Why we need to apply behavioural science to help stop gun killings
In this guest post Simon Corbett argues behavioural science shows why incidents like the Charleston massacre won’t stop in the US until gun laws are changed.
“If he didn’t have a gun then he would have made an IED or just found another way… he was crazy and intent to take lives”
That is almost certainly not true and BJ Fogg, head of persuasion technology at Stanford University can explain to us why. Not that any pro-gun morons are going to listen.
BJ Fogg arguably knows more than anyone else about the science of changing behaviour. We at Slingshot both admire and adhere to his methodologies and look to apply them to all of our strategic thinking.
The US constitution allows the populace the right to bear arms in the context of forming a militia. Written when scepticism around government was a prevailing mode of thought. I once discussed this with a law lecturer over here who said this could be interpreted to include any type of weapon including nuclear.
Libertarianism is at the core of the ongoing belief that weapons are a necessary component of US-defined free will. The whole thing has been distorted to become a self-fulfilling prophecy; because there are so many loonies running around the US shooting at innocent people it is necessary to have a gun to protect one’s self from these loonies, but I have never once read about one of these loonies being stopped in their tracks by a non-law enforcement citizen carrying a gun.
Can this mindset be changed? Yes, but over generations. Banning them will do absolutely nothing to curb the problem. Case study for behavioural change in this context: drink driving. But that’s an infinitely easier sell.
Of course banning guns works. It worked here in Australia.
@ @me: simplistic response
https://news.vice.com/article/conspiracy-theorists-think-an-army-training-exercise-will-bring-martial-law-to-the-us-this-summer
Not qualified to challenge, but Simon’s ability argument seem odd. Does he suggest behaviour can’t be changed psychologically and only through mechanical intervention?
Check me if I am wrong with my summation.
Motivation + trigger + ability with gun = major catastrophe.
Simon mentioned that motivation + trigger + ability with car = a lesser catastrophe thanks to the stairs.
Furthermore, motivation + trigger + ability with a bomb = super major catastrophe but it requires more effort.
What about the first part of that equation, motivation? Remove it and there is no trigger. Ability becomes irrelevant.
I think US gun ownership is ridiculous but a true solution is probably more complicated than presented in Simon’s ability argument.
Hey Matt B (good name btw!),
I get where you are coming from but trying to remove or change people motivation to do something is the hardest part of the BJ Fogg theory.
Usually, a persons motivation to do something is driven by an emotional reason (in the case of the Dylan Roof, it was likely hate, range or anger).
Given that it’s so easy to get a gun in the US, it makes the most sense to remove the guns first.
Guns are the least of the US’ worries,
but they’ll sure make interesting when the rest unravels.
Thanks for the comment MattB (as opposed to To ‘The Real Matt B’)
you are absolutely correct in saying that the situation in the US is more complicated than my article – I agree. However there can be no doubt that to eliminate the ability in the BJ Fogg behavioral Change Model would make a significant difference. Changing people’s motivation is very hard to do and sustain as The Real Matt B points out.
Also every person has their own motivation so very hard for a Govt to address each and every one. However if you take away their ability to act upon that motivation then we will see less people slaughtered.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Ooops … I meant to write “the right to arm bears”. Me bad!
A generation of people have grown up surrounded by fear (propagated by dodgy governments). They have been tauyght that they are world police and repsonsible for controlling everyone else.
This feeds down to the everyday nutter in the street who believes it is the job..no, responsibility, to take care of the baddies.
Watch australia in the next 20 years as our fear mongering government (“they are coming for us”) leads the stupid down a very dark path.
@Offal. I enjoy your postings and agree generally with your sentiments, but even though we are seeing greater polarity within our political class I don’t think we’re headed towards a gun-desiring culture. @me was correct in citing John Howard’s decision on firearms as a factor in reducing the opportunity for the Martin Bryants of our country, but Howard experienced very little pushback from the pro-gun lobby because ownership of firearms is not so ingrained in our culture. Our is not a culture where a 9 year-old can fire an Uzi at ‘Bullets and Burgers’.
The weak point of the Mr Corbett’s argument is that banning guns in the US is the solution. With so many firearms in circulation, that is going to prove extremely difficult. With the US Supreme Court upholding the right to have and bear arms, the Executive is powerless to act. Each massacre only results in a propaganda opportunity for the pro-gun lobby and sales increase.
Imagine what it would be like not to have your mobile phone close by and that’s what the gun-bearing US citizen would feel about their firearm. Once the habit is formed, one’s need to sustain that habit becomes paramount. This is a certainly a behavioural problem, but I don’t think a simple three-step methodology is the solution.
This article reads bit like the idea of stopping smoking in prisons.
Ironic from a company with shot in its name.
Interesting article Simon.
It shouldn’t take too much convincing or detailed application of the esteemed BJ Fogg’s model to agree that if we make something harder, less people will do it. Make it hard enough, and very few people will do it. However, as @me says it isn’t actually quite that easy in the US (and unfortunately a few is all it takes).
When the Freakonomics guys looked at this, they pointed out that there are an estimated 300 million guns in circulation in the US. Even when they’ve run ‘hugely successful’ gun amnesties, they’ve got tens of thousands of guns handed in. Clearly a drop in the ocean.
Add in the powerful NRA and the Constitutional Right and it doesn’t seem plausible that you’ll make it sufficiently hard for a motivated nutter to get access to a gun (it doesn’t seem like people are doing this type of killing spree in a hot state – most plan it for long enough that getting a gun would be fairly trivial).
Doesn’t mean more shouldn’t be done, and clearly it’s an appalling situation in the US, just that the answer probably requires hitting all three elements in the model.
Just watch this to help open up the conversation about the “Motivation” aspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz6bVde-rpQ
Unless we treat children better this type of event will just keep happening.
As difficult as the gun ownership debate is the real debate and really truly hard conversation is about tackling the issue at it’s source – which is about better life outcomes for children.
Taking guns away from people is akin to the notion of cure.
Respecting and nurturing children and giving them the love and safety they require is the only truly deeply and freedom loving way of achieving the ideal of prevention over cure.
Interesting this was written only about the US. Will Simon’s exciting theory be applid to the behaviour of Islamic terrorists, who use guns, bombs, bombs attached to animals, men, women and children to kill infidels?
Will Simon write about the motivation of gun-owning/gun-using gangsters/killers and would-be killers in Melbourne’s northern suburbs and Sydney’s Western Suburbs?
Or are his eyes fixed only on ma country that is not Australia?
Apologies for typos above. Oops!
Why do we care how many guns americans have?