Thoughts Aloud

Scott Adams has penned another provocative article, “Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA“:

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

A generalization, perhaps; but an entirely plausible one. It will surely be deemed bigoted by the PC SJWs to publicly say so; but the Democrats have only themselves to blame. The Republicans have always pandered to the “law & order” and NRA folks, while the Democrats have pandered to the malcontents ensconced in a culture of victimhood. Without ghetto “gangsta” voters, the Democrats could never win an election. In reference to senseless gun violence, this was a Faustian bargain, which is not reversible.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Profound insight! Ask yourself why they even try. What is the real motive for the periodic exercise in futility? Also, do notice that he emphasized think and believe. There is a significant difference between rational ideas and emotional beliefs, which I have written about often. E.g. “Thinkers vs. Feelers“:

The problem is that he is thinking while his intended audience is feeling, and they just can’t understand each other. Alas, while some people prefer logic and critical thinking to evaluate an idea, the majority’s first sort is, “How does this make me feel?” Not that feelers can’t think, or thinkers can’t feel, when enticed to do so; but we each have a default preference, and the feelers are in the majority.

Another interesting factor is that thinkers tend to prefer to rely on their own wits, live an independent existence, take entrepreneurial risks, and accept responsibility for the consequences of their failures. They tend not to seek or rely on leaders for direction, and do not generally find causes or identity politics compelling. They can be good neighbors when permitted to interact on a value for value exchange basis; but they will logically place the survival of self and family above that of any group.

Feelers are more sociable, prefer the security of groups of simpatico friends, and readily follow the direction of group leaders. Their need to belong makes them vulnerable to groupthink, and susceptible to the notion that the group is more important than any individual. Thus, they are easily persuaded to accept the ideology of altruism – that they must be their brother’s keeper, that they must share alike, and that selfish thoughts are sinful. They readily join causes and accept the premise that it is OK to compel the cooperation and behavioral conformity of any individual, for the good of their notion of “society.”

At this point, I have added dilbert.com to my list of daily must-reads, to check for new content. I even sometimes get a chuckle out of the cartoons; but it is his insightful and provocative blog posts that I really appreciate. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º