The Psychological Roots of Gun Control

I know I usually post about art. A while ago I was posting political stuff pretty regularly before I sort of went dark on here with those subjects. But I wanted to throw an idea against the wall to see if it sticks.

I have been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson lectures. From a personal level, they have really helped me turn some things around in my life. I've really started to "sort" myself out and "clean my room". That's also partly why I've taken a break from philosophical or political posts. Recently though, I have been mulling over a quote by Peterson that has really hit home for me after the mass shooting in Florida. Here is the quote:

"If you’re harmless you’re not virtuous, you’re just harmless, you’re like a rabbit; a rabbit isn’t virtuous, it just can’t do anything except get eaten! That’s not virtuous. If you’re a monster, and you don’t act monstrously, then you’re virtuous."

I think this right here is the psychological root at the heart of gun control debate. Those that are for gun control think that harmlessness is a virtue. Since they believe that being harmless is a virtue, they think that everyone should be harmless. Just like how being honest is a virtue for many, and those that believe that often think that everyone should be honest.

The problem with thinking that harmlessness is a virtue is that the holder of this idea often thinks of themselves as "harmless". When you think of yourself as harmless, you are not as careful with yourself. You don't worry about hurting others because you are working under the assumption that you can't. This is of course mostly a subconscious assumption about one's self. The contradiction is that no matter how much you think you are harmless, you are always capable of hurting others.

I think this is why many progressives have pushed back, for example, at the concept of allowing teachers to be armed and removing the "gun free zone" concept from schools (I think we should just remove public schools all together myself , but that is a whole other debate). Allowing them to be armed means that they are capable of harm. Some have flat out said that they themselves should not be trusted with weapons in the classroom. The irony is on full display when parents cannot trust teachers to have the capability of physical harm in the classroom, but they should trust the teacher with molding their child's mind. Remember, a virtuous person, according to Peterson, is someone capable of monstrous behavior but who doesn't give in. Indeed, they can take that monstrous behavior, control it, and use it for good by defending rather than harming.

The teachers, who are mostly always leftists, don't want to be armed or around people that are because that is antithetical to their system of virtue. This is probably why they won't trust themselves with weapons in the class but see no issues with destroying kid's minds from the front of the class.

Those that are OK with guns and think that they can be used for defense see that real virtue is in understanding that you are indeed a monster and are capable of awful things, but are capable of not acting on those things. In fact, incorporating this "Jungian shadow" into yourself and using it to better yourself and protect others is probably the pinnacle of virtue.

"Someday, when all your civilization and science are likewise swept away, your kind will pray for a man with a sword."
-Robert E. Howard

I think Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian), though maybe incorrect on some points, did understand the need for one to not lose sight of their inner barbarian (or put another way, the need to incorporate one's "shadow self"). He says further, "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." The progressives and democrats that call for gun control are these "civilized men" who have lost sight of their capabilities to be monsters. They think that because they THINK they can't hurt anyone that that makes them moral and virtuous. All that it means is that they are careless with themselves and others.

In the case of gun control, obviously advocating for the government to disarm the population is a pretty foolish and reckless thing. But the debate is still alive and so emotional because the two camps see "virtue" in two completely different ways.