that a perfectly stable and rational person is going to grab an AK-47 and open fire on a populace. There is definitely something going on there. They are brainwashed, deluded, intoxicated, poisoned, brain-damaged, or other. One main aspect of life is that it desires to keep living. Any life that does not desire enough to keep living to do what is in their own best interests to stay alive, is, by human standards, messed up in some way. Our idea of normal is, of course, based on averages of experience, but let's just say for the sake of argument that even if one believes it is perfectly rational to go on killing sprees, that the right-wing defines this as irrational and would rather focus more intently on preventing such mindsets rather than preventing the existence of guns. In short, the right sees a cultural problem that induces minds to kill and they want to fix that. They are not proponents of murdering our children, they simply have this particular take on a solution. Knowing this will help engender a proper discussion on what can be done from that perspective.

Again, from my own perspective and my reading of the people, the left is more concerned with the immediate danger and the obviousness of the cause of death. Mass shootings occur by firing guns. If there were no guns, such mass shootings could not occur. The right will point out that a simple law stating "no guns" will not prevent criminals from having guns since criminals don't follow laws. This is a straw-man argument thrown into memes and shared on social media like a shop owner posting "no guns" on the door so the man intent on stealing or murdering everyone sees it and walks away dejectedly.

Obviously this is ridiculous, and it's obviously not at all what the left has in mind. The perspective of the left is not to throw signs everywhere, but to reduce the number of guns in existence. An obvious and over-exaggerated example, would be if there were only 5 guns in the US. If a child is intent on getting a hold on an assault rifle because he wants to exact revenge on his school, he is clearly intent on breaking the law. A sign on a door won't stop him. But if there are only 5 guns in the US, how is he going to manage to get one? It depends highly on how rich and connected he is. Since he is clearly mentally unstable, there is a very high degree of certainty he is not particularly well-connected and rich. In fact, this might be a great study. Of all mass shooters, how well-off were they? If guns were scarce, would they really have add the ability to get one? Just because someone is a law-breaker doesn't mean they have all the means in the world to break every law. Nuclear weapons are illegal and would do far more damage, but we don't see a huge black market in the US for nuclear warheads by high school kids who really want to do some damage. Scarcity obviously decreases the potential.

And so now we have both sides' perspectives. The left isn't all about taking away our guns to our detriment of allowing a government take-over, and the right isn't about loving guns more than our children who are dying in school shootings. The right doesn't comprehend the argument of the left, and the left doesn't comprehend the argument of the right, and they both drum up a slew of straw-man arguments that neither side is stating. They show memes to mock or displaying data to reject these straw-man arguments and continue on their merry way believing 50% of the population are world-class idiots.

I write all of this simply to lay the ground-work for a discussion. Both sides are absolutely right by definition of what they want. If we can manage to make every brain not want to kill people, then there would be no killing. If we could take away every gun, then there'd be no more mass shootings. But is the first possible let alone plausible? Who knows? No one is taking the time to consider it because we're too busy acting like everyone is stupid. What about taking away the guns? How plausible is that? Well, I might dare say it's not terribly plausible given the climate of the culture. There's a good chance that millions of our population would not willingly give up their guns and likely not unwillingly give them up either which could very well increase the risk of more deaths of innocent people. Then again, perhaps there are decent ways to achieve this if only we'd stop flinging insults at one another to have a decent discussion.

The right is absolutely correct that we have a cultural mental problem. Depression rates continue to rise. The left is also correct that correlations exist between gun-ownership and mass-murdering (further dependent on leniency of gun laws). The right is absolutely right that it is a right per the 2nd amendment to bear arms, and the left is absolutely right that this amendment was put into place when a firearm was a one-shot musket. The constitution is not perfect nor is meant to be. That's why amendments exist. They amend what is there to perfect it over time as things change. So let's stop bickering over these small differences and perspectives, and let's see what can adequately be done. When the left is scolding the stupidity of the right, the right is going to be 100% apprehensive and unwilling to budge when it comes to more strict gun control. When the right is scolding the stupidity of the left, they're going to be all the more defensive and forceful with their idea of taking guns away from these crazy and unreasonable people.

In the end, what does it harm the right if they have to simply license their weapons? What harm is there if they have to wait a bit before getting them? There are two factors as to why they deny such measures. The first is that they are so deeply offended by the demeanor of the left that they will not give up any ground whatsoever for fear of where it leads and how it makes them look. Second, some people are just that stubborn. But basic human psychology says that we'll get better negotiation deals if we stop insulting our negotiation partners. Similarly, why is the left so fearful of helping the mental crisis? Why not focus on the growing mental problem in the United States? It is clear that this could help even if it is not their desired solution. So why not discuss it and give it a go? Is it better to be correct or is it better to help our populace in any way possible? Not only might it help curb gun violence, but it could help so many people in so many other ways. Or if the right has another idea beyond ridiculing the left, perhaps we can take a look at that as well. Maybe we could do some real negotiation and a little less poo-flinging.

A thousand responses can be made to what I've stated here. Responses like, "but we are focused on mental illness, the right is just x, y, z." This is not useful. If I misunderstand the right's perspective on mental illness, then find out what their real argument is. "They don't have one" is not a valid response. As much as you'd like to think they're simply morons, this simply isn't the case. Perhaps they simply have not had enough time to consider their argument because they're too busy defending themselves. If you ask them what their argument is apart from "yours is dumb," then maybe they'll come up with one, reveal one, or find they don't have one and give yours some credence. We need to actually listen to one another, ask one another what they really mean, and stop ridiculing others for the very words that we ourselves put in their mouths. It's the only way forward. Well, that or polarization that leads to civil war and bloodshed. Tough decisions...

Togetherness From Otherness

A long time ago in the same place as now, Otherness was a means for survival. Well, at least for some. By banding together, we could fight true foes that would do us harm or else be the harm to enslave or steal from others to our own benefit. Often, both came simultaneously. Today, however, there is a shift for Togetherness, but certainly not without a battle. The world grows and expands in a way of world economies and leveraging the talents and resources of all throughout the globe to make complex products. This is hard for most to comprehend and even in our fight to accept a global humanity, we still can't help but divide ourselves in other ways.

The most obvious of divisions among people is a Left-leaning mentality versus a Right-leaning mentality. In America, in my own perception of it, this boils down to embracing individuality and the world as a whole as values to be placed over in-group success, self-preservation, and cultural moral normalities (or vice versa). I presume this dichotomy exists everywhere in the world with people sprinkled all throughout the spectrum of left and right. The mindsets are likely denoted with different verbage, but they are essentially opposed ways of thinking. We must give up self to focus more on others or give up others to help ourselves. Which value is more important is where the disagreement is had. 

What is interesting, however, is the polarization that occurs in perceiving and declaring our own perspective as righteous and proper while entirely demonizing the other side. The left doesn't simply want women to have rights over their bodies, they want to murder children. The right doesn't simply want to prevent the deaths of countless innocent children, they want to control and oppress women. This line of thinking--this Us vs Them dichotomy--is what enabled us to both start and to win wars and boost our own cultural ranking in the world. It's also what caused the greatest catastrophes of genocide known to man. As we shift to a global populace, we need to re-frame our perspectives.

It is not at all the case that we must give up our stances. One can continue to believe that gun control will not stop gun violence without perceiving the other side as a barbaric demon of countless horrors for disagreeing. We simply need to comprehend that different people have different priorities and that is okay. Those who want guns value personal protection, personal freedoms, and have concerns about government control. Those who want to ban them value the safety of others over their own personal protection and see the government as much less of a threat. We need both sides. We don't want a government taking over to the point of catastrophe, but we also don't want a dissolution of government to the point of catastrophe. Both perspectives are valid values to be considered. We need the balance. What we don't need, however, is hate for the Other. It's the hate that kills us. It's the decrying of stupidity of the Other that separates us. Instead, we need to recognize the true motives and desires of the other even if we continue to disagree with their conclusions or find their fears unwarranted. There are a million experiences and cultural influences that shape a person's perspective, and we cannot change those with a few words. We have to accept that they will see it differently than us.

As a simple example, if I believe apples are better than oranges while someone else believes the opposite, we can both be absolutely right depending on our desires, priorities, and perspectives. I might value the simplicity of eating an apple over an orange and enjoy the variety of colors, while someone else might value the juice or even the reward of hard work from peeling it. That doesn't make me a lazy juice-hater or them a color-bigoted inefficient fool springing wells of stupidity. Maybe the juice of an apple is enough for me and I think the other person is a fool for prioritizing juice over efficiency. Likely, just the opposite is true for the other person and I am the fool who would put efficiency over hard-earned flavor. To convince the other that apples are better, I'd have to convince them that hard-work is not to be prized over efficiency, which means I might have to tell them their faith is wrong, which means I might have to tell them their whole childhood was a lie, and so on down the line. While mundane and useless to argue about fruit, the same can be said for highly controversial topics like abortion, race, gender equality, gun control, and sexuality. They are not fools nor evil for thinking different. It is merely our nature to demonize the other and this is what we need to get past. I guarantee we will not all agree--we just need to get along.

Both the left and right ways of thinking are based on systems of value. Most often, they simply do not understand how to communicate their desires most efficiently and both sides tend to pick ideas and data that aren't particularly sound or persuasive. People share memes of ridiculous conclusions on both sides of the fence because they lack the social graces to express what they truly desire. The left, for example, wants racial and gender equality. You know what though? The right doesn't want the opposite. They don't want to enslave minorities. They don't want to oppress women. They simply have a different perspective on how to reach this equality and they might have other values in mind that take precedence--such as the wasted lives of unborn children. 

What we need to focus on, instead of ridiculing those who disagree, is what common goals we share and to better state our intent. Instead of chanting our perceived solutions or the evils of others, we need to express precisely and clearly what problems we see and ask for collaboration on how to correct it in ways that are acceptable to both sides. When the left sees that the average minority has a much harder time succeeding at life than the average white majority, they jump to claims of racism--especially systemic racism--and solutions such as affirmative action. The right will be rightly taken aback by such accusations of racism when such a word, to them, means such dastardly things as one who might lynch a person or drag them behind a car based upon their skin color. Since most right-wingers don't feel that way and would never dare do such things, they begin to defend themselves against such hostile colorizing of their character. The demonization has begun. So they argue. They fight. And in so doing, reap a greater harvest of slurs and accusations.

A better way to go about discussing racial inequality would be to show the disparity without any labels or accusations and question those who are unfamiliar with it as to why this would be the case even if you full-well know the answer. Ask their advice, ask their opinion, and ask how they might solve it. In so doing, they've been made a collaborator rather than an enemy. If they question the data, don't expect it's an attack or proof of culpability, but patiently and reasonably take into consideration the question and see if there's a way to work around the perceived issue. Many people don't believe they are racist in the slightest--mostly due to perceptions of the meaning of the word. So maybe avoid the word. Don't ask how to solve racism, ask how we might solve the plight of minorities struggling to make ends meet. Perhaps they'll be less interested, however, given that there are many who struggle to make ends meet. Perhaps they value hard work, see handouts as weakness, and don't regard skin color as something to be separate into groups and would rather help all struggling people and not simply one particular minority or minorities to the exclusion of majorities. It's not "racism" from their perspective if it's not at all about race, even if it is "racism" from another definition. It's different values and perspectives. In the end, most conflicts are merely word-choice and differences in background, experiences, and understanding. We need to learn to get past that, accept that we have different priorities, and see how we might gain some common ground. Without it, we'll never solve these tough issues and we'll constantly polarize our country into Us vs Them which will ultimately leave us in the dust of a global world. 

If we want peace throughout the world or if we want our country to have significance, then let's lead the charge of bridging our left-right gap. Let's show how Togetherness leads to greater solutions over Otherness. Make the shift. We are no longer barbarians. Let's embrace the unique perspectives of each other even if we disagree. Let's stop labeling and name-calling and graduate our country from grade school to advanced scholarship. We can do much better than petty poo-flinging. What has worked in the past is now in the past. Times have changed and we need more than ever to get along to propel society forward. No more us. No more them. How to achieve that might also be up for debate, but so long as we do not demonize opposing opinions--no matter how stupid--it is a step in the right direction.