Anestis Michael D, Paruk Jennifer, Moceri-Brooks Jayna, Bandel Shelby L, Bond Allison E, Semenza Daniel C
New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center, United States.
Department of Urban-Global Public Health, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, United States.
Prev Med Rep. 2025 May 9;54:103104. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103104. eCollection 2025 Jun.
Despite widespread support for various firearm policies, minimal progress has been made in enacting these policies. One potential explanation is the misperception of peer support for firearm policies among individuals with differing political beliefs.
A representative sample ( = 7529) of adults from nine states was recruited via KnowledgePanel and completed a self-report survey between June 13 and July 10, 2023.
There was bipartisan support for several firearm policies regulating the acquisition and use of firearms, although liberal participants more heavily supported restrictive policies. Minimal differences emerged in terms of perceived peer support for specific policies among supporters of those policies. For example, 96.1 % of liberals, 87.2 % of moderates, and 86.0 % of conservatives supported background check laws ( < .001; = 0.10). Of those that supported background check laws, 65.7 % of liberals, 67.7 % of moderates, and 69.7 % of conservatives believed that their peers supported background checks as much as they did ( = .146).
Misperceptions about peer support for firearm policies may not explain the gap between the reported bipartisan support for firearm regulations and the lack of demand for such policies. Without greater clarity on the obstacles to bipartisan vocal demand for firearm regulations, such policies are unlikely to pass, despite broad bipartisan support for many such policies. Future work must identify mechanisms driving this disparity in order to provide a path for policy progress.
尽管对各种枪支政策有广泛支持,但在制定这些政策方面进展甚微。一种可能的解释是,不同政治信仰的个人对枪支政策的同伴支持存在误解。
通过知识面板招募了来自九个州的具有代表性的成年人样本(n = 7529),并于2023年6月13日至7月10日完成了一项自我报告调查。
两党对几项规范枪支获取和使用的枪支政策都表示支持,但自由派参与者更强烈地支持限制性政策。在这些政策的支持者中,对特定政策的同伴支持感知方面差异极小。例如,96.1%的自由派、87.2%的温和派和86.0%的保守派支持背景调查法律(P <.001;Cramer's V = 0.10)。在支持背景调查法律的人中,65.7%的自由派、67.7%的温和派和69.7%的保守派认为他们的同伴和他们一样支持背景调查(P = 0.146)。
对枪支政策同伴支持的误解可能无法解释两党对枪支法规的支持报告与对此类政策需求不足之间的差距。如果不能更清楚地了解两党对枪支法规公开需求的障碍,尽管两党对许多此类政策有广泛支持,此类政策也不太可能通过。未来的工作必须确定导致这种差距的机制,以便为政策进展提供一条途径。