Topics:

The Psychology of Guns: 12 Steps Toward More Safety

The Psychology of Guns: 12 Steps Toward More Safety

It is sexy, it is satisfying, it is manly.
–Stanley McChrystal, retired US Army General, Foreign Affairs1

When insight-oriented psychotherapy stalls, the therapist usually assumes that there are some powerful, often unconscious, forces opposing examination and change. Has there been a parallel process ever since the Martin Luther King, Jr, and Robert Kennedy assassinations prompted gun reform? It is yet unclear whether the overwhelming shock of Newtown (which I focused on in an earlier blog),2 where vulnerable children were killed by yet another mass murderer, will galvanize action not only to prevent future mass murderers, but also to finally reduce the public health and mental health risks of more chronic, common, and routine gun violence in America.

Indeed, normal psychological processes may be partially responsible for this stagnation. It is easier to repress and dissociate individual and collective trauma, and “move on.” However, in the long term, as we see in PTSD in individuals, such trauma can continue to haunt us and limit what we can learn from history to prevent similar trauma in the future.

Guns in our history
Historically, guns have been in our nation’s collective consciousness. And, by guns, I mean not only handguns, pistols, and rifles, but possibly drones, missiles, torpedoes, and similarly shaped bombs.

At times, the choice of a particular type of gun could have psychological meaning. The Newtown mass murderer chose a .22 caliber rifle to shoot his mother, a student’s rifle with which his mother taught him to shoot.

The important role of firearms in the history, founding, and mythology of the United States is well accepted. Early on, that was concretized in the second amendment, though what that meant for future generations has been open to interpretation.

Later, guns were crucial for the “successful” expansion of our Western frontier. This kind of expansion was unprecedented in the world, other than perhaps the northern expansion of the Boers in South Africa.

In the last century, the US went on to become the strongest military power in the world. However, that power and security has been challenged more recently, with a draw in the Korean War, a somewhat humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam, and the missile-like airplane strike of 9/11, justifying to some a still-continuing War on Terrorism to reduce our vulnerability.

The meaning of guns
Concretely, guns are powerful weapons. Although there are certainly other weapons of violence—including hate speech, fists, knives, robbery, and oppression—guns, for better and worse, are the most certain, commonly available mode of killing or maiming others and/or oneself. That, too, must be part of our collective consciousness.

Furthermore, guns can have varying impact on a given individual’s consciousness. Advocates of guns for hunting and sport consciously view them as necessary for their pleasurable activities. Others view them as a source of safety and security, which would fulfill one of our most basic psychological needs, as described by the psychologist Abraham Maslow in his proposed hierarchy of psychological needs.

The unconscious meaning of guns may of course vary from individual to individual. Although some view their ideas as anachronistic, Freud and Jung offered some basic interpretations. For instance, in their shape, guns can be an obvious phallic symbol.

Freud emphasized our unconscious sexual and aggressive impulses, which seem readily applicable to guns. In his theory of the mind, the superego puts the brakes on id impulses for the sake of civilization. The superego is believed to be most affected by societal rules and the roles of the father (or father substitute). In the simplest terms, inconsistent rules weaken the superego. It can be further weakened in everyday life, if certain disinhibiting substances are abused. Whenever the rules are in fact to be aggressive and to use guns (as in war), the ego allows the superego to relax.

The hidden meaning of guns seems reflected in our language. Language, such as “top gun,” “young gun,” and “stick to your guns,” seems to glorify guns, and by association, their users. In terms of the mentally ill—whom the NRA blames for gun violence—the worst term may be “go ballistic.” “Ballistic” refers both to the science of projectiles and to being irrational.

If we add on, in a Jungian sense, our collective unconscious, guns may be ingrained as an archetype of the heroic (usually male) warrior. This archetype may be reinforced as a model for soldiers, police, and even gang leaders. Unfortunately, sometimes would-be warriors can go astray as the shadow archetype, sort of like the dark force of Darth Vader.

If such Jungian speculation isn’t enough, we can go further out on a psychological limb. How do we explain a kind of societal suicidal behavior when we allow ourselves such easy access to the most accessible mechanism to kill? Masochism stemming from unconscious guilt? Unconscious guilt over slavery, Native Americans, and Vietnam atrocities?

The psychological damage of guns
The psychological effects of guns may go well beyond what some would call a normal degree of security, belonging, freedom, self-esteem, and power. It can go well beyond those killed, to the ripple effects on those physically and psychologically injured, or even just threatened, by guns.

There is the grief, normal and abnormal, of the loved ones of those killed by guns. There is the potential PTSD of those not killed, but injured by guns. There is the potential PTSD of those witnessing the violence, so common in public places. Self-medicating for these psychological wounds is common, but has the potential drawback of disinhibiting barely controlled anger. I experienced all of these, often in a prison setting, where below the bravado lay the pain of childhood exposure to violent trauma, often gun-related, especially in African-American males, released in crime and/or substance abuse.

The gun industry
It sure seems like the gun development and advertising industry has taken advantage of these psychological associations, as described in the New York Times article, “The Most Wanted Gun in America.”2

The AR-15-style automatic rifle, used in the Newtown school massacre, has become the most popular gun in America. It is a version of the military M-16. By design, it looks and feels like something a gun a commando would carry. For its power and reliability, one ad exclaims, “Forces of opposition, bow down.”

After an interesting sales drop following the Vietnam War, the response by gun makers was to advertise the AR-15 for men, and to begin to advertise handguns for women. More recently, the ease in customizing guns to one’s own psychology, including a “southpaw’s dream” for left-handers like me, made them a sort of “Legos for guys.” Fashionable colors, like pink, increased the popularity of guns for women. The meaning of subliminal messages that might be encoded in ads, perhaps like the phallic images in cigarette ads, needs more scrutiny.

Guns in the media
The successful advertising for guns has been supplemented by the game industry, television, comic books, and movies. Research is inconclusive as to whether increasing exposure to violence in the media in turn increases real-life aggression, or whether for many, they are a sublimation and displacement that actually reduces real-life aggression. Instead of increased violence, could they instead increase anxiety, a possibility not well researched?

What is clear is that guns portray an image of power, which may be especially attractive to adolescent males, at a time when boys are falling more behind girls in school, and more women take jobs previously dominated by males (including now the right to serve in combat).

Guns in my family
Now I can't tell you whether there are any guns in our house. However, it always seemed to me—and research has come to support this conclusion—that any possible defensive use of guns by someone not expert in their use, has a greater chance to backfire, so to speak. Then again, we’ve generally lived in safe areas. Being isolated from gun violence is a blessing in one sense, but allows less concern for the problem.

I did, though, learn to shoot a gun, sort of, in the orientation we new physicians had in the army many years ago. What an unsettling experience! Doctors devoted to saving lives trying to hit a target with a bullet. We were told that someday we may need to use them to save a life, even our own.

While I struggled to write this blog, accompanied by Barber’s “Adagio for Strings,” I went into the kitchen for a change of scenery, where my visiting grandson was playing with an old, long Nintendo gun in a kind of hunting game. He asked, “Hey-hey (the name he gave me), are you writing a blog on guns?” Now, I’m no longer easily surprised by what my grandchildren know about me—but how did he know this?

I also wondered, was this game appropriate for our 10-year-old grandson, who coincidentally was just starting to become interested in girls? My wife reminded me that our son used this same game, and he became a rabbi. I was freed to continue writing.

What psychiatrists can do
As citizens, we can fully participate in the debates about how to address gun control and safety. It would be interesting to conduct an anonymous poll to see what mental health professionals believe as far as prospective changes and whether we have our own guns, and why? For physicians, who are devoted to preserving life and promoting the best health possible, advocating against any unnecessary guns for self-defense seems ethically self-evident. AR-15s would seem to be way more than necessary for any personal self-defense situation.

Beyond that, our particular psychological expertise can be applied in ways, including these bullet points:

(1) Educate the public about the psychology of guns, even as speculative as some of it may be
(2) Investigate further the psychology of guns
(3) Educate the public that, although we are not particularly skilled at predicting homicide or suicide, we are much better at treating the mental health conditions that, if left untreated, might lead to a certain small percentage of fatal gun violence
(4) Case find, whether in schools or emergency rooms, those who have been injured or exposed to gun violence, for they will be more prone to later PTSD and/or risky self-medicating
(5) Support preventive services that teach children nonviolent ways to handle frustration and anger
(6) Advocate for improved mental health resources, particularly for child, adolescent, and family therapy, as well as other services that will help maintain a healthy nuclear family
(7) Follow-up on the mental healthcare needs of known bullies and victims of bullying
(8) Clinically, be sure to promote safety as part of the evaluation template, including whether guns are at home and for what overt (and covert) purpose
(9) Appreciate the appropriate use of psychopharmacology for symptoms of undue aggression, such as propranolol, and avoid prescribing disinhibiting medication, such as benzodiazepines
(10) Hospitalize, when necessary. Hospitalization needs to be available for long enough to reduce significantly any suicide and/or homicide risk
(11) Remind politicians that improved gun control and safety will dramatically reduce successful suicide attempts, as well as reduce violence commonly perpetrated against the mentally ill
(12) To the extent that our professional tradition has been based on the therapeutic use of words and language, apply that skill to gun-associated language

Ultimately, it may take women, who are increasingly buying guns and now have the right to fight in military combat, to break up this male-dominated gridlock. A model for this might be Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which addresses another societal problem of some similarity to gun violence. Here, mothers seemed to adapt cognitive behavioral therapeutic principles to change the culture of driving while intoxicated. Is now the time, then, for WAGG—Women Against Gun Glorification?

References

References

1. Rose G. Generation kill: a conversation with Stanley McChrystal. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2013. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/generation-kill. Accessed March 4, 2013.

2. Moffic S. Mass murderers and psychiatry. Psychiatr Times. December 17, 2012. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/moffic/content/article/10168/2120327.
3. Singer N. The most wanted gun in America. New York Times. February 2, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/business/the-ar-15-the-most-wanted-gun-in-america.html. Accessed March 4, 2013.

Not sure how much this new New York law varies from the Tarasoff decision we've lived with for years, that did not seem to impair therapeutic trust, but had the same dire warnings when it first appeared.

Lynn and Steve ... (not verified) @

Dr. Moffic's interesting blog and the ensuing dialogue suggest that there are no quick or simple solutions to the scourge of gun-related violence in the U.S., and that well-intentioned legislative "solutions"must be carefully considered. But such difficulties should not deter us from taking appropriate action, as psychiatric physicians
and advocates for the public health.

For example, while psychiatrists are not "gunologists", as Dr. Moffic acknowledges, we are--or ought to be--suicidologists. It must be emphasized that, for all the media focus on gun-related homicides and mass shootings, about 60% of adult gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides (1). Many of these--perhaps most--are impulsive acts of desperation. While some gun-related suicides are probably not preventable, many would be, if we could reduce rapid access to guns and improve gun "safeguards", such as the use of trigger locks.

And as psychiatrists, we must firmly reject the much-ballyhooed myth that, "A suicidal person will always find a way to kill himself." This claim has been discredited in several studies finding that the "substitution hypothesis" is not borne out. To be sure, a certain percentage of unalterably self-destructive persons will ultimately find a means of suicide, with our without guns--but many transiently suicidal individuals will survive, if they can be kept away from instant access to firearms and directed to appropriate care. And many other means of attempted suicide, such as drug overdose, are far less lethal (and more readily "reversible") than use of firearms. Surely, this point must be of the utmost concern to psychiatrists. I strongly recommend reading Elizabeth Rosenthal's piece in the NY Times on this topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/sunday-review/suicide-with-no-warning....
elisabethrosenthal&_r=0

In addition, there are positive changes on a cultural and societal level to which psychiatrists may contribute. For example, part of violence prevention involves improved consultation between psychiatrists and school health personnel, such as school nurses and psychologists (2). Another element of reducing violence involves
teaching our children better ways of dealing with bullying, and the resultant "narcissistic rage" that it incites in some highly susceptible children.(3)

Above all, we must avoid the easy dodge of arguing that nothing can be done about gun-related violence in this country. True, we may not see dramatic changes in five, ten or even twenty years. But if we don't begin the effort now, we will never see progress. As Rabbi Hillel put it, "If not now, when?"

Ronald Pies MD

1. Fleegler E et al: Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United
States. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Mar 6:1-9.

2. Pies R: Before bullets fly, can we intervene with troubled adolescents?
Medscape Jan. 8, 2013. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777191_3

3. Pies R: Newtown, Narcissism and the Romancing of Rage. Psychcentral Dec. 23, 2012.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/discuss/39806/

Ronald Pies (not verified) @

Just to address the criticism that the blog avoided discussion of family pathology, that was covered in Recommendation #6: "Advocate for improved mental health resources, particularly for child, adolescent, and family therapy, as well as other services that will help maintain a healthy nuclear family".

Lynn and Steve ... (not verified) @

The problem with these idealistic approaches is the problem of low base rates. Dr. Paul Applebaum testified recently to the Biden committee why mental health intervention is not going to matter in reducing gun violence and spoke realistically about the problem:

"However, as is clear from the statistics cited earlier, people with mental illness account for approximately 4% of violence in the U.S. Thus, focusing on this group is not likely to be a highly effective strategy, and runs the risk of reinforcing the stigmatizing association in public perceptions between mental illness and violence."

When so few people are involved with rare, but highly publicized events, broad increases in funding and access will not matter. They would if 50% of the mentally ill were dangerous.

Similarly, very few law abiding gun owners are violent, and most are knowledgable. And I think they realize the connection between anger and violence. Therefore, educational efforts are likely not to make any difference.

This is essentially the same practical problem with expensive preventative screening efforts for rare diseases.

Let's remember that the last three major mass/spree murders were committed by people who did have mental health contact at one point in time. Lanza was being considered for hospitalization, Holmes was treated by a psychiatrist who had particular expertise in violence, and Dorner was presumably screened for psychological fitness when he applied to the LAPD. Let's not overpromise especially when the track record of mental health identification of dangerousness has not been that reliable.

James OBrien (not verified) @

The AR-15 is a semiautomatic not an automatic weapon. The NYT to its credit did not make this mistake. The also referred to it as "wanted"which was clearly a double entendre meaning both loved by enthusiasts and despised by control advocates. They did not mean "most popular". The AR-15 is not the most popular gun in America, as semiautomatic handguns far outsell it.

I think before we designate ourselves teachers of the ignorant rubes, and spend a lot of money doing something likely to be ineffective (but make us feel better about ourselves) we should learn basic terminology first. It would be nice if self-appointed experts understood the difference between an automatic (effectively illegal since 1934) and a semiautomatic, and that the term "assault weapon" refers to cosmetic additions such as a bayonet and has nothing to do with the power of ammunition.

You need not worry about boys younger than 10 playing with toy guns or swords or lightsabers. This is normal behavior and has been for generations. At least it will be until DSM-6 comes out.

Still looking for archangel politicians to save the country from itself? Ask the New York psychotherapy community how that worked out for them with the latest after-midnight travesty from Albany.

James OBrien (not verified) @

Sorry about the apparently wrong terminology about the kinds of guns, but I'm not a gunologist. I'm a psychiatrist and the thrust of the blog was to try to understand the underlying psychology.
I had also learned something, I thought, from Dr. O'Brien's comments on my last blog on mass murders; hence, the emphasis here on developing healthy families with a father.
I agree the behavior of my grandson and that of other boys 10 or younger that you mention would be "normal", including video games.
I haven't heard anything from psychotherapists from New York. If there are readers from there, please comment, or perhaps Dr. O'brien can find them to comment. I would indeed like to hear of their experiences to learn from them.
If I've missed the mark here, what can be done, if anything, to reduce gun violence in America?

Lynn and Steve ... (not verified) @

These are pretty basic facts that could be easily fact checked and do not require expertise.

As far as the reaction in NY, this is pretty representative:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/01/16/new-york-states-new-gun...

I do not think anything short term will reduce gun violence in America, to be honest with you. In my mind, that means it's better to do nothing that trust politicians, who will screw it up as they did in New York.

And philosophically, I just hate anything that reeks of the therapeutic state. In the meantime, we should be very careful running to politicians, because they will use our purported expertise in violence prediction (which we actually do not possess) against us.

Michael Bloomberg will not be calling me for advice anything soon, even though he needs it.

James OBrien (not verified) @

It's a lot broader and more nonspecific than Tarasoff. Please read Tarasoff and the NY law again and you will see the difference.

James OBrien (not verified) @

Actually sometimes the answer is to do nothing if there is no proof that any proposed idea has any empirical merit. These ideas are nebulous pleas for money and "education"which is really anti-gun propaganda (and yes. it's not to much to ask the self-annointed to know the basic facts before talking down to the slack-jawed yokels).

I don't know of any cure for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Does that mean we should try laetrile or blood letting because we "have to do something"? What happened to "first do no harm"?

Now that you've switched the subject to suicide, I do agree with your major point. Yes, suicide would be less frequent if all guns were banned. But the only reason to support that as policy is if you believe in the therapeutic state over individual rights, and psychiatrists have every reason to be skeptical of that position (i.e. Soviet psychiatry). If you want to make the argument that public safety trumps freedom, we could have a speed limit of 20 mph for everything except ambulances, fire trucks and police cars and save 50 thousand lives a year.

In the end psychiatrists in the few hours we have with patients can actually do very little in the face of the destruction of the family, which few anti-gun people wish to talk about and this author seems to want to scrupulously avoid. For example, he studiously avoids any discussion of the obvious family pathology between murderer and mother, and any value judgments that stem from that.

Using these tragedies as an excuse to raise money, beg for political action and overpromise what psychiatry can do is unseemly to me. Look how it horribly backfired in New York. And it's also empirically wrong to champion gun control as a cure-all when it has failed so miserably in cities such as Chicago.

James OBrien (not verified) @

A reference for all readers of this blog. There is an excellent article on addressing gun violence risk in today's New York Time, "Focusing on Violence Before It Happens", with examples from Los Angeles where a county mental health program intervened - presumably successfully - in students of suspected high risk.

Lynn and Steve ... (not verified) @

New reports indicate Holmes' psychiatrist told campus police about his dangerousness and they did nothing. She also declined to have him civilly committed. Mind you, this was a psychiatrist who claimed a particular interest in and expertise in treating the dangerous mentally ill.

So everything was in place for him to be identified, detained and disarmed and it didn't happen. In the hands of a psychiatrist probably more qualified than most.

You could in theory prevent breast cancer by screening mammograms of women down to the age of eighteen. Why isn't this done?

In reality you will lose more lives in traffic driving to the appointments to screen the mentally ill than correctly identifying those who will kill in advance. Remember we aren't very good at predicting dangerousness.

There will be thousands of false positives simply because the therapist simply doesn't like the patient. Psychiatrists can be venal like everyone else. The therapeutic state is always a good opportunity to act out countertransference to the detriment of all involved.

James OBrien (not verified) @
Click here to close