Zelaron Gaming Forum  
Stats Arcade Portal Forum FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search
Go Back   Zelaron Gaming Forum > The Zelaron Nexus > General Discussion > News and Events

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

 
Addicted to the Bang: The Neuroscience of the Gun
Reply
Posted 2013-01-16, 12:51 PM
Addicted To Bang: The Neuroscience of the Gun


“If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you get a population roughly the size of the United States, where, last year, there were 32,000 gun death. Those other countries, which all have a form of gun control, had a total of 112.

—paraphrase, Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing, 2001

In the wake of recent tragic events, there have been a raft of articles about new reasons for gun-control and the psychological make-up of mass murderers (See NYT or WSJ), but the authors of this piece (co-authored with neuroscientist James Olds) believe there’s a critical component missing from this discussion: the very addictive nature of firearms.

There are a number of different ways to think about this issue, but a decent place to start is Steven Pinker. In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker makes the data-driven argument that violence has been decreasing steadily since the Middle Ages and, across the boards, is now at its lowest point in history. But this isn’t the case with gun violence.

Consider this report (about Oakland, CA) from yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle:

Data compiled by the Urban Strategies Council—which works with, and collects data for, agencies like the OPD—shows the overall number of reported shootings rising in recent years, from 869 in 2009 to more than 1,200 in 2011, the highest since 2003, the earliest year for which they have data. Homicides—which are by and large committed by people with guns—have followed a similar trend. As of early December, 2012, the city had already seen 117 homicides, soaring past 103 for last year and perhaps reaching the highest total since 2008 police say, when 124 people died.

So the question becomes why is violence overall declining, yet gun violence still on the rise? The answer, we suspect, might be dopamine.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, one of the brain’s basic signaling molecules. Emotionally, we feel its presence as engagement, excitement, creativity, and a desire to investigate and make meaning out of the world. It’s released whenever we take a risk, or encounter something novel. It reinforces exploratory behavior. It also helps us survive that behavior. By increasing attention, information flow, and pattern recognition, in the brain, and heart rate, blood pressure and muscle firing timing, in the body, dopamine serves as a formidable skill-booster as well.

But its most famous attribute is as a motivator. It is released when we have the expectation of reward. Once dopamine becomes hardwired into a psychological reward loop, the desire to get more dopamine becomes the brain’s overarching preoccupation. Cocaine, for example, is widely considered the most addictive drug on earth. It does little more than flood the brain with dopamine and block its reuptake (sort of like SSRI’s block the reuptake of serotonin).

But it’s not just drug addiction. Gambling addiction, shopping addiction, sex addiction, porn addiction, coffee addiction, cigarette addiction, twitter and texting too. The list is long. And possibly growing, as now it’s time to talk about dopamine and our current gun addiction.

So what do we really know? Dopamine shows up when we take a risk—and firing a gun is always a risk. It shows up when we encounter something novel and since guns blow things up, well that usually pretty novel. If you’re serious about your guns and use them for target practice or hunting, well that requires pattern recognition and this increases dopamine as well.

Are there direct correlations? Has anyone yet done a PET or MRS scan (the only ways to screen for dopamine in the brain) of people just leaving a firing range? Not that we can tell (though we’ll outline this and a few possible areas of research in a moment). We do know, from copious amounts of video game research, that first person shooter games release dopamine, and this has been linked to everything from learning and rewards to ideas about violence and harm to winning and motivation.

What does all of this really mean? It means that the reason gun violence continues to rise (and the reason gun control legislation remains so hard to pass) is because we are quite literally addicted to our guns.

Two things make this even more alarming. First, because the human brain evolved in an era of immediacy—when threats and rewards were of the lions, tigers and food variety—the dopamine circuitry has an inborn timing mechanism. If the reward follows the stimulus by roughly 100-200 milliseconds, it’s sitting in dopamine’s sweet spot. Firing a muzzle loader—for example—would certainly release dopamine, but it takes too long between multiple firings for a significant reward loop to be created. Firing an automatic weapon, though, sits close to the sweet spot—an assault weapon can fire a round every 100 milliseconds. Meaning not only are guns addictive, but automatic weaponry is far more addictive than most.

Unfortunately, there’s a more frightening downside to consider. As Nora Volkow and her colleagues at the National Institute of Drug Abuse have well documented, the first true taste of a dopamine rush is always the best. After that, there are always diminishing returns. What this means in drug addicts is that the first time someone inhales cocaine feel so outrageously good compared to all the following times and, as a result, a junky will keep escalating their use patterns to try to get back to that original high. The same goes for guns. This suggests that for addicts, the desire to do more damage, cause more harm, and generally unleash holy terror will only increase over time.

Obviously, considering the scope of these ideas, a bit more research needs to be done. Besides the aforementioned PET/MRS scan, there are an even simpler tests. L-Dopa, the Parkinson’s drug, increases the level of dopamine in the brain. You could give subjects L-Dopa (compared to people given, say, naloxone, which blocks the opioid reward system) and have them fire guns at a range. After a set period of time, you can then see how much money they’d be willing to spend for another 30 minutes on the range (compared to controls). Our guess, the folks with more L-Dopa are gonna spend far more money.

The larger point is that if we’re really going to have a high-minded discussion more honest discussion about the role we want guns to play in the future of America, then acknowledging (and further researching) the addictive nature of bang seems a critical place to start.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenko...ce-of-the-gun/
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
KagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed it
 
 
KagomJack
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-16, 05:24 PM in reply to KagomJack's post "Addicted to the Bang: The Neuroscience..."
KagomJack said: [Goto]


“If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you get a population roughly the size of the United States, where, last year, there were 32,000 gun death. Those other countries, which all have a form of gun control, had a total of 112.

—paraphrase, Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing, 2001

I haven't gotten around to reading your entire post yet, but I did read this much and I have to address it. It seems pretty obvious that gun control would reduce the number of gun deaths (less guns=less gun deaths). However, that doesn't really help anything if the number of other deaths increases. The net result is the same.

For the sake of ease, I'm going to use statistics for intentional homicide rather than deaths in general, and I don't think this will necessarily detract from the point. According to the quote above, those countries had 0.35% of the gun deaths that our country had, which is a fact that I'm not necessarily disputing. It could in fact be wrong, but I haven't investigated this. For the purposes of my point, I'm assuming that the quoted statistic is right, and I'm attempting to show how it is misleading. Also, I will cite my source at the end of this post.

I took the liberty of plotting the raw number if intentional homicides in our country along with the countries listed in the quote between the years of 1996-2009 (the available data). You can see this graph below.



If you calculate the percentage of our intentional homicides that those countries had, this is the result for those years.



As you can see, it's around 25% (closer to 20% now). Still a pretty clear difference, but not nearly as extreme as the initial quote implies to someone who isn't paying attention to detail.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...istics2012.xls
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
!King_Amazon!
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-16, 10:30 PM in reply to !King_Amazon!'s post starting "I haven't gotten around to reading your..."
It's like I always say, take away their guns, and the crazies will build bombs. And it's pretty hard to take away the bombs, considering how many household items can be explosive. Heck, plain old flour can be explosive under the right conditions.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
WetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusion
 
 
WetWired
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-17, 02:52 AM in reply to WetWired's post starting "It's like I always say, take away their..."
While what you are saying is true, it is also true that those countries that have gun control (from the list in the original quote) also have 1/5th the number of intentional homicides. A pretty solid argument for starting some gun control, or at least figuring out what those countries are doing right that we are doing wrong. It should be pretty obvious, though.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
!King_Amazon!
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-17, 09:51 PM in reply to !King_Amazon!'s post starting "While what you are saying is true, it..."
I wonder how those statistics hold if you consider all countries with gun control, though. Really, I think it's because the US breeds so many rebelious, entitled punks more than gun control.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
WetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusion
 
 
WetWired
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-18, 10:39 AM in reply to WetWired's post starting "I wonder how those statistics hold if..."
And a culture centered on violence. Forgot that.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
KagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed itKagomJack shouldn't have fed it
 
 
KagomJack
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-18, 11:29 AM in reply to WetWired's post starting "I wonder how those statistics hold if..."
WetWired said: [Goto]
I wonder how those statistics hold if you consider all countries with gun control, though. Really, I think it's because the US breeds so many rebelious, entitled punks more than gun control.
You can use the link I provided to find the numbers if you have a list of countries you want to compare. Our country is higher than most "civilized" countries. I don't think there is any single attributable cause. I think the media is the primary problem, though, not necessarily "rebellious entitled punks". I'm not surprised that you use the word "rebellious" in a negative way, though.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
!King_Amazon!
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-18, 12:41 PM in reply to !King_Amazon!'s post starting "You can use the link I provided to find..."
Entitlement by itself doesn't breed violence, it's when you're willing to go against authority to take what you believe is yours that it turns into violence.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
WetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusion
 
 
WetWired
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-18, 05:11 PM in reply to WetWired's post starting "Entitlement by itself doesn't breed..."
WetWired said: [Goto]
Entitlement by itself doesn't breed violence, it's when you're willing to go against authority to take what you believe is yours that it turns into violence.
This seems like a blanket statement that implies that going against authority is bad, which seems like a pretty bad mindset. It doesn't surprise me to see it coming from you, though.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics!King_Amazon! simplifies with no grasp of the basics
 
 
!King_Amazon!
 



 
Reply
Posted 2013-01-18, 07:12 PM in reply to !King_Amazon!'s post starting "This seems like a blanket statement..."
Then you're getting me wrong. Rebellion can be a good thing if you have a clear mind and a good reason.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
WetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusionWetWired read his obituary with confusion
 
 
WetWired
 
 

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 

Posting Rules [Forum Rules]
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Guns and gun laws Skurai The Lounge 13 2012-11-08 11:41 AM
Coil Gun! Sum Yung Guy The Lounge 1 2009-05-07 08:02 PM
Zelaron Addicted User Name # 1 The Lounge 30 2002-10-10 06:24 PM
Here dream gun ZERONX General Discussion 6 2002-03-15 12:07 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:51 PM.
'Synthesis 2' vBulletin 3.x styles and 'x79' derivative
by WetWired the Unbound and Chruser
Copyright ©2002-2008 zelaron.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.