More is Not Better

I am conversant with many things, including that often we are not doing what we think we’re doing.

So in this current conversation (and I am using the term loosely) around guns and violence, prompted by the recent shooting in Florida, here are a few things I’m noticing:

  • There is a significant logic fail in the idea that more of what is causing injury or harm will reduce said problem.
  • If someone has heat stroke, you don’t turn up the heat to help them. We gave up rubbing snow on frostbite a long time ago.
  • If someone has a serious infection, you don’t give them more of the infecting organism so they can heal.
  • Adding more water to a flood does not help.
  • Screaming louder in a language someone does not know will not improve their understanding.

There’s something here in the last example. If one’s belief is that more guns will fix what’s wrong with the world, then anything counter to this will seem crazy. The NRA, which is a marketing organization for gun manufacturers, has cannily linked people’s longing for safety, tradition and freedom to their desire to sell more guns. Speaking logic to fear is difficult under the best of circumstances.

When one’s survival instincts are activated, one has a great deal less access to intellectually understood information. Our bodies are geared hierarchically, with survival uppermost. This is not theory, its neuroscience. If an individual is calm, grounded, and somewhat secure in the world, then its much easier for them to look at circumstances, to encompass a variety of perspectives, and make what is likely to be a healthy decision for themselves. From my perspective, that’s a very good thing.

From the perspective of someone who wants something from someone that may or may not be in that individual’s actual self-interest, that’s not good. Its hard to sell someone something they actually don’t want or need if they have their wits about them. On the other hand, if they are out of balance, fearful on some level, or simply having a hard day, they are much more susceptible to questionable influences. Marketers of all sorts know this.

Don’t believe me? Check in with yourself. How do you do with advertisements for junk food, etc? If I’m not at my best, and all it may take is a difficult day at work, or a poor nights sleep, I’m much more likely to respond to the invitation to partake of something I don’t really want or need, be it french fries, ice cream or a new car.

Where am I going with this? More guns is not a healthy choice. Children at school will neither feel nor be safer if their teachers are armed. Back to neuroscience. When your survival brain is activated, your ability to learn new material is markedly reduced. Frightened children will not learn better in school. Poorly educated individuals are more easily manipulated and will make choices that seem poor, but make sense based on their felt sense of their circumstances.

I went to medical school in Chicago. I did some of my clinical rotations at inner-city hospitals, in the midst of gang territory. I’ve seen gun violence first hand, and the horrific losses that result. Spending all night in the ER or the OR in a failed attempt to save the life of a child shot by a rival gang member is heartbreaking. I once stitched up the same young man twice in same night. He went back to the fight after the first incident. He survived that night, but I doubt he made it to his 25th birthday. It became horrifyingly clear to me that violence begets violence and resolves little, if anything.

In this conversation about guns and school shootings, there are those who will say it isn’t guns that are the problem. They are correct in that guns are not the only problem. The bigger problem is the culture of fear and violence. That said, one does not allow toddlers to play with matches, or flamethrowers. When one’s survival brain is triggered and running the show, one’s intellectual capacity is markedly reduced, leaving us all functioning as stressed out 2 year olds.

Assault rifles are tools designed for efficient killing. The idea that more of these tools will decrease killing is a fallacy. I am aware of the deterrent effect argument, and I don’t find it applicable in this situation. Using a fire analogy, the occasional backfire can minimize the spread of an out of control wildfire, but the vast majority of firefighting efforts are directed in a different way. Flooding the schools with more killing machines will not increase safety, but it is highly likely to keep guns in people’s minds as a problem solving tool.

How much more evidence is needed to accept that assault weapons are not the way to solve any sort of problem? To quote some of the eloquent young people from Florida, I call BS on that argument.


11 thoughts on “More is Not Better

  1. We need more discourse like your post. And much less like: “The elites don’t care, not one wit about America’s school system. And schoolchildren. If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them, it is not a safety issue. It is a political issue. They care more about control and more of it. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Good points. I agree with you. This whole thing of guns don’t kill people, people kill people is dumb. There are going to be crazy people once in a while. And violent people more than once in a while. It happens. It’s a very tiny percentage but when you have thousands of people or more in cities and towns, there are going to be some. But a crazy person with a machine gun can kill a lot more people than a crazy person who has to use a knife or a bat because they can’t get a machine gun. And a bunch of other people with machine guns isn’t going to make it safer or less likely to happen. And nice people most of the time don’t want to have a gun or own one and those with violent proclivities or are very fearful seek out guns — violent and fearful people are also apt to imagine provocation — so that slants the odds of gun ownership in the wrong hands in an unhealthy direction. You get two angry people who are violent — in the old days, if they got mad at each other, it would be a fistfight — now if either or both have a gun, it’s a gunfight. And bullets travel until they hit something — it can even be a block or so away if they miss who they are aiming for, hitting an innocent person watching TV. This can’t happen in a fistfight. They even make guns to get them past censors at airports and schools. Guns don’t kill people? Guns don’t care. Guns can kill anyone.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I just started following your blog so I’m just now seeing your post here and I have to say it is very spot on! All I can add to the discussion is that I’m a teacher, and have a healthy respect of guns. I’ve never held a gun let alone shot one, so I am not the kind of teacher to be carrying one in my classroom. With that said, it would still make me nervous if the retired Vietnam veteran in the classroom next door to mine was carrying one around school, even though I know he has a concealed carry permit and has a gun in his truck. It would be nerve-wracking to me, even though I know he is well qualified to carry one. Like you said, adding more guns to the problem does not make for a good resolution to the problem.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s