Gun Policy Perception vs Reality: Insights from Johns Hopkins

Professor Brian Lowry of the Stanford Graduate School of Business hosted Professor Cass Kfasi from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to discuss leadership in polarizing times, specifically focusing on gun policy in the United States. Professor Kfasi's work evaluates the impact of gun policies on public safety.

From Failed Medical Applicant to Gun Policy Expert

Professor Kfasi shared her unconventional path into gun policy research. Initially a failed medical school applicant, she discovered public health, realizing the potential to prevent injuries rather than just treating them. During her doctoral program at Hopkins, she recognized the significant burden of gun violence. Growing up in a home with guns, with a military veteran father and being a gun owner herself, she noticed a disconnect between political discourse on gun policy and everyday conversations. This led her to join the faculty at Johns Hopkins, where she focuses on using policy as a population-level tool to improve safety and well-being, aiming to bridge the gap between different perspectives and change the narrative around gun policy.

The Gap Between Perception and Reality in Gun Policy

A significant finding from Professor Kfasi's research is the substantial gap between what people think others believe about gun policy and what they actually believe. The media often portrays a narrative of complete disagreement, but her biennial survey, initiated after the Sandy Hook shooting, reveals broad public support for specific gun policies.

Instead of asking general questions like "Do you want more or less gun control?", which are often too vague, her team asks specific questions such as: * Should gun owners be required to lock up their guns when not in use? * Should individuals seeking to buy a gun be required to obtain a license first to verify their identity?

When questions are specific, support levels are much higher, often exceeding 75% among the general public, including gun owners and conservative Republicans, groups often perceived as being against such policies. This suggests that the issue is less divisive than commonly believed, especially when discussing concrete solutions.

The Sandy Hook Shooting

In December 2012, a school shooting occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, where an individual murdered many children and adults. This event served as a catalyst for many to advocate for gun policy and safety legislation.

The Impact of Mass Shootings on the Debate

High-profile mass shootings can be motivating events, prompting individuals to advocate for change. However, they can also be a distraction. For instance, the argument that mental illness, not guns, is the root cause of such violence often arises. While addressing mental illness and access to care is crucial, Professor Kfasi noted that even if all interpersonal violence from individuals with diagnosed mental health conditions were eliminated, 7-9% of all violence would remain. Furthermore, individuals with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence or engage in self-harm than to commit interpersonal violence.

Mass shootings, while tragic and high-profile, account for less than 2% of all gun violence in the U.S. The leading cause of gun death is suicide, followed by homicide. These events, however, can draw attention to the broader issue, allowing researchers to leverage that interest to discuss comprehensive solutions to gun violence, which claims tens of thousands of lives and injures many more each year.

Misperceptions About Crime and Gun Violence

Professor Kfasi highlighted a common misperception: most Americans believe crime, including gun violence, is at an all-time high, when in reality, it has significantly declined over the last 20-50 years. This media-driven misperception makes productive conversations difficult.

Her team addresses this by: * Correcting misperceptions with data. * Detailing the geographic and demographic distribution of gun violence. * Breaking down the broad category of "gun violence" into specific types like suicide, homicide, unintentional shootings, police shootings, and domestic violence, to tailor solutions. * Using narratives and stories alongside data to help people connect with the issue.

Engaging Skeptical Audiences

When confronted by a skeptical gun owner who might distrust her public health background, Professor Kfasi acknowledges that she may not always be the most effective messenger. Instead, her work emphasizes finding trusted partners—such as pediatricians, military veterans, or law enforcement officers—who can serve as credible messengers. These partners co-create messages consistent with public health goals but resonate more effectively with the target audience. This approach recognizes that while she supports an individual's right to own firearms responsibly, her public health affiliation might be a barrier for some.

The NRA's Influence and Finding Common Ground

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is often seen as the primary voice for gun owners, despite representing only about 10% of them. Professor Kfasi's research shows that many NRA members actually support policies deemed effective by public health experts. By focusing on specific policies, it's possible to demonstrate that support is broader than perceived, making individuals feel less like "outgroup" members for backing certain measures.

The strategy is to find even one point of agreement to build a productive partnership. Meaningful progress in reducing gun violence requires engaging with gun owners, as "you can't have gun violence without guns." The goal is to promote safe and responsible gun use.

Barriers to Policy Change

Despite broad public support for specific gun policies, policy change doesn't always follow. Professor Kfasi offered two main reasons: 1. Breadth vs. Depth of Support: While many may agree a policy is a good idea, this "breadth of support" doesn't always translate into "depth of support"—meaning people aren't always willing to take action (e.g., calling legislators, advocating). Activating this passive support is a challenge. 2. Legislative Inertia: In states where legislators are unresponsive to constituent desires, ballot initiatives have proven effective. States like Washington and Oregon have passed significant gun violence prevention laws (e.g., requiring individuals to be 21 to buy a semi-automatic rifle, or obtaining a license before buying a handgun) directly through voter initiatives. This demonstrates that when given a direct choice, the electorate often supports these policies.

Another barrier is public unawareness of existing laws. Many assume common-sense regulations, like background checks for private gun sales, are already in place, when in over half of states, they are not. Educating the public about current laws and potential actions to advocate for change is crucial.

Market-Based Solutions and Normalizing Safe Storage

While not extensively explored, market-based solutions beyond advocacy efforts are being considered. A key focus is normalizing conversations around safe gun storage. Many children and young people gain access to guns because they are not stored safely in homes.

The approach mirrors past public health campaigns, such as those against drinking and driving. The goal is to make it normal for parents to ask about gun storage when their children visit other homes, similar to asking about bike helmets or food allergies. To facilitate this, Johns Hopkins provides free cable locks, lock boxes, and biometric safes to those who need them, promoting responsible storage practices.

Ethical Considerations for Future Executives

Professor Kfasi addressed the complex question of how executives in industries with potential negative societal implications (like AI, social media, or firearms) should approach their products. She drew a parallel between firearms and opioids: both can have significant utility and positive value when used appropriately (e.g., pain relief from prescription opioids, self-defense or sport from firearms). However, both can also cause individual and societal harm when misused, inappropriately prescribed, or irresponsibly marketed.

Her hope for future executives is that they consider not only the benefits of their products but also their potential consequences, both intentional and unintentional. The aim should be to minimize harm by promoting responsible sales, marketing, and end-user practices. As a public health professional, she recognizes that eliminating all harm is unrealistic, but reducing its likelihood through responsible practices is a vital goal.