Guns

In the United States, there are more guns than people. And that figure counts only civilian-owned firearms, not those held by the military or law enforcement.

On several issues of gun policy, majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents agree, in some cases overwhelmingly. For example, there is 80%+ cross-party agreement on background checks:

Based on 2024 data, universal background checks were required in only some states (17 states and the District of Columbia). The federal government and other states had looser policies that required background checks in some situations but not others.

Here are other policy concepts with 55%+ cross-party support in polls from the past several years:

• Waiting Periods: “A 30-day waiting period should be required for all gun purchases.” As of May 2025, 15 states had waiting-period laws, from three to thirty days in duration. The federal government does not have a waiting-period law.

• Red Flag Laws: “People should be able to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from individuals believed to pose a danger to themselves or others.” As of March 2025, 21 U.S. states and Washington, DC, had such “red flag laws.” The federal government did not have a red flag law.

• Permit for Concealed Carry: “A permit should be required for carrying a concealed gun.” As of May 2025, at the state level, roughly half the U.S. states required a permit, and half did not. The federal government did not require a permit.

• Parental Responsibility: “Parents should be held legally responsible for children using guns in crime.” This issue came to prominence with a 2024 court case in which the jury found the parents responsible.

• Minimum Age to Buy a Gun: “The minimum age to buy semi-automatic firearms should be raised to 21 from 18.” Federal law allows individuals 18 years and older to buy handguns and long guns (rifles, shotguns) from private sellers, and long guns from licensed sellers; buying a handgun from a licensed seller requires being 21 years old. Some states supplement these laws with stricter age minimums.

These are all policies that would make it harder to buy, carry, or keep a gun. There are policies that do the opposite, but none has cross-party support.

Why is public opinion so tilted toward gun-regulating policy concepts? The main reason is the U.S. legal landscape on guns has traditionally tilted the other way, toward minimal regulation compared to most other countries. As a result, policies like the above can be framed as “gun safety” and thus be seen by many people as common sense rather than as ideological positions.

Where Agreement Meets a Wall

If large majorities of Americans agree on gun-regulation policies, why are they only partly enacted? 

Because the U.S. political system doesn’t always translate majority opinion—even cross-party majority opinion—into majority rule. On guns, a small but highly organized minority has wielded more power than a broad but diffuse majority.

The organized minority is led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a uniquely successful force in American political culture. The NRA motivates its five million members to put gun rights first and foremost in their voting. Beyond lobbying, the NRA fuses gun ownership with personal identity and constitutional heritage, turning gun rights into a larger cause that must be defended vigilantly. In this worldview, any new restriction is a step toward confiscation.

The NRA’s strategic stronghold is the U.S. Senate. Because every state is represented equally in the Senate, regardless of size, it favors lower-population, rural states—where gun ownership is highest and cultural resistance strongest. A bill supported by 80% of Americans can still fall to the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes for passage. For example, after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, multiple bipartisan bills on background checks gained majority support in both chambers yet failed under the filibuster.

At the state level, gun laws are largely polarized along party lines. Roughly half the states, mostly under Democratic control, have adopted some form of red-flag, waiting-period, or permit law. The other half, mostly Republican-controlled, have gone the opposite direction: loosening carry restrictions, adopting “permitless carry,” or pre-empting local regulation. In these pro-gun states, the real contests for elections are often in Republican primaries, where the NRA will reward the candidate willing to be strongest on gun rights. This can produce representatives who, even by the standards of pro-gun states, are more absolutist than their constituents.

And hovering above all is the Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court for the first time recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in a militia. That ruling struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban and redefined the constitutional baseline for gun laws nationwide. Fourteen years later, in its Bruen (2022) decision, the Court went further, requiring that modern gun regulations be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.” That new test has since been used to strike down several state restrictions, chilling others before they can even be proposed.

What the Divide Reveals

Gun policy is not only about rights or safety; it is a case study in how policy can be shaped by factors other than popular will. Cross-party majorities can agree yet remain governed by systems that reward intensity, geography, and rules of procedure.

Money and mobilization reinforce each other. NRA-inspired campaign donations flow to candidates pledging opposition to new gun laws. Without an equivalent force on the other side, the broader public’s support for regulation remains passive. Often legislators rationally follow the money, as well as the most motivated voters.

The result is a democratic paradox: Americans share substantial common ground on guns, but the laws of the land are far more polarized. This will not change until the balance of political energy—not just opinion—shifts.

Postscript: The polls cited in this article are all national polls, whereas some of the analysis is about state laws. If the same issues were polled in each state, cross-party agreement would not hold for every issue-state combination. For example, with 80%+ cross-party support nationwide, it’s likely that agreement on background checks would hold in most if not all states, whereas agreement on minimum-age laws (only 55% Republican support nationally) would often not. This distinction doesn’t alter the overall reality of broad national agreement, but it does suggest that consensus on some issues may be thinner, or not exist, within particular states.