New research published in Medical Politics, Policy and Law Journal The results suggest that changing the way politicians talk about mass shootings has little effect on the public’s views on gun control. While political rhetoric often sways voters’ opinions on other issues, Americans appear to have deeply entrenched views on firearms policy that are not easily swayed by alternative political rhetoric.
In recent years, more than 600 mass shootings occur annually in the United States. The immense scale of this public health crisis is putting pressure on some lawmakers to rethink how they respond to these tragedies in public spaces.
Republican lawmakers regularly offer their “thoughts and prayers” to victims of gun violence. This particular expression has become extremely unpopular over time as the frequency of mass shootings has increased. In the wake of events like the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in the summer of 2022, some politicians have begun adjusting their public messages to avoid public backlash.
“This project was first conceived when I was a Claman Postdoctoral Fellow at Cornell University. My co-authors and I were discussing recent mass shootings on college campuses and wondered how politicians would react if another mass shooting occurred,” explains Anil Menon, now an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Merced.
“We correctly expected that some would offer their ‘thoughts and prayers’ in the wake of this incident and that the pursuit of meaningful policy action on gun reform would be delayed. However, we also found that this response, which was typical of the 2010s, had received significant backlash in recent years and was complemented by two other rhetorical strategies that we examined in our paper.”
“One was what we called the Pivot (placing the blame for mass shootings at the feet of mental illness and crime), and the other was a handful of voices calling for the adoption of red flag law (GVRO) laws. The research team was interested in understanding whether and how such rhetorical responses by party leadership shape public opinion in the aftermath of mass shootings. This study was thus conceived.”
To test this idea, scientists conducted a nationwide online survey in the fall of 2024. They recruited 3,000 American adults to participate in a randomized experiment. The researchers used a pollster to ensure that the group of participants accurately represented the demographics of the general public.
The researchers divided the participants into five different groups. Each group went through a slightly different scenario before answering questions about their political views. Four of the five groups read a short description of a hypothetical mass shooting.
Of these four groups, three also read additional sentences describing specific responses from Republican politicians. One group read that the politician offered his condolences to the victims. Another group read politicians blaming mental illness and violent criminals for the violence. A third group read that the politician had expressed support for “red flag” laws.
A fourth group read about mass shootings but didn’t see any political reaction. The fifth group served as the baseline for the experiment. These people did not read any of the articles and proceeded directly to the survey questions.
All participants then answered questions regarding their support for six specific gun reform policies. These included imposing age restrictions on gun ownership, requiring a license to purchase firearms, and requiring owners to lock their weapons when not in use. The researchers also asked about a ban on bump stocks, attachments that allow firearms to fire ammunition very quickly. Finally, the survey asked about two variations of “red flag” laws.
The data suggest that different types of political rhetoric did not move public opinion on firearm reform. Reading articles in which a politician offered condolences, condemned mental illness, or supported “red flag” laws did not lead to statistically significant changes in participants’ views on six gun control policies. Participants’ opinions remained stable regardless of the political messages they consumed.
This lack of movement was true across the board, even when Republican voters read statements from Republican politicians. The scientists also found no evidence that the comments changed participants’ views on the root causes of gun violence. This message did not change beliefs about whether mental illness, violent criminals, or gun access are the main causes of these tragedies.
“The lack of any therapeutic effect in this context surprised us,” Menon told SciPost. “But it’s understandable given the increasing political polarization that characterizes American society today.”
The researchers noted a significant level of baseline support for gun reform across the sample. More than half of participants in the baseline group supported all six proposed policies. For example, 77% of baseline participants supported “red flag” laws and 56% supported banning bump stocks.
Among Republican participants, a majority supported nearly all gun reform proposals. The only exception was the bump stock ban, which received slightly less support from a majority of conservative voters. Despite this widespread demand for reform, more than 80 percent of baseline respondents believe that mental illness and violent criminals are significant causes of gun violence.
“I want to reiterate that it is important to emphasize that the majority of Americans want meaningful gun reform and support many gun reform policies,” Menon said. “Researchers have repeatedly found this pattern in several studies going back more than a decade. This fact may not be so obvious in a political climate where gun reform seems like a distant dream. As highlighted elsewhere, political calculations prevent Republican politicians from pursuing such policies.”
Scientists have proposed that the lack of federal law is due to elected officials prioritizing party loyalty over voters’ specific policy preferences. Lawmakers often use voting to signal their political identity. In a polarized climate, politicians may feel safer protecting their broader reputations as gun rights advocates than passing specific reforms that voters actually want.
Scientists acknowledge that the experimental design has some limitations. In a research setting, participants only see political messages once. In real life, voters repeatedly interact with political debates through cable television networks and social media feeds. This repeated exposure over time can shape public views in ways that cannot be fully replicated in a single survey experiment.
Future research should examine how public attitudes interact with legal and institutional barriers that prevent general gun reform from becoming law. The United States has certain constitutional protections and state-level powers that make it easier for minority interests to block legislation. Scientists suggest taking a closer look at the specific conditions that encourage politicians to align with public opinion on controversial issues.
The study, “‘Thoughts and Prayers’: The (in)effects of partisan responses to mass shootings on public opinion,” was authored by Anil Menon, Isabel M. Perera, and Colleen L. Barry.
