Understanding knowledge and approval for sociopolitical groups: results from the 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Rebecca Valek, Julie A Ward, Vanya Jones, Tim Carey, Cassandra K Crifasi
{"title":"Understanding knowledge and approval for sociopolitical groups: results from the 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy.","authors":"Rebecca Valek, Julie A Ward, Vanya Jones, Tim Carey, Cassandra K Crifasi","doi":"10.1186/s40621-025-00575-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increased concerns of political violence in the US have drawn attention to sociopolitical movements across the political spectrum. The 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy sought to characterize approval of these movements and whether gun ownership was associated with this approval.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Survey of Gun Policy was fielded from 1/4/23 - 2/6/23 among a nationally representative sample of US adults (N = 3,096), including gun owners (n = 1,002). Respondents rated their level of approval for the militia, antifascist (Antifa), white supremacy, Christian nationalist, boogaloo, and anarchist movements. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in movement approval by gun ownership.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Approval of each movement was relatively low, ranging from 4% for the boogaloo movement to 13% for the Christian nationalist movement. Proportions of respondents that reported lacking knowledge was highest for the boogaloo movement (64%) and lowest for the white supremacy movement (17%); these two movements had similar proportions of approval (4% and 5%, respectively). Significantly larger proportions of gun owners reported both knowledge and approval of any of the six movements compared to non-gun owners, but differences in approval by gun ownership were no longer significant when only comparing those with knowledge of the movements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results indicate low probabilities of knowledge and approval. Moreover, greater knowledge was not accompanied by greater approval (e.g., white supremacy). Gun ownership was associated with movement knowledge, but not with movement approval among those with knowledge. These findings suggest opportunities for more proactive public health messaging to appeal to majority groups to resist movements that may sow division.</p>","PeriodicalId":37379,"journal":{"name":"Injury Epidemiology","volume":"12 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11984245/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-025-00575-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Increased concerns of political violence in the US have drawn attention to sociopolitical movements across the political spectrum. The 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy sought to characterize approval of these movements and whether gun ownership was associated with this approval.

Methods: The National Survey of Gun Policy was fielded from 1/4/23 - 2/6/23 among a nationally representative sample of US adults (N = 3,096), including gun owners (n = 1,002). Respondents rated their level of approval for the militia, antifascist (Antifa), white supremacy, Christian nationalist, boogaloo, and anarchist movements. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in movement approval by gun ownership.

Results: Approval of each movement was relatively low, ranging from 4% for the boogaloo movement to 13% for the Christian nationalist movement. Proportions of respondents that reported lacking knowledge was highest for the boogaloo movement (64%) and lowest for the white supremacy movement (17%); these two movements had similar proportions of approval (4% and 5%, respectively). Significantly larger proportions of gun owners reported both knowledge and approval of any of the six movements compared to non-gun owners, but differences in approval by gun ownership were no longer significant when only comparing those with knowledge of the movements.

Conclusions: Results indicate low probabilities of knowledge and approval. Moreover, greater knowledge was not accompanied by greater approval (e.g., white supremacy). Gun ownership was associated with movement knowledge, but not with movement approval among those with knowledge. These findings suggest opportunities for more proactive public health messaging to appeal to majority groups to resist movements that may sow division.

了解社会政治团体的知识和认可:来自2023年全国枪支政策调查的结果。
背景:对美国政治暴力的担忧日益增加,引起了人们对整个政治领域的社会政治运动的关注。2023年全国枪支政策调查试图描述对这些运动的批准,以及枪支所有权是否与这种批准有关。方法:全国枪支政策调查于23年4月1日至23年6月2日在具有全国代表性的美国成年人样本(N = 3096)中进行,其中包括枪支拥有者(N = 1002)。受访者对民兵、反法西斯(Antifa)、白人至上主义、基督教民族主义、boogaloo和无政府主义运动的支持程度进行了评级。采用Logistic回归比较不同持枪者对运动认可的差异。结果:每个运动的支持率都相对较低,从boogaloo运动的4%到基督教民族主义运动的13%不等。表示缺乏知识的受访者比例在boogaloo运动中最高(64%),在白人至上运动中最低(17%);这两项运动的支持率相似(分别为4%和5%)。与没有枪支的人相比,拥有枪支的人对六种动作中的任何一种都有了解和赞同的比例明显更高,但是当只与那些了解这些动作的人相比时,拥有枪支的人对六种动作的赞同程度的差异不再显著。结论:结果显示患者知晓和认可的概率较低。此外,更多的知识并不伴随着更多的认可(例如,白人至上主义)。拥有枪支与运动知识有关,但与运动知识的人对运动的认可无关。这些发现表明,有机会采取更积极主动的公共卫生信息,呼吁多数群体抵制可能播下分裂种子的运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Injury Epidemiology
Injury Epidemiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Injury Epidemiology is dedicated to advancing the scientific foundation for injury prevention and control through timely publication and dissemination of peer-reviewed research. Injury Epidemiology aims to be the premier venue for communicating epidemiologic studies of unintentional and intentional injuries, including, but not limited to, morbidity and mortality from motor vehicle crashes, drug overdose/poisoning, falls, drowning, fires/burns, iatrogenic injury, suicide, homicide, assaults, and abuse. We welcome investigations designed to understand the magnitude, distribution, determinants, causes, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and outcomes of injuries in specific population groups, geographic regions, and environmental settings (e.g., home, workplace, transport, recreation, sports, and urban/rural). Injury Epidemiology has a special focus on studies generating objective and practical knowledge that can be translated into interventions to reduce injury morbidity and mortality on a population level. Priority consideration will be given to manuscripts that feature contemporary theories and concepts, innovative methods, and novel techniques as applied to injury surveillance, risk assessment, development and implementation of effective interventions, and program and policy evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信