Shared Culture of Fear
Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979) argue that an individual’s system of self-reference is derived from his or her membership within a group. They claim that these social categorizations necessitate a process distinguishing in-groups and outgroups, or understandings of them and us. This membership within a group generates a social identity, which can become a driving force of behavior.
Generating a group identity first requires an objective basis for membership, i.e., gun owners versus non-gun owners. The individual then transitions from experiencing shared membership to shared identification. Individuals experience this identification to varying degrees. For gun ownership to be elevated as a significant identity, gun owners must hold a sense of attachment to the group and their group identity. This attachment drives members to maintain group status and further group power, in turn advancing one’s self-status (Huddy 2001a).
While little has been done defining gun ownership as a distinct social identity, there is a robust literature on gun culture in America (Kahan and Barman 2003). From this culture, the social categorizations of gun owners have emerged. They are often white, male, and Republican. They value individualism, independence, and power (Kahan, 2003). The group usually has shared activities and participates in an unexpectedly inclusionary project of gun carry. Gun owners do not significantly differ along the lines of the utility of their guns, but rather share an attachment to the machine itself, deriving a source of identity from it (Mencken and Froese 2017).
As a group, gun owners are political, forming seemingly self-interested attitudes around gun control and gun violence blame attribution (Joslyn and Haider-Markel 2017). Their objective membership in the group is politically prognostic, capable of predicting voting decisions and political ideologies (Joslyn et al. 2017). While owning a gun, or having objective membership within that distinct group, can be understood as a political identity, little is understood about the effect of identity strength.
- Taking the law into one’s hand also less specific and more concise
Proponents of gun-ownership rights cite self-protection and safety as their primary argument for owning guns and resisting gun reform [4,5]. This is paradoxical, as whites, and particularly white males, are considerably more likely to commit suicide with firearms (7.3 and 12.9 per 100,000, respectively) than die from a firearm homicide (1.9 per 100,000). Indeed, U.S. researchers found that having one or more guns in the home is related to a 2.7- and 4.8-fold increase in the risk of a member of that household dying from homicide or suicide, respectively. Given that guns, controls have been shown to reduce suicides, and homicides, arguments against gun reform based on self-defence/protection/ safety are counterintuitive. They are inhibiting the adoption of appropriate policy to improve public health. As such, public health advocates, researchers, and policymakers need to consider all explanations for opposition to gun reform in U.S. whites. However, research on the reasons for opposition to gun control is sparse, in part because of restrictions on funding for research on gun control in the U.S.
Stronger opposition to gun control by U.S. whites has not always been the case. During the civil rights movement of the late 60s, black activists exercised their right to carry loaded firearms to protect police and extreme white factions. The response from U.S. whites was to demand stricter gun control. The Mulford Act was signed into law by Californian governor Ronald Reagan in 1967 and prohibited the carrying of loaded firearms in public [13]. The social landscape has changed considerably, and most recent data indicates a quite different view on gun control by whites, with 53% of whites wanting to protect the right to own guns, whereas only 24% of blacks do.
The reasons stated by people for owning guns and opposing gun-control legislation are likely complex. However, it has been suggested that sociocultural factors such as fear of black violence may be associated with gun ownership, and with opposition to gun controls. Similarly, negative attitudes towards blacks (i.e., racism), along with conservative and political ideologies, appear to be related to fear of black violence and crime. What is not known, and accordingly is the focus of this study, is whether racism is associated with gun ownership and opposition to gun control. It has been found that racial stereotypes (e.g., that blacks are violent) are related to U.S. whites’ fears of violence from blacks, and their support for crime-related policy measures, such as building prisons, and the death penalty. Support for such policies is particularly pronounced in U.S. whites who hold higher levels of racism. Strong evidence also supports the notion that negative racial stereotypes and attitudes are related to people’s perceptions of threat from black gun-related violence. Additionally, U.S. research using measures of implicit race attitudes have shown a preference for whites over blacks and appears to influence people’s political decisions and even choices of medical procedures for blacks. For instance, measures of explicit and implicit racism measures predicted opposition to Obama’s health reforms.
Self-protection and physical safety (e.g., fear) is the most commonly cited reason for owning a gun and opposing gun control. Blacks are overrepresented in the crime statistics and media portrayals of violent crime. Accordingly, people with higher symbolic racism may be more likely to own a gun and oppose gun control as a means of dealing (consciously or unconsciously) with abstract fears regarding blacks. It is vital to examine the psychological and socio-cultural reasons for the ambiguous attitudes of many U.S. citizens and politicians to gun-control. This is because of the importance of guns and gun-control to U.S. public health and the urgent need for appropriate policy to reduce gun-related harms. U.S. whites have twice the rate of gun ownership of blacks, oppose gun control too much greater extent than blacks, but are considerably more likely to kill themselves with those guns, than be killed by others or blacks. While the literature suggests that racism in whites’ shapes fear of black violence and support for policies that disadvantage blacks, no research has examined whether racism is related to gun ownership and attitudes to gun-control in U.S. whites. This study investigated whether racism is related to gun ownership and opposition to gun control in U.S. whites.
confirmation bias and optimism bias
Confirmation Bias
This bias is a part of cognitive dissonance theory, which posits that people want all their beliefs to be held in harmony, and will work to get them to align (Festinger, 1962). This also results in people compensating when information goes against their worldview by trying to find ways to reconcile this dissonant information (Proulx et al., 2012). Therefore, not only do people avoid information that challenges their worldview, when they come across it, they attempt to dismiss it. Haidt proposed a theory of moral judgments where decisions are made intuitively, and then intelligence and consciousness are used to defend them. As he puts it, human intelligence is used more often in the role of a lawyer than scientists (Haidt, 2000). An illustrative example of these fallacies is the generally over-optimistic nature of the human population. When predicting the future, an important use of reasoning, people are
The determining motivational drivers of confirmation biases are often explained by drawing on cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). According to dissonance theory, individuals selectively approach attitude-bolstering content and avoid challenging information to reduce discomfort and maintain a consistent self-image. In the area of political communication, a mounting number of studies supports this notion, demonstrating the reinforcing effects of partisan selective exposure on political self-views as indicated by increased attitude strength or attitude accessibility, which in turn can stimulate further reinforcement of confirmation biases (Stroud, 2010).
From a social identity perspective, the sense of belonging to an ingroup is not unique to populism but rather serves as a major reference point for media users, in general, to perform confirmation biases in the context of partisan news exposure. The case of populism—more specifically, right-wing populism is special, however, in that the definition of the ingroup is far more exclusive and is accompanied by particularly strong effective appeals. In contrast to its alleged representation of the people as a whole, right-wing populism draws a clear line between those who share its ideology and those who do not. It reserves the right to belong and thus access to the ingroup, solely for those who subscribe to the populist ideology. Accordingly, populist voters were shown to be particularly interested in political information that actively addresses the gaps between the ‘innocent’ ingroup and the ‘culprit’ outgroup. Not surprisingly, this anti-pluralism creates a particularly strong sense of a ‘politicized self,’ which in turn leads to a generally greater perceived stigmatization by and actual skepticism of mainstream parties, their supporters, and the media.
Optimism Bias
David Armour and Shelley Taylor are concerned with some obvious puzzles: If people are excessively optimistic, why don’t they pursue ambitious goals recklessly and blunder? Why do not you alert people like psychologists? entrepreneurs? -take systematic advantage of human optimism? This is what Armor and Taylor see as the dilemma of unrealistic optimism – the likelihood that if real, this bias would produce extremely serious harmful effects. If optimism were widespread, we should probably see far more recklessness and failure than we generally observe.
The authors resolve the dilemma by giving a more refined sense of the nature of optimistic bias. In their view, people are not indiscriminately or blindly optimistic. Their predictions are usually within reasonable bounds. People are less likely to be optimistic when the consequences of error are severe. Also, optimism decreases if the outcome will be known soon. Optimism also decreases when people are in a pre-decisional state of deliberation. When people are choosing among goals or possible courses of action, the bias is attenuated, and it increases again only after people have selected goals and begin to implement their plans. There is also evidence that optimistic bias, when it exists, can be adaptive, leading to (almost) self-fulfilling policies, increasing the likelihood of success.
These claims raise real doubts about the view that optimistic bias provides a good reason for paternalistic interventions. To be sure, we know enough about optimistic bias to give serious consideration to informational campaigns to ensure that people will not have an inflated belief in their immunity. In the context of smoking, statistical knowledge of risks might be inadequate if people believe themselves relatively immune. However, given the arguments by Armor and Taylor, the idea that paternalism is generally justified by optimistic bias must be regarded as unproven speculation. If people are not excessively optimistic when the consequences of error are severe, if the bias is small or non-existent when decisions are being made, and if people overstate low-probability risks, there is no problem for the law to correct.
In many contexts, multiple images are available. Consider the problem of gun violence. It is not hard to find cases in which the presence of guns led to many deaths, and also cases in which the presence of guns allowed law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against criminals. In the face of conflicting instances, which cases are especially available? Why should one or another kind of case be available? The behavior of the media, and relevant interest groups, is undoubtedly important here. Many perceived epidemics are, in reality, no such thing, but instead a product of media coverage of gripping, unrepresentative incidents. However, this does not provide the whole picture. Beliefs and orientations are a product of availability, to be sure, but what is available is also a product of antecedent beliefs and orientations. In other words, availability may be endogenous to individual predispositions.
Panic Buying of Guns during Covid-19
Americans buy guns for different reasons. Over the past few decades, the United States has witnessed a transformation in its civilian gun culture. recent studies have shown that 76 percent of gun owners now report protection as their primary motivation for gun ownership. Gun controls are tight in Eastern Europe, as they are across the rest of the continent. Still, demand for small arms amid growing anxiety over the coronavirus has risen in the region. The Czech arms manufacturers association said shop owners had reported rising demand and a double-digit rise in sales. The surge in first-time buyers suggests that many Americans buying guns during the pandemic are doing so due to concerns about self-defense, given fears of looting, violence, and the government’s capacity to deal with the crisis.
Most of the weapons on the Oregon Rifle works website are sold out at this point, and the store recently took to Facebook to announce shorter opening hours. In Ohio, officials in the city announced that officers would adhere to social distancing guidelines whenever possible, and publicly declared that officers would no longer respond to emergency calls personally. Instead, people were asked to file reports over the phone or online. However, the official statement also noted that police would continue to respond to emergency calls in person if suspects were still at the scene of the crime or medical assistance was needed.
(4) gun ownership control interventions
In addition to renewing the assault weapons ban, supporters of gun control favor several proposed gun control laws, each of them opposed by gun enthusiasts.
- Requiring gun owners to register firearms and to have a state firearms license. Supporters say that just as the state registers cars and licenses to people who drive, the state should also license gun owners and register guns. They think such a system would help keep guns out of the wrong hands. Opponents believe this is the first step to outlawing guns, which will only keep guns away from law-abiding people. They also say the car comparison is faulty. Cars, they say, cause many more deaths than guns, and, unlike gun ownership, car ownership is a privilege, not a right.
- Compel gun manufacturers to install safety devices. Proposals include requiring built-in locks and eventually “smart guns,” which can be operated only by the lawful owner. Supporters believe these will prevent others from using the gun. Opponents believe these devices increase the costs, may cause the weapons to misfire and may be unconstitutional.
- Make bullet manufacturers put serial numbers on every bullet. The serial number would also be on the box of ammunition, and sellers would record who bought each box. Supporters say bullets are often recovered at a crime scene, and having serial numbers would help solve crimes. Opponents respond that criminals would remove serial numbers, and the high cost to manufacturers would be passed on to everyone buying bullets.
- Limit gun purchases to one a month per person. Much of the illegal gun trade is carried on by middlemen who buy guns from dealers in bulk and sell them to juveniles and criminals. Supporters say this law will stop the middlemen from buying guns. Opponents think criminals can easily get around this law by using groups of people to buy guns. Again, they say, only the law-abiding will be prevented from buying guns.
- Ban large-capacity ammunition clips. Under this proposal, it would be against the law to possess or sell ammunition clips that contain more than ten rounds of ammunition. Supporters point out that these clips are not necessary for hunting or self-defense, but have been used in several recent mass slayings. Opponents argue that these clips do promote self-defense, particularly if a mob attacks a person.
Supporters of the gun control point to other Western democracies, such as Canada, which have strict gun control laws and far lower rates of violent crime. They cite a 1988 study in the New England Journal of Medicine comparing a Canadian city, Vancouver, with an American city, Seattle, which is about 100 miles apart. The risk of being murdered by a handgun was about five times higher in Seattle. Moreover, a person assaulted in Seattle was twice as likely to die as a person assaulted in Vancouver. Supporters of gun control argue that strict gun-control laws will reduce violent crime in America.
Opponents of gun control question the link between guns and violent crime. They cite countries, such as Switzerland and Israel, which mandate that citizen-soldiers keep guns at home and yet have low murder rates. Opponents say that gun-control laws do not affect criminals. They point to Washington, D.C. Until recently, it in effect banned handguns, and yet it still had one of the worst murder rates in the country. Gun control laws, they say, only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy firearms, which is a citizen’s right under the Constitution.