Analyzing Bias on Both Sides of an Issue

Analyzing Bias on Both Sides of an Issue

Gun Control/ Safety

Introduction

The Second Amendment of the American constitution allows citizens to bear arms (Gramlich & Schaeffer). Gun control and safety policies elicit different reactions from different people. The issue of gun ownership remains a highly debatable issue at political, community and individual levels. Gun control policy seeks to restrict gun ownership by tightening laws on gun ownership. Issues such as strict eligibility requirements such as mental health, restricted seller authorization, the ban on particular firearms, to name a few, have elicited debate. Parties that believe in individual protection in a society where the government has failed to protect its citizens adequately are of a contrary opinion. Restricting gun ownership for law-abiding citizens who need protection is seen as an abuse of human rights (“Issue: Gun Control”).

The varied opinions and beliefs as concerns gun control are based on cognitive biases that exist at individual and society level. Biases affect thought patterns and decision making. The paper seeks to focus on types of biases as well as reasons for the biases concerning gun control and safety.

Possible Biases

Misinformation Effect

The varying opinions are based on cognitive biases, such as the misinformation effect. This type of bias relies on information passed from others and not from personal experience (Cherry). There are numerous cases of gun-related crime that involve violent crime, domestic violence, mass shooting, for example. Most citizens rely on information relayed by different media.

In most cases, the information is already and thus has a victim and criminal setting. The actual happenings of the event are most often not documented. The person depicted as the criminal rarely gets any room to argue innocence as the audience already passes judgment.

A case of a domestic violence case where a husband shoots and kills a wife automatically puts the husband in a perpetrator position. Such a case could be an act of self-defense whereby the wife is the attacker, for example. An individual arguing for tighter gun restrictions would say that the husband should not have owned the gun. Possession, in this case, causes loss of life. An individual arguing for non-restriction would equally say that the wife should have had a gun. Owning a firearm, in this case, would have increased chances of survival since self-defense might have been possible.

Confirmation Bias

Thinking and decision making are done based on individual beliefs and disregarding any notion that does not conform to this set of ideas (Cherry). Individuals who are against domestic violence are likely to pass judgment on the killer husband without the objectivity of the fact that it could be a case of self-defense against an attacking wife. Most domestic violence cases involve an abusive husband and an abused wife. However, the converse is also true, with men being the victims.

Arguing for stricter restrictions would deem gun ownership unlawful based on issues such as a history of domestic abuse. Non-limit would consider the purchase of a gun necessary based on the same domestic violence history. However, in this case, the gun ownership would be deemed necessary for the wife. The restriction would be considered as tramping on her rights as far as owning a firearm o protect herself is concerned. It is therefore essential to note that both opinions as regards restriction and non-restriction are based on different views as regards the same situation.

Functional Fixedness

The bias is based on the notion that things should only work in a particular way (Cherry). Objectivity lacks as thinking is subjective, looking at things and issues from a single perspective. At the mention of a gun, the first thing that comes to mind is gun violence resulting in injury and murder. Functional fixedness, in this case, would work both for and against restriction. Those deeming gun ownership as the reason for violence would argue for gun ownership restriction. Those who deem gun ownership as a way of self-protection against criminals hence reducing chances of injury and death, would argue against the limit. Culture and beliefs play a significant role in functional fixedness. The bias leads to intolerance to contrary opinions and perspectives.

Reasons for Biases

Culture and Beliefs

Biases originate from the environment an individual spends time in. It thus means that the home front is an integral aspect as far as bias is concerned. Other settings such as school, religious institutions, communities, and workplaces equally a significant role as concerns biases. Individuals and communities have beliefs and cultures under which they operate. Thinking and decision making is based on these beliefs and perceptions. Every individual has views and culture that determines the way of doing things.

Gun control and safety relies on these beliefs and cultures. It is thus not surprising that gun use is prevalent in slums and poor neighborhoods where the crime rate is high (American Historical Association). The culture in poor communities supports ownership, and the use of guns use both for self-protection and criminal activities. In affluent neighborhoods, on the other hand, gun ownership is predominantly for self-protection purposes and not criminal activities. Both settings support gun ownership for different reasons based on different beliefs and cultures. Three out of ten adults own a gun under the Second Amendment law (Gramlich & Schaeffer). An argument for stricter restriction would deem this number too high hence necessitating the need for more stringent requirements. A case against the limitation, on the other hand, would consider the number low as more people should be able to protect themselves.

Homosexuality, for example, is an issue that is belief and culture associated. Gun violence against the LGBT community has a lot to do with intolerance (Dowd). Prejudice towards this group of individuals is based on beliefs and culture at individual and societal levels. The intolerance ultimately results in acts of violence being perpetrated against LGBTs. It is important to note that violence includes gun violence. Instances of LGBT individuals being shot injured or killed are thus predominantly belief and culture oriented. Those in support of LGBTs, on the other hand, have different views that enhance tolerance. Such views would affect decision making as far as a gun restriction, and non-restriction is concerned at an individual level.

Racial and Ethnicity Biases

Racial and ethnicity biases play a significant role in gun violence-related cases. Decision making on gun control would thus be affected. In a situation where a black person commits a gun-related crime in a white neighborhood, gun ownership by the whites may be advocated. The argument for and against restriction, in this case, would be racial and ethnic-based. The shooting of victims based on race happens in school and neighborhood settings. Revenge and discrimination can be the motivation behind the shooting. The ‘us vs. them’ attitude contributes to inequality and discrimination, which ultimately leads to hatred and intolerance towards a particular group.

Personal Experiences

Personal experiences affect perspective, as well. An individual involved in a gun violence scenario, such as a robbery at gunpoint, is likely to argue for or against restriction. The experience, for example, would elicit an argument against restriction based on self-protection. The situation would have rendered the individual helpless. The sense of helplessness would be the reason for a need for self-protection by owning a gun. On the other hand, the same situation would elicit a different perspective.

An individual could argue that stricter regulations would result in fewer people owning guns, such as the criminal in question. The individual may thus say that more stringent requirements would ensure gun availability and access is reduced. The individual could argue that gun ownership for protection in such a scenario may aggravate the situation by provoking the criminal to shoot.  It is important to note that a similar situation would not automatically lead to a common perspective on a common issue. Though the experience may be similar, decision making may differ. However, in both instances, the decision is made based on a similar experience.

Strategies for Resolution

Biases affect perspective and decision making on gun control and safety issues. The issue is further complicated by the existence of a law that allows firearm ownership. The debate on the ownership of a gun is based on the effects of gun ownership as regards gun use. It is thus essential to note that the application and not ownership is the real point of concern. Based on the reasons for biases discussed earlier, gun violence is likely to continue. Dealing with gun violence would thus be the issue of focus for both non-restriction and restrictions arguments. Restriction or non-restriction does not solve the problem at hand, which is a gun-related crime. The focus should be on the root cause of violence, such as poverty, racial, and ethnic bias, as well as culture and beliefs.

A change in culture and beliefs, for example, would deal with intolerance issues based on sexuality, race, ethnicity, and religion. A culture change would be challenging and would take a long time to take effect. It, however, would be possible in the long run. Reducing the unemployment rate would significantly reduce the crime rate. In this regard, both the government and society have a significant role to play to effect these changes that would ultimately overcome biases.

Conclusion

Gun control and safety will continue to elicit varying opinions as long as the gun-related crime rate remains high. Both arguments have solid perspectives; hence none is neither right or wrong. The outlook on correctness is purely based on the individual in question. The Second Amendment and Stand your ground law, which advocates for self-defense (“Stand Your Ground Laws – Findlaw”), play a role in gun control and safety policymaking. As such, the existence of crime is the basis on which both laws come into focus. Dealing with crime thus remains the best way to put the gun control issue into perspective. However, it is not possible without focusing on the biases that exist at individual and society level. Gun control perspectives rely heavily on the prejudices held by the individuals arguing for stricter regulations as well as those for non-restrictive laws.

Works Cited

American Historical Association. “EM 3: Is A Crime Wave Coming? (1946) |

AHA”. Historians.Org, 2018, https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-3-is-a-crime-wave-coming-(1946)/what-causes-crim. Accessed 20 Mar 2020.

Cherry, Kendra. “How Cognitive Biases Influence How You Think And Act”. Verywell Mind,

2020, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963. Accessed 20 Mar 2020.

Dowd, Rachel. “New Study On Gun Violence Against LGBT People – Williams

Institute”. Williams Institute, 2019, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/gun-violence-sgm-press-release/. Accessed 20 Mar 2020.

Gramlich, John, and Katherine Schaeffer. “7 Facts About Guns In The U.S.”. Pew Research

Center, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/. Accessed 20 Mar 2020.

“Issue: Gun Control”. Independent Institute, 2020,

https://www.independent.org/issues/detail.asp?id=90. Accessed 20 Mar 2020.

“Stand Your Ground Laws – Findlaw”. Findlaw, 2020, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminallaw   basics/stand-your-ground-laws.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2020.