Cultural priming by the Gun: Aurora's unheeded lesson?

I think Latour's idea of noting a certain agency in objects is really useful. It is, of course, an embedded/networked agency, but it allows us to pay attention to the fact that objects in our life-worlds 'call out' to us: they connote things, they imply interactions and these connotations and implications prime us for behaviours and perspectives. The article I've linked to here looks at this in respect of gun possession and in partial response to the Aurora shooting.

philosopher Bruno Latour goes far as to depict the experience of possessing a gun as one that produces a different subject: "You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you." While the idea that a gun-human combination can produce a new subject may seem extreme, it is actually an experience that people (with appropriate background assumptions) typically attest to, when responding to strong architectural configurations. When walking around such prestigious colleges as Harvard and the University of Chicago, it is easy to feel that one has suddenly become smarter. Likewise, museums and sites of religious worship can induce more than a momentary inclination towards reflection; they can allow one to view artistic and spiritual matters as a contemplative being. The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun - Evan Selinger - The Atlantic

I found this helpful in developing my intuition based on my own experience. admittedly not an experience of gun possession (I have never held a real gun and wouldn't have a clue how to set it up for use). My reflection stems from the experience of owning a toy gun: for me as a child, the potetiality of the object and its meaning simply compelled me to find targets and to 'shoot' them. The toy drew me to seeing the world in terms of potential targets and to pull the trigger. Admittedly it is only a toy, but that pulll to act out the play-purpose of the object was very powerful and I cannot see why that same sort of compulsion would not act to varying degrees in unconsciously priming one to respond to the implicit call of the object (as reinforced semiotically daily in entertainment media). Some people would experience that 'call' more fully than others but statistically, over a large population it would be likely that some would respond to the fullest extent. The message of the gun, as with any tool, is 'use me'; it's only a matter of time before some particularly prone or sensitive souls heed that message and give the gun what it 'wants'.

That's not to diminish the agency of the person who pulls the trigger, but it is to recall that all agents are not equal in our agency, and our agency may be stronger or weaker at different times and in various circumstances. However, we cannot hide from the responsibility to protect the weak and vulnerable and to make appropriate efforts to diminish temptation for those who are more damaged or undeveloped. I think, personally, that this is an implication of Jesus' words about the responsibility of those who 'cause  ... to sin'. If we do not recognise and act upon what we know about priming and the psychological and cultural effects of objects on our subjectivity, I fear that we are responsible before God to some degree.

I think too, that this adds weight to seeing violence and nonviolence as a cultural matter and thus of the kind of imaginations and subjectivities we prime and 'nudge' into being and expression. One of the Christian objections to pornography is to do with the effect upon someone of filling their hearts and minds with a certain kind of desire. It seems to me that this insight should be applied consistently across to the ownership and hospitality to other kinds of objects too, most especially those that pertain to violence and the myth of redemptive violence.