Motivated Reasoning Model and Gun Control
This is a comparison paper that called "Gun control argumentative essay thesis statements". Here the topic is discussed from both negative and positive viewpoints. We know that all people share a need for safety. Yet how people desire to attain safety has resulted in conflict when it comes to guns. This is particularly pertinent in the United States (U.S.). For America, gun culture has been a significant part of its identity. Even under the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms is guaranteed. Consequently, there are limited laws in place restricting gun ownership. Thus, the regulation of guns in America can be considered permissive. Therefore, in the U.S., gun ownership is a norm with 88.8 guns per 100 people. In 2015 alone, there were approximately 36200 deaths from guns with 60.7% of these deaths from suicide. Importantly, this is despite 46% of gun owners reporting that they own a gun for self-defence purposes.
The continuing adverse outcomes from guns has resulted in a new gun control plan being provided from mass shooting survivors. The new gun control plan advocates for changing ownership standards and banning assault-style weapons to address the realities of gun existence in America. However, opponents to the plan blame the people for gun violence, believing that guns should only be taken away from potentially dangerous people rather than restricting potentially dangerous weapons. This reveals the two conflicting arguments about gun control. Proponents for gun control argue that gun availability reduces public safety through the role of guns in crimes and accidents. Whereas opponents of gun control argue that guns improve public safety by enabling self-defence measures. These conflicting arguments are both competing on their perceptions of how safety is achieved.
The social issue that will be discussed is how, despite the consequences of a high number of guns in America and the large contribution of guns to self-inflicted deaths, members of the population can oppose gun control laws. The aim of this paper is to examine the psychological reasons behind arguments for and against gun control given the unfavourable statistics evident in America. To examine these arguments, the motivated reasoning model will be utilised to understand how some people perceive guns as a means of safety while others perceive guns as a threat to safety. Thus, this essay will argue that the American environment is unique because of the influences on BDW. This means that while gun control can work, as evidenced in Australia, it is not viewed favourably in the United States. Ultimately, this essay will seek to find out why there is difficulty passing gun control measures in America that are focused on preventing the high number of gun-related deaths.
Theoretical Background
Strobe, Leander and Kruglanski’s motivated reasoning model provides a suitable framework to understand gun control arguments. The premise of motivated reasoning is that it relies on prejudiced cognitive processes. Evidence has highlighted that these prejudiced cognitive processes lead individuals to arrive at conclusions they want to arrive at. Therefore, when constructing and evaluating beliefs and attitudes, an individual’s motivations impact how they provide justifications for their conclusions.
The model develops two arms, belief in a dangerous world (BDW) and perceived lifetime risk of assault (PLRA), which build upon the concepts of motivated reasoning. BDW reflects a belief that the world is a dangerous place where people’s lives are endangered by bad people. As a result of BDW being related to the social world, BDW likely develops from exposure to social situations that threaten ingroup norms and values. Accordingly, this arm has been useful in highlighting how people with high BDW are likely to endorse negative stereotypes against groups perceived to pose a safety threat. On the other hand, PLRA reflects an actual, rather than perceived fear of crime, often influenced by past victimisation.
The two types of goals underlying motivated reasoning will be useful in inferring the discussion on the arguments for and against gun control. The motivation to be accurate, accuracy goals, involves people processing confirming and disconfirming information in order to maintain their correct belief about something. This type of goal highlights reasons for gun control given evidence of its damaging impact on populations. The motivation to arrive at particular conclusions, directional goals, applies information that is considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. This type of goals reveals how arguments against gun control are focused on achieving self-serving interests. The underlying foundations of the motivated reasoning model emphasise how biased beliefs and attitudes means people need not have been victimised to have a fear that they could be threatened. And, therefore, need to protect themselves from safety threats that may.
Motivated Reasoning Model and Gun Control
Through utilising accuracy goals that underpin the motivated reasoning model, arguments for gun control can be understood. Given the basic premise of support for gun control is that reduced gun availability will improve public safety, accuracy goals highlight how supporters are processing both confirming and disconfirming information regarding the consequences of guns. This confirming information would include the role of guns in crimes and accidents. A study found that for each 1 percentage point increase in household gun ownership, deaths increased by 0.9%. This confirming information would likely be weighed against disconfirming information such as that the presence of guns can reduce firearm-related deaths as it stops bad people in their tracks.
Studies on Australia’s experience with gun control legislation emphasises that since the widespread implementation of gun control laws, the country has experienced no further mass shootings and a notable decline in the number of gun-related deaths. Consequently, the case-study supports the argument that the implementation of gun control can create a safer environment as this study found no other plausible explanation for the cessation of mass shootings. Thus, this refutes the argument from the United States gun lobby, that because people, and not guns, kill people, gun control will not reduce gun deaths. Therefore, proponents are advocating for gun control on the basis that there exists an actual threat from guns. Thus, through the process of evaluating confirming and disconfirming information about guns, an accurate goal under the model develops the conclusion that gun control achieves public safety.
Another reason for gun control is the assumption that guns are deadlier than the next best substitute weapon if guns were not available. Evidence from Australia’s gun reform reiterates these strong public safety effects. This argument is particularly salient given studies have confirmed that guns are perceived as the most utilitarian weapon. With this argument in mind, the success of Australia’s implementation of gun control is arguably accredited to perceptions of the government and police’s ability to prevent crimes and protect its citizens. Pro-gun control individuals believe that their government has the resources to ensure the public’s protection. Such a belief means that there is no need for the population to arm themselves, influencing pro-gun control attitudes.
However, a study on the U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004, reveals the difference in this key argument of public safety effects between the gun situation of Australia and the U.S. Despite the U.S. previously limiting the availability of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, there was no significant reduction in gun-related deaths or injuries. Therefore, the people of America have not been made to feel safer when gun control was in place. Increasing the belief that the population needs guns to deter crimes. Overall, Australia has successfully implemented gun control due to the belief of its citizens and evidence that law enforcement can respond to and control violence.
The authors of motivated reasoning model argue that there exists both a perceived specific threat of assault and a generalised unspecific threat of a dangerous world driving the need for protection. This need for protection is determined by gun ownership. Subsequently, this theory predicts that the same perceived threats that motivate people to purchase a handgun also shape their beliefs about defensive gun use, their Second Amendment rights and therefore reasons against gun control. The two-component theory of gun ownership shows how utility judgments about guns can explain gun acquisition. Motivated reasoning suggests that people’s beliefs and attitudes are influenced by their needs. Therefore, as an individual’s gun purchase is determined by their perception that a gun is the most effective means for self-defence, they are likely to promote that guns should be used. This motivated reasoning causes individuals with these beliefs to reject gun regulation that impinges on their ability to effectively attain the goal of personal security. Thus, motivated reasoning, given self-serving biases, results in guns not being the focus of blame but rather the solution.
A study conducted by Stroebe at al., after the Orlando mass shooting can be used as anti gun control thesis statement for research paper. This study found that non-gun owners believed the world to be more dangerous after this event, increasing their BDW score. The increase in BDW is likely attributed to the fact that guns caused the threatening and violent event. This post-event finding arguably reinforces the need for gun control as these individuals would feel safer when guns are absent and these events that increase threat perceptions would be avoided. On the other hand, the shooting did not impact gun owners BDW or PLRA score. Arguably because they have the protection offered by guns already in their possession, confirming their need for guns. The different threat perceptions after a violent gun induced event supports the argument that defensive gun owners seek the symbolic power of guns to address their psychological need of empowerment in a threatening environment of continuous mass shootings. This is particularly prominent in the environment of America where mass shootings are increasingly common, highlighting that when a mass shooting occurs, it heightens the importance of guns as a means of personal empowerment. Therefore, the difference in gun owners and non-gun owner’s perception of threats that are attributed to guns determines their stance towards gun control.
Furthermore, there is a significant role of political beliefs in determining a perceived belief in a dangerous world. Studies have found that BDW is correlated to right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Therefore, the arm of the theory, BDW, is strongly influenced by a person’s conservative political beliefs. Filandra and Kaplan found that identification with conservative political beliefs, RWA, emphasises individualism. Celinska confirmed these findings in the United States with prevailing attitudes toward gun control representing competing individualistic and collectivistic cultural traditions.
For those whom gun rights and gun ownership are a central identity component, they are more likely to oppose limitations to gun ownership. This is because individualism advocates for the protection of one’s own self-interests and the interests of those with whom they closely identify. This contrasts to pro-gun control supporters who, often expressing collectivist values, seek to protect the interests of the larger community and rely on the government to provide security. Thus, when individuals do not identify strongly with RWA, they do not have the same desire to have guns in order to feel safe. Accordingly, gun ownership and having the right and justification to kill must fit into the value system of the individual’s group. Thus, there is a difference in gun policy preferences because of the role of political values which emphasizes discrepancies in different groups within the population.
Moreover, the link between perceived safety threats and opposition to gun control may be overstated for all population groups. Studies have found that different racial groups do not experience the same threat perceptions. This is because of the influence of racial predispositions on the desire to own a gun. Generally, white Americans show far less support for gun control than blacks or Latinos. The existence of an anti-black effect by whites results in whites holding negative feelings towards blacks. Anti-black effect encompasses stereotypes of blacks as dangerous, heightening feelings of fear and, therefore, making blacks more likely to be perceived as undertaking crime and violent activities.
Thus, as a result of fear for personal safety being cited as the predominant reason for owning a gun and opposing gun control, white Americans are more likely to oppose gun control as a means of dealing with their fears regarding blacks. This finding of racial prejudices was found to be statistically significant both ways. Both whites and Latinos who perceived that blacks are more violent than whites were more opposed to gun control than whites and Latinos who did not perceive that blacks are more violent than whites. Thus, it is underlying racial fears that drive gun policy preferences. Accordingly, a racial group that perceives fewer safety threats, is likely to have a weaker BDW score than others, leading to a lower desire for gun acquisition and support for gun control measures.
Conclusion and Reflection
This essay showed gun control thesis statement examples and revealed that the anticipation of negative versus positive consequences of guns determines whether gun control is supported or not. For proponents to gun control, they want gun control due to the behavioural effects of guns. On the other hand, opponents reject gun control on the basis that it limits an individual’s ability to guarantee their own protection. Therefore, proponents feel safest when guns are absent while opponents feel safest when they have a gun in their possession.
The motivated reasoning model has been a useful theory to provide evidence of the rationality behind why gun owners want guns when they are presented with few situations that might demand and justify defensive gun use. However, there are two main limitations of the model. Firstly, the theory was developed to better understand the psychological principles that influenced the beliefs of American gun owners. Thus, the theory is limited in that it very much applies to the American situation where mass shootings continue to be increasingly prevalent, conservative political beliefs are held by a large portion of the population and there are existing racial prejudices. Another weakness of the theory is that it does not acknowledge the role of the government and law enforcement agencies in protecting its population. Only from the application of other studies could I reason that the American population believes there exists a weakness in the government and police’s ability to protect.
From discussion of this social issue, I can see that most the U.S. population believes that there is no other way to ensure their safety than to own a gun. Opponents do think logically with respect to wanting to have the most utilitarian weapon in their possession. However, it is also reasonable to expect that having a weapon capable of and designed to kill in one’s possession will result in injury if not death. Therefore, while opponents attributing the blame of mass shootings to people rather than guns challenged my initial understanding, I believe this can be countered to some degree as evidenced by Australia’s case. Overall, I have been provoked by the American situation that for the majority, it is less important whether guns actually make individuals safer and more important whether guns make individuals feel safer. Being a young Australian and not having grown up around guns means I am confronted by how everyday citizens can perceive that there are personal benefits to owning a gun. In conclusion, it is the dominance of arguments against gun control, based on BDW and self-defence reasoning that results in consistent rejection of gun control in the United States.
