Large numbers of Americans who have bought guns over the past four years or who regularly carry their loaded weapons in public are willing to engage in political violence, even to the extent of shooting a perceived opponent, a new mega-survey has found.
The study of almost 13,000 Americans, drawn from across the country and weighted for demographics, provides alarming evidence of the openness of certain types of gun owners to the idea – and possibly the practice – of violence as a political act.
The risk of violent behavior rose dramatically, the researchers found, with certain subsets of gun owners.
In particular, Americans who have bought their weapons since the disruptions of Covid in 2020 and those who often or always carry guns in public expressed high levels of susceptibility to political violence. A similar, though less marked, trend was visible among owners of assault-style rifles of the sort used frequently in mass shootings.
The study, Firearm Ownership and Support for Political Violence in the United States, was conducted by the violence prevention research program at the University of California, Davis. Its findings will ring alarm bells at an already exceptionally tense time for the country.
With seven months to go to the presidential rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the US is not only in the early stages of what promises to be a fiery election, but the prevalence of gun ownership as well as mass gun rampages are also running at all-time highs. A country awash with weapons and facing a fraught political clash, which both sides are portraying as an existential fight for the future of America, poses extreme challenges for law enforcement.
Since Trump announced his candidacy in November 2022, he has taken his inflammatory rhetoric to a new level. He has recast his supporters who have been jailed for the violent attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 as “hostages” and promised to pardon many of them.
At the same time, gun purchases have soared since the start of the pandemic. Last year the US endured a record number of mass shootings.
The authors of the study draw conclusions from their findings that will give federal and state officials pause. It is plausible, they say, that recent gun purchasers may be “arming up for anticipated civil conflict. 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 US every day.”
Participants in the UC Davis survey were asked whether they believed that violence was justified in the pursuit of a range of specific political objectives. About 39% of gun owners said yes, compared with 30% of non-owners.
That differential is moderate. But the gap becomes far more serious when the same question is put to subsets of gun owners.
Some 42% of owners of assault-type rifles said political violence could be justified, rising to 44% of recent gun purchasers, and a staggering 56% of those who always or nearly always carry loaded guns in public.
The extent to which those subgroups said they were prepared to go in actually carrying out political violence was even more stark. The survey takers were asked to imagine they were in a situation in which political violence was perceived as justified.
In that scenario, 16.5% of gun owners who carried loaded firearms in public in the 12 months before the survey was conducted said they would go as far as to shoot someone. The proportion was also high among Americans who had bought weapons since 2020 (8.9%) and owners of assault-style rifles (7.9%), compared with those who do not possess guns at all (3.3%).
“Recent purchasers and always- or nearly-always-carriers were more willing to kill to advance political objectives,” the researchers conclude.
The political mindset of the gun-owning subgroups is also skewed to more extreme positions lending themselves to political violence. Asked whether they believed that the US would erupt in civil war within the next few years, 29% of public gun carriers said yes, with the same answer given by 22% of recent purchasers and 20% of assault-type rifle owners, compared with only 13% of non-owners.
The study, published by Jama Network Open on Tuesday, was based on a survey carried out in May and June 2022. It is part of a series of peer-reviewed articles and papers from the violence prevention research program that has explored views on political violence in the US including by party affiliation and political ideology and among Republicans who support Trump’s Make America Great Again (Maga) movement.
The research team, led by Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at UC Davis, approaches political violence as a public health problem. They hope that their findings will act as a guide to preventive measures as federal and state officials brace themselves for what lies ahead.
The scientists draw comfort from their finding that most Americans, whether or not they own firearms, bluntly reject political violence as an acceptable option. They say that result should give hope, as it suggests that violence prevention measures could be effective among gun owners and non-owners alike who “publicly repudiate political violence” and could “help identify, dissuade, deter, and incapacitate likely perpetrators”.
In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, former President Donald Trump has been vocal in his criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris, labeling her as a far-left politician and questioning her competence. His derogatory remarks, including calling her “Comrade Kamala” and questioning her identity, are part of a broader strategy to undermine her credibility.
However, Harris used her Democratic National Convention (DNC) speech to counter these attacks effectively. In a 40-minute address, she dismantled Trump’s caricature by showcasing her experience, values, and policy priorities. Harris presented herself as a pragmatic leader with a strong background in law enforcement, emphasizing her work as a prosecutor and attorney general. She focused on unifying issues like protecting abortion rights, Social Security, and Medicare, while also stressing her commitment to national security and middle-class tax relief.
Harris also addressed potential vulnerabilities, such as her background and identity, by sharing personal stories that highlighted her American values and deep patriotism. This approach was aimed at making her relatable to a broader audience, countering Trump’s portrayal of her as disconnected from ordinary Americans.
The speech not only fortified her position within the Democratic Party but also presented a formidable challenge to Trump. By blending offensive and defensive strategies in her speech, Harris demonstrated her capability to handle the intense scrutiny and attacks that come with a high-profile campaign. As the election approaches, both Trump and his campaign team are likely recalibrating their strategies in response to Harris’ effective performance.
Washington, D.C. — Recent developments in the Ukraine-Russia conflict have sparked a notable shift in public sentiment within Russia, with negative feelings towards President Vladimir Putin appearing to increase, particularly in regions far from Moscow. This shift comes in the wake of Ukrainian troops making incursions into Russian territory, a move that has been met with dissatisfaction and concern among Russian citizens.
A new analysis by FilterLabs AI, a firm that monitors public opinion in Russia through social media and internet postings, indicates that the Russian public’s attitude towards Putin has soured, especially after Ukrainian forces advanced into the Kursk region of western Russia. Despite the Russian government’s efforts to put a positive spin on the war’s developments, dissatisfaction is growing, with many Russians blaming the government and President Putin personally for the setbacks.
In a country where expressing dissent can lead to serious repercussions, traditional polling methods often fail to capture true public sentiment, as respondents may provide answers they believe are expected by the government. To overcome this limitation, FilterLabs AI employs a computer model to analyze sentiments expressed by Russians on social media, internet postings, and comments on news media sites. This method provides a more nuanced understanding of how ordinary Russians feel about their leadership and the ongoing war.
According to the analysis, Putin’s popularity has been on a downward trajectory since a brief armed rebellion in 2023 led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary force. However, the recent Ukrainian advances have intensified this decline, particularly outside Moscow. While the Russian capital remains somewhat insulated from the growing discontent due to tighter government control over the media, even there, the public’s view of Putin is beginning to sour.
“Putin’s response to the incursion was seen as inadequate at best and insulting at worst,” said Jonathan Teubner, CEO of FilterLabs AI. The perception that Putin’s leadership has faltered in the face of Ukrainian advances is particularly pronounced in Russia’s outlying regions, where frustration with the Kremlin is growing.
The regions showing the sharpest decline in sentiment towards Putin are also those where the Kremlin focuses its military recruiting efforts. This presents a significant challenge for the Russian government, as its recruitment strategy relies heavily on managing public perception of the war. If dissatisfaction continues to grow, it could undermine the Kremlin’s ability to sustain its military efforts.
“It is right now difficult to determine the effect of the Ukrainian counteroffensive,” Teubner noted. “But it is clear that it is shocking and, for Putin, embarrassing. Kremlin propaganda, spin, and distraction can only do so much in the face of bad news that is widely discussed across Russia.”
As the conflict with Ukraine drags on, the Russian government’s ability to control the narrative is being tested. The growing dissatisfaction with President Putin, particularly in regions far from the center of power, suggests that the Kremlin’s grip on public opinion is weakening. How this will impact the ongoing conflict and Putin’s political future remains to be seen, but the signs of unrest are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
OTTAWA – Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri has deleted a post on X that claimed the affordability crisis has driven parents to traffic their kids.
This comes after The Canadian Press sent Ferreri questions regarding the post, which followed a visit to the Kawartha Sexual Assault Centre in Peterborough, Ont.
In a statement today, Ferreri says her post was “inartfully worded.’
The Conservative MP says that while cost-of-living can increase social problems, it is ‘in no way’ an excuse for human trafficking.
In a statement, the KSAC’s executive director says many clients have shared over the past several decades that they were trafficked by a parent or guardian and that this issue is not new.
Brittany McMillan says the centre does not hold any specific government or party responsible for sexual violence but urges all forms of government to invest in prevention and support for survivors.
Ferreri serves as the Conservatives’ critic on families, children and social development.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 21. 2024.
