Measured responses via gun control, philosophy and Gary Barlow

There have been few blog posts worth reading in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook horror. Here are some that are linked to each other and other, similar massacres:

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-philosophy-of-the-technology-of-the-gun/260220/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/batman-movies-dont-kill-but-theyre-friendly-to-the-concept/

http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/07/24/inside-the-minds-of-mass-killers/

Particularly with reference to the first above, my interpretation of these blogs is basically that (you+gun)<>you + gun, i.e., when you pick up the gun, you are a different entity than you were, the gun is a different entity than it was, and the two of you together are a different entity than simply adding you and the gun.

To me, this is beautiful and logical.
Nowhere have I seen this logic applied, where allowance is made for the fact that combining a human with another entity, organic or not, causes them to become non-you, i.e., not the original entity.

Laws certainly don’t account for the fact that (you+gun)<>you + gun. In fact, I'd argue that they effectively disregard the gun altogether, setting parameters only on the basis of your actions. You can imagine the defence, "The gun made me do it", would land you perhaps in a mental hospital instead of prison but otherwise would be pointless.

Similarly, our behaviour changes when we become you+car; it's easy to dehumanise others when they're disguised in a metal box. In fact, when we label another driver based on their car ('typical BMW driver') we effectively negate 'you' out of the equation altogether, leaving just a metal box. And where's the harm in being angry at a metal box?

Everyone drives a car differently to the way they ride a bike. When it's you+bike, the sum total of that entity has a different attitude to risk and pattern of behaviour than you+car, or just plain old you. Regarding ourselves as fluid entities that become changed when combined with different entities (organic or not) allows us to reconsider our actions and reactions. 

The sooner we all realise that our edges aren't lines, that they're blurry boundaries, the better. A jazz pianist friend of mine once talked about being careful of what he listened to, because everything you hear finds it's way into your fingers. He's right - we're porous, badly insulated beings; skin, brains, emotions, everything. We absorb everything and acknowledge consciously a small part of it.

(This is still my argument for not watching Eastenders, listening to Gary Barlow/One Direction.)

Osmosis doesn't judge bad from good. It's a great asset and continual risk. 

I was going to sign off by saying that we all have a responsibility to control what we expose ourselves to but that's palpable nonsense; you can't control everything around you. And perhaps seeking to do so is a mistake, closing doors and limiting options. 

Perhaps all you can do is control how you react to the world, look for the wider implications and be mindful of the impact on others.