# data[].attributes.headline
Background checks can take up to thirty days to be completed

# data[].attributes.subject
Background checks can take up to thirty days to be completed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The presence of a gun dangerously compounds the risk of impulsive acts of violence, especially suicide. Waiting periods, or "cooling off" laws, create an important window of time for gun purchasers to reconsider their intentions, which can lead to a change of heart and a saved life. In addition, waiting periods provide additional time for the completion of a thorough background check.

Waiting period laws require a certain number of days to pass between when a gun is first purchased and when the buyer may actually take possession of it. The two main functions of waiting periods are to:

Give law enforcement officials sufficient time to properly perform a background check on prospective purchasers.

Provide a "cooling off" period to help guard against impulsive acts of violence-especially suicide.

There is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law allows a dealer to deliver a gun to a purchaser as soon as a background check is completed (which usually only takes a few minutes), or after three business days have passed-even if a background check still hasn't been completed. This gap in the law, known as "default proceed" or the Charleston Loophole, allowed Dylann Roof to obtain a firearm and kill nine people at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston on June 16, 2016. This was not an isolated case; each year, over 3,000 ineligible persons receive firearms through this default provision. For such cases, it takes the FBI an average of 25 days to determine that a purchaser is ineligible to receive firearms. As a result, the FBI has recommended extending the research time to complete background checks to reduce the number of prohibited people-such as those subject to domestic violence restraining orders-able to purchase firearms by default. For more information on this issue, see our summary on Background Check Procedures.

In addition to providing a wider window for federal authorities to complete important background checks, waiting periods also help reduce the occurrence of suicides and other impulsive acts of violence. Suicides constitute two-thirds of all gun deaths in the U.S., with more than 21,000 suicides by firearm per year. Guns are an extremely common means of suicide; half of all suicides in the U.S. are carried out with a firearm.

When compared to other means of attempting suicide, guns are uniquely lethal. More than 90% of suicide attempts with a firearm result in death. Suicide attempts by jumping, in comparison, carry a 34% fatality rate, and attempts by drug poisoning only a 2% fatality rate. In other words, a person who attempts suicide by a method other than firearm is more likely to live than a person who uses a gun.

This fact is incredibly important because almost all people who survive a suicide attempt go on to live out their lives and do not subsequently die by suicide. Contrary to common belief, the vast majority of suicide survivors recover and do not remain suicidal.

In addition, suicide is a highly impulsive act. A variety of studies confirm that most suicide survivors contemplated their actions for only a brief period of time-often less than 24 hours-before making a suicide attempt. Because of the impulsive nature of suicide, immediate access to firearms is a major mortality risk factor and one that waiting periods can help address.

The tragic story of Kerry Lewiecki shows what can happen when guns are immediately accessible to people with sudden suicidal impulses. In the summer of 2010, Kerry was a 27-year-old law school graduate with a supportive family, large network of friends, and promising future. He was engaged to his longtime girlfriend, Sara Miller, and their wedding was just a few months away. However, to the complete shock of everyone who knew him, on June 24, 2010, Kerry bought a gun and within just a few hours used it to take his own life. Kerry purchased the gun in Oregon, where-as in most states-waiting periods are not required. His father told reporters that "had he not been able to purchase a handgun so easily, I think there's a good chance it might not have happened." Given that many people contemplate suicide for only a few hours before making an attempt, it's easy to see how a waiting period of just a few days could have made an enormous difference in Kerry's case and in other's like his across the nation.

In fact, states with waiting period laws for gun purchases have lower rates of suicide. Research published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that states with waiting period laws had 51% fewer firearm suicides and a 27% lower overall suicide rate than states without such laws. When South Dakota repealed its 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases in 2009, overall suicides the following year increased by 7.6%.

Waiting period laws have also been shown to reduce gun homicides. One study found that waiting period laws reduce gun homicides by 17%. These results suggest that, combined, states with waiting periods avoid roughly 750 gun homicides per year as a result of this policy. If all states implemented waiting periods, an additional 910 gun homicides could be prevented each year.

Preventing immediate access to the most lethal means of suicide is a lifesaving policy that is supported by gun owners and the general public alike. Americans strongly support waiting periods for firearm purchases. A December 2011 poll found that 74% of people without a firearm in the home support a five-day waiting period for the purchase of firearms, while 66% of non-NRA gun-owners and 50% of NRA members support this measure. Similarly, a survey conducted for the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2013 found that 76% of Americans, including 67% of gun owners, support giving law enforcement up to 5 business days, if needed, to complete a background check for gun buyers. Implementing waiting periods nationwide for gun purchases would reduce the more than 21,000 firearm suicides that occur each year in this country.

There is no federal waiting period. Under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a dealer may transfer a firearm to a prospective purchaser as soon as he or she passes a background check. If the FBI is unable to complete a background check within three business days, the dealer may complete the transfer by default.

Federal law doesn't require private sellers to perform background checks on gun purchasers. Accordingly, persons purchasing firearms from private sellers may take immediate possession of their weapons, unless state or local law provides otherwise.

Nine states and the District of Columbia have waiting periods that apply to the purchase of some or all firearms. See our summary on Background Check Procedures for state laws that prohibit gun sales or transfers until a background check is completed.

Other states require gun purchasers to obtain a license or permit prior to the purchase. Licensing laws of this kind play a similar role to waiting period laws. See our policy page on Licensing for information about licensing laws.

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Purchases of All Firearms

California - 10 days
District of Columbia - 10 days
Florida - 3 days or the time it takes to complete required background checks, whichever occurs later.
Hawaii - 14 days
Illinois - 24 hours for long guns; 72 hours for handguns (*Will become 72 hours for all firearms effective Jun. 1, 2019)
Rhode Island - 7 days

California, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia impose a statutory waiting period on all firearm purchases. Subject to limited exceptions, California and the District of Columbia require a ten-day waiting period for all firearm purchases. Rhode Island imposes a seven-day waiting period for all purchases of firearms unless the purchaser is a law enforcement officer. However, the seller must deliver the firearm to the purchaser if, within seven days, he or she does not receive background check information disqualifying the potential buyer from purchasing the firearm.

In Hawaii, all firearm purchases require issuance of a permit, and no permit may be issued earlier than 14 calendar days after the date of the application. This does not include sales to state or federally licensed dealers, law enforcement officers, persons with a license to carry a handgun, or where a firearm is brought into the state and registered in accordance with the state's registration statute. All permits must be issued or the application denied before the twentieth day from the date of application.

In Illinois, it is unlawful for anyone to deliver a firearm prior to the expiration of the statutory waiting periods, which are currently set at 24 hours for long guns and 72 hours for handguns. Effective June 1, 2019, however, Illinois law will extend the 72-hour waiting period to both long gun and handgun purchases.

Florida has a mandatory waiting period between the purchase and delivery of any firearm sold by a licensed firearm dealer. The mandatory waiting period is either 3 days, excluding weekends and holidays, or the time it takes to complete the required criminal background check-whichever occurs later. Some sales are exempt from the waiting period law, including purchases by people with hunting licenses, law enforcement officers, and servicemembers. Because Florida's waiting period extends beyond three days if it takes longer to conduct a background check, and covers the entire duration it takes to complete the background check, Florida's waiting period law has the effect of closing the default proceed loophole for many firearm transactions conducted by licensed gun dealers.

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Certain Classes of Weapons

Minnesota - 7 days (handguns and assault weapons)
Washington - 10 days (semiautomatic rifles, effective July 1, 2019)

Minnesota imposes either a five-day or a seven-day waiting period (the law is unclear) on transfers of handguns and assault weapons from the day the dealer delivers a transfer report to the police chief or sheriff. The police chief or sheriff may waive part of the waiting period in writing if he or she finds that the transferee requires access to a handgun or assault weapon because of a threat to the life of the transferee or a member of the transferee's household. The waiting period does not apply to transfers by private sellers.

States Imposing Waiting Periods for Handguns Only

Iowa - 3 days
Maryland - 7 days
New Jersey - 7 days

Iowa, Maryland, and New Jersey have waiting periods for handgun purchases only.

3-Day Waiting Periods

Florida imposes a mandatory three-day waiting period, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the retail purchase and delivery of any firearm.

In Iowa, no handgun may be transferred until the transferee obtains a permit to purchase the handgun, which becomes valid three days after the date of application.

7-Day Waiting Periods

In Maryland, any person who transfers a handgun must wait seven days from the time a prospective purchaser completes an application to purchase the firearm and the application is forwarded to the Secretary of the Maryland State Police.

New Jersey prohibits retail firearm dealers from delivering a handgun to any person unless he or she possesses a valid permit to purchase a handgun and at least seven days have elapsed since the date of application for the permit. Since each permit is valid for only one handgun purchase, this effectively creates a seven-day waiting period for all handgun sales.

Exceptions to Waiting Period Laws

Among states with statutory waiting periods only for handguns, Florida and Iowa exempt concealed weapons permit holders from these waiting periods. Florida also exempts persons trading in another handgun. Most states exempt sales to law enforcement.

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

A waiting period is established for all firearm purchases, of sufficient duration to allow a cooling-off period prior to the purchaser taking possession of the firearm (California, District of Columbia-10 days, Hawaii-14 days, Rhode Island-7 days).

Permits to carry firearms in public do not exempt a purchaser from the waiting period (California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, District of Columbia).

Transfer of firearms is prohibited until the background check process has been completed, regardless of whether the waiting period has elapsed (Maryland).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Waiting Periods | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The presence of a gun dangerously compounds the risk of impulsive acts of violence, especially suicide. Waiting periods, or "cooling off" laws, create an important window of time for gun purchasers to reconsider their intentions, which can lead to a change of heart and a saved life.

# data[].attributes.headline
gun control can prevent school shootings.

# data[].attributes.subject
gun control can prevent school shootings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun control won't prevent school shootings. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun control won't prevent school shootings. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our gun-data spreadsheet now includes spending on state- and federal-level lobbying; state and federal contributions from gun control groups, gun rights groups, and gun manufacturers; contributions to members of Congress; and current NRA data.

Gun violence is a fact of life in the United States, and mass shootings continue to occur with frightening regularity.

Mass shootings are often quickly politicized as lawmakers and members of the public alike grapple with how to address senseless gun violence. But organizations on both sides of the issue have been working in Washington for decades, contributing to decades of political gridlock broken in June 2022 by the bipartisan gun safety bill.

National outcry for solutions after several high-profile mass shootings preceded recent legislative action. Less than two weeks after a May 10 shooting left 10 people in the Tops Friendly Markets in Buffalo, N.Y., dead and several others injured, 19 children and two adults were in an elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Between the two mass casualty events, another left one dead and multiple injured at a Taiwanese church in California. The and shootings are being investigated as hate crimes.

Congress passed bipartisan legislation that expanded background checks for buyers under 21, funds state intervention programs including so-called "red flag" laws and allocates millions for mental health and school safety resources. The bill also cracks down on gun trafficking and straw purchasers and expands the ban on domestic abusers to include serious or recent partners. Fifteen Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the legislation, although a majority of congressional Republicans, backed by prominent gun rights groups including the National Rifle Association, opposed the bill as too broad.

President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on June 25, 2022.

A week later, a gunman killed seven people at a 4th of July parade in the Highland Park neighborhood in Chicago. The killing highlighted acknowledged limitations of the bipartisan bill to stop such mass shootings, but broader bans on assault rifles or other weapons are unlikely to pass the current Congress.

We've been here before

Deadly shootings across the country shock the conscience and spur debate in both communities and Congress.

In April 2019, a shooting at a synagogue in the town of Poway in Southern California killed one and injured three in what officials deem a hate crime. The Poway synagogue shooting came exactly six months after a man spouting anti-Semitic slurs opened fire on worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in an attack that left 11 dead. The Anti-Defamation League described the Tree of Life shooting as on the Jewish community in American history.

The deadliest mass shooting in modern American history occurred one year earlier, in Oct. 2017, at a Las Vegas music festival, resulting in the deaths of 58 concertgoers and injuring hundreds more.

Only 16 months before that, a gunman armed with a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle murdered 49 people and injured 58 at an Orlando nightclub in what was then the country's worst mass shooting. The horrific attack in Orlando came less than six months after a man and a woman opened fire at a San Bernardino, Calif., social services center, killing 14 and injuring 22.

The issue of how to strike a balance between gun rights and public safety has been a political hot potato for years. Prominent gun rights organizations consistently spent millions more on lobbying in Washington than their gun control counterparts, according to OpenSecrets data, contributing to decades-long stalemate.

But former President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to protect Second Amendment rights and often warned gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are "under assault." In an April 2019 speech to NRA members, he will not ratify America's participation in the international Arms Trade Treaty, which would provide some international oversight on arms sales.

In opposition to the Republicans, the Democratic-controlled House prioritized passing gun control legislation. The House previously with some bipartisan support that strengthen and expand the background check process and reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, because of the bill's measure that seeks to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining guns.

In June 2016, Democrats mounted a successful filibuster that forced Senate Republicans to vote on four gun control proposals - none of which passed.

A .44 caliber political issue

The last major piece of gun control legislation to make it into law prior to the bipartisan gun bill passed in June was the assault weapons ban, passed in 1994 as part of a larger crime-related bill approved by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton. But the ban, which applied to the manufacture of 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and other guns with similar features, expired in 2004, and repeated attempts to renew it failed.

81% of Americans

told Pew Research Center in 2021 that they support expanding background checks to include private firearm sales and purchases at gun shows, including a majority of Republican respondents. Preventing individuals with mental illnesses from purchasing guns is also supported by the vast majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Some Democrats thought their support for the assault weapons ban cost them control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. Whether or not that's true, there's little question that the politics of gun ownership have swung to the right. Republicans largely oppose gun control, and Democrats are split, with some lawmakers cautious about going against the views of more conservative constituencies, especially in rural districts.

Gun control versus gun rights was a major issue of the 2020 presidential election. One Democratic candidate, Rep. (D-Calif.) made the central issue he ran on. The necessity of more gun control legislation was among all Democratic candidates, several of whom own guns.

Despite highly publicized mass shootings, no earlier gun control measures, with the exception of the bump stock ban, made it into law prior to the recent bipartisan gun safety legislation.

OpenSecrets of the 46 senators who voted against the amendment had accepted significant campaign contributions from the political action committees of gun rights groups. There were exceptions to the rule, notably the measure's sponsors, Sens. (D-W.Va.) and (R-Pa.). But in general, the correlation was a close one.

Guns and money

There's no denying that much of the strength of the leading gun rights organization - the NRA - comes from its broad and passionate membership base and its mastery of grassroots politics.

But if lawmakers seem to tiptoe around gun issues, that could be in part because the NRA and other gun rights groups are loaded for bear with a seemingly limitless stash of cash ammunition.

During the 2018 midterm elections, gun control groups outspent the NRA for the first time by a $2.6 million margin. But gun control groups' total $23.5 million in 2020 election spending was dwarfed by the NRA's spending that cycle, and gun control organizations are outpacing gun rights groups in outside spending ahead of the 2022 midterms.

The NRA spent $29.1 million in 2020 federal elections, most of that to support in the final months of the cycle, with around $19.5 million of that spending bankrolled by its newly created super PAC and $9 million by its traditional .

Just four years earlier, the group spent during the 2016 election cycle, breaking the group's prior spending records. Of that, $31.2 million went to supporting Trump's first presidential campaign. Most of the NRA's 2016 spending was routed through its main " " group, which does not disclose its donors.

During the 2018 election cycle, the NRA made around $9.4 million in outside expenditures, a significant decrease from the $27 million spent during the 2014 midterm election cycle and a massive drop from its 2016 presidential election spending.

Those interests gave $52 million to candidates and party committees from 1989 through the second quarter of 2022, with nearly all of that going to Democrats.

Despite being by gun rights lobbying and campaign contributions, gun control groups have increased outside spending since the 2018 election cycle. Gun control advocates $16.6 million into outside spending in 2020 compared to just $14,000 in 2016.

Most of the gun control movement's political clout comes from two well-connected organizations. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety super PAC is the leading outside spender supporting gun control. The super PAC $3.6 million of the total $4.4 million spent by gun control groups through May in the 2022 cycle. , a super PAC backed by Bloomberg, supports a variety of causes including stricter gun laws. After spending a whopping $56.5 million on the 2020 election, mostly supporting President , the super PAC has poured over $1 million into 2022 midterms as of May. It spent around $37.5 million on independent expenditures during the 2018 midterms. The money supports federal candidates who favor gun control and attacks those who do not.

Another major gun control lobby spender is , an organization founded by gun violence victim and former Rep. (D-Ariz.) and her husband, current U.S. Sen. (D-Ariz.), who is running for re-election in Arizona in the 2022 midterms. Giffords spent about $500,000 on in 2021. The group's hybrid PAC spent more than $11 million during the 2020 election cycle and spent about $6.6 million during the 2022 election cycle as of June figures from OpenSecrets.

Powerful gun rights groups including the NRA and have poured millions into lobbying, campaign contributions and outside spending to advocate for the right to bear arms. At least Americans owned guns in 2021.

Gun rights groups are still powerful in the realm of lobbying, consistently spending more money to influence policy than gun control organizations. Gun rights groups a record $15.8 million on lobbying in 2021 and have $190 million in lobbying efforts since 1998.

Gun rights advocates spent more than $114 million of that total since 2013. Lobbying by gun rights advocates nearly tripled in 2013 after a gunman murdered 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary on Dec. 14, 2012. The following year was the the Senate came to passing meaningful gun control legislation in the decade between the shooting and the bipartisan gun control bill.

Groups advocating for gun control spent a record $2.9 million in 2021. But gun control advocates, spearheaded by and Everytown for Gun Safety , spent just under $30 million on lobbying from 1998 through the second quarter of 2022 - about six times less than gun rights groups spent over the same period.
- Taylor Giorno, Anna Massoglia, Raymond Arke, Geoff West (July 2022)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our gun-data spreadsheet now includes spending on state- and federal-level lobbying; state and federal contributions from gun control groups, gun rights groups, and gun manufacturers; contributions to members of Congress; and current NRA data. Gun violence is a fact of life in the United States, and mass shootings continue to occur with frightening regularity.

# data[].attributes.headline
"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."

# data[].attributes.subject
"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."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Second Amendment of the United States 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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370. The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of a Washington D.C. law which prohibited the possession of handguns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Court meticulously detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention and proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms. The Court carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in dicta stated that firearm regulations would not implicate the Second Amendment if that weaponry cannot be used for law-abiding purposes. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

In 2010, the Court further strengthened Second Amendment protections in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856. The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionality of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. The Court lacked a majority on which specific clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

Several questions still remain unanswered, however, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. Generally, in constitutional law, courts subject statutes and ordinances to three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

Circuit Court opinions following Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold the following:

Regulations prohibiting weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant's conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property).

Regulations prohibiting possession of a handgun as a juvenile delinquent. , 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment).

Regulations requiring a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment).

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced its Heller ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S.Ct. 1027 (2016). The Court struck down a Massachusetts statute which prohibited the possession or use of "stun guns" by finding that "stun guns" are protected under the Second Amendment. While ruling largely on the reasoning of Heller, the opinion was per curiam and therefore did not significantly add to Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In 2022, the Supreme Court further expanded upon the precedent set by Heller in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law requiring parties interested in purchasing a handgun for the use of self-defense outside of the home to obtain a license because the law issued licenses on a "may-issue" rather than a "shall issue" basis. This "may issue" licensing method allowed state authorities to deny interested parties public use licenses for firearms if the interested party was unable to show "proper cause" as to why they have a heightened need for self-protection over the general population.

Furthermore, the Court disavowed the use of "means-end tests" many jurisdictions had adopted for the purposes of interpreting the Second Amendment, instead ruling that a Second Amendment analysis is limited to evaluating the historical nature of the right and whether a given use of a firearm or other weapon is deeply rooted in the history of the United States. Post- Bruen, courts can no longer use a standard scrutiny analysis like the one seen in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester to determine if a gun regulation is constitutional. Instead, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must "affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

In a concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Roberts emphasizes that Bruen is not intended to invalidate "shall-issue" licensing structures or other restrictions on firearm ownership including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, mandatory training requirements, and potential other requirements. Additionally, this concurrence draws a line between objective gun control measures, where an individual must pass a set of predetermined requirements, which are constitutional, and subjective gun control measures, such as licensing at a state official's discretion, which are not.

It remains to be seen how the ruling in Bruen and the sentiments espoused in this concurrence will influence cases going forward.

See also: C onstitutional Amendment.

[Last updated in June of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment of the United States 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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NRA-ILA | Concealed Carry | Right-to-Carry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, 42 states, accounting for 74 percent of the U.S. population, have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. Legislation introduced in Congress would require states to honor each other's concealed carry permits. Self-defense is a fundamental right, and the right to use firearms for self-defense is recognized by the Constitution of the United States, the constitutions of 44 states, the laws of all states, and the common law.

# data[].attributes.headline
"assault weapons" and "large Magazines" articles 

# data[].attributes.subject
"assault weapons" and "large Magazines" articles 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NRA-ILA | "Assault Weapons" | "Large" Magazines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The AR-15, the firearm that gun control supporters most often call an "assault weapon," is the most popular rifle on the market today, accounting for one-fourth of all rifles manufactured in the United States.

# 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.body
Video showing how the ¨Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019¨ is a endless loop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H.R. 1112 can purposely lose you in a background check loop

# data[].attributes.headline
Article on the "enhanced background checks act of 2019"

# data[].attributes.subject
Article on the "enhanced background checks act of 2019"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

A gun shop selling AR-15 rifles in Benson, Ariz. Credit Credit John Moore/Getty Images

WASHINGTON - The House this week is set to pass the first major gun control legislation in over two decades, with Democratic lawmakers expected to approve two measures strengthening background checks for all firearms sales.

The last time the House put high-profile legislation expanding gun control laws to a vote was in 1994, when it passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and made it illegal to manufacture a number of semiautomatic weapons for civilian use. That legislation expired after a decade and was not renewed by a Republican-controlled Congress.

But riding a new wave of urgency after a series of mass shootings - and the activism inspired by the school massacre in Parkland, Fla., last February in which 17 students and teachers were killed - House Democrats have pledged to take meaningful action on the issue, beginning with the twin bills.

Here's what you need to know about the measures and their odds in the Senate.

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which the House will take up on Wednesday, requires universal background checks, closing a loophole for buyers at gun shows and online. The legislation, sponsored by Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, also prohibits firearms transfers by a person who is not a licensed dealer. There are a number of exceptions, though, such as a family member giving a firearm as a gift, or lending a gun to someone in imminent danger.

The second piece of legislation, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, will be voted on Thursday. Sponsored by Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the majority whip, the bill seeks to extend the initial background check review period to 10 days from three.

Under federal law, the F.B.I. has three business days to perform its review and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to deny a purchase. If it is unable to do so, on the fourth day, the customer can return to the dealer and buy a gun. That loophole allowed Dylann S. Roof, the man who killed nine people at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., in 2015, to purchase a .45-caliber handgun even though he had previously admitted to drug possession, which should have barred him from legally obtaining the weapon.

A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings - including those in Newtown, Conn.; San Bernardino, Calif.; and Las Vegas - were bought legally and after the gunman passed a federal background check. At least nine attackers had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

"The new gun control restrictions currently being considered by the Democratic majority in H.R. 8 would not have prevented my shooting," Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the Republican whip, said of the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. Mr. Scalise was gravely wounded in 2017 when a gunman fired on members of the Republican congressional baseball team while they were practicing in Virginia.

But gun control advocates have praised the measures as a meaningful step toward change, and described the legislation as a necessary foundation for future work. Last year, the existing background check system identified and denied 88,000 gun sales to prohibited buyers including criminals and domestic abusers, according to Mr. Thompson's office - but those same people are currently able to make purchases at gun shows or online.

"We have fairly weak gun laws and we have loopholes that make it easy to have the levels of gun violence that we have right now, and we certainly have to do more to address it," said Robin Lloyd, the managing director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "But it is a critical first step."

The bills introduced by House Democrats closely mirror the last major attempt in the Senate to pass a gun control measure. Efforts led by Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, to require background checks at gun shows and online failed in the Democratic-led Senate in 2013 and again in the Republican-led Senate in 2015.

Otherwise, in the last two decades, most firearms legislation taken up by Congress has aimed to relax gun laws, such as attempts in the House and Senate to pass a concealed-carry reciprocity law allowing a person permitted to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry it in every state.

Despite the praise the legislation has received, it faces dim prospects in the Republican-controlled Senate. Only two Republicans who backed the Toomey-Manchin legislation - Mr. Toomey and Senator Susan Collins of Maine - are still serving in the chamber. And Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican, said on Tuesday that the Senate would not take up the bills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Guide to the House's First Major Gun Control Vote in Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The House this week is set to pass the first major gun control legislation in over two decades, with Democratic lawmakers expected to approve two measures strengthening background checks for all firearms sales.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guns are deeply ingrained in American society. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and around three-in-ten American adults personally own a gun. Most of these gun owners say the right to own firearms is essential to their own personal sense of freedom.

At the same time, gun violence - from big-city murders to mass shootings - has spurred debate in Congress and state legislatures over proposals to limit Americans' access to firearms. Counting murders and suicides, nearly 40,000 people died of gun-related violence in the United States in 2017, the highest annual total in decades.

Here are seven key findings about Americans' experiences with and attitudes toward guns, drawn from recent Pew Research Center surveys and other data sources.

1 Three-in-ten American adults (30%) say they personally own a gun, and an additional 11% say they live with someone who does, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March and April 2017. Whether or not they personally own a gun, Americans have broad exposure to firearms: Nearly half of U.S. adults (48%) grew up in a household with guns, nearly six-in-ten (59%) have friends who own guns and around seven-in-ten (72%) have fired a gun at some point in their lives - including 55% of those who have never personally owned a gun.

Among Americans who own a gun, nearly two-thirds (66%) say they own more than one, including 29% who own five or more. A large majority of gun owners (72%) own a handgun or pistol, while 62% own a rifle and 54% own a shotgun. About three-quarters of gun owners (73%) say they could never see themselves not owning a gun.

2 Protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners have a gun, according to the same survey. Two-thirds of gun owners (67%) say this as a major reason why they own a firearm. Considerably smaller shares say hunting (38%), sport shooting (30%), gun collecting (13%) or their job (8%) are major reasons. While men and women are about equally likely to cite protection (65% and 71%, respectively) as a major reason they own a gun, women are more likely than men to cite protection as the only reason (27% of women vs. 8% of men). Higher shares of male gun owners than female gun owners point to hunting (43% vs. 31%) and sport shooting (34% vs. 23%) as major reasons for gun ownership.

Regardless of whether they live in an urban, suburban or rural area, Americans are much more likely to cite protection than other considerations as a major reason for owning a gun. Rural gun owners, however, are far more likely than their urban and suburban counterparts to say hunting is a major reason why they own a firearm (48% of rural gun owners say this, compared with 34% of suburbanites and 27% of urbanites).

3 A majority of Americans say gun laws should be stricter. Nearly six-in-ten U.S. adults (57%) say gun laws should be more strict, while smaller shares say they are about right (31%) or should be less strict (11%), according to a survey conducted in September and October 2018. Yet these views differ sharply by party: Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (80%) say gun laws should be stricter while 28% of Republicans and GOP leaners say the same. For their part, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say gun laws are about right (52% vs. 15%) or should be less strict than they are today (20% vs. 4%).

Partisans are also deeply divided over whether it is more important to control gun ownership or protect gun rights, according to the same survey. Around three-quarters of Republicans (76%) say it's more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than it is to control gun ownership, while just 19% of Democrats agree. That 57-percentage-point partisan gap is up from a 29-point gap in 2008.

4 Many gun policy proposals are politically divisive, but there are some on which Republicans and Democrats agree, according to the fall 2018 survey. Around nine-in-ten Republicans and Democrats (both 89%) say people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns. Nearly as many in both parties (86% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans) say people on federal no-fly or watch lists should be barred from purchasing firearms. And majorities of both Democrats (91%) and Republicans (79%) favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

Other proposals bring out stark partisan rifts. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to favor allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in elementary and high schools (69% vs. 22%) and allowing people to carry concealed weapons in more places (68% vs. 26%). Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to favor banning assault-style weapons (81% vs. 50%) and high-capacity magazines (81% vs. 51%).

In addition to partisanship, gun ownership also affects Americans' views of gun policy proposals. Republicans who don't own a gun, for example, are much more likely than GOP gun owners to favor banning assault-style weapons (65% vs. 31%) and high-capacity magazines (63% vs. 35%). Among Democrats, gun owners are more than twice as likely as those who don't own a gun to favor expanded concealed carry (50% vs. 21%).

5 Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings. Debates over the nation's gun laws have often followed recent mass shootings. But Americans are split over whether legal changes would lead to fewer mass shootings, according to the fall 2018 poll. Nearly half of adults (47%) say there would be fewer mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally, while a similar share (46%) says there would be no difference. Very few (6%) say there would be more mass shootings if it was harder for people to obtain guns legally.

Americans are also split on a related question about the potential impact that more Americans owning guns would have on crime more broadly. While 37% of U.S. adults say there would be more crime if more Americans owned guns, 33% say there would be no difference and 29% say there would be less crime.

6 Many Americans say they know someone who has been shot. A significant share of Americans (44%) say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally, according to the spring 2017 survey. A majority of black adults (57%) say this, compared with 43% of whites and 42% of Hispanics. Gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to know someone who has been shot (51% vs. 40%).

Separately, about a quarter of Americans (23%) say someone has used a gun to threaten or intimidate them or someone in their family. There is again a racial gap: About a third of blacks (32%) say this, compared with 20% of whites. About a quarter of Hispanics (24%) say this has happened to them or their family members.

7 2017 saw more gun deaths in the U.S. than any year in decades, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The nearly 40,000 Americans who died of gun-related injuries in 2017 marked a 19% increase from 2012 and the highest annual total since the mid-1990s. The increase in gun deaths over five years included a 15% rise in suicides involving a gun and a 25% rise in murders involving a firearm. (The CDC data includes other categories as well, such as unintentional gun deaths and those involving police or other law enforcement agents.)

Taking overall population changes into account, there were 12 firearm-related deaths for every 100,000 people in 2017, a 14% increase from five years earlier. Despite the recent increase, however, the rate of gun-related deaths was considerably higher during the early and mid-1990s: In 1993, for example, there were 15.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people.
This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016, and written by Hannah Fingerhut, then a research analyst at Pew Research Center.
Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Gun Policy, Social Values, Violence and Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guns are deeply ingrained in American society. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and around three-in-ten American adults personally own a gun. Most of these gun owners say the right to own firearms is essential to their own personal sense of freedom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Picture showing how a bullet is made and how it fires.

# data[].attributes.subject
Picture showing how a bullet is made and how it fires.