THINK LIKE A FREAK…ABOUT “GUN CONTROL”

I’ve become a fan of the “Freakonomics” books and podcasts. I like the way Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner apply critical thinking, logic, and “where the rubber meets the road” reality. So, it’s no surprise that I really enjoyed their newest book, “Think Like A Freak.” (Harper-Collins, 2014.)

These guys think in the big picture, using real world anecdotes to illustrate their points.  Readers can’t help but apply their thinking to our own issues. We gun owners wonder why, when even many high profile “gun control” advocates admitted the ten-year experiment of Bill Clinton’s national Assault Weapons Ban didn’t change a damn thing, the Bloombergs of today, more than 20 years later, still go after such things so ferociously. One answer may be found in “Think Like A Freak” at page 192 (hardcover edition): “Quitting is hard in part because it is equated with failure, and nobody likes to fail, or at least be seen failing.”

Levitt and Dubner urge us to look beyond the superficial, and get to root causes of bad things. They write, “In 1960, crime began a sudden climb. By 1980, the homicide rate had doubled, reaching a historic peak. For several years crime stayed perilously high but in the early 1990s, it began to fall and kept falling. So what happened?”  They explain in part, “Gun murders are down? Well, you figure, that must be from all those tough new gun laws – until you examine the data and find that most people who commit crimes with guns are almost entirely unaffected by current gun laws.” (Pages 67-68.)

We all know people who are smart and usually logical, but have an absolute blind spot when it comes to the gun issue, and insist on guzzling the Kool-Aid of anti-gun propaganda. What could account for that? For one thing, self-image.  We all want to think well of ourselves. In discussing the psychology of charity, Levitt and Dubner point out that people contribute to charities because “1. People are truly altruistic, driven by a desire to help others” or “2. Giving to charity makes them feel better about themselves; economists call this ‘warm-glow altruism.’”  In a similar vein, taking what looks like a life-saving position on an issue can give the same “warm-glow” effect. Combine that with Levitt/Dubner’s earlier explanation of why people resist the truth when they’re proven wrong, et voila: we have a piece of the psychological puzzle that explains why many normally logical people can’t see the absence of fact and logic in the “gun control” movement.

If you haven’t looked into the “Freakonomics” series, check it out.  These guys make people think.

Share or Bookmark