Teachers and Gun Control Groups Paired Up to Ask Voters About Their Views on Gun Safety

Do they approve of Trump’s approach?

A young man holds a sign during the March for Our Lives protest in Washington, DC.Cal Sport Media/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The disturbing number of high-profile mass school shootings have forged an alliance between the gun safety movement and education advocates. Their partnership has been reinforced by the actions of the Trump administration in the aftermath of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida, when it emphasized the importance of school safety measures instead of gun control.

Just weeks before the midterm elections, two prominent national organizations have come together to learn whether voters agree with the president’s approach. Today, they release a survey suggesting that in House battleground districts, they do not.

The survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm, was a joint venture between the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a national gun safety advocacy organization, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), one of the largest teachers unions in the country. The two have worked together on matters of gun violence and school safety since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Recently, they’ve been particularly concerned about the findings of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ commission on school safety—especially in light of reports DeVos is examining whether to use federal funds to arm teachers.

“We were interested in learning how folks on the ground felt about the efforts the [Trump] administration were working toward as opposed to the ones we’ve proposed,” says Kris Brown, Brady’s co-president. Brady, like the March For Our Lives student activists, advocates background checks for all gun sales, laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a risk to themselves or others, and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The poll surveyed voters in 11 House districts in California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia, where President Donald Trump’s approval rating trends slightly above the national average. In each of these districts, a pro-gun control Democrat is trying to unseat a Republican incumbent who supports gun rights.

Consistent with other recent polling on this issue, it found that roughly 90 percent of voters support requiring background checks for every gun sale, more than half support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and about three-quarters support “red flag” laws that would keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a risk to themselves or others. Those surveyed also expressed interest in seeing federal school funding spent on mental health programs and violence prevention services over arming teachers.

The survey suggests voters’ support doesn’t just end at policy, but extends to the ballot box. The results suggest voters would be more likely to support a candidate who advocates for those policies over one who does not. That support generally held across those who owned guns and those who did not; gun owners’ support dipped slightly for each measure. For example, while 51 to 71 percent of all voters surveyed say they support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, only 51 to 66 percent of gun owners agreed.

“One takeaway is the public is starting to move away from thinking about gun violence as a partisan issue,” Brown says. “The people in the polls are identifying themselves as Democratic or Republican, and they’re not thinking about gun violence prevention in a partisan way.”

Gun safety organizations have been particularly focused on the House during the midterm elections, in hopes of returning control of that body to Democrats who have expressed a greater willingness to take up gun safety measures. Brown and Weingarten say their teams plan to share the survey data with the candidates running in the districts surveyed.

“After Parkland, it’s important to get the sense of where people are in battlegrounds, because they are bellwether,” says AFT president Randi Weingarten. “The polls are an important education tool for those who are running for office. It shows them that regular folks, including gun owners, don’t want them to shy away from these issues.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate