Our Generations Won’t Be the Ones That Enact Change on Gun Laws
It’s been two weeks since the Las Vegas shooting that killed either 58 or 59 people. Reports have used both numbers, a slight homage to our carelessness in reporting as these mass shootings become more and more frequent.
I believe we settled at 58.
No one relishes in this observation. And sadly, sometimes the truth is best swept under the rug, but we must talk about it. Someone is thinking, planning, and preparing for a mass shooting today. Someone in the United States has projected onto themselves the abusive rhetoric that responds with demonic violence. Someone has observed the media and its dire need to learn about the killer’s life, their background, their hopes, fears, and hates. Someone is taking advantage of our carelessness of mental healthcare and leisure gun laws that the United States appears to enjoy being different to other countries in this way.
More people will die. They will be someone’s mother, brother, father, sister, friend, husband, wife, daughter, son, niece, nephew, co-worker, boss, neighbor, cousin, aunt, uncle… you get where I’m going with this.
The National Rifle Association and the individuals who believe in an American’s right to bear arms appear stubborn and selfish. It begs the question if this is truly about the sport, the self-protection, and the second amendment as much as they commit to those defenses. It appears to boil down to more psychological terms.
I’m reminded of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Marginal Utility is the “additional satisfaction a consumer gains from consuming one more of a good or service.” The Law of Marginal Utility means that “the first unit of consumption of a good or service has more utility than the next units of consumption.” Let’s use guns as an example. It means that the first gun that someone purchases will have more use (more utility) than any subsequent gun purchases thereafter. The subsequent guns you buy will be different makes and models. Not limited to guns, There are various types of accessories as well, so the utility of guns do not diminish quickly as long as the variety exists. In comparison, there are household products that we don’t need two of, say, a couch. Therefore, if we buy a second couch, we want it to be unique and feel different in a separate area of our home.
Back to guns: this means gun owners thrive off the variety and diversity for whatever they want their guns for. The more accessories that are made, the more people will buy them. Bump stocks are a good example of varietal utility. If gun owners see utility in bump stocks, they want access to it.
Most importantly, if the government takes that away, you’ve infringed upon all three of their freedoms (safety, 2nd amendment rights, and sport). We all know what it feels like to have something and it get taken away from us. Psychology uses the term “Reactance theory” which means that when people feel their freedom to choose something is threatened, they get an unpleasant feeling called “reactance.” Because of that unpleasant feeling, it causes the them to “fight back.” After the Las Vegas shooting, bump stocks were called into question by congress. The NRA recently announced they would be against any legislation to ban bump stocks. Gun owners, especially those that fight for their rights, accuse Liberals of fear and reminds us of their entitlement to freedom.
It’s a human trait, our limitation to see matters objectively. While gun owners don’t believe a “lone wolf shooting” is enough to enact legislative change, some may believe in the banning of books as to not give anyone any “crazy ideas” a la Fahrenheit 451.
Either way, gun owners aren’t asking the government to add a free gun as healthcare. They just want the freedom they’ve always had, and they’re going to fight for it, because that’s our rhetoric in 2017. Our political differences and examples of people high in office throwing away political correctness causes an influx of emotional reasoning instead of centrist, objective solutions.
Bill O’Reilly tweeted after the Las Vegas shootings that “This is the price of freedom.” The left admonishes other countries’ strict gun laws and the reduced number of deaths from such laws. Both arguments don’t solve this. Even the left’s argument that “Nobody needs 40+ guns,” isn’t enough to change someone’s mind.
Agree to disagree isn’t a solution. It may be the laws of our great grandchildren who choose to get out of their family’s stubbornness and obtuse fears to enact change.
It seems to be heading that way.
