A recent survey of U.S. adults provides evidence that those who strongly support the National Rifle Association are more likely to support political violence. This finding suggests that these individuals are more willing to personally engage in such acts, which provides insight into efforts aimed at preventing politically motivated harm. This study was published in the journal injury epidemiology.
The National Rifle Association is one of the nation’s most prominent social movement organizations. Social movement organizations are formally organized groups that work to achieve specific social or political goals. Historical data links support for the organization to being more likely to carry a loaded weapon in public and express very conservative political views.
Recent assessments by experts indicate that the United States remains at high risk of political violence in the near future. Political violence involves the use of physical violence to achieve political, social, or economic objectives. This has led researchers to take a closer look at groups that may be associated with these risks.
“We view violence, including political violence, as a health problem,” said Galen J. Wintemute, director of the Center for Violence Prevention and distinguished professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Davis. “This led us to study characteristics that may be associated with increased support for and willingness to engage in political violence, because such information could guide prevention efforts.”
Wintemute added that other related research examines differences between the Make America Great Again movement, commonly known as MAGA, and political affiliation. These previous studies focused on gun owners and people who espouse intergroup fear and hatred such as racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, hostile sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. The researchers also assessed views on civil war in 2023 and 2024, and measured support for federal authoritarianism and the use of force in 2025.
To conduct the new study, researchers used data from a nationally representative longitudinal survey. A longitudinal survey is a research method that repeatedly collects data from the same individuals over a period of time. They partnered with a research company called Ipsos to conduct an online survey of adults across the country. The final group analyzed for this particular study included 8,361 participants who completed the second wave of the study in mid-2023.
These participants had previously reported their level of support for the National Rifle Association during the first wave of the survey. Respondents selected from options ranging from not at all approve to strongly or very strongly approve. Of the group, 27% reported strong or very strong support, while 46.6% reported no support. The remaining participants either fell into the moderately approving category or did not know enough to respond.
Researchers asked respondents a series of detailed questions about their views on political violence. The study defines political violence as physical violence strong enough to cause pain or injury that is used to advance important political objectives. Participants were asked whether they felt violence was justified to achieve 19 specific goals, such as stopping illegal immigration or restoring a particular candidate to office.
If respondents agreed that violence is sometimes justified, they were asked about their personal willingness to participate in those acts. The questionnaire asked whether they had any intention of damaging property, threatening someone, or physically harming someone. The survey also included questions about the likelihood that participants would own or use firearms in situations where they felt political violence was justified.
In addition to questions about violence, the survey also measured a variety of personal attitudes and beliefs. These included views on democracy, authoritarianism, Christian nationalism, and various conspiracy theories. Scientists used statistical models to account for factors such as age, race, income, education, and political ideology, allowing them to isolate the specific relationship between organizational approval and support for violence.
Researchers found that people who strongly supported the National Rifle Association were significantly more likely to support political violence. Approximately 44% of those who approve viewed violence as usually or always justified to advance at least one political objective. In contrast, only 21.5% of disapprovers felt the same way.
This willingness extended to participation in personal violence. This research shows that approvers actively engage in violence against specific groups, such as elected government officials and public health workers. The data provide evidence that this willingness extends to independent action, as approvers were more willing to engage in unilateral political violence than disapprovers. In our survey, 10.6% of approvers expressed this willingness, compared to 1.9% of non-approvers.
Additionally, 4.2 percent of approvers believe they are very or very likely to shoot someone to further their political goals, compared to just 0.8 percent of disapprovers. The data provide evidence that this group’s approval is also related to specific ideas about the future of the country. For example, 25.2 percent of approvers strongly agreed that the American way of life is disappearing so quickly that it may take more force to save it, compared to just 5.6 percent of disapprovers. Approvers also increasingly agreed that the United States needed a civil war to set things right.
The survey results highlight differences in firearm ownership among respondents. Wintemute noted that this particular metric had unexpected results. “Only half of NRA approvers (but a higher proportion than non-approvers) reported personal ownership of a firearm (49.8% of approvers vs. 15.5% of non-approvers),” he said.
The organization’s reach extends far beyond traditional firearms enthusiasts, as only half of the approvers actually owned a weapon. “The NRA is one of the most widely known social movement organizations in the United States, and its influence extends beyond gun owners,” Wintemute explained. “These facts make the findings of this study particularly concerning.”
The authors note that the organization has a documented history of mobilizing large numbers of people for political action. “Despite recent scandals, the NRA may maintain the ability to mobilize large numbers of people who are armed and willing to use violence to advance their political objectives,” Wintemute told SciPost.
The scientists also found significant differences in political and social beliefs among respondents. Approvers are more likely to agree with statements supporting authoritarian leadership, suggesting that strong leaders are more important than democracy. For example, 23.6% of approvers felt that having a strong leader was more important than democracy, compared to 10.9% of disapprovers.
They also tended to score higher on measures of trait aggression, which refers to a person’s general tendency to respond to frustration with hostility or physical force. Those who approved of the organization were more likely to justify violence in nonpolitical, everyday situations. These include situations such as winning an argument or responding to an insult.
Additionally, those who approved of the organization were more likely to endorse a variety of conspiracy theories and express support for right-wing extremist groups. Approvers were more likely to endorse core elements of the QAnon myth, a series of baseless conspiracy theories involving a global human trafficking organization. They were also more likely to agree with statements that reflected Christian nationalist beliefs, such as the idea that the government should declare the country a Christian nation.
The authors note that these findings should not be interpreted to mean that supporting the National Rifle Association makes people more violent. Rather, the data suggest that this organization may foster a shared social identity among individuals who already hold beliefs associated with political violence. Joining a network of like-minded individuals can reinforce these pre-existing views.
This study has several limitations to keep in mind, particularly regarding the timing of the study. “The NRA’s endorsement status was collected in 2022 after the organization unsuccessfully attempted to file for bankruptcy in 2021 and before a New York court verdict in 2024 found the organization and its senior leadership guilty of financial misconduct,” Wintemute said.
“NRA endorsements are likely less widespread now than they will be in 2022,” Wintemute continued. “That decline would have been selective and could have changed the findings on the measures included in this study.”The findings are also susceptible to external events, such as mass shootings or political conflicts, and public opinion can change rapidly.
Future research could examine how these external events influence attitudes toward political violence over time. Understanding these changing dynamics can help public health experts and community leaders develop better strategies to thwart politically motivated harm. “At the same time, NRA endorsers who reject political violence could be uniquely reliable messengers in efforts to create a national culture of non-acceptance of political violence,” Wintemute said.
“Our goal is to develop evidence that can form the basis of effective political violence prevention efforts,” Wintemute said. “We plan to move on to preliminary trials to verify the effectiveness of these efforts.”
The study, “National Rifle Association Recognition and Political Violence: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Yueju Li, Aaron B. Shev, Sonia L. Robinson, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
