I haven't seen all that many of the questions one faces, so your opinion is probably a bit better informed than mine, and I'm sure several of the decisions show rather clearly the difference between good and evil/ruthless.
Is the gun-control example from the game?
Or let me, anyway.
* USA gun-control issue is widely known.
* There are known cases of people being killed with legally owned weapons by accident/due to misunderstanding.
* Assumption: Among the people who consider it everybody's right to bear arms, there are some who know and understand that (people with) legally owned weapons have killed by accident or with incorrect/unacceptable reason.
This indicates that there are people who could see the head-line you refer to, dismiss it as an unfortunate reality, and maintain that this killer dad was a nincompoop whose incompetence should not adversely affect other people's right to bear arms. He might even complain that the media never print stories on guns that saved lives (or money, or cars, or time).
People who see those headlines without thinking that gun-control is important in real life, could see that headline in the game and think it an accurate portrayal of the anti-gun-bias in modern newspapers. Because that's how their opinion would colour it.
Having said that, I think it is a bit extreme. It works in principle, it works in some cases, but I'm not sure it really works with gun-control.
The point is that even though Larian shows very clearly the negative effect of your decision, there are people who consider this negative effect acceptable. It is not given that Larian's bias towards gun-control would appear as such to them.
I myself am in favour of many liberties, and the right to bear arms is certainly not one of them, and I think you and Larian generally hold similar opinions. If Larian were strict religious conservative capitalist deathpeddlers who thought the media were being unreasonably concerned with the loss of a few children, they'd probably portray the newspaper as more of a subversive propaganda-pamphlet. They do portray a very silly sensationalist newspaper, though. There's not much newsvalue in a paper that prints rumour on the front page more often than not.
Did the game give any benefits from not instituting gun control? There's only one I consider realistic: The industry thanks you for not shutting them down. (Those that manufacture weapons for private use.)
Were there any expected negative effects from instituting gun-control? (Corporations turning against you, ongoing expenses to deal with bad business.)[spoiler=Reality-related]I don't think personal guns provide real security. I don't believe that your ability to kill people who might kill you reduces your likelihood of dying. Especially not since anybody could be armed and dangerous, and anybody armed and dangerous might kill anybody (else) that might be armed and dangerous. (My tentative conclusion: Guns for everybody increases general likelihood of death without significantly reducing anybody's risk of dying.)
[/spoiler]There's one more reason why Larian's game appears so fiercely biased: The newspaper prints stories directly related to the last decision, not showing anything of what goes on aside from your decisions. Thus, it would seem that the no-gun-control-son was the only one to die outside of battle since the dragon was declared emperor. That comes off as tremendously biased, and it might be, but it is also a natural consequence of the simple news-mechanics.
To support more advanced treatment of these subjects, though, Larian would require somewhat more advanced political game mechanics, or a lot more writing and acting. The matter of marriage, love, cohabitation, intimacy and more is demonstrably many-faceted and a real discussion could have a lot of outcomes even among people who agree on most points. But I suppose a three-way split on policies could have sufficed: Force new principle upon the church / declare marriage separate from choice of mate and lifestyle and let the church do as it will (forbid even the undead from persecuting or discriminating against homosexuals?) / let the undead have their own rules / maintain strict bans on homosexuality all around. 5 options? I thought I meant 3. I think it goes beyond the scope of Dragon Commander, but I also think it could be an improvement.
I'm not arguing that Larian isn't biased (towards rather sensible views I think), but I'm suggesting that it makes limited difference. There's not one councillor who isn't firmly rooted in a narrow and inadequate understanding of right and wrong <or at least utterly stuck with their (lizards, imps) archetype>. Love for liberty might make me agree with elves, but their councillor is as incapable of exploring issues as any other (no dialogue written beyond saying their piece and then complaining about your decision).
It is different when I look beyond the council room. Edmund's racism is completely unsupportable. I suppose a racist might have portrayed the racists in their game a bit differently.
