Conservatives support several gun policies privately, but don’t ask them publicly

Americans across the political field have privately supported several gun policies, but there is still a confusing disconnect between this broad agreement and the public’s demand for policy action, a new Rutgers University study shows. This study challenges why conservative Americans who support certain gun regulations rarely publicly advocate their hypothesis.

The study, published in the Preventive Medicine Report, surveyed 7,529 adults in nine states and found bipartisan support for several key gun policies. However, researchers found that the lack of conservative public advocacy is not unexplained by people’s opposition to the community, as many have previously rebounded.

“It may be just a lot of conservatives support these policies, but for them, their priorities are not as high as they are for them as they are for them.” Michael Anestis, executive director of the New Jersey Center for Gun Violence Research and lead author of the study.

Private bipartisan agreement

Located at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University, the research team examined support for nine different gun policies among conservative, neutral liberal participants from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Minnesota, Florida, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Colorado, Colorado and Washington.

In a policy showing strong bipartisan support:

• Universal Background Survey (supported by 86% of Conservatives, 87.2% of Moderates and 96.1% of Liberals)
• License requirements for purchasing guns (70.1% of the Conservative Party, 77.4% of moderates, 94.3% of liberals)
• Extreme Risk Protection Order, also known as the “red flag” law (64.5% of conservatives, 75.3% of moderates, 90.8% of Liberals)
• The secure storage law has received majority support in almost all political groups (49.7% of the Conservatives, 66.8% of the moderates, 84.6% of the Liberals)

The remaining policies – including assault weapons bans, large-capacity magazine restrictions, tax incentives that enable teachers to carry guns, no permissible carrying and purchase gun locks – show more substantial partisan differences.

Challenge the theory of social stress

Researchers hypothesized that conservatives might support certain gun regulations privately, but avoid publicly advocating them because of people’s perception of social pressure or fear of alienation from their communities. However, the data contradicts the theory.

“Consistent with previous research and public opinion polls, our findings suggest that most Americans support a range of gun policies,” Anestis noted. “The problem is that more conservative communities tend to support these policies privately, but do not require public.”

Surprisingly, the researchers are that conservatives who support various gun policies share their views compared to supporters of moderate or liberals. This contradicts the notion that conservatives remain silent about their support for gun safety measures because they fear community opposition.

Why disconnection persists

What would happen if social pressures cannot explain the gap between private support and public needs? The researchers have proposed some possible explanations.

One possibility is that while many conservatives support certain gun regulations, they simply do not prioritize these issues like other policy issues. When ranking political priorities, gun policy may be less likely to be based on other issues such as taxation, immigration or religious freedom of conservative voters, making them less likely to speak out on these specific matters or elected officials.

Another factor could be the huge impact of gun lobby on conservative politicians.

“At the same time, beating these policies is a huge priority for gun lobbyists, so the only pressure felt by the Tory elected officials comes from people with the economic benefits to prevent these policies from passing,” Anestis explained.

Impact on policy progress

The study shows that highlighting the broad support for certain gun policies alone is not enough to generate the political momentum required for legislative action. Instead, understanding how different groups prioritize these issues may be key to developing more effective advocacy strategies.

These findings also challenge simple narratives about the political divide of gun policy. Although certain partisan differences are certainly partisan in some proposed regulations, few areas of significant agreements rarely translate into coordinated political action.

For advocates and policy makers, research shows that focusing solely on building support for policies that already enjoy widespread support may be less effective than addressing the priority gap or opposing the impact of special interest groups in the political process.

According to CDC data cited in the study, with more than 48,000 people occurring each year as gun deaths in the United States continue to grow every year, understanding these dynamics may be crucial to developing pathways for effective policy changes that are designed to respect the clear consensus among voters across the political spectrum.