New research published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law suggests that changing how politicians talk about mass shootings has little impact on the public’s views regarding gun control. While political statements often sway voter opinions on other issues, Americans appear to have deeply entrenched views on firearm policies that are not easily moved by alternative political rhetoric.
In recent years, the United States has experienced more than 600 mass shootings annually. The immense scale of this public health crisis has pressured some lawmakers to reconsider how they respond to these tragedies in the public sphere.
Republican lawmakers regularly offer “thoughts and prayers” to victims of gun violence. This specific phrasing became highly unpopular over time as the frequency of mass shootings increased. Following events like the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in the summer of 2022, some politicians began adjusting their public messages to avoid severe public backlash.
“This project was first conceived when I was a Klarman postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University. My co-authors and I were discussing a recent shooting on a university campus and wondered how politicians would respond to yet another mass shooting event,” explained Anil Menon, who is now an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Merced.
“We correctly anticipated that some would convey ‘thoughts and prayers’ in response to the event and delay in the pursuit of meaningful policy action pertaining to gun reform. However, we also noticed that this response, typical in the 2010s, had received significant pushback in recent years and had been complemented with the two other rhetorical strategies we considered in the paper.
“One we called the pivot (placing the blame for mass shootings at the feet of mental illness and criminality) and the other, voiced by only a handful, asking for the adoption of red-flag (GVRO) laws. The research team was interested in understanding whether and how such rhetorical responses by party leaders might shape public opinion in the aftermath of a mass shooting. Thus, this study was conceived.”
To test this idea, the scientists conducted a national online survey in the fall of 2024. They recruited 3,000 American adults to participate in a randomized experiment. The researchers used a polling firm to ensure the group of participants accurately represented the demographics of the general public.
The researchers divided the participants into five different groups. Each group experienced a slightly different scenario before answering questions about their political views. Four of the five groups read a short description of a fictional mass shooting.
Out of those four groups, three also read an extra sentence describing a specific response from a Republican politician. One group read that the politician offered condolences to the victims. Another group read that the politician blamed the violence on mental illness and violent criminals. The third group read that the politician expressed support for “red flag” laws.
The fourth group read about the mass shooting but did not see any political response at all. The fifth group acted as a baseline for the experiment. These individuals did not read any story and proceeded directly to the survey questions.
All participants then answered questions about their support for six specific gun reform policies. These included establishing an age limit for owning a gun, requiring a license to purchase a firearm, and requiring owners to lock up their weapons when not in use. The researchers also asked about banning bump stocks, which are attachments that allow firearms to shoot ammunition very rapidly. Finally, the survey asked about two variations of “red flag” laws.
The data suggests that the different types of political rhetoric did not move public opinion on firearm reform. Reading about a politician offering condolences, blaming mental illness, or supporting “red flag” laws produced no statistically significant shifts in how participants viewed the six gun policies. The participants’ opinions remained stable regardless of the political messaging they consumed.
This lack of movement held true across the board, even when Republican voters read statements from Republican politicians. The scientists also found no evidence that the statements changed how participants viewed the root causes of gun violence. The messaging did not alter beliefs about whether mental illness, violent criminals, or access to guns were the primary contributors to these tragedies.
“The complete absence of any treatment effect in this context did surprise us,” Menon told PsyPost. “However, it is understandable in the context of heightened political polarization, which characterizes present day American society.”
The researchers noted a substantial level of baseline support for gun reform across the entire sample. More than half of the participants in the baseline group supported all six proposed policies. For instance, 77 percent of baseline participants supported “red flag” laws, and 56 percent supported banning bump stocks.
Even among Republican participants, a majority supported almost all the gun reform measures. The only exception was the bump stock ban, which fell slightly short of majority support among conservative voters. Despite this broad desire for reform, more than 80 percent of baseline respondents also viewed mental illness and violent criminals as significant contributors to gun violence.
“I want to reiterate that it is important to highlight how a majority of the American public want meaningful gun reform and support a whole slew of gun reform policies,” Menon said. “Researchers have repeatedly found this pattern across several studies going back over 10 years. This fact might not be obvious in a political climate where gun reform seems a faraway dream. As has been highlighted elsewhere, political calculus prevents Republican politicians from pursuing such policies.”
The scientists propose that the lack of federal legislation stems from elected officials prioritizing party loyalty over the specific policy preferences of their voters. Lawmakers often use their votes to signal their political identity. In a polarized landscape, politicians may feel that protecting a broad reputation as defenders of gun rights is safer than passing the specific reforms their constituents actually want.
The scientists acknowledge some limitations to their experimental design. In a survey setting, participants only see a political message once. In real life, voters interact with political arguments repeatedly through cable television networks and social media feeds. This repeated exposure over a long period might shape public views in ways a single survey experiment cannot completely replicate.
Future research should explore how public attitudes interact with the legal and institutional barriers that prevent popular gun reforms from becoming law. The United States has specific constitutional protections and state-level powers that make it easier for minority interests to block legislation. The scientists suggest looking closer at the specific conditions that encourage politicians to align with public opinion on controversial issues.
The study, “‘Thoughts and Prayers’: The (Non) Effect of Partisan Responses to Mass Shootings on Public Opinion,” was authored by Anil Menon, Isabel M. Perera, and Colleen L. Barry.
