Conservatives Privately Support Several Firearm Policies, but Don’t Publicly Demand Them

Americans across the political spectrum privately support several firearm policies, yet there remains a puzzling disconnect between this widespread agreement and vocal public demand for policy action, according to a new study from Rutgers University. The research challenges assumptions about why conservative Americans who support certain gun regulations rarely advocate for them publicly.

The study, published in Preventive Medicine Reports, surveyed 7,529 adults across nine states and found substantial bipartisan support for several key firearm policies. However, researchers discovered that the lack of conservative public advocacy isn’t explained by fear of community backlash, as many had previously theorized.

“It might simply be that while many conservatives support these policies, they simply are not as high of a priority for them as they are for more liberal individuals,” said Michael Anestis, executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center and lead author of the study.

Bipartisan Agreement in Private

The research team, based at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University, examined support for nine different firearm policies among conservative, moderate, and liberal participants from diverse states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Colorado, and Washington.

Among the policies showing strong bipartisan support:

• Universal background checks (supported by 86% of conservatives, 87.2% of moderates, and 96.1% of liberals)
• Licensing requirements for firearm purchases (70.1% of conservatives, 77.4% of moderates, 94.3% of liberals)
• Extreme risk protection orders, also known as “red flag” laws (64.5% of conservatives, 75.3% of moderates, 90.8% of liberals)
• Secure storage laws nearly achieved majority support across all political groups (49.7% of conservatives, 66.8% of moderates, 84.6% of liberals)

The remaining policies—including assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine restrictions, allowing teachers to carry firearms, permitless carry, and tax incentives for purchasing firearm locks—showed more substantial partisan differences.

Challenging the Social Pressure Theory

The researchers had hypothesized that conservatives might privately support certain firearm regulations but avoid advocating for them publicly due to perceived social pressure or fear of community alienation. However, the data contradicted this theory.

“Consistent with prior research and public polls, our findings demonstrate that the majority of Americans support a range of firearm policies,” Anestis noted. “The issue is that more conservative communities tend to support these policies in private, but not demand them in public.”

What surprised researchers was that conservatives who supported various firearm policies were no less likely than moderate or liberal supporters to believe their peers shared their views. This contradicts the notion that conservatives stay silent about their support for gun safety measures because they fear community backlash.

Why the Disconnect Persists

If social pressure doesn’t explain the gap between private support and public demand, what does? The researchers suggest several possible explanations.

One possibility is that while many conservatives support certain firearm regulations, they simply don’t prioritize these issues as highly as other policy concerns. When ranking political priorities, gun policies might fall below other issues like taxation, immigration, or religious liberty for conservative voters, making them less likely to vocalize support or pressure elected officials on these specific matters.

Another factor might be the outsized influence of firearm lobbying groups on conservative politicians.

“In the meantime, defeating these policies is an enormous priority for firearm lobbyists and, because of this, the only pressure felt by conservative elected officials comes from individuals with a financial interest in preventing these policies from passing,” Anestis explained.

Implications for Policy Progress

The study suggests that simply highlighting widespread support for certain firearm policies isn’t enough to generate the political momentum needed for legislative action. Instead, understanding how different groups prioritize these issues might be key to developing more effective advocacy strategies.

The findings also challenge simplistic narratives about the political divide on gun policy. While partisan differences certainly exist for some proposed regulations, there are significant areas of agreement that rarely translate into coordinated political action.

For advocates and policymakers, the research indicates that focusing solely on building support for policies that already enjoy broad backing may be less effective than addressing the priority gap or countering the influence of special interest groups in the political process.

As firearm deaths continue to rise in the United States, with more than 48,000 occurring annually according to CDC data cited in the study, understanding these dynamics could prove crucial for developing pathways to effective policy changes that honor the apparent consensus among voters across the political spectrum.