Recent research conducted in the United States indicates a concerning association between firearm ownership and the support for, or willingness to engage in, political violence. Specifically, the study suggests that those who recently purchased firearms, frequently carry them in public, or own assault-type rifles are more inclined to support or participate in political violence compared to other firearm owners and non-owners. The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.
The study was prompted by significant increases in both firearm violence and firearm purchasing in the U.S., particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the rising mortality from firearm violence and a notable surge in firearm purchases, researchers at the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis sought to explore the potential linkage between these factors and political violence.
The study was based on data from a large nationally representative survey conducted by Ipsos between May and June 2022. The survey was crafted to include a range of questions about firearm ownership, types of firearms owned, carrying behavior, and attitudes towards the use of violence for political objectives. It was available in both English and Spanish.
The study’s sample consisted of 12,851 respondents, categorized into three groups: 5,820 (45.3%) were firearm owners, 6,132 (47.7%) did not own firearms and had none at home, and 899 (7.0%) were nonowners but had firearms in their home. Demographically, half of the respondents were female (51.0%), with racial composition including 8.5% Hispanic, 9.1% non-Hispanic Black, and 62.6% non-Hispanic White. The average age of the respondents was 48.5 years.
To measure political violence, the survey employed several specific questions aimed at capturing both the respondent’s belief in the justification of such violence and their personal willingness to engage in it.
Respondents were asked to what extent they believed that using “force or violence” to advance political objectives was justified. This was initially framed in a general context, asking participants to consider the use of violence to achieve “an important political objective that you support.”
Further granularity was added by specifying 17 different political objectives, such as preserving an American way of life, opposing government actions, or supporting or stopping certain policies (e.g., voter fraud, police violence, illegal immigration). Participants were not shown all 17 objectives but were randomized to receive a subset.
The researchers found that firearm owners, as a group, were more likely than non-owners to support the use of violence to achieve political objectives. This trend was particularly pronounced among specific subgroups of firearm owners.
Specifically, 38.8% of firearm owners believed that violence was generally or always justified to advance political objectives, compared to 29.8% of non-owners. This support for political violence was even higher among certain categories of owners. For instance, those who owned assault-type rifles showed a 42.3% agreement with the justification of violence for political ends. This rate increased to 43.9% among those who had recently purchased firearms and was highest at 55.9% among those who regularly carry firearms in public.
While a significant number of firearm owners supported the idea of political violence, their willingness to personally engage in such violence varied. Recent purchasers of firearms and those who frequently carried them were more likely to express a willingness to organize or participate in acts of political violence, including killing to advance political objectives.
Notably, 62.5% of those who always or nearly always carry firearms believed it very or extremely likely that they would be armed in a hypothetical future situation where political violence was justified, and 8.8% thought it very or extremely likely that they would actually shoot someone.
The research also highlighted the strong belief among these groups in the likelihood of an impending civil war in the U.S., with these beliefs more prevalent among firearm owners than non-owners. This belief was particularly strong among those who regularly carry firearms and those who own assault-type rifles. This finding underscores a worrying trend that the ownership and active use of firearms are not only linked to an endorsement of political violence but also to a broader, more intense concern about societal stability and conflict.
“It is plausible based on our findings that some recent purchasers have been arming up for anticipated civil conflict,” the researchers said. “Our findings strongly suggest that large numbers of armed individuals who are at least potentially willing to engage in political violence are in public places across the United States every day.”
But the researchers also noted that differences in support for political violence between firearm owners and nonowners were generally small to moderate, while larger disparities were linked to sociodemographic characteristics, political party affiliation, and political ideology. Both firearm owners and nonowners predominantly reject political violence.
“Notwithstanding these results and their implications, the overarching finding here—that majorities of firearm owners and nonowners alike repeatedly reject political violence—is a hopeful one, in our view,” they said. “It invites comparison to the similarly repeated finding that differences between owners and nonowners in support for firearm violence prevention measures are often small and occasionally nonexistent. Our results suggest a joint effort by firearm owners and nonowners to publicly repudiate political violence and help identify, dissuade, deter, and incapacitate likely perpetrators.”
The study, “Firearm Ownership and Support for Political Violence in the United States,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Andrew Crawford, Sonia L. Robinson, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Paul M. Reeping, Julia P. Schleimer, and Veronica A. Pear.
