By Cynthia Zheutlin

In the furious debate regarding the constitutionally protected right to bear arms, I find the most compelling issue to consider in these “discussions” rarely mentioned by either side of the argument. The issue of impulse control on the part of the individual seems to be something we are collectively uncomfortable considering.

Perhaps it is because the culture in which we operate our lives, one that is economically driven, critically depends for its very survival on a significant amount of poor impulse control on the part of consumers. Madison Avenue spends enormous money and time researching ways to encourage, even manipulate, impulse buying.

As a former marketing professional and practicing psychotherapist, I made the switch from the corporate world of marketing to psychology primarily because what interested me most in marketing was (of course) the psychology of marketing, or what is known as consumer behavior. The core question in consumer behavior is, “What will bring the consumer to the purchase decision?” How do we move that demand curve on the product or idea?

What I learned in business school and on the job is that the most cost-effective, short-term strategy for selling anything — product, service or ideology — is leveraging people’s fear. You see it in the lion’s share of advertising, mostly in the form of tapping into our collective need to belong, to succeed, to get our needs met. From the toothpaste ads that sell you not toothpaste, but that edge to have the dazzling white smile to win that job or that girl/guy, to political ads which tap in to not the concept of equality or even rights, but the fear of someone taking them away along with the shame that is surely ours if we allow it to happen, this strategy sells like hotcakes. The “sell” is always emotional.

What happens over time, when fear is the currency of the information with which we are constantly bombarded, is that we learn to live reactively rather than proactively. Unfortunately, this means we are almost never listening to anything other than the fear and anxiety nattering in our ears from one source or another. When we live defensively out of fear, it is easy to become a tool of our own emotions. Our behavior becomes increasingly impulsive rather than rationally considered.

Which brings me to issues like gun control versus gun rights. Guns exist to destroy — objects or beings —  that is the sole purpose of a gun. It has no other use, so it was designed to accomplish that goal very effectively. So when you combine a highly effective vehicle for destruction (the gun) with behavior that is driven by fear — and, therefore, reactive — you have a deadly combination walking around looking for the proverbial “place to happen.”

This dilemma is not particularly new to our culture; after all there is actually a legal defense for “crimes of passion,” considered to be something like “temporary insanity.” So if this poor impulse control type of behavior is so established in our culture, why is this not a consideration in these debates over gun rights and restrictions?

I know this is a complex issue with a variety of variables that can come into play. However, from a marketing perspective, this is the perfect storm for selling weapons. If there were more restrictions on guns, the marketing for the gun manufacturers would shrink. And in an economically driven society, that’s the smoking gun — the evidence to justify massive short-term weapons sales as is continuously reported in the media. The retail outlets literally cannot keep them on the shelves. With the sheer volume of these weapons around and easily accessible, impulse control — or lack, thereof — becomes an even more critical variable in play.

— Cynthia Zheutlin is a psychologist and artist living on Vashon.