# data[].attributes.body
Can there be change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The gun control debate has shifted. Can a new initiative bring change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the passion of March for Our Lives, some groups see the best hope for legislative success in states such as Washington and Oregon

# data[].attributes.body
Can gun control "outrage" affect the elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even as the latest school shooting rampage drove him to push for tighter gun laws, President Donald Trump issued a dire warning to conservatives.

"Don't get complacent, don't get complacent," the president told the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. If Democrats win control of Congress in November, "they'll take away your Second Amendment - which we will never allow it to happen."

While no prominent Democrats have called for repealing the Second Amendment, a gunman's massacre of 17 people at a Florida high school has spurred a push for firearm restrictions that has rarely, if ever, been seen in the United States. Guns quickly became a much bigger issue in talking points for November's critical midterm elections, in not only the battle for control of Congress but also races for governor's offices and state legislatures.

In swing states with red pockets like Florida and Ohio, or in Republican gun strongholds like Texas, candidates in both parties now face more pressure over their gun stances. While it is unclear whether the debate will change voting habits, politicians seeking office around the country have started to take notice of evolving public opinion.

"We are seeing signs of a shift. Whether it's real and lasting is going to be seen, but it does seem like things have changed," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and Second Amendment scholar.

What's changed

The Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, prompted a wave of gun control activism. Student survivors of the shooting have gained audiences with Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, appeared on national television to call for action and protested in Washington and at Florida's Capitol.

Candidates forced to shift

While it is unclear how gun control will affect voting later this year, gun laws have already emerged as a key issue in races around the country. In Florida, a stronghold for gun rights activists, the school massacre has shaken the debate and forced lawmakers to change their position on firearms.

Will voters turn out for gun control?

Following shooting massacres like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 and at a concert in Las Vegas in October, Congress took little concrete action to reduce gun violence. Bills to require background checks for all gun purchases or ban "bump stocks" that effectively turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun stalled in Congress.

Numerous bipartisan lawmakers currently support a narrow bill to improve the existing background check system. Even that effort may fail as House conservatives push to pass the plan in tandem with an NRA-backed measure to allow people with concealed carry permits in one state to cross state lines.

The stalemate is partly driven by the fact that single-issue voters who oppose new gun laws are generally more enthusiastic than those who support them, experts said. Supporters of tighter gun laws have to overcome a mobilization disadvantage if they want to make up ground in 2018.

"I think the gun rights group has a history of effective mobilization driven by the NRA. ... If you are a member of Congress and you're sort of in the mushy middle here, and might swing one way or the other, you generally go with the gun rights people," said Steven Billet, director of the legislative affairs program at the George Washington University School of Political Management.

While many NRA critics focus on the group's contributions to GOP politicians, the organization actually spends much more money on independent expenditures like ads for or against candidates. From 1998 to 2017 it spent about $144 million on media and other resources to get its message out, according to PolitiFact. The NRA has vastly outspent gun control organizations.

In addition, gun control advocates typically face a "structural disadvantage" in the firearms debate, according to Winkler. Gun owners share a lifestyle and hobby, as well as an agreement on policy.

"It's harder for gun control folks, where it's really just one of many policy positions of how to make the world better," he said.

States and companies could drive changes

Even if Congress doesn't pass any gun-related legislation, states and other entities can take action.

Recently, Oregon lawmakers passed a bill outlawing people convicted of domestic violence or who have restraining orders against them from possessing guns. On Monday, Rhode Island's governor signed a so-called red flag executive order that allows authorities to take firearms from people who a judge considers too dangerous. Five states have passed similar laws.

While federal law does prohibit anyone convicted of felony domestic violence from buying a gun, state laws are considered easier for local authorities to enforce.

Legislatures in Florida and many other states are also now considering new gun laws.

"It's hard to get anything passed at the federal level," Winkler said. "As a result, we're going to see more emphasis on the state level because that's where there's the prospect of reform."

Of course, states pass laws loosening gun restrictions, as well. Winkler pointed to Georgia, which approved a law in 2014 that greatly expanded the buildings into which licensed gun owners can bring their firearms.

Billet also notes that corporate America has a "significant role" to play in the gun debate. Since the Parkland shooting, numerous companies ended partnership deals with the NRA.

Dick's Sporting Goods said Wednesday it would stop selling assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. The company added it would not allow customers under 21 to purchase any guns. Later Wednesday, Walmart also said it would raise the age restriction for gun purchases to 21, adding that it would remove items resembling assault-style rifles from its website.

Moms Demand Action is among the groups protesting companies like Apple and Amazon because they offer streaming of NRA TV, which plays content from the gun-rights group.

Said Watts: "We've pivoted to statehouses and boardrooms to change state laws and corporate policies, and that momentum will eventually get us the right president and Congress who will act."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Midterm elections will define if gun control 'outrage' has staying power

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Candidates in both parties now face more pressure over their gun stances heading into the 2018 midterm elections.

# data[].attributes.body
Can the gun law debate affect the elections?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Gun Control Debate Could Affect the 2018 Midterms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore. has reignited debate over gun control and gun rights in the United States.

Below are a series of questions drawn from what people have been searching for on Google since the shooting - and an attempt to answer them.

1. "Gun control" is a broad term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can possess or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried, what duties a seller has to vet a buyer, and what obligations both the buyer and the seller have to report transactions to the government.

Sometimes, the term is also used to cover related matters, like limits on types of ammunition and magazines, or technology, like the type that allows guns to fire only when gripped by their owners.

In recent years, gun control debates have focused primarily on background checks for buyers, allowing people to carry weapons in public, and whether to allow the possession of assault rifles.

2. What is the state of gun control today?

Federal law prohibits certain people from owning firearms: those with certain kinds of criminal records or mental illness; drug addicts; immigrants without legal status; veterans who left the military with a dishonorable discharge; anyone with a permanent restraining order keeping them from a partner or a partner's children. And there are others barred as well; a full list of the prohibitions can be found here.

Federal law requires that licensed gun dealers conduct a background check, through a database run by the F.B.I., to see if the customer is among those prohibited from owning a gun.

But the system has major holes in it, among them incomplete listings of criminal cases. Perhaps the biggest hole is that small-scale sellers, including many who do business at gun shows, are not required to do background checks - the so-called gun show loophole.

The law's provision on the mentally ill is extremely porous, too. It prohibits gun possession by a person "adjudicated as a mental defective" by a court or other authority. Most people with serious mental illness never receive such adjudication, and those who do can petition courts to have it reversed. Many mass shootings have been carried out by people who were recognized by those around them as being deeply disturbed, yet were able to own guns legally.

From 1994 to 2004, federal law also banned the sale of many types of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, but the law expired and has not been renewed. A few states have assault weapon bans of their own that remain in place.

In fact, most gun controls exist at the state level, with New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Illinois and Massachusetts being the most restrictive.

Some states have more stringent background check systems than the federal one, for example, and some require checks before private sales like those at gun shows. Some states require a license or permit to own a gun, but most do not.

Laws on carrying weapons vary enormously. Most states allow anyone who legally owns a gun to carry it openly, in public, without requiring a license or permit. A few states also have no permit requirement to carry a concealed gun. Concealed carry requires a permit in most states, but the majority of those states grant the permits automatically to any legal gun owners who want them. States also vary in their rules on gun possession in specific settings, like campuses and houses of worship.

For example, in Rhode Island, any person with a concealed carry permit can bring a gun onto the grounds of a public school, but next door in Massachusetts, written permission from school officials is required - and rarely given.

3. What do law enforcement authorities say about gun control?

There is no consensus. In fact, law enforcement officials have the same kinds of cultural and regional divides as everyone else.

In general, big-city police chiefs are more likely to support gun control, and small-town chiefs and sheriffs are more likely to oppose it. Those in the Northeast are more likely than those in the South and West to favor it.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association endorses closing the gun show loophole, strengthening the background check system, reinstating the assault weapons ban and other measures. The Major County Sheriffs' Association disagrees on assault weapons, but agrees on strengthening background checks.

The National Sheriffs Association, which includes more sparsely populated areas, has stated that it "does not support any laws that deprive any citizen of the rights provided" by the Second Amendment. And some rural sheriffs have simply refused to enforce new controls.

4. Where does the American public stand?

Over the past 25 years, Americans' support for stricter gun control laws has been generally declining even as the number of mass shootings is on the rise. While some high-profile shootings have resulted in calls for increased restrictions, that support has proved fleeting thus far. Gun control is one of the most sharply divisive issues in the U.S. today.

This chart, compiled by the Roper Center, provides a summary of public opinion on the issue since 1989. The most recent reading was taken in mid-September by Quinnipiac University, and found Americans were evenly divided. Several polls in the last several months have shown a similar divide with majorities of Democrats and those without a gun in their households favoring more restrictions on guns and majorities of Republicans and gun owners voicing opposition.

The results, however, also depend in part on how you ask the question. Surveys that ask broadly whether people favor stricter gun laws show the public roughly evenly divided but when surveys ask people about specific gun restrictions, the picture becomes much more pro-control.

Overwhelming majorities support universal background checks, and steps to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Those changes have vast support among Republicans and Democrats, and gun owners and non-owners alike. (In 2013, The New York Times profiled several people from across the country who had intimate experiences with firearms, including gun enthusiasts who fell on both sides of the gun control debate.) Majorities also favor the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, and an assault weapons ban, though answers to those question show more of a partisan divide.

5. What are the arguments against gun control?

The arguments come down to principle, law and practicality.

Gun rights advocates see weapon possession as a matter of individual rights. They say that people have the right to arm themselves for hunting, self-defense, sport - or just because they want to.

Legally, the debates often come down to the Second Amendment, whose 18 th century context and language have been endlessly parsed and debated: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun rights advocates say that means an individual right to gun possession, while gun control advocates say it means the people's collective right, through a militia.

For generations, the Supreme Court avoided directly answering the question, though its decisions were often seen as favoring the collective interpretation. But in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time, in a 5-to-4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have firearms. Even so, debates continue to rage on what sorts of limitations on that right are allowable.

On a practical level, gun owners argue that the weapons actually make society safer, giving people the power of self-defense, and dissuading criminals from victimizing people who might be armed. In particular, they say that an armed citizen can stop a mass shooter.

6. What are the arguments in favor?

They begin with numbers. The United States has far more gun ownership than other developed countries, and far more gun violence. In 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation had more than 33,000 firearms deaths: 70 percent of all homicides (11,208), more than half of all suicides (21,175), and hundreds of accidental and unsolved deaths.

Fewer guns, better records on who has them, and some restrictions on purchase, possession and storage, gun control advocates argue, would still allow law-abiding people to have firearms, while resulting in far fewer deaths. They contend that it is not a question of disarming the public or absolutes - most people agree that individuals should not have bazookas or machine guns - but a matter of where to draw sensible limits.

While gun-rights advocates say more people armed equal a safer society, people who favor gun control say the opposite is true: the more people carry weapons, the more likely it is that an everyday dispute can escalate to lethal force. Social scientists say there is little reliable data one way or another.

7. Why does nothing get done about gun control?

Gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, form a powerful lobby that politicians fear to cross. For many of them, it is a core voting issue, a line they will not cross, which, as President Obama recently lamented, is less often true for those who want gun control.

These advocates have effectively deployed the argument that after mass shootings, when emotions run high - and interest in new restrictions spikes - is not the time to debate the issue.

Opponents of gun control often talk about President Obama wanting to take guns away from lawful owners, and although he has never proposed to do that, many gun owners continue to believe it.

The gun lobby has also become more unyielding in recent years. The N.R.A. has hardened its opposition to expanded background checks, for example, and after years in which the group gave subdued responses to mass shootings, after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, famously declared that school employees should have been armed, because " The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Over the past generation, American politics have become more bitterly partisan, and regional divisions more rigid. As a result, gun control has become an increasingly partisan issue, with Republicans more uniformly opposed - at a time when Congress and most state houses are in Republican hands.

The result is that in recent years, states have gone in opposing directions. Responding in many cases to the same mass shootings, some have made their gun laws stricter (such as Oregon and Connecticut) while about the same number (including Arkansas and Georgia) have made theirs weaker.

In Congress and in more conservative and rural states, gun control tends to be a non-starter. Gun control advocates say politicians' fear of the gun rights lobby is exaggerated, but even in swing states and some more liberal ones, that lobby has a reputation for punishing those who step out of line.

After Colorado enacted new gun controls, in 2013, gun rights groups succeeded in recalling two Democratic state senators who had voted for the measures, including the Senate leader. In 2014, they targeted two Democratic governors who had signed tougher gun restrictions into law, John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, but both were narrowly re-elected.

Another example of the gun lobby's power came after Smith & Wesson broke with the rest of the gun industry in 2000, agreeing to several control measures to settle government lawsuits over gun violence. The N.R.A. led a boycott of Smith & Wesson, its sales plummeted, and rather than setting an example that other gun makers would follow, the company backed out of the deal.

Megan Thee-Brennan and Catrin Einhorn contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore. has reignited debate over gun control and gun rights in the United States. Below are a series of questions drawn from what people have been searching for on Google since the shooting - and an attempt to answer them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Control Policies Have Been Destructive, Ineffective, And Unnecessary

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Control Policies Have Been Destructive, Ineffective, And Unnecessary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guns are a totem in society, an emblem that seems to represent either the epitome of freedom, or fear. Unlike most Americans, I find myself seeing both representations when I look at guns. The "gun nut" culture that fetishizes gun ownership scares and bewilders me. I own guns, but I am not a "proud" gun owner nor do I understand the reason to flaunt my ownership to those who do not approve, other than to satisfy some deranged psychosis.

Growing up in Alaska as I did meant that guns were a regular part of life, in my case primarily for subsistence hunting. Alaska is a very rural place to put it mildly, and it was easy growing up to understand that people desired guns to protect themselves - from intruders both of the human and animal variety - given that police protection was not always readily available. This is not to say that my upbringing has deluded me from the stark reality of guns; they are deadly weapons that kill a lot of innocent Americans. Gun ownership is also a protected right in the United States. When you merge these two realities together, the question inevitably becomes to what degree should the right to own guns be curtailed in order to prevent gun deaths?

For many, the answer is wholesale prohibition of certain guns from society. Prohibition is not a crazy idea to begin with really. Thinking that banning, or rationing and restricting, the use of something, which can cause harm, might be a good way to mitigate the harm is a logical inference to start with. However, when implemented, the policy of prohibition comes with a far worse negative effect on certain demographics than the harm it is designed to prevent.

As the artist and activist Killer Mike put it recently, gun "laws are going to affect us worse, and they are going to affect us first." The simple facts prove his prediction is correct. Wherever strict prohibition style gun control measures are implemented, a negative impact has been disproportionately felt on black people. Therefore, the destructive ends that prohibitionist policies reap on whole categories of my fellow Americans represents my primary justification in opposing them. What frustrates me is that I typically do not have to try to convince liberals of how prohibition policies in the context of drugs end up targeting communities of color. When it comes to guns however, my liberal friends often seem to turn a blind eye to the great pain that prohibition inflicts or simply view it as an unfortunate consequence to a worthwhile policy goal they feel will save lives. Which brings me to my second point of contention.

My second main objection to most gun control measures is that they are ineffective. After every horrific instance of gun violence (a form of violence that is decreasing not increasing in society, more on that below), it is endlessly said that gun control is the "solution." Yet, whenever that claim is tested, in virtually every case it is shown that "none of today's gun control measures" would have kept the firearm from being in the perpetrators hands. If these policies worked, maybe those who fall victim to their disproportionate impact could find some measure of solace. The fact that such measures do not work however only adds further insult to an already costly injury.

The third reason I oppose most gun control prohibitions is that they are unnecessary. Despite gloom and doom proclamations to the contrary, gun violence, including in our nation's schools, is declining. But if you base your beliefs about the rate of gun violence in our country from watching the news, your beliefs are going to be incorrect. This is not, as many of our current president's supporters like to claim because of "fake news" or a mainstream media conspiracy. Instances of gun violence, including in our nation's schools are very real, but also undeniably less common than they once were.

Four decades ago, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that people assume a distorted sense of risk based on how easily they can recall events from memory. Instances of gun violence in schools are legitimate newsworthy events that cause a tremendous amount of terror and grief that rightfully should stay in our minds. They are also, thankfully, not accurate indicators for the current state of violence in this country. It behooves us to keep an accurate perception of gun violence in mind to avoid reactionary prohibition laws that are far reaching and brutally enforced on certain segments of the population.

In the years since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, the murder rate has fallen drastically, including during the last few years. Of course, the United States still has more gun violence than other countries, which is undoubtedly because of the sheer amount of guns in our society. However, as Jeffrey Goldberg pointed out years ago, it's simply not rational to believe that we can solve the problem of gun violence by relying on prohibition policies. That is not to say that we simply throw up our hands to the problem. There are a number of legitimately hopeful policies that I would support; including gun-violence restraining orders, universal background checks, and diverting more resources towards mental healthcare. What we should not do is compound societal problems by constantly turning to destructive, ineffective, and unnecessary policies.
Tyler Broker is the Free Expression and Privacy Fellow at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review and the Albany Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control Policies Have Been Destructive, Ineffective, And Unnecessary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guns are a totem in society, an emblem that seems to represent either the epitome of freedom, or fear. Unlike most Americans, I find myself seeing both representations when I look at guns. The "gun nut" culture that fetishizes gun ownership scares and bewilders me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The state of gun violence in the US, explained in 18 charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We were all shaken, once again, by the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. Our hearts go out to the friends, family, teachers and community of those innocent lives lost.

The question we're all desperately asking, now, is how to prevent future school shootings, and how to prevent what can be viewed as nothing short of pathological normalcy.

Since the beginning of 2018 there have been 18 school shootings in the United States, and since 2013 nearly 300. What is so shocking is the lack of action in Congress and the White House to directly address this horrifying event and, indeed, series of events. The fact that this kind of violence is becoming a "normal" event is astounding, outrageous, and terrifying.

While some commentaries speak about prevention efforts aimed at addressing the mental illness of perpetrators, we know from the Safe School Initiative of the Secret Service in 2002 and from many other studies that millions of youth fit the profile of this alleged assailant - angry, aggressive, marginalized, isolated, and having access to firearms, possibly including an assault rifle. We also know that many others have histories of family loss, bullying, and/or turmoil and emotional problems. And most have given warnings of some kind in advance.

But as the Secret Service concluded, this profile characterizes so many millions of adolescents and young adults, that we can never predict who is going to take murderous action. Mental health is easy to see as the target of root cause and preventative efforts. But it misses the boat.

Some have argued that anyone who would do what the latest alleged perpetrator did is, by definition mentally ill. We hear over and over from some politicians and the NRA, that "it's the individual, not the assault rifle." This kind of allegation is clearly an over-simplification. Not all murderers have mental illness, though some do for sure.

What we do know is that anyone who threatens or is determined to be a danger to self or others may be committed to a psychiatric facility involuntarily under the Baker Act, and this is where psychiatrists may well be able to help. When there are warning signs of immanent harm, an involuntary psychiatric evaluation with possible commitment to a psychiatric facility is called for.

Beyond mandated psychiatric evaluations, there are strong considerations of limiting access to firearms if one is considered a danger to self or others. In fact, there are petitions to limit access to firearms for any individual with an "extreme protection order."

This is where mental health professionals can intervene to evaluate an individual; when the public is in danger; and where limitations of firearms due to serious questions of mental illness must be evaluated immediately.

But saying that mental illness in general is the root cause of gun shootings and screening or other preventative measures would be the right and effective course of action to protect the public fails to be an effective or efficient approach. The current and proposed approaches for enhanced background checks, though admirable and necessary, are inherently flawed in many ways.

The fact is that over 20% of youth and adults in the United States have a mental illness. If we choose to go down the path of identifying and caring for mental illness as part of this mission, we need to cast a very wide net - something that would, indeed, be wonderful for our society - but not clearly and directly related to preventing gun violence. 24% of individuals in our nation will at some point in their lives suffer a mental illness. 50% of psychiatric disorders begin before age 14 and 75% begin by age 26.

But these efforts, while praiseworthy, are off the present mark.

Individuals with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. And if we walk down the garden path of blaming mental illness, those who have any history of substance use, mood, anxiety, autistic spectrum, attention deficit disorder and learning disorders, impulse disorders, or a wide range of other problems are at risk of losing their right to bear arms. Background checks are, indeed necessary, but when a psychiatric disorder surfaces, whom do we include and whom do we exclude? Our constitutional right is up for grabs.
What We Can and Should Do
Now for the low hanging fruit: The fact is, as aptly noted in the New York Times Opinion article, How to Reduce Shootings, that there are clear actions that should be taken. The United States has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, the largest arsenal of personal firearms, and the least set of regulations. The argument that placing more restrictions on the procurement and use of firearms and banning military assault rifles threatens the second amendment is patently false.

As the author of the NY Times article correctly implies, violating motor vehicle regulations such as speeding infractions, DUIs, failing car inspections, or not using seat belts would eliminate one's ability to own a car. Sure, these violations may restrict one's use of a motor vehicle, but the inception and increased restrictions on use of motor vehicles have decreased deaths by 95%. The rules for owning and operating cars has not limited our right or ability to own them.

The same argument is true for our ability to own firearms - while we have this right, we need far more restrictions. Facts are facts: When the 10-year ban on assault rifles from 1994-2005 was in effect, mass shootings fell by 37%. When it was lifted, since 2005, it rose 183%.

New firearm legislation would save lives. Why then, is Congress stalled? Why will they not even debate the issue of banning assault rifles?

Some might disagree noting that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right - very different from our right to own cars. However, the 2nd Amendment as originally written, addresses the right to bear arms for a militia to protect the security of a free state. Historically, this has been broadened and interpreted as individual's right to bear arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court in 2008, uncoupled the original connection with a militia and extended it for other purposes such as self-defense. But it also ruled that "dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected by the second amendment.

We also need to ask the right questions, draw the right conclusions, and explore possible solutions that are backed by evidence. President Trump today claimed that violent video games and movies cause violent behavior when there is no scientific basis that there is any causal relationship between violent videogames or movies and mass shootings.

What we do need to know is whether there is a correlation between certain vulnerable youth, who may already have aggressive traits, and their exposure to violent media leading to more aggressive behavior.
The Issue of Copycat Phenomena and the Media
The other consideration is the need for more resources to study copycat behavior in homicides and mass killings. Research has clearly demonstrated that media coverage of suicides may increase copycat behavior among adolescents for about a two-week period, and there is some evidence to support the same for mass shootings.

The evidence is so convincing that the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), along with others, developed guidelines for media coverage of suicides to prevent copycat phenomena. They also produced Recommendations for Reporting on Mass Shootings, including instruction to media outlets to avoid reporting that increases misunderstanding and prejudice of mental illness, and to include information about treatment and prevention.

While we do need to ensure that those who carry firearms are mentally sound and need more complete background checks on individuals seeking firearms, this is no time to play the mental health card.

We desperately need to keep our children and society safe. We need action to prevent more devastating events like the one we just endured in Parkland, Florida. There is too much at risk.

Gene Beresin is Executive Director of the MGH Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds. For parents who want to learn more about how to talk with your kids about school shootings see Another Shooting - An Important Moment to Comfort and Talk With Our Kids. And for more about the red herring of guns and mental illness see the article posted on The MGH Clay Center.

A version of this blog was originally posted on the MGH Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preventing School Shootings: It's Guns, Not Mental Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We were all shaken, once again, by the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. Our hearts go out to the friends, family, teachers and community of those innocent lives lost. The question we're all desperately asking, now, is how to prevent future school shootings, and how to prevent what can be viewed as nothing short of pathological normalcy.