Psychology Professor Tries To Bring Sides Together On Guns
Posted at 6:00 pm on July 3, 2018 by Tom Knighton



I can respect anyone who tries to be a peacemaker, especially on a topic as volatile as guns and gun rights. It’s not easy, and it’s bound to open up to all kinds of vitriol. Both sides have passionate members who will not respect any side other than their own.

It seems a Canadian psychology professor who specializes in how people think has decided to take a swing at it.

So why do we continue to argue about this? One problem that I rarely see being discussed is that many of us have limited experience with guns and/or violence and have to rely on what we know from memory and from external source and we’re susceptible to cognitive biases.

Let’s look at things from the perspective of an average American gun owner. This might be you, people you know, family, etc. Most of these gun owners are very responsible, knowledgeable, and careful. They own firearms for sport and also for personal protection and in some cases, even run successful training courses for people to learn about gun safety. From the perspective of a responsible and passionate gun owner, it seems to be quite true that the problem is not guns per se but the bad people who use them to kill others. After all, if you are safe with your guns and all your friends and family are safe, law abiding gun owners too, then those examples will be the most available evidence for you to use in a decision. And so you base your judgements about gun violence on the this available evidence and decide that gun owners are safe. As a consequence, gun violence is not a problem of guns and their owners, but must be a problem of criminals with bad intentions. Forming this generalization is an example of the availability heuristic. It my not be entirely wrong, but it is a result of a cognitive bias.

But many people (and me also) are not gun owners. I do not own a gun but I feel safe at home. As violent crime rates decrease, the likelihood being a victim of a personal crime that a gun could prohibit is very small, Most people will never find themselves in this situation. In addition, my personal freedoms are not infringed by gun regulation and I too recognize that illegal guns are a problem. If I generalize from my experience, I may have difficulty understanding why people would need a gun in the first place whether for personal protection or for a vaguely defined “protection from tyranny”. From my perspective it’s far more sensible to focus on reducing the number of guns. After all, I don’t have one, I don’t believe I need one, so I generalize to assume that anyone who owns firearms might be suspect or irrationally fearful. Forming this generalization is also an example of the availability heuristic. It my not be entirely wrong, but it is a result of a cognitive bias.

In each case, we are relying on cognitive biases to infer things about others and about guns. These things and inferences may be stifling the debate
Not unreasonable so far. He left some things out, things he probably doesn’t understand are even “things,” but let’s allow him to continue.

Where does this psychologist think we should go from here?

How do we overcome this?
It’s not easy to overcome a bias, because these cognitive heuristics are deeply engrained and indeed arise as a necessary function of how the mind operates. They are adaptive and useful. But occasionally we need to override a bias.

Here are some proposals, but each involves taking the perspective of someone on the other side of this debate.

Those of us on the left of the debate (liberals, proponents of gun regulations) should try to recognize that nearly all gun enthusiasts are safe, law abiding people who are responsible with their guns. Seen through their eyes, the problem lies with irresponsible gun owners. What’s more, the desire to place restrictions on their legally owned guns activates another cognitive bias known as the endowment effect in which people place high value on something that they already possess, the prospect of losing this is seen as aversive because it increases the feeling of uncertainty for the future.
Those on the right (gun owners and enthusiasts) should consider the debate from the perspective of non gun owners and consider that proposals to regulate firearms are not attempts to seize or ban guns but rather attempts to address one aspect of the problem: the sheer number of guns in the US, any of which could potentially be used for illegal purposes. We’re not trying to ban guns, but rather to regulate them and encourage greater responsibility in their use.
And here’s where he lost me.

You see, he has missed one important factor, and that’s one of history.

A key reason why so many of us refuse to budge on the issue of guns is that we have. Time and time again, gun owners were asked to suck it up and accept new regulations to combat crime, and we did. We accepted registering our machine guns despite not being mobsters gunning down our opponents. We accepted no longer being able to get guns directly via mail. We accepted background checks at the time of purchase.

Guess what happened, though? Not only did crime not decrease, but anti-gunners also kept coming back with more demands. It wasn’t enough to register guns; they wanted to ban the sale of any new machine guns, thus driving the costs through the roof as the Law of Supply and Demand reared its ugly head. It wasn’t enough for background checks on new guns; they wanted us to have to get them on everything, thus created a kind of registration.

No matter what we did, they wanted more and more and more.

It’s with that history in mind that many of us won’t consider “the perspective of non-gun owners and consider that proposals to regulate firearms are not attempts to seize or ban guns but rather attempts to address one aspect of the problem: the sheer number of guns in the US, any of which could potentially be used for illegal purposes.”

Not only do we no longer care about their perspective, something else happened. As noted in the quote above, violent crime rates started dropping. But it wasn’t from any gun control law. No, there’s no corresponding drop in crime rates with new regulations. Instead, the crime rates started dropping when gun rights groups started fighting back and winning, thus expanding gun rights.

In other words, we can see actual data that tells us the problem isn’t more guns. With that, why should we care about the anti-gunner perspective? They’re wrong on every level and we have data to support that. More than that, though, we have the history that shows they won’t be satisfied with anything we did give them.

You’d think a professor with a scientific understanding of thinking would realize that his simplistic understanding is just that, simplistic. There’s not just one reason to oppose any group. This time, it’s no exception.



https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/...mail&utm_campaign=nl

Likely because it is flawed logic. Guns have zero to do with mass shooting. They have zero to do with "gun violence". And those who cry for regulation really do not give two shits about mass shootings or gun violence. It is just the prelude that they are using to gain control. That is largely why they are content with floating ideas that have zero to do with reducing gun violence or mass shootings.

Best case scenario is that the guy is sincere (I don't believe this is the case)which makes him an unwitting tool for those that want to eliminate all guns. Once they achieve his objectives, they cast him aside for proponents of the next, 'reasonable' step.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

Those on the right (gun owners and enthusiasts) should consider the debate from the perspective of non gun owners and consider that proposals to regulate firearms are not attempts to seize or ban guns ...

Right about here is where he goes off the rails. That is exactly what their proposals hope to achieve.

It is silly to suggest that reducing the number of guns will accomplish anything. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are 400,000,000 guns in the US. It is completely irrational to believe that if we cut that number in half it would have any effect whatsoever on "gun crimes". There would still be 200,000,000 guns out there.

No, their goal is to ban them outright. It really is as simple as that.

Normally, when discussing any issue with an opposing side, I do try to see things from their side. In this case, their side is irrational and therefore it is pointless to discuss this issue with them. It will get us nowhere.

So, the answer here, is to give not one more inch and to do what we can to regain that which has been lost.

The left keeps up the mantra that they are not trying to confiscate your guns. Except they are. Diane Feinstein blatently said it 20 years ago, Hitlery and Obama said it more recently.

Its hard to accept any compromise with the left when they constantly lie and obfuscate their intentions. Recently, however, they've made less effort to be opaque with their desires.

It's not about safety, either. The leftists want to ban guns to make it easier for them to control opposition to their policies and their power.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
It's not about safety, either. The leftists want to ban guns to make it easier for them to control opposition to their policies and their power.

Here's where that "vaguely defined "protection from tyranny"" kicks in.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

Those on the right (gun owners and enthusiasts) should consider the debate from the perspective of non gun owners and consider that proposals to regulate firearms are not attempts to seize or ban guns ...

Right about here is where he goes off the rails. That is exactly what their proposals hope to achieve.

Yup, this "professor" clearly has no clues what he's talking about. Which means he really needs to go back to school and learn the truth. Either that, or he'just another gun banning leftist pretending to honestly have a discussion. Either way, FAIL!

quote:

It seems a Canadian psychology professor who specializes in how people think has decided to take a swing at it.

Let's not miss this Important Line in the article:
It seems a Canadian psychology professor who specializes in how people think has decided to take a swing at it.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

quote:

It seems a Canadian psychology professor who specializes in how people think has decided to take a swing at it.

Let's not miss this Important Line in the article:
It seems a Canadian psychology professor who specializes in how people think has decided to take a swing at it.

Thanks for coming oout, eh, nice try.

WOW. I got dumber reading that. Dude is lost.

Im all for the regulation of guns! It's worked sooo well in Chicago in combating crime!

As far as "promoting more responsibility", well, there's the problem. Responsible gun owners are just that; responsible. We're not going to go out and stick people up, shoot people, carjack... because we're RESPONSIBLE!

It's the irresponsible ones we need to regulate!

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time, and annoy the pig.

H&K-Guy

quote:

A key reason why so many of us refuse to budge on the issue of guns is that we have. Time and time again, gun owners were asked to suck it up and accept new regulations to combat crime, and we did. We accepted registering our machine guns despite not being mobsters gunning down our opponents. We accepted no longer being able to get guns directly via mail. We accepted background checks at the time of purchase.

Guess what happened, though? Not only did crime not decrease, but anti-gunners also kept coming back with more demands. It wasn’t enough to register guns; they wanted to ban the sale of any new machine guns, thus driving the costs through the roof as the Law of Supply and Demand reared its ugly head. It wasn’t enough for background checks on new guns; they wanted us to have to get them on everything, thus created a kind of registration.

No matter what we did, they wanted more and more and more.

^^^THIS^^^ Should be the constant position from every gun-rights argument....continuous, drumbeat of this.

I've heard waaaaay too many gun owners that are trying to explain themselves and get twisted into emotion based arguments and rediculous 'conversations' with an anti-; how can you have a conversation on the subject when a vast majority don't know what a federal tax stamp is? We've compromised for over 80+ years yet, mass shootings continue to happen over the last 30-years.

No means no. I am not compromising because the compromise has only gone one way. A real compromise would be you take bump stocks and I'll take back full auto. I'll pay the tax stamp. You stop resisting constitutional carry. I won't buy a missile. You give up on universal back ground checks.

But it never works that way. Compromise to them is I want to ban all guns but will allow you to have a few wimpy castrated guns. No. I won't budge one more inch.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
No means no. I am not compromising because the compromise has only gone one way. A real compromise would be you take bump stocks and I'll take back full auto. I'll pay the tax stamp. You stop resisting constitutional carry. I won't buy a missile. You give up on universal back ground checks.

But it never works that way. Compromise to them is I want to ban all guns but will allow you to have a few wimpy castrated guns. No. I won't budge one more inch.

This for sure. Not willing to budge anymore at this point.

Gun control? Gun Compromise?

Fuck them both.

Stupid outsider,no real idea of what the second amendment is for.
Founder put it there to keep fucks like fucksteens from putting their boots on the citizens neck

What would a Canadian prof know about the 2nd?