LikeLike

With those who are not committed anti-gun, such as my graduate students who, while having accepted the academic position on guns are not rabid about it, I am often able to do so. Perhaps them getting to know me in a non-gun context helps them to see me as “normal” even though I am a gun owner. I suspect it helps if people know each other sin non-gun contexts, so that some sense of “normality” is already established.

One area where they often seek me out for discussion is in the notion of “means restriction” with suicidal clients. How do we introduce the idea of restricting their access to lethal means when in a suicidal crisis? This is especially true when working with veterans. That, and as I have mentioned here before, I have considered teaching a “Psychology of Gun Culture” seminar, although it would be interesting to see how it would be received by faculty.

But with most faculty, who are not only anti-gun, but anti the culture of gun ownership – and are consistently overconfident in the infallibility of their positions on all matters – it is more difficult. In essence, because we are a clinical psychology program, those attempts at discussion often begin with their failure to accept the possibility that “Guns are normal and normal people have guns.” They see the act as pathological. It is hard to have rational discussion without that as a premise. Hence, little discussion happens at all.

It is noteworthy that this is not in all cases, and some have asked me to take them to the range. These are usually those whose anti orientation is not solidly developed. But even they would not say that out loud to others.

Anyway, just some thoughts that occurred in reading this post.

LikeLiked by 1 person

LikeLiked by 1 person