Study: Gun-Restriction Support Craters When Backers Must Pay for It

A new study finds that support for gun control in bars and restaurants drops fast once respondents are told they'd personally have to pay for it, a detail Bearing Arms says exposes how shallow some of that support really is.

Key points

• The study: Published in Health Affairs Scholar, researchers Robert Zeithammer, Supriya Kapur, Diana Silver and James Macinko surveyed Americans on restricting firearms in alcohol-serving venues.
• The numbers: With no enforcement costs mentioned, 56%-74% backed restrictions depending on venue size and who was restricted, with support topping 65% for large venues.
• The catch: Adding a hypothetical $100 annual cost to enforce the laws dropped support sharply, leaving majority backing only for narrow restrictions on felons, intoxicated patrons, or those with alcohol-related convictions at large venues.
• The UCLA Anderson Review take: The review summed it up bluntly, noting voters "can be stingy, even in matters of public safety" once a price tag is attached.
• Bearing Arms' angle: Columnist Tom Knighton argues this pattern extends to things like mandatory buybacks, where backers want taxpayers footing the bill rather than paying themselves.

Quick take

None of this is shocking to anyone who's watched gun-control debates for a while, but it's useful ammunition. It's one thing to vote for restrictions in a poll with no consequences attached, another to actually open your wallet for them. Bearing Arms frames this as an accidental public service by researchers, and it's hard to argue otherwise.

Read the full story: bearingarms.com