What influences the attitude of gun control reform?

Will mass shootings change the way people think about gun control, like the tragic events that took place in Las Vegas on the night of October 1?

From a policy point of view, we can ask whether changes in the gun laws will affect mass shootings and other forms of gun violence. We should certainly ask these questions.

But from a psychological point of view, we can also ask whether the fact has changed people’s attitudes toward guns and the role of government in regulation. Will a heart-breaking event of gun exposure bring people together for reform? Or is it, like the Rorschach test, that the really vague stuff makes people impose an explanation that is consistent with what they expect or want to see?

A paper published in June in the journal social science quarterly suggests that one reason gun control is so controversial is precisely because people are different in how they feel about mass shooting. Author Mark jocelyn (Mark Joslyn) and Donald Haider Markel, (Donald Haider – Markel) found that people who have no guns often accuses the popularity of mass gun gun, but no gun owners. For gun owners, mass shooting is unlikely to be seen as evidence that more regulation is needed.

To investigate the relationship between gun ownership and mass shootings, Joslyn and haider-markel analyzed data from several national polls taken after the sandy hook elementary school shooting in 2012. The poll, which included more than 2,000 respondents, revealed some consistent results.

“What do you think are the main causes of gun violence in the United States?” asked a poll conducted by CNN. Is the availability of guns, the way parents raise their children, or the impact of popular culture such as movies, television and the Internet? “Respondents with no guns were classified as gun availability (35.8 per cent) and pop culture (37.6 per cent). Gun owners, by contrast, have only 10 per cent of their time choosing guns rather than pop culture (44.4 per cent) and parents (41.5 per cent).

Joslyn and haider-markel also conducted their own surveys, which included a broader causal factor, and allowed respondents to point out to what extent they attributed each factor to the shooting. Gun owners and non-owners agree to a great deal of blame for the shooter (10 points for 9.0), while blaming parents (7.1/10) and popular culture (6.4/10). However, in terms of gun supply, the distribution of gun owners and non-owners is clearly divided: the distribution level of the former group is quite low (3.9/10); The latter is quite large (6.9/10).

These findings and other findings in the report reveal a link between gun ownership and beliefs about who should blame the shooting. What they did not reveal was the foundation of the association. Because of the availability of guns, people are less likely to buy their own guns? Does having a gun make people reluctant to blame gun availability? Or is there a common reason for the belief in gun ownership and gunshot – perhaps the political affiliation or attitude towards government regulation and personal responsibility?

Using statistical techniques, the authors suggest that the relationship between gun ownership and gun ownership is not just a matter of membership in a political party. But there are many other possibilities. For example, people who don’t have guns, on average, have a very different experience with guns. Gun owners are likely to know other gun owners, most of whom will not be shot on a large scale. The gun owners who know about peace are likely to stress that gun ownership is not enough to achieve the shooting. In contrast, those without guns may focus on the need to shoot.

Instead, Joslyn and Haider Markel argue that their results reflect the perception of motivation: we tend to reason and judge in ways that support our motivation to believe. Because gun owners often put gun ownership of real and symbolic value, they tend to put some events, such as mass shooting) attributed to sources other than the loose gun control.

There is a lot of cognitive evidence for motivation and a lot of problems in the political arena. The main contribution of this new paper is to show that gun ownership in particular involves the belief in mass shootings, and suggests that gun ownership itself is a powerful motivator for motivation.

It is important to note that the cause of mass shootings is one thing; reality can be another. Policies should be informed by what we know, not by investigating what people believe to reduce gun violence. But public sentiment plays a role in shaping national debate, and it affects the policies that politicians ultimately support.

So if jocelyn and haider markle are right, the idea of gun regulation reflects the perception of motivation, the implication is grim.

They to the pessimistic conclusion gave them at the end of the paper: “given a substantial number of citizens have guns, mass shooting guns policy changes little prospect of the related event.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here