Objective Gun control advocacy regularly escalates in the aftermath of a mass shooting. But is the American public more susceptible to pro‐gun‐control arguments in the wake of mass gun violence? Methods We analyze a survey experiment fielded immediately before and after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Results Pro‐gun‐control arguments were not effective at increasing support for or confidence in expanded background checks before or after the Las Vegas shooting. Anti‐gun‐control arguments were less effective at reducing support for expanded background checks after the Las Vegas shooting. Conclusion Even the largest mass shooting in American history was insufficient to mobilize public opinion on gun control in a way that would affect federal policy.

Public policy debates in the United States about how to respond to complex issues like climate change and structural racism are often portrayed in polarized terms. Progressives are seen as advocating for transformational responses to major problems, while conservatives are portrayed as denying these problems’ existence. However, such depictions obscure the presence of a third bloc that acknowledges these problems’ existence but does not support drastic approaches to solving them. Using survey experiments, we examine the relationships between problem belief and solution support in these two issues areas. We find overlap between those who acknowledge the existence of these problems and those who oppose large-scale policy solutions. Furthermore, we observe that the solution proposed may influence attitudes toward the problem. Our results suggest that political scientists and policy activists overestimate the extent of denial of these problems and mistarget persuasive efforts by focusing on problem belief over solution support.