I have read a number of headlines this year that said Americans want more gun control. Perhaps certain segments of the population do. But as we track how young Americans (ages 18-30) engage with social issues, we find that their stance on gun safety is not as clear-cut as many assume, even immediately following gun-related tragedies. Unfortunately, both sides of the gun control debate may be communicating incorrectly to this key segment of their audience.

Our latest Cause and Social Influence report found that a large share of young Americans—the ones we don’t see on television or hear from on social media—see merits in both the pro- and anti-gun narratives. While nearly half (49 percent) of those surveyed said they favored stricter gun control measures, 28 percent wanted no change, 11 percent wanted more lenient measures, and 12 percent were unsure about what should be done. This puts almost half of young Americans into the “moveable middle,” a label reflecting their potential openness to shifting closer to one position over another.

While both sides of the gun debate may believe they are speaking to this important audience segment right now, they may misunderstand how best to go about it effectively. The narrative of the far left speaks to the most entrenched anti-gun constituents by highlighting the far-right’s most strident arguments to justify gun control: “The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to own firearms.” “Most guns owned for self-defense end up being used in accidental shootings.” “Hunting and target shooting as recreation don’t require an AK-47.” This narrow messaging strategy assumes a certain level of knowledge while playing on fear and anger. Meanwhile, it ignores important research findings: Our survey found that, of the 64 percent of young Americans who said they believed in their Second Amendment right to have guns, 43 percent wanted more gun control while 21 percent did not.

It’s the same on the other side of the debate. The far-right narrative speaks only to the staunchest opponent of gun control, intimating that those on the left are ready at a moment’s notice to wrest their guns from them. Again, this narrow messaging strategy assumes a level of knowledge and emotional investment and plays on fear and anger. It, too, ignores research, including ours: 67 percent of young Americans think the United States should have extreme risk protection orders (temporary removal of guns when the individual poses a threat to themselves and/or others).

A movement’s ability to create a narrative that is understood and adopted by those whose views can be changed will determine its future. As Forbes reported in May 2022, most Americans have not adopted a particular narrative around guns, and as the Cause and Social Influence report showed, young Americans are no different. As I said recently in this column, social movement leaders may pay most attention to the loudest opponents or the ones who they disagree with the most. Yet often, it’s the opponents one never meets who have the most influence—the ones in the middle. Those who stand right or left of center, especially, are still forming their opinions, so it’s important to focus attention there.

Gun-related movements won’t recruit new supporters until they heed a basic principle of public relations: Start where the audience is right now. If half your audience is in a state of flux, they need information to help them arrive at a conclusion. Make sure they know where to turn when the issue hits the headlines again.

Derrick Feldmann (@derrickfeldmann) is the founder of the Millennial Impact Project, lead researcher at Cause & Social Influence, and the author of The Corporate Social Mind. See Derrick’s related articles in Philanthropy News Digest, “Nurturing a community for the greatest impact” and Creating symbiosis between marketing and advocacy.