Guns and the Security Dilemma

            Is a gun an offensive weapon or a defensive one?  Some people think that it always depends on who is holding it.  If you’re one of the good guys, it’s a defensive weapon.  Guns in the hands of bad guys are always offensive weapons.

            That’s at least the frustrating way that several of the Republican presidential candidates think. Commenting on the shootings at the Marine Recruiting Center in Chattanooga last week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker opined that current laws preventing soldiers from carrying weapons in civilian areas were “outdated.”  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie couldn’t think of a reason that, in general members of the military shouldn’t be armed wherever they are so that they can protect themselves.  And Donald Trump roared “MILITARY LIVES MATTER! END GUN FREE ZONES! OUR SOLDIERS MUST BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES! THIS HAS TO STOP!”

            Former Governor Jeb Bush provided the rationale: “It seems to me that if you have military bases or recruiting offices, these are symbols of American might. They're targets. This is how you garner attention. You go to places where there is vulnerability and it's a very powerful symbolic attack on our country.”

            So, soldiers good.  People seeking to “garner attention” by harming them bad.  Soldiers get to keep guns for self defense.

            This, of course, is just an echo of the basic National Rifle Association meme that the way to stop gun violence is for everyone to be armed. If law-abiding citizens (the good guys) are able to defend themselves against gun wielding bad guys, the bad guys will be deterred from attacking the good guys with their offensive weapon.

            NRA board member Charles Cotton (speaking for himself, of course, and not the NRA), used this meme to blame Clementa Pinckney, the murdered pastor of the Emanuel AME Church, for the deaths of eight members of his flock who had gathered at the church for Bible study.  Pastor Pinkney, who was also a South Carolina State Senator, “voted against concealed-carry.  Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” he wrote.

            Hmm.  It looks like none of these fine gentlemen have ever paid a visit to the Tragic Commons.

            What we have here is a game commonly played in the Tragic Commons by people who have more fear than sense.  We call the game the “Security Dilemma.”

            Every Security Dilemma requires at least equally two matched players.  They don’t trust each other very much (and why that might be could be interesting question to discuss over a drink or two, but it’s utterly irrelevant here).  It begins when one of the players takes an action the other perceives to be provocative. 

            For example, fearing the other player, the first player might try to create a weapon system that can blunt the other player’s attack.  For the first player, its action is defensive.  But for the other player, it’s provocative.  Because the first player now has a system that can neutralize an attack, the second player perceives himself to be vulnerable to an attack by the first player.

            The rational response to the first player’s action is for the second player either to harden its own defenses or create a more powerful weapon system to deter an attack by the first player.  You can see how this game leads to an arms race during which both players build weapon system upon weapon system, draining their treasuries and making the Tragic Commons a much more dangerous place.

            The game ends when one of the parties decides to chance a pre-emptive strike against the other.  Even if one party survives, its population and infrastructure have been decimated.  Everybody loses.  What fun!

            The Security Dilemma that the Republican candidates don’t understand is that by arming everyone to deter attacks, they only encourage the bad guys to get Kevlar vests (if you can obtain a gun on the black market you can certainly get bullet-proof vests and other goodies there too) and bigger, more destructive weapons.

            What they also don’t get is that arming everyone turns us all into players one and two.  Do we really want to live in a society where everyone expects a sudden attack by a fellow citizen and has at his or her fingertips, the ability to decide, in a split second, to launch a devastating pre-emptive strike?

            Governor Christie, there is a reason we don’t want our soldiers carrying weapons in civilian areas.  You might ask your friends in Texas who are petrified that a military training exercise now being conducted—OperationJade Helm--there is really a cover for an armed takeover of the state by the federal government.

            And, yes, Governor Bush, I understand that attacks on the American military are symbolic and attention grabbing.  But so are attacks on classrooms. And on members of Congress such as Gabby Giffords. And on people in movie theaters. And on the faithful studying the Bible in churches.