The Gender Gap on Gun Control

.photo.right { display:none; }

National Journal
Peter Bell
See more stories about...
Peter Bell
Sept. 27, 2013, 12:10 p.m.

A ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans say that a ban on as­sault weapons would sig­ni­fic­antly re­duce mass shoot­ings, but be­neath those find­ings lurks a huge gender gap, one that rivals the di­vide between Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans on the is­sue, ac­cord­ing to the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

Wo­men are far more likely than men to say that mass shoot­ings could be re­duced if there were a ban on as­sault weapons, such as the Bush­mas­ter AR-15 rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 chil­dren and six adults at Sandy Hook Ele­ment­ary school last Decem­ber. Al­most three-quar­ters of wo­men say an as­sault-weapons ban would be ef­fect­ive, com­pared with 44 per­cent of men. A ma­jor­ity of men, 54 per­cent, say such a ban wouldn’t have a ser­i­ous im­pact on re­du­cing mass shoot­ings.

Like the na­tion as a whole, opin­ion on the mat­ter among Re­pub­lic­ans is also riv­en by a gender gap. Re­pub­lic­ans in gen­er­al do not think an as­sault-weapons ban would be an ef­fect­ive way to cut down on mass shoot­ings; only 42 per­cent say it would re­duce them. But that skep­ti­cism is quartered largely among Re­pub­lic­an men. While less than a third (29 per­cent) of GOP men and GOP-lean­ing men say an as­sault ban would be ef­fect­ive, a ma­jor­ity of Re­pub­lic­an wo­men and Re­pub­lic­an-lean­ing wo­men (57 per­cent) say a ban would re­duce mass shoot­ings.

The gender gap is less pro­nounced among Demo­crats, who over­whelm­ingly (72 per­cent) say an as­sault ban would re­duce shoot­ings. But it is still there: Demo­crat­ic wo­men and wo­men who lean to­ward the Demo­crats are more likely than their male coun­ter­parts to say that an as­sault-weapons ban would re­duce shoot­ings, by 79 per­cent to 66 per­cent.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×