Gun control is, broadly speaking, incredibly popular in America. Polling for many common gun control measures, including universal background checks, can top 75 percent — even among Republicans.
So why can’t it get through Congress?
The best explanation seems to be issue intensity. Essentially, lots of Americans support gun control, but it’s not really their top priority when they go out to vote. Meanwhile, those who oppose stricter gun laws are simply more likely to make it the one issue they’ll vote on.
This was articulated by Republican strategist Grover Norquist back in 2000. He said, “The question is intensity versus preference. You can always get a certain percentage to say they are in favor of some gun controls. But are they going to vote on their ‘control’ position?” Probably not, he suggested, “but for that 4-5 percent who care about guns, they will vote on this.”
That’s what makes movements like the March for Our Lives — and much of the activism that’s followed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 — so important. For once, we are seeing a mass movement that is extremely dedicated to gun control. It seems to be an issue that the movement’s leaders are ready to go all in on. And by attracting so much national attention, the movement may inspire other Americans to follow suit — making gun control an issue that can actually sway votes.
That’s not to say the March for Our Lives and related movements will ultimately succeed — it’s just too soon to tell. But as thousands of protesters take to the streets in Washington, DC, and the rest of the country on Saturday, the movement’s apparent potential to promote and boost issue intensity on gun control could ultimately make it pivotal.
Some gun control measures are extremely popular, even among Republicans
Congress’s inaction on guns over the past few years is not due to the unpopularity of gun control measures. If you look at the polling, support for gun control, depending on which specific measure respondents are asked about, can be very high among both Democrats and Republicans.
Here, for example, are the results of surveys by the Pew Research Center, which found strong support for measures ranging from an assault weapons ban to universal background checks to restrictions on people with mental illness buying guns:
What’s remarkable about the polling is how much of it reflects bipartisan support for new gun control measures. A majority of Republicans back universal background checks, a ban on assault-style weapons, a federal database to track gun sales, prohibitions on people with mental illness, and barring people on no-fly or watch lists from buying firearms. In fact, GOP support for three of these policies tops 75 percent.
That’s not to say Republicans agree with all gun control measures. And a majority back measures that gun control proponents oppose, including allowing concealed carry in more places, shortening waiting periods for buying guns legally, and arming teachers.
But there’s a lot of remarkable middle ground — which you wouldn’t know about if you just looked at Congress’s record passing new restrictions on firearms.
Issue intensity is the key
This is where issue intensity comes in. Consider this chart, also from Pew:
About 21 percent of gun owners have contacted a public official to express an opinion on gun policy, compared to just 12 percent of non-gun owners. And about 22 percent of people who want less strict gun laws have contacted a public official, while just 15 percent of people who support stricter laws have.
The differences are more pronounced if you look at contact in the previous 12 months. Gun owners are 80 percent more likely than non-gun owners to have contacted a public official about gun policy in the past year. And supporters of laxer gun laws are nearly 60 percent more likely than supporters of stricter gun laws to have contacted a public official over the issue in the same time span.
This difference in issue intensity also shows up in other areas. Take this second chart:
Again, the situation is skewed in favor of gun owners. About 28 percent of gun owners have contributed to an organization that takes a position on gun policy, while only 10 percent of non-gun owners have. That helps explain how a group like the National Rifle Association (NRA) has become so powerful, while there are no political equivalents — in terms of influence — on the other side.
One caveat to the charts: Based on Pew’s surveys, there are way more adults in the US who believe gun laws should be stricter (52 percent) than those who believe gun laws should be less strict (18 percent). So the side in favor of stricter gun laws can afford to have a lower percentage of its people contacting public officials.
It’s demonstrative, though, to focus on the 12-month data for this. As it shows, gun owners and supporters of laxer gun laws are more likely to have recently engaged a public official or political organization on this issue. That matters: If a senator gets phone calls every few months from gun owners and opponents of stricter laws, that’s going to make a bigger impression than calls from non-gun owners and supporters of stricter laws every year or so.
That’s especially true if you consider political party. Republicans are much more likely to oppose stricter laws, based on Pew’s data. So if a Republican senator mostly hears from GOP constituents, and these constituents are more likely to be really passionate about the issue since they are on the side that opposes stricter laws, that’s going to give the senator a skewed perception of where voters are on this topic. As a result, Republican lawmakers are more resistant to calls for gun control — arguing against “politicizing” mass shootings and focusing on issues like mental health instead.
So why the difference in passion? Kristin Goss, a political scientist at Duke University and author of The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know, previously told me that it’s a sense of tangible loss. Gun owners feel like the government is going to take their guns and rights.
This sentiment has been fueled by a decades-long public campaign by the NRA to convince the US public and politicians that, in fact, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, and that more guns will actually make people safer (by letting them protect themselves), despite research that shows higher levels of gun ownership actually lead to more gun violence.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, are motivated by more abstract notions of reducing gun violence — although, Goss noted, the victims of mass shootings and their families have begun putting a face on these policies.
That’s exactly what the current protests are doing, with student survivors from Florida in particular actively participating and showing the human, personal cost of unabated gun violence in a very public manner. Success isn’t guaranteed. But the potential to inspire more widespread and passionate empathy and sympathy through these demonstrations could crack the key problem facing the gun control movement today.
Sourse: vox.com
