Opinions on a Firearm Prohibition Policy That Targets Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Firearms and intimate partner violence form a nexus of dangerousness and lethality. But, some policies aim to separate the two phenomena. The present study aims to fill a gap in the literature focusing on opinions toward a firearm prohibition for persons with injunctions for protection in effect against them by analyzing data from a convenience sample of 290 undergraduate students at a large research university in Florida, United States. Overall, any agreement with the policy was high. Multivariate analyses indicated that females/women and gender identity minorities, together, tended to express more agreement with firearm prohibition than males/men. Multivariate analysis also showed that participants who experienced sexual violence also displayed more agreement with the prohibition when compared to individuals who did not experience sexual violence victimization. “Lower” severity sexual violence victimization had the strongest relationship with policy opinions. Possible explanations for the gender difference in opinions include the implications of hegemonic masculinity and power differentials among genders. A possible explanation for the relationship between sexual violence victimization and policy opinions includes empathy. Policy implications and directions for future research include investigating the potential relationship gap in firearm prohibitions within Florida, engaging college men to change the conceptions around firearms through educational intervention, harnessing the tech-savvy power that college students have to generate awareness of policies, and considering interconnections among opinions, polyvictimization, and firearm policies.