I continued to ponder this Eddie Vedder foolishness and the hero treatment he has received for it from many anti-gun sources. In the end, I think we have much to thank Vedder for - and those who support him might want to question - since what he has done is clearly demonstrate the underlying psychological issues that most who are anti-firearms are dealing with, why they are afraid of firearms. Damn - I hate to sound Freudian here and fulfill everyone's worst assumptions about psychologists - but Freudian or not, there is no escaping that this seems a case of projection and reaction formation. That is, the manifestation of ego defense mechanisms that Freud proposed. One in which people project their own issues onto others as away of defending themselves against seeing their own faults; it is not me, it is them. They will also adopt extreme position opposite of their true feelings.
Vedder clearly has issues with aggression and has a vulnerable self-image, feels persecuted and a need for some irrational revenge on those who have mistreated him. No? Listen to his music (Is Vedder Jeremy - speaking in class today - getting his revenge on those who have wronged him). That is not a coincidence Accept his own assessment of himself - "If I didn't have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn't want me having a gun either". First, that makes it sound like he has a gun ("If I didn't have music, you wouldn't want me having a gun"). He has music, so...? But he is clearly describing himself and and his use of the word "either" suggests that the image he sees of others are projections, reflections of himself. He cannot or could not handle it, hence others (who don't have music?) cannot handle it either.
I am sure this is a position shared by most of those who are afraid of firearms. Since they know that they would act out with a firearm given the opportunity, they have to believe that all others would do so as well. In this way they can feel "normal" - because, after all, everyone else is like them; none of us can control those impulses.
We might also see this as a case of reaction formation. That is, Vedder would love to be Jeremy, would love to have a firearm and hurt others so he has to adopt a strong opposite anti-gun view. I would suggest that this, too, is not an unusual stance among many who wish to take away firearms (or other rights) from others. Just as we often see those who are most anti-gay emerge as closet homosexuals (e.g., Ted Haggart, Larry Craig), I suspect we can see that many who are anti-gun are those who fear their own ability to control their own behavior and so much take on extreme opposite positions.
No Eddie - we are not all like you. We know that carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility - we do not see it as a tool to act out on some revenge fantasy. Responsibility is a component of all rights; without it, rights mean nothing; without it, people start clamoring for laws to limit those rights. But because you are not capable of responsible firearm ownership does not mean others are not as well.
As I said before, Vedder has a right to freedom of speech, he would even have a right to keep and bear arms. But given his comments, it seems clear he is too irresponsible for it, does not have the right temperament for it. He seems, perhaps, to be a Jeremy - an Adam Lanza - a person whose mental health status suggests he is better off without a firearm - and that we are better of that he is not armed.
Thanks Eddie - bet you didn't know you said so much in so few words.
No comments:
Post a Comment