When the next mass shooting happens, you can be sure that calls for more gun control, bans on assault weapons, magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks will abound from the left. Largely these calls, especially on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, are unfounded. According to FBI statistics, rifles, which compose most of what would fall in the assault weapon category, account for roughly 2-3% of all murders per year while handguns account for 45-50% of all murders. No matter how few rifle deaths are or how rare mass shootings are, the left always seems to target the big, scary, and magnetizing items like assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; the images become seared into their mind. The right points out, and rightly so, that many peoples lives, possibly greater than the number of deaths, are saved by defending their life with a gun. They also point out that the risk of being killed by a gun is in the ballpark of 2 thousandths of a percent (0.00257%) per year, or 1 in 38,000. They might also point out that car crashes kill far more people each year than guns. In other words, the right is trying to point out that the implementation of more gun control has very, very negligible gains and that the focus is too intense for the actual likelihood.
When the next Islamic terrorist attack happens, you can be sure that calls for stricter immigration, limitation of refugees, spying, and military action will abound from the right. Over the past 50 years, no matter how few people have died from terrorism and how rare terrorist attacks have been (especially in the US), the right seems to place an utmost importance on the proposals they offer to solve or limit terrorism. A little more than 3,000 US citizens have been killed as a result of terrorism in the last 20 years. Even recent terrorist attacks in Europe provide the right with an “I told you so” attitude. Even as terrorism is exceedingly rare, the images of terrorism become seared into their minds and cement the ideas of immigration vetting process into their politics. It even seems to be a large reason that Trump was elected. The left often points out that these types of attacks are rare and do not represent the average Muslim or that guns account for far more deaths than terrorism. They may also point out that immigration restrictions drastically hinder our economy. In other words, the left is trying to point out that the focus on terrorism is heavily overestimated and that immigration restrictions have negligible gains as compared to the actual risks.
On these issues, both the right and left (and everyone else) share a common trait: accessibility bias. When a mass shooting or terrorist attack happens, the visuals become seared into our minds. These events gain incredible amounts of news coverage and we remember every detail. In total percentage, however, they compose only a small fraction of deaths. To understand it better, lets define accessibility bias. Accessibility bias happens when our minds take information that is easily recalled (or accessible), such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks, and, because they are so easily recalled, we assign probabilities that vastly exceed the actual probabilities. For instance, suppose you are driving to work and see a horrific car crash. You likely slow down because you fear the same could happen to you. However, the truth is that the likelihood of you crashing never increased; the crash was so vivid that you slowed down. This happens in such an unconscious way that we hardly even know that it exists. To be cliché, before we can solve the problem, we must first recognize that we have a problem.
When it comes to matters like these, accessibility bias rules the roost. The right, when reacting to calls for more gun control, point out the over-exaggeration. Likewise the left does the same when confronted with calls for more immigration restrictions. Both however engage in a form of cognitive dissonance; they both forget that they themselves engage in the same mental bias. Before we propose any solution, we must remember that we suffer from powerful, unconscious mental biases. Imagine the small, unremarkable solutions that we might miss because we focus on the sensational. If we really want to change the world for the better, we must be aware that we might be overestimating a problem while offering a solution that does not pass cost/benefit analysis.
Philosoph-Economics 
