Strong approval of the National Rifle Association is linked to support for political violence

A recent survey of adults in the United States provides evidence that people who strongly approve of the National Rifle Association tend to show greater support for political violence. The findings suggest that these individuals are more willing to personally engage in such acts, which offers insights for efforts aimed at preventing politically motivated harm. This research was published in the journal Injury Epidemiology.

The National Rifle Association is one of the most prominent social movement organizations in the country. A social movement organization is a formally organized group that works to achieve specific social or political goals. Past data links support for the organization with a greater likelihood of carrying loaded weapons in public and expressing highly conservative political views.

Recent assessments by experts indicate that the United States remains at a high risk for political violence in the near future. Political violence involves using physical force to achieve political, social, or economic objectives. This prompted researchers to look more closely at groups that might be associated with these risks.

“We view violence, including political violence, as a health problem,” said Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis. “That has led us to studies of characteristics that might be associated with increased support for and willingness to engage in political violence, because such information might help guide prevention efforts.”

Wintemute added that other related studies have explored variation with the Make America Great Again movement, commonly known as MAGA, and political party affiliation. These previous studies focused on those who endorse intergroup fear and loathing, including racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, hostile sexism, homonegativity, and transphobia, as well as firearm owners. The researchers also assessed views on civil war in 2023 and 2024, and measured support for authoritarianism and use of force by the federal government in 2025.

To conduct the new study, the researchers used data from a nationally representative longitudinal survey. A longitudinal survey is a research method that repeatedly gathers data from the same individuals over a period of time. They partnered with a survey research firm called Ipsos to administer online questionnaires to adults across the country. The final group analyzed for this specific research included 8,361 participants who completed the second wave of the survey in mid-2023.

These participants had previously reported their level of approval for the National Rifle Association during the first wave of the survey. Respondents chose between options ranging from not approving at all to strongly or very strongly approving. Out of the group, 27 percent reported strong or very strong approval, while 46.6 percent reported no approval. The remaining participants fell into the somewhat approve category or did not know enough to answer.

The researchers asked respondents a series of detailed questions about their views on political violence. Political violence was defined in the survey as physical force strong enough to cause pain or injury, used to advance an important political objective. Participants were asked if they felt violence was ever justified to achieve nineteen specific goals, such as stopping illegal immigration or returning a specific candidate to the presidency.

If respondents agreed that violence was sometimes justified, they were then asked about their personal willingness to participate in those acts. The questionnaire asked if they would be willing to damage property, threaten someone, or physically harm another person. The survey also included questions about participants’ likelihood of carrying or using a firearm during a situation where they felt political violence was warranted.

In addition to questions about violence, the survey measured various personal attitudes and beliefs. These included views on democracy, authoritarianism, Christian nationalism, and a variety of conspiracy theories. The scientists used statistical models to account for factors like age, race, income, education, and political ideology, allowing them to isolate the specific relationship between organization approval and support for violence.

The researchers found that people who strongly approved of the National Rifle Association were significantly more likely to support political violence. About 44 percent of the approvers viewed violence as usually or always justified to advance at least one political objective. In comparison, only 21.5 percent of non-approvers felt the same way.

This willingness extended to personal participation in violence. The survey indicates that approvers were more willing to engage in violence against specific groups, such as elected government officials or public health workers. The data provides evidence that this willingness extends to acting independently, as approvers were more frequently willing than non-approvers to engage in lone-actor political violence. In the survey, 10.6 percent of approvers expressed this willingness compared to 1.9 percent of non-approvers.

Additionally, 4.2 percent of approvers considered it very or extremely likely that they would shoot someone to advance a political goal, compared to just 0.8 percent of non-approvers. The data provides evidence that approval of the group is also connected 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 fast that force may be necessary to save it, compared to just 5.6 percent of non-approvers. Approvers also more frequently agreed that the United States needs a civil war to set things right.

The survey results highlight differences in firearm ownership among the respondents. Wintemute noted that this specific metric yielded an unexpected result. “Only half of the NRA approvers (but a higher proportion than of non-approvers) reported personal ownership of firearms (approvers 49.8%, non-approvers 15.5%),” he said.

Because only half of the approvers actually owned weapons, the organization’s reach extends well past traditional firearm enthusiasts. “The NRA is one of the most widely known social movement organizations in the United States, and its sphere of influence extends beyond firearm owners,” Wintemute explained. “Those facts make these findings particularly concerning.”

The authors note that the organization has a documented history of mobilizing large numbers of people to take political action. “Despite its recent scandals, the NRA may remain capable of mobilizing large numbers of people who are armed and willing to use violence to advance political objectives,” Wintemute told PsyPost.

The scientists also found broader differences in political and social beliefs among the respondents. Approvers were more likely to agree with statements endorsing authoritarian leadership, suggesting that a strong leader is more important than a democracy. For example, 23.6 percent of approvers felt that having a strong leader is more important than having a democracy, compared to 10.9 percent of non-approvers.

They also tended to score higher on measures of trait aggression, which refers to a person’s general tendency to respond to frustrations with hostility or physical force. Those who approved of the organization showed a higher tendency to justify violence in non-political, everyday situations. These included situations such as winning an argument or responding to an insult.

Additionally, those who approved of the organization were more likely to endorse various conspiracy theories and express support for right-wing extremist groups. Approvers were more likely to endorse the central elements of the QAnon mythology, which is a set of unfounded conspiracy theories involving global trafficking rings. They were also more likely to agree with statements reflecting 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 causes a person to become violent. Instead, the data suggests that the organization might foster a shared social identity among individuals who already hold beliefs associated with political violence. Being part of a like-minded network might intensify these preexisting views.

The study has a few limitations that should be kept in mind, particularly regarding the timing of the survey. “NRA approval status was collected in 2022, after the organization’s failed attempt to file for bankruptcy in 2021 but before court verdicts in New York in 2024 found the organization and its senior leadership guilty of financial misconduct,” Wintemute said.

“NRA approval is likely less prevalent now than in 2022,” Wintemute continued. “That attrition would have been selective, and findings on the measures included in this study might well have changed.” The findings are also susceptible to the influence of external events like mass shootings or political conflicts, which can quickly shift public opinion.

Future research could explore how these external events influence attitudes toward political violence over time. Understanding these shifting dynamics could help public health experts and community leaders develop better strategies to discourage politically motivated harm. “At the same time, NRA approvers who reject political violence might be uniquely credible messengers in efforts to create a population-wide culture of non-acceptance for political violence,” Wintemute noted.

“Our goal is to develop the evidence that will underlie effective political violence prevention efforts,” Wintemute said. “We plan to shift to preliminary tests of the effectiveness of such efforts.”

The study, “Approval of the National Rifle Association and political violence: findings 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.