Introduction
It is no mystery that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the Second Amendment rights for United States citizens. Gun violence in the United States has long been a disputed and deeply concerning issue, highlighting the intense political divide that exists within our country. With a history deeply rooted in the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, the United States has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world (US News, 2023). The alarming frequency of mass shootings, high rates of firearm-related homicides, and tragic incidents of gun violence have sparked heated debates and calls for change. For example, 2021 was the year with the greatest number of American gun-related deaths (Pew Research Center, 2021). With tragic events becoming more commonplace, the nation finds itself sharply divided along political lines. Conflict, in and out of government, over contrasting perspectives on gun control measures, background checks, assault weapon bans, and the overall balance between public safety and individual rights has spread (Jacksonville, 2016). This ideological and legislative impasse has made it exceedingly challenging to implement effective policies to curb gun violence while respecting the deeply held beliefs and values of American citizens. Cases such as the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings and the Charleston shootings in 2015 are perfect examples of these failed efforts (NY Times, 2022). But what exactly are the struggles in deciding a solution to this problem?
One of the struggles is the differences in political goals, personal opinions, and logistical inconsistencies, which have created an entire spectrum of public and political opinions on how to deal with gun violence in the United States (Pew Research, 2021). Mere political affiliation cannot decide whether a politician will defend the Second Amendment or condemn it. External factors such as gender, age, residence, family, and real-life experiences come into play, and existing research shows how some of these demographics may affect decision-making. For example, twice as many men own a personal weapon compared to women, and women are more likely to support gun control laws (Gallup, 2022). While ever-changing in modern America, traditional gender roles associate males with protection, strength, and self-reliance, which could explain why males own guns on a higher level than females (Planned Parenthood). According to previous studies, people of age 18-25 explain their gun ownership more for hunting than protection, while people older than 25 consistently explain their gun ownership more for protection than hunting (Generational Trends in Attitudes about Gun Ownership, 2009). Additionally, 60% of gun homicides are in the top 50 US cities alone, showing that gun violence is disproportionately more commonplace in large urban cities (Bloomberg, 2012). It is unsurprising that supporters of more gun control tend to be highly concentrated in cities and relatively rare in rural areas, reflecting the levels of incidents. Additionally, urban areas tend to have a more liberal viewpoint on the gun control issue, while rural areas tend to have a conservative take (Bloomberg, 2012).
While some may argue that these factors themselves could be related to political parties, a number of combinations of these demographics can also dictate how intense one’s view will be (PEW Research, 2021). Often, one’s personal story is the final factor for one’s political and personal views, and this may even extend into political office.
This research study aims to determine what demographic variables shape US Senators’ opinion on the gun control problem in the United States. This paper expands beyond political affiliation to explore the role of other factors, including race, age, living environment, region of the US, immigration status, number of dependents, and military background. Based on the analysis of politicians’ official websites, this research project discovered that the overarching opinion of the Senators on gun control is their political affiliation as opposed to any other factor.
Methods
This study used a random number generator to select 50 U.S. Senators from the Senate website. Then, their names were put on a spreadsheet, and information was collected regarding their opinions on gun control. Sources, including their public statements on their Senate website, were used. Certain demographics that could affect their opinions on gun control were then organized. The variables included gender, age, current urban/rural living environment, region of the US, number of dependents, race, whether or not they are immigrants, and if they had any previous experience with military/law enforcement. Publicly available data such as their Senate website, news articles, and databases were then used to find information on each of the politicians. Each politician was color-coded based on whether they were for or against more gun control, as well as how strong or moderate their stance on the issue. For instance, if one had a very strong opinion on banning all “weapons of war” and does not even mention the Second Amendment, they would be assigned as “for more control.” If a person repeatedly mentions the existence of the Second Amendment and urges action to solve gun “violence” without gun “control,” they would be assigned as “against more control.” If a person has an opinion that is somewhat mixed between the two, or their response was very vague, they would be assigned as “neutral.”
To analyze the data collected, a table was created, with each of the three opinion categories (red, yellow, blue). Then, all the demographics were listed as rows underneath the categories, with the number of the sources that fell under the demographics and which opinion they aligned with. The proportion of sources in each of the categories that were under each opinion were calculated and compared.
Results
The results demonstrate that for gender, there was a fairly even split between the Senators’ opinions (Figure 1). 35% and 37% of males and females, respectively, pushed for gun control, 32% and 25% were moderate, and 32% vs 37% were pro-Second Amendment.
For the type of residence (urban, suburban, or rural), the findings showed that 52% of the urban politicians preferred more gun control, while only 18% and 30% were moderate or pro-Second Amendment, respectively (Figure 2). In the suburban environment, the data suggested about 20% of the politicians support more gun control, while 40% were moderate, and 40% were pro Second Amendment. The rural environment takes a more moderate approach, with 50% of the politicians preferring a moderate stance, while only 16% and 33% chose either pro-gun control or pro-Second Amendment, respectively.
Age demographics in this study were diverse (Figure 3). In the 30-42 age group, a vast 66% of the senators were pro-Second Amendment, and only 33% were pro- gun control. A fairly normalized distribution forms in the 43-58 age group, with 37% either pro-gun control or pro-Second Amendment each, and only 25% being moderate. The older 59+ age groups only take a slight turn to the pro-gun control side, with 35% for gun control and moderate each, and 29% pro Second Amendment. The average age for each of the opinion groups were very similar, being 62 years, 64 years, and 58 years.
The study for regions in the country demonstrated variable results (Figure 4). The study shows that a staggering 60% of the Northeastern politicians preferred more gun control, while 30% were moderate and a mere 10% were pro-Second Amendment. The situation is the same in the West with 55% percent of the politicians preferring more gun control, versus just 22% for moderate and Second Amendment each. The situation in the Midwest and Southeast are flipped however: 53% and 42% of the politicians preferred the Second Amendment rights in these two regions respectively. The story in the Southwest is a more moderate one: 50% of the politicians were moderate, and the rest are evenly split between either pro-gun control, or pro-Second Amendment.
When looking at race, around 42% of the White politicians were pro-Second Amendment, while the rest were split between pro-gun control and moderate (Figure 5). In the Black and Asian demographics, none of the politicians were for Second Amendment rights, with 75% of Black politicians supporting more gun control and the rest moderate and 50% of the Asian politicians supporting more gun control and the rest moderate. In the Hispanic community, 40% of the politicians supported more gun control, and 40% were moderate.
Whether the politician was an immigrant or not was a fairly even split (Figure 6). Only 3 of the 50 politicians were immigrants (limitation discussed later). 66% of the politicians who were immigrants were pro gun control, and 33% supported a moderate view. On the non-immigrant side, a very even split between the opinion scale was found.
For the low-dependents group (2 or under), there was an even split of 38% for each pro-gun control and pro-Second Amendment, with the rest being moderate (Figure 7). In the high-dependents group (over 2), a very even split of 33% to 28% for gun control vs Second Amendment was found.
The data collected about military veterans shows that 60% of former service members were moderate, and 40% sided with the pro-Second Amendment group (Figure 8).
Discussion
It is important to recognize a key underlying factor when it comes to how these senators perceive, or at least say they perceive, the problem of gun violence: their political affiliation. Being a Democrat or a Republican is by far the biggest factor in this analysis (Figure 9). 70% of Democrats aligned themselves with the more liberal pro-gun control side, with the rest being moderate. On the other hand, 60% of Republicans sided with the pro-Second Amendment side with the rest being moderate and only one member choosing the pro-gun control side. It is here that we can see that, while there are only a handful of exceptions to a general rule, it seems to be that almost all Democrats favor the pro gun control side, and almost all Republicans favor the pro Second Amendment side.
The data collected in the gender category was a little surprising. Previous data and research conducted in the Pew Research Center in 2021 suggested that males are more likely to support the Second Amendment, whereas females would be more likely to support gun control (Gallup, 2022).This research found that there was little to no difference in supporting either the Second Amendment versus supporting gun control in both the male and female groups.
The data regarding the living environment, whether the person is in an urban, suburban, or rural area, aligned with previous research and data (Bloomberg 2012). According to the data, people in urban environments generally favor more gun control, whereas people in rural areas generally favored the Second Amendment. This makes sense since there is a lot more gun violence in urban areas, therefore more restriction is nothing but beneficial (Bloomberg, 2012). In rural areas, where there is less gun violence, and also more recreational uses for guns other than for human violence, people are generally more moderate and pro-Second Amendment. This was surprising, since the moderate (50%) and pro-Second Amendment (33%) were expected to be switched in rural areas. This ties into the urban and rural split in opinions where one is more liberal, and one is more conservative.
The data collected in the age category was, by far, one of the most surprising demographics uncovered by the study. According to research (PEW 2023), the 2020s have an all time high gun violence record, about twice as many incidents per year. News media outlets such as CNN, ABC News, and other large scale news sources report on these incidents, therefore the public remains informed. However, despite the newer and younger generation being shown the harsh reality of gun violence in today’s age, the data in this study shows that at least the younger generation of the senate is prone to favor the pro-Second Amendment side, and favor the protection of having the right to bear arms. This likely is not representative of all individuals within that age group in the US, given that there is a vast proportional difference in the number of Republican and Democratic members in this study. For the Gen X group and the “Boomer” group, the results were relatively moderate, which was mostly expected. This may also be due to the lower overall numbers of young senators (3/50 senators in this study’s data, and), which may not represent their entire age group.
A predictable demographic whose responses were in line with hypothesized expectations was "region of the US’'. The data collected show that the Northeast and West Coast regions heavily preferred stricter gun control, whereas the Southeast and Midwest were pro-Second Amendment, and lastly the Southwest was mostly moderate. This makes sense because both the Northeast and West Coast regions have many large urban cities and a more liberal voting population. On the other hand, the Midwest and Southeast contain some but not many urban areas and tend to have a more conservative population.
In the race demographic, some interesting data was revealed. It was shown that white Americans generally took a more pro-Second Amendment opinion, whereas all the other race groups (Black Americans, Asian Americans, and Latin Americans) took more of a pro-gun control opinion. Based on existing research (PEW 2013), African American, and Latin-American people suffer more than white Americans when it comes to gun violence. These data then support the study findings, since people who are more likely to experience gun violence are more likely to push for more gun control.
Looking at the number of dependents (0-2 being low, 3+ being high), the data show that for both categories, there were equal proportions of people who sided with pro-gun control and pro-Second Amendment. This was surprising because it was expected that for people with a high number of children, people would be more protective, and seek safer environments and more restrictions on weapons.
In the immigrant category, the vast majority of the politicians in the study identified as non-immigrants, so it was hard to dictate whether or not origin of birth has anything to do with a person’s opinion on gun violence. The case is the same for people who served in the military, where only 5 people were veterans, which was not enough to show any definitive correlation. This was a consistent limitation in the study, where the study population did not represent the United States overall demographic makeup since the demographics of senators are generally homogeneous. For example, there are simply less females in the Senate, and a majority of the senators are caucasian.
Conclusion
This study highlighted some of the variables that may affect a person’s choice when it comes to gun control, though it has limitations. For example, there are only 50 senators. Future work should include a larger population, such as the entire Congress. Additionally, all the people in the study are in government positions, which does not reflect the entire country. This is a critical flaw in this study because the study ultimately concluded that political affiliation is the biggest factor in choosing which side to advocate for. Thus, we are not able to really see into the core of what this study was aiming for. Having a general public participate in this study will not only broaden the scale to which demographics are analyzed, but also have a non-biased view to the questions presented.
To sum up, it is clear that the main factor that can indicate which side a politician will turn their head is by far their political affiliation. While there are small evidentiary details that may show us insight into demographics that will favor a Democratic or Republican affiliation as a whole, once a person has chosen their affiliation, they are likely to stick to it. Unfortunately, this may mean that our government may delay this significant problem, because politics is a factor in almost all problems.