# data[].attributes.headline
The aim of this pathfinder is to be the starting point for the Government class students in their research on  gun control in America

# data[].attributes.subject
The aim of this pathfinder is to be the starting point for the Government class students in their research on  gun control in America

# data[].attributes.headline
How can this matter be handled in terms of the following concepts:

# data[].attributes.subject
How can this matter be handled in terms of the following concepts:

# data[].attributes.body
2nd Amendment rights in the U.S. Constitution

Common sense gun laws

Mass shootings

Self-defense argument for guns

National Rifle Association (NRA)

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions

# data[].attributes.body
Destiny:

The platform we use to look for print books in the library. As soon as you select a book, just email the librarian to prepare it for you.

Check this video if you would like to know more about how to look for print books on Destiny.

Sora by Overdrive: Please log in using your school email address.

Reading e/audiobooks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Check These Books out from the MS/HS Library

# data[].attributes.subject
Check These Books out from the MS/HS Library

# data[].attributes.body
Please remember to log into Destiny, to access the resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guns are deeply ingrained in American society and the nation's political debates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, in response to concerns such as rising gun death rates and mass shootings, the U.S. surgeon general has taken the unprecedented step of declaring gun violence a public health crisis.

Here are some key findings about Americans' views of gun ownership, gun policy and other subjects, drawn from Pew Research Center surveys.

About four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one, according to a Center survey conducted in June 2023. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the last time we asked this question in 2021.

There are differences in gun ownership rates by political affiliation, gender, community type and other factors.

Party: 45% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents say they personally own a gun, compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Gender: 40% of men say they own a gun, versus 25% of women.

Community type: 47% of adults living in rural areas report owning a firearm, as do smaller shares of those who live in suburbs (30%) or urban areas (20%).

Race and ethnicity: 38% of White Americans own a gun, compared with smaller shares of Black (24%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%) Americans.

Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for having a firearm. About seven-in-ten gun owners (72%) say protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%).

Americans' reasons behind gun ownership have changed only modestly since we fielded a separate survey about these topics in spring 2017. At that time, 67% of gun owners cited protection as a major reason they had a firearm.

Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than nonowners who live with them do. For instance, 71% of gun owners say they enjoy owning a gun - but just 31% of nonowners living in a household with a gun say they enjoy having one in the home. And while 81% of gun owners say owning a gun makes them feel safer, a narrower majority of nonowners in gun households (57%) say the same. Nonowners are also more likely than owners to worry about having a gun at home (27% vs. 12%).

Feelings about gun ownership also differ by political affiliation, even among those who personally own a firearm. Republican gun owners are more likely than Democratic owners to say owning one gives them feelings of safety and enjoyment, while Democratic owners are more likely to say they worry about having a gun in the home.

Non-gun owners are split on whether they see themselves owning a firearm in the future. About half of Americans who don't own a gun (52%) say they could never see themselves owning one, while nearly as many (47%) could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future.

Among those who currently do not own a gun, attitudes about owning one in the future differ by party and other factors.

Party: 61% of Republicans who don't own a gun say they could see themselves owning one in the future, compared with 40% of Democrats.

Gender: 56% of men who don't own a gun say they could see themselves owning one someday; 40% of women nonowners say the same.

Race and ethnicity: 56% of Black nonowners say they could see themselves owning a gun one day, compared with smaller shares of White (48%), Hispanic (40%) and Asian (38%) nonowners.

A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country, according to the June 2023 survey. Far fewer (9%) say it is too hard, while another 30% say it's about right.

Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%). Gun owners, in turn, are more than twice as likely as nonowners to say the ease of obtaining a gun is about right (48% vs. 20%).

There are differences by party and community type on this question, too. While 86% of Democrats say it is too easy to obtain a gun legally, far fewer Republicans (34%) say the same. Most urban (72%) and suburban (63%) residents say it's too easy to legally obtain a gun, but rural residents are more divided: 47% say it is too easy, 41% say it is about right and 11% say it is too hard.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, while 15% favor less strict gun laws.

There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive. Majorities of U.S. adults in both partisan coalitions somewhat or strongly favor two policies that would restrict gun access: preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns (88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support this) and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old (69% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats). Majorities in both parties also oppose allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats oppose this).

Republicans and Democrats differ on several other proposals. While 85% of Democrats favor banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose these proposals (57% and 54%, respectively).

Most Republicans, on the other hand, support allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (74%) and allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (71%). These proposals are supported by just 27% and 19% of Democrats, respectively.

The public remains closely divided over whether it's more important to protect gun rights or control gun ownership, according to an April 2024 survey. Overall, 51% of U.S. adults say it's more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while a similar share (48%) say controlling gun ownership is more important.

Views have shifted slightly since 2022, when we last asked this question. That year, 47% of adults prioritized protecting Americans' rights to own guns, while 52% said controlling gun ownership was more important.

Views on this topic differ sharply by party. In the most recent survey, 83% of Republicans say protecting gun rights is more important, while 79% of Democrats prioritize controlling gun ownership.

Americans are slightly more likely to say gun ownership does more to increase safety than to decrease it. Around half of Americans (52%) say gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, while a slightly smaller share (47%) say gun ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing misuse. Views were evenly divided (49% vs. 49%) when we last asked in 2023.

Republicans and Democrats differ widely on this question: 81% of Republicans say gun ownership does more to increase safety, while 74% of Democrats say it does more to reduce safety.

Rural and urban Americans also have starkly different views. Among adults who live in rural areas, 64% say gun ownership increases safety, while among those in urban areas, 57% say it reduces safety. Those living in the suburbs are about evenly split in their views.

More than half of U.S. adults say an increase in the number of guns in the country is bad for society, according to the April 2024 survey. Some 54% say, generally, this is very or somewhat bad for society. Another 21% say it is very or somewhat good for society, and a quarter say it is neither good nor bad for society.

About half of Americans (49%) see gun violence as a major problem, according to a May 2024 survey. This is down from 60% in June 2023, but roughly on par with views in previous years. In the more recent survey, 27% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about a quarter say it is either a small problem (19%) or not a problem at all (4%).

A majority of public K-12 teachers (59%) say they are at least somewhat worried about the possibility of a shooting ever happening at their school, including 18% who are very or extremely worried, according to a fall 2023 Center survey of teachers. A smaller share of teachers (39%) say they are not too or not at all worried about a shooting occurring at their school.

School shootings are a concern for K-12 parents as well: 32% say they are very or extremely worried about a shooting ever happening at their children's school, while 37% are somewhat worried, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with at least one child younger than 18 who is not homeschooled. Another 31% of K-12 parents say they are not too or not at all worried about this.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, while 15% favor less strict gun laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
© Stephanie Frey/Fotolia

" Gun control" refers to any legal measure intended to prevent or restrict the possession or use of guns, particularly firearms. (In a broader historical sense, the term also refers to legal limits on the possession or use of other arms, including those that predate the invention of gunpowder.) In most developed countries, gun control is strict and uncontroversial. In others it is a fraught political issue, pitting those who regard it as necessary for public safety against those who view it as a dangerous infringement of personal liberty.

Nowhere in the world is gun control more controversial than in the United States, where gun possession is constitutionally protected but where murders (including mass murders) committed with guns are extremely common; the United States has by far the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among developed countries. Proponents of increased gun control in the United States argue that limiting access to guns will save lives and reduce crime; opponents insist that it would actually do the opposite by preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against armed criminals.

The gun-control debate in the United States also necessarily concerns the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 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." In keeping with the first clause of the amendment (the preamble), most U.S. courts, until the early 21st century, had understood it to guarantee the right of states to maintain militias or the right of individuals to "keep and bear arms" in connection with their service in a state militia, an interpretation that was consistent with a wide variety of existing restrictions on individual gun ownership and use. In United States v. Miller (1939), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did not prohibit laws requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns, because such weapons did not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly recognized an individual right to use firearms independent of service in a state militia for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Two years later, the court held (in ) that this interpretation of the amendment was applicable against state and local gun-control laws as well as against federal statutes.

In the United States, mass murders committed with guns are so frequent that the vast majority of them are not even mentioned in mainstream media outlets. Those that happen to be massive or heinous enough to gain national attention-including the murder of 49 people in an Orlando nightclub in 2016 and the massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012-typically spark a short-lived and fruitless debate about the need for stricter gun control. Politicians of both major parties, fearful of retaliation from the National Rifle Association (NRA), solemnly offer their "thoughts and prayers" while refusing to enact reasonable and constitutional measures now favored by a majority of Americans, such as expanded background checks for gun purchases and the reinstatement of a federal ban on assault weapons, which Congress allowed to lapse in 2004.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public safety versus individual liberty-what does it mean to control people's access to firearms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by frequent mass shootings in civilian settings. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and young adults in the United States. In particular, the ready availability of assault weapons and ammunition has provoked national discussion after multiple mass shootings of school children, most recently in Uvalde, Texas. However, Congress has repeatedly been unable to pass meaningful gun legislation in the wake of these tragedies despite broad public support for new restrictions.

Recent years have seen some of the worst gun violence in U.S. history. In 2021, guns killed more than forty-five thousand Americans, the highest toll in decades; and the upward trend is on track to continue.

Many gun control advocates say the United States should look to the experiences of wealthy democratic peers that have instituted tighter restrictions to curb gun violence.

United States

Gun ownership in the United States is rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution: "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."

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, has 46 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, according to the most recent report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (2018). It ranks number one in firearms per capita. The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate of the world's most-developed nations. Many gun rights proponents say these statistics do not indicate a causal relationship.

However, the right to bear arms is not unlimited. The U.S. Congress and state legislatures have authority to enact controlling legislation, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some firearms restrictions, such as bans on concealed weapons and on the possession of certain types of weapons, as well as prohibitions on the sale of guns to certain categories of people. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits individuals under eighteen years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all unlicensed individuals purchasing a firearm from a federally authorized dealer.

But some gun laws have not survived judicial review. For instance, in 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a Washington, DC, law that banned handguns, the court's first ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly seventy years.

Federal law provides the basis for firearms regulation in the United States, but states and cities can impose further restrictions. Some studies have indicated that states with more restrictive gun laws, such as California or Hawaii, have lower incidences of gun deaths, although researchers say more analysis is needed.

In recent years, Congress has debated changes to existing gun laws, typically in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile mass shooting, such as that in Las Vegas in 2017 (sixty people killed), or in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 (seventeen killed). But in almost every instance, legislation has failed to garner enough support. Ill-fated bills have proposed measures including an assault weapons ban, expanded background checks, and a prohibition on firearm sales to people on federal terrorism watch lists.

As of mid-2022, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. There was also no federal requirement for those purchasing a gun to have any firearm safety training. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and on large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire.

Meanwhile, gun violence has surged amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 2022, guns have killed some nineteen thousand people in the United States this year. The majority of those were in acts of suicide. Mass shootings-those with at least four victims-were occurring at a rate of at least one per day.

Canada

Gun ownership is also relatively high in Canada, at about thirty-five firearms per hundred residents (ranking fifth globally), but the country does not struggle with a similar level of gun violence. As in the United States, Canada's national government sets gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and municipalities can supplement. And like its southern neighbor, Canada's gun laws have often been prompted by gun violence. In 1989, a student armed with a semiautomatic rifle killed fourteen students and injured more than a dozen others at a Montreal engineering school. The incident is widely credited with driving major gun reforms that imposed a twenty-eight-day waiting period for purchases; mandatory safety training courses; more detailed background checks; bans on large-capacity magazines; and bans or greater restrictions on military-style firearms and ammunition.

Firearms in Canada are divided into three classes: nonrestricted weapons, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns; restricted, such as handguns and semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; and prohibited, such as automatic weapons. It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless it was registered before 1978.

Changes to the law in 1995 required individuals to obtain a license to buy guns and ammunition, as well as register all firearms. However, in 2012, the requirement to register nonrestricted guns was dropped, and related public records were expunged. Following another mass shooting, at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, the government passed a bill to again require nonrestricted firearms to be registered and allow background checks to consider events from more than five years in the past. In 2020, after a gunman killed twenty-two people in Canada's deadliest mass shooting, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a ban on "assault-style" firearms.. The legislation also required those who owned now-prohibited firearms to either participate in a buyback program or comply with a strict storage regime.

Australia

The inflection point for modern gun control in Australia was the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, when a young man killed thirty-five people and wounded nearly two dozen others. The rampage, perpetrated with a semiautomatic rifle, was the worst mass shooting in the nation's history. Less than two weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country's gun laws in cooperation with the various states and territories, which regulate firearms.

The National Agreement on Firearms [PDF] all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting, in Melbourne in 2002, Australia's handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts said these measures were highly effective, citing declines in gun-death rates and gun-related mass killings.

Following an uptick in gun sales in 2017, however, Australian gun control advocates warned against the easing of gun laws in some states and territories. The gun safety discussion was also influenced by the suspected murder-suicide of a family of seven in Western Australia, the country's worst mass shooting in two decades. Today, Australia has more guns in circulation than before the Port Arthur massacre, although the number of people who own them has fallen over the same period.

Israel

Military service is compulsory in Israel, and guns are a part of many Israelis' daily lives. Much of the population has indirect access to an assault weapon by either being a soldier or a reservist or a relative of one. By law, most eighteen-year-olds are drafted into the military, psychologically screened, and provided at least some weapons training after high school. After serving typically two or three years in the armed forces, however, most Israelis are discharged and subject to civilian gun laws.

The country has relatively strict gun regulations, including an assault-weapons ban, a requirement to register ownership with the government, and a limit of one gun per owner. To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be an Israeli citizen or permanent resident; speak at least some Hebrew, Israel's official language; and pass a health screening. The minimum-age requirements vary: twenty-seven years old for citizens with no military or national-service experience, twenty-one for those who have served, and forty-five for permanent residents who are not citizens. Applicants must also show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as self-defense or hunting.

United Kingdom

Modern gun control efforts in the United Kingdom (UK) have also been precipitated by extraordinary acts of violence that sparked public outrage. In 1987, a lone gunman armed with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly seventy miles west of London, killing more than a dozen people and then himself. In the wake of the incident, known as the Hungerford massacre, Britain introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons.

A gun-related tragedy in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996 prompted Britain's strictest gun laws yet. A man armed with four handguns shot and killed sixteen schoolchildren and one adult before committing suicide in the country's worst mass shooting to date. The incident sparked a public campaign known as the Snowdrop Petition, which helped drive legislation banning handguns, with few exceptions. The government also instituted a temporary gun buyback program, which many credit with taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply.

A large majority of police officers in the UK do not carry firearms, setting them apart from counterparts in the United States and other countries. Guns are limited to specially trained police units that respond to particular emergencies or deploy for certain types of operations. Supporters of the policy say the unarmed officer symbolizes policing of the public by consent as opposed to by force.

Norway

Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway-where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high-until a right-wing extremist killed seventy-seven people in attacks in Oslo and at an island summer camp in 2011. Though Norway ranks fourteenth worldwide in gun ownership, according to Small Arms Survey, it placed near the bottom in gun homicide rates. (The U.S. rate is roughly forty-four times higher.) Most Norwegian police, like the British, do not carry firearms.

In the wake of the tragedy, some analysts in the United States cited the rampage as proof that strict gun laws-which in Norway include requiring applicants to be at least eighteen years of age, specify a "valid reason" for gun ownership, and obtain a government license-are ineffective. Other gun control critics have argued that had other Norwegians, including the police, been armed, the gunman might have been stopped earlier and killed fewer victims.

After the massacre, an independent commission recommended tightening Norway's gun restrictions in various ways, including by prohibiting pistols and semiautomatic weapons, but changes were not made. In 2018, the Norwegian parliament approved a ban on semiautomatic firearms, which took effect in 2021.

Japan

Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan's highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun death rate. Most years, fewer than one hundred Japanese die from gun violence in a country of 125 million people. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite low, reflect this.

Under Japan's firearm and sword law [PDF], the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection.

Some analysts link Japan's aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States is witnessing another year of record gun violence, raising domestic and international scrutiny of its comparatively loose gun laws and placing pressure on lawmakers to enact meaning...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HISTORY OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES

Recognizing that no single law or initiative will end gun violence in America, this Administration has supported a comprehensive approach to address the problem. The following brief description of the federal firearms laws provides a context for the Administration's current gun violence reduction efforts.

I. Controlling the Firearms Market: The Gun Control Act of 1968

Following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The GCA, as amended over the years, continues to be the primary vehicle for the federal regulation of firearms. The GCA's stated goals are to "keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background or incompetency, and to assist law enforcement authorities in the states and their subdivisions in combating the increasing prevalence of crime in the United States."To achieve these goals, the GCA created the first comprehensive federal framework to investigate and prosecute firearms crimes. In particular, the GCA required individuals engaged in the business of dealing in firearms to obtain a federal license, prohibited transfers of firearms to certain persons, restricted the interstate transportation of firearms, and regulated the importation of certain firearms not suitable for sporting purposes.

A. Requiring Federal Licenses for Transferring Firearms Under the GCA
One of the GCA's key provisions creates a licensing scheme that regulates the interstate movement of firearms. Persons engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms-referred to as "federal firearms licensees" (FFLs)-must obtain a license from the Secretary of the Treasury. The license entitles the holder to ship, transport, and receive firearms in interstate or foreign commerce. The FFL must maintain records of all acquisitions and dispositions of firearms and comply with applicable state and local laws in transferring firearms. The recordkeeping requirements help allow some crime guns to be traced. Combined with other obligations and restrictions imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers, and importers, these requirements help provide a basis for investigating illegal firearms trafficking.
B. Prohibiting Certain Transfers and Possession
The GCA made it unlawful for certain persons to receive firearms, and made it a felony for an FFL to transfer a firearm knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the transferee is prohibited from receiving the firearm. Subsequent amendments made it unlawful for any person to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, and made it unlawful for the following categories of prohibited persons to possess a firearm:

Felons;

Fugitives;

Drug addicts or unlawful drug users;

Persons committed to mental institutions or adjudicated as "mentally defective";

Persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces;

Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;

Illegal or nonimmigrant aliens;

Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders; and

Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.

The GCA also prohibits anyone under a felony indictment from receiving or transporting a firearm. In addition, with certain limited exceptions, juveniles under 18 years of age may not possess handguns. Finally, the GCA makes it unlawful for an FFL to transfer a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, or a long gun to anyone under the age of 18. Young people between the ages of 18 and 21 may still buy handguns from non-licensed sellers in the secondary market, and there are no age restrictions on the transfer of rifles and shotguns by non-licensed sellers.
C. Controlling the Interstate Flow of Firearms Under the GCA
The GCA helps individual states enforce their own laws regulating firearms possession and transfers by generally prohibiting the transport and shipment of firearms across state lines, except among FFLs. Before the GCA, differences among state controls over firearms commerce impaired the ability of states to enforce their own laws. The GCA's interstate prohibitions were intended to minimize the impact of different state laws, which had led to illicit commerce in guns between states with little firearms regulation and jurisdictions with strict controls.
D. Regulating Imported Firearms
When Congress passed the GCA, it was well known that the rifle used to assassinate President John F. Kennedy was a surplus Italian military rifle imported into the United States. In addition, so-called "Saturday night specials"-inexpensive and often imported handguns-were associated with rising street crime. Accordingly, the GCA established a framework for "curbing the flow of surplus military weapons and other firearms being brought into the United States which are not particularly suitable for target shooting and hunting."Under the Act, all imported firearms must be "generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes" before being approved for importation. Handguns are judged against "factoring criteria," which include overall length, frame construction, weight, caliber and safety features. The factoring criteria have not been reexamined since they were established in 1968.
Domestically produced handguns do not have to satisfy the factoring criteria applied to imported handguns. If the same test were required for domestically produced handguns as for imported handguns, eight of the top ten traced handguns in the United States in 1998 would have been barred.

II. The Early 1980s: Drugs and Guns

In the early 1980s, very high levels of gun violence were associated with the burgeoning crack epidemic. In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act and the Armed Career Criminal Act, which enhanced the sentences of those convicted of using firearms in crimes of violence. In 1986, Congress extended these enhanced penalties to criminals who use or carry firearms during serious drug offenses.These amendments to the GCA imposed:

A mandatory five-year prison term for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime;

A mandatory fifteen-year prison term for felons in possession of a firearm who had three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses;

A ten-year sentence enhancement for using a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or a semiautomatic assault weapon, in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime;

A thirty-year sentence enhancement for using a machine gun, destructive device, or firearm equipped with a silencer during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime; and

A twenty-year prison term or life imprisonment for second or subsequent GCA offenses.

To take advantage of these stiffer penalties, in 1986 ATF developed the "Achilles Program" to concentrate on enforcing these new laws. The Achilles Program made firearms possession by violent criminals their "Achilles heel" by exposing them to lengthy prison sentences under the new firearms laws. ATF worked closely with U.S. Attorneys and state and local law enf6orcement officials to ensure that drug dealers and violent criminals were prosecuted in the forum where they would receive the greatest punishment for their crimes. These enforcement activities continue today.

III. A Step Backward: The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986

In 1986, Congress loosened several controls it had established in the GCA. The stated purpose of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) was to ensure that the GCA did not "place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law abiding citizens,"but it opened many loopholes through which illegal gun traffickers can slip. In FOPA, Congress:

Allowed FFLs to temporarily conduct business away from their normal place of business, such as at organized gun shows;

Narrowed the scope of those who "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms (and are therefore required to have a license) to include only those who devote "time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." Significantly, FOPA excluded those who buy and sell firearms to "enhance a personal collection" or for a "hobby," or who "sell all or part of a personal collection." The complex definition made it difficult to identify illegal dealers who claim that they are merely "hobbyists" or trading firearms from their personal collection;

Reduced the criminal penalties for certain recordkeeping offenses committed by FFLs, from felonies to misdemeanors;

Prohibited ATF from centralizing or computerizing firearms purchase records;

Permitted sales of ammunition without a license;

Allowed a convicted felon to obtain firearms where the convicting jurisdiction automatically restored the felons' civil rights upon release from prison or completion of sentence;

Prohibited ATF from conducting more than one warrantless compliance inspection of a licensee in any 12-month period;

Required the government to prove either a "knowing" or "willful" state of mind for all GCA violations; and

Required any forfeiture proceeding of any firearm or ammunition involved in any violation of the GCA to be commenced within 120 days of seizure.
On the positive side, FOPA finally banned the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use and made it unlawful for anyone, not just licensees, to sell firearms to prohibited persons.
A notable effect of FOPA was to direct ATF's enforcement efforts away from the legal and illegal firearms markets, and toward creating programs that sought primarily to identify, prosecute and punish violent criminals who used firearms in crime. For example, in the late 1980s, the Justice Department and ATF developed an intensive prosecution initiative known as "Project Triggerlock," which identified and prosecuted recidivist criminals under firearms laws that mandated long prison terms for repeat offenders.

IV. Reducing the Illegal Supply of Guns

Firearms violence continued to escalate throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, with increasing public concern that criminals were becoming even more heavily armed. Firearms enforcement efforts remained focused on the criminal users of firearms, not the markets in which criminals acquired their guns.

Following President Clinton's election in 1992, the Administration and Congress again focused on the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and juveniles not eligible to possess firearms. In 1993, after a legislative battle that spanned seven years, Congress finally passed, and President Clinton signed, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Law for the first time empowered FFLs and law enforcement to combat the practice of "lying and buying." Although the GCA made it illegal for felons and other prohibited persons to possess or acquire firearms, FFLs had no way to know whether a customer was lying about his background in order to get a gun. The Brady Law changed this by requiring that FFLs check with law enforcement officials before selling a firearm. In this way, the Brady Law eliminated the "honor system" in firearms purchases, requiring verification of statements made by prospective purchasers that they are legally entitled to obtain a firearm.

From its effective date in early 1994 through November 30, 1998, the Brady Law required background checks for handgun purchases only. These background checks were done by individual state or local law enforcement officials, usually the local sheriff's office or police department. As of November 30, 1998, with the creation of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a computerized background check is now conducted to determine if a would-be gun buyer is legally permitted to acquire a gun. Depending on the individual state, an FFL may contact NICS directly or through their state point-of-contact. In its first year of operation, NICS denied firearms to more than 160,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons. Overall, since 1993, the Brady Law has prevented more than 500,000 prohibited persons from acquiring firearms from licensed dealers.

V. Reforming the Federal Firearms Licensing System

In a further effort to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and regulate the illegal flow of guns, President Clinton directed a review of gun dealer licensing in August 1993. Recognizing that acquiring a gun dealer license was often easier than getting a driver's license, the directive sought to ensure that only those engaged in a legitimate firearms business be licensed. At the time, it was estimated that over 40 percent of the licensees conducted no business at all, but used their licenses to buy and sell firearms across state lines at wholesale prices, often in violation of state and local zoning or tax laws.

The Brady Law also changed the licensing procedures for FFLs by increasing the dealer licensing fee from $10 per year to $200 for three years. Subsequently, under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, licensees were required to submit photographs and fingerprints as part of their application, and to certify that their firearms business complied with all state and local laws, including zoning regulations. As a consequence of these reform efforts, the number of FFLs dropped from over 282,000 in 1993 to fewer than 104,000 in 1999.

VI. The Youth Handgun Safety Act and the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative

Armed juveniles and school violence increasingly drew Congress' attention in the late 1980s. In response to several multiple school shootings, in 1990 Congress enacted the Gun Free School Zones Act, which made it unlawful for anyone to possess a firearm in close proximity to a school.In addition, that same year, the Gun Free Schools Act conditioned state receipt of federal education grant money on agreement to expel any student found to be in possession of a firearm on school property. This law also requires grant recipients to refer any student who brings a gun to school to juvenile justice authorities.

Youth gun homicides escalated in the early 1990s, tripling between 1985 and 1993. In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Youth Handgun Safety Act, which generally bans possession of handguns by people under age 18, and prohibits adults from transferring handguns to juveniles. Before this amendment, FFLs were prohibited from selling handguns to anyone under age 21, but there were no federal restrictions on the possession of handguns by juveniles or the transfer of handguns to juveniles by non-licensees.

The Youth Handgun Safety Act does not apply to long guns. Since enactment of the Gun Control Act in 1968, FFLs have been prohibited from selling long guns to persons under age 18. However, no federal law prohibits possession of long guns, including "grandfathered" semiautomatic assault rifles, by juveniles. Nor is it unlawful for an unlicensed individual to transfer a long gun to a juvenile.

In 1996, ATF created the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII) to develop better information about how youthful offenders obtain firearms and to use that information to arrest illegal gun traffickers and reduce youth gun violence. YCGII provides for comprehensive crime gun tracing. The program is based in cities plagued by youth firearms violence problems. YCGII began in 17 cities and now operates in 37 cities.

VII. The Assault Weapons Ban and Related Import Restrictions

In September 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which made it unlawful, with certain exceptions, to manufacture, transfer, or possess semiautomatic assault weapons. Congress had been presented with significant evidence demonstrating that these weapons were "the weapons of choice among drug dealers, criminal gangs, hate groups , and mentally deranged persons bent on mass murder,"and concluded these guns were so dangerous they had no place in the civilian marketplace. The 1994 Act also made it unlawful to possess or transfer large capacity ammunition feeding devices, generally defined as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

In 1997, members of Congress and others expressed concern that certain rifles modified to evade the assault rifle ban continued to be imported into the country. Based on this concern and the fact that nearly ten years had elapsed since the last comprehensive review of the importation of rifles, the Department of the Treasury conducted a study to determine if certain modified semiautomatic assault rifles met the GCA's sporting purposes test. In an April 1998 report, the Department issued a determination that modified semiautomatic assault rifles that had the ability to accept a large capacity military magazine were not for sporting purposes under the GCA and could not be imported.

The 1994 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices continues to have significant deficiencies in meeting its stated objectives. For example, the ban only applies to assault weapons and magazines manufactured after September 13, 1994, thereby "grandfathering" thousands of weapons and magazines. Moreover, the ban's definition of assault weapons is so narrow and that it does not prohibit the manufacture, transfer and possession of many weapons that have the ability to fire many rounds of ammunition quickly, without being reloaded.

VIII. State and Local Firearms Laws

Through their independent efforts and in collaboration with the federal government, state and local governments play a crucial role in the effort to reduce firearms crimes and accidents. Some state laws place more stringent controls on the use and possession of firearms than federal law. For example:

In 1993, Virginia limited handgun sales to one per month per person, resulting in a significant drop in the percentage of guns that had been purchased in Virginia and used in crimes in New England.

Maryland's ban on the production and sale of unreliable, inexpensive handguns has reduced the frequency with which the banned handguns are used in crime in that state.

In 1995, Nevada took a significant step toward preventing felons from possessing firearms by passing legislation that allows a private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person to request a background check on the transferee from the Nevada criminal history records repository.

Connecticut recently amended its laws to provide that individuals adjudicated delinquent for committing serious juvenile offenses are not eligible to possess firearms or receive permits to carry firearms as adults.

In 1992, Hawaii made it a misdemeanor to store or leave a firearm, loaded or unloaded, within reach or easy access of anyone younger than 16 years of age.

California generally requires all firearms transfers to be processed through an FFL. It also recently passed other strong gun control measures, including provisions that limit handgun purchases to one per month, require all assault weapons to be registered and prohibit the sale or manufacture of unsafe handguns.

IX. The Youth Crime Gun Enforcement Act

In November 1998, the President directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to make recommendations responding to the fact that criminals and other prohibited persons can obtain firearms at gun shows without Brady Law background checks. Under current law, large numbers of firearms are sold anonymously at the more than 4,000 gun shows held each year. Most sellers at gun shows do not seek background checks on purchasers to find out if the buyer is a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. In January 1999, the Departments of the Treasury and Justice responded with a report describing the gaps in current law and recommending by extending the Brady Law to "close the gun show loophole."

In recognition of the need to strengthen our federal firearms laws as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce gun violence, the Administration developed a gun safety bill that was submitted to Congress in April 1999. The Youth Gun Crime Enforcement Act of 1999 (YGCEA) is intended to strengthen federal firearms laws and make it more difficult for juveniles and criminals to gain access to guns. Among the provisions contained in the bill are those to close the gun show loophole, strengthen penalties against gun traffickers and reduce youth access to firearms. These legislative proposals are discussed in greater detail in Appendix C. If enacted, these provisions will help close a number of significant loopholes in our system of regulating firearms.

Back to Report

2. The Enforcement Branch of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service initially enforced the GCA. On July 1, 1972, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was created as an independent Bureau within the Treasury Department. back to main text

3. S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 24 (1968). back to main text

4. In 1998, Congress amended the GCA to provide for a mandatory seven-year enhancement for brandishing a firearm and a ten-year enhancement for discharging a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. back to main text

5. See Firearms Owners' Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (1986), as amended. back to main text

6. The Gun Free School Zones Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lopez v. United States,514 U.S. 549 (1995), because the law lacked a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. Congress thereafter amended the law to require that the firearm move in, or otherwise affect, interstate commerce.back to main text

7. H.R. Rep. No. 103-489, at13 (1994). back to main text

8. Department of the Treasury & Department of Justice, Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Tracing (1999). back to main text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USDOJ: United States Department of Justice Archive - Appendix C

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HISTORY OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES Recognizing that no single law or initiative will end gun violence in America, this Administration has supported a comprehensive approach to address the problem. The following brief description of the federal firearms laws provides a context for the Administration's current gun violence reduction efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Firearm Violence in the United States | Center for Gun Violence Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. Villarreal, S., Kim, R., Wagner, E., Somayaji, N., Davis, A., & Crifasi, C. K. (2024). Gun Violence in theUnited States 2022: Examining the Burden Among Children and Teens. Johns Hopkins Center forGun Violence Solutions. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 2 – “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 2 – “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”. The Minute Man statue at the Minute Man National Historical Park in Concord, Massachusetts. (National Park Service) Amendment Two to the Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

# 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
Gun Control Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun Control Act of 1968 This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, “prohibited persons”, and licensing provisions. Assassinations and Gun Control After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mass shootings and neighborhood violence have become all too common in our communities, and we cannot stand idly by as senseless gun violence continues to claim innocent lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who’s Driving Gun Policy? | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A dedicated and vocal group is leading the opposition to common-sense gun policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Sense Gun Reform - Joe Morelle for Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since being elected to Congress, Joe has authored and co-sponsored legislation that takes critical steps to ban assault weapons, make mandatory universal background checks and keep illegal guns off our streets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mass Shootings in the US Fast Facts | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read CNN’s Fast Facts about mass shootings in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Data shows gun ownership in the US has grown over the last several years

Gun violence is a fixture in American life - but the issue is a highly political one, pitting gun control advocates against people who are fiercely protective of their right to bear arms.

We've looked into some of the numbers behind firearms in the US.

Mass shootings on the rise

There have been more than 560 mass shootings across the US so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed. Their figures include shootings that happen in homes and in public places.

For each of the last three years there have been more than 600 mass shootings - almost two a day on average.

The deadliest such attack, in Las Vegas in 2017, killed more than 50 people and left 500 wounded. The vast majority of mass shootings, however, leave fewer than 10 people dead.

How do US gun deaths break down?

48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the US during 2021, according to the latest data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That's nearly an 8% increase from 2020, which was a record-breaking year for firearm deaths.

While mass shootings and gun murders (homicides) generally garner much media attention, more than half of the total in 2021 were suicides.

That year, more than 20,000 of the deaths were homicides, according to the CDC.

Data shows more than 50 people are killed each day by a firearm in the US.

That's a significantly larger proportion of homicides than is the case in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, and many other countries.

How many guns are there in the US?

While calculating the number of guns in private hands around the world is difficult, the latest figures from the Small Arms Survey - a Swiss-based research project - estimated that there were 390 million guns in circulation in the US in 2018.

The US ratio of 120.5 firearms per 100 residents, up from 88 per 100 in 2011, far surpasses that of other countries around the world.

More recent data out of the US suggests that gun ownership grew significantly over the last few years. A study, published by the Annals of Internal Medicine in February, found that 7.5 million US adults became new gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021.

This, in turn, exposed 11 million people to firearms in their homes, including 5 million children. About half of new gun owners in that time period were women, while 40% were either black or Hispanic.

Who supports gun control?

A majority of Americans are in favour of gun control.

57% of Americans surveyed said they wanted stricter gun laws - although this fell last year - according to polling by Gallup.

32% said the laws should remain the same, while 10% of people surveyed said they should be "made less strict".

The issue is extremely divisive, falling largely along party lines.

"Democrats are nearly unanimous in their support for stricter gun laws," another Gallup study noted, with nearly 91% in favour of stricter gun laws.

Only 24% Republicans, on the other hand, agreed with the same statement, along with 45% of Independent voters.

Some states have taken steps to ban or strictly regulate ownership of assault weapons. Laws vary by state but California, for example, has banned ownership of assault weapons with limited exceptions.

Some controls are widely supported by people across the political divide - such as restrictions governing the sale of guns to people who are mentally ill or on "watch" lists.

Who opposes gun control?

Despite years of financial woes and internal strife, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains the most powerful gun lobby in the United States, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.

Over the last several election cycles, it, and other organisations, have consistently spent more on pro-gun rights messaging than their rivals in the gun control lobby.

A number of states have also gone as far as to largely eliminate restrictions on who can carry a gun. In June 2021, for example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a "permitless carry bill" that allows the state's residents to carry handguns without a licence or training.

Similarly, in April last year Georgia became the 25th in the nation to eliminate the need for a permit to conceal or openly carry a firearm. The law means any citizen of that state has the right to carry a firearm without a licence or a permit.

The law was backed by the NRA, and leaders within the organisation called the move "a monumental moment for the Second Amendment".

Copyright 2023 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many US mass shootings have there been in 2023?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DEFINITION:

A mass shooting is an incident of targeted violence carried out by one or more shooters at one or more public or populated locations. Multiple victims (both injuries and fatalities) are associated with the attack, and both the victims and location(s) are chosen either at random or for their symbolic value. The event occurs within a single 24-hour period, though most attacks typically last only a few minutes. The motivation of the shooting must not correlate with gang violence or targeted militant or terroristic activity.*

*Definition developed by Jaclyn Schildkraut and H. Jaymi Elsass. The data underlying the visualizations below are collected and maintained by Jaclyn Schildkraut and H. Jaymi Elsass.

Number of mass shootings in the United States, 1966-2020

402

They have resulted in:

1,449 deaths

3,590 victims
(both injured and killed)

Mass shootings have been increasing in frequency since 1966

1966-75
12 mass shootings

2011-20
160 mass shootings

95.7%

of perpetrators were male

The majority of mass shootings took place at a

workplace (29.4%)

school (25.1%)

Average age of mass shooters

33.2 years old

74.6%

of perpetrators used handguns

54.8%

of perpetrators were white

MORE FROM THE REGIONAL GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Near real-time tweets of American gun violence incidents. Non-profit. Non-advocacy. Just the facts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries. Some definitions focus on the method used to kill and injure (e.g. firearms only) and others include crimes committed with any weapon. Some definitions focus on the perceived motive of the perpetrator (e.g. hate, terrorism, or a desire to kill strangers) or who was attacked (and do not count mass casualty crimes as mass violence if the perpetrator's motive was to kill family members or rival gang members). Some definitions are designed to establish eligibility requirements to receive federal assistance after mass violence crimes.
There are three different definitions provided by the Federal government:

The U.S. Congress has defined mass violence in legislation.

"The term 'mass killings' means three or more killings in a single incident" that occur in a 'public place'."

(The term) "mass shooting" is defined as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity. Similarly, a "mass public shooting" is defined to mean a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations, such as, a workplace, school, restaurant, house of worship, neighborhood, or other public setting.

According to the FBI, the term "mass murder" has been defined generally as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity. Note: the FBI definition appears to be designed on the basis of trying to identify profiles of perpetrators, so it excludes cases in which perpetrators kill family members unless large numbers of the general public are also killed. Likewise, cases in which killings occur as a part of another crime are excluded.

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) of the U.S. Department of Justice administers the Antiterrorism Emergency Assistance Program (AEAP). AEAP guidelines define an act of mass violence as "an intentional violent crime that results in physical, emotional, or psychological injury to a sufficiently large number of people and significantly increases the burden of victim assistance and compensation for the responding jurisdiction, as determined by the OVC Director." This definition is primarily designed to help OVC determine whether a mass violence incident is sufficiently large to indicate the possible need for federal assistance from OVC.

Conclusion

The lack of a consistent definition for mass violence can be confusing, and developing a more uniform definition would be helpful. However, the most important thing to remember irrespective of the definition used is that each mass violence incident leaves behind numerous victims and survivors who need assistance and support.

A Deeper Dive Into Mass Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is no universal definition of mass violence crimes, mass murders or mass killings. Many different definitions are used by researchers, criminal justice experts, and public policy bodies. Some definitions focus solely on the number of deaths, but others count crimes in which there are few deaths but many injuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This database originally covered cases from 1982 to 2012 and has since been updated and expanded numerous times. For analysis and context on this data—including how we built the database, and a change to the baseline for victim fatalities with cases dating from January 2013—see our Guide to Mass Shootings in America, which includes an interactive map documenting all of the cases.

[Editor’s note, 4/24/22: Readers may wonder why this database does not include the New York City subway shooting on April 12, the school shooting in Washington, DC, on April 22, or other such attacks in which fewer than three victims died; for additional context on the challenges of defining and tracking mass shootings, and on our approach, see this piece and this piece.]

You can scan the underlying spreadsheet by clicking here and download the database in its entirety (in CSV format) by clicking here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership. It is a concept cherished from the beginning of time and preserved most democratically within the English common law heritage, in which the defense of home, community, and kingdom rested upon an armed and ready populace. A survey conducted by Florida State University Professor Gary Kleck estimates that there were approximately 645,000 defensive uses of handguns against persons per year, excluding police or military uses. The survey also found that guns of all types were used substantially more often defensively than criminally and that gun-wielding civilians in self-defense or some other legally justified cause killed between 1,500 and 2,800 felons annually. The view that potential crime victims run a greater risk of injury if they are armed has been proven groundless. According to U.S. Justice Department victimization studies analyzed by Kleck, for both robbery and assault, victims who used guns for protection were less likely either to be attacked or injured than victims who responded in any other way, including those who did not resist at all; and victims who resisted robbers with guns were less likely to lose their property. A follow-up study of rape found that using a gun or knife for protection reduced the likelihood of a completed rape, and using a gun reduced the likelihood of injury to close to zero. Such resistance also reduces the likelihood of psychological trauma. The decision about whether or not to own a handgun should be made by individual citizens rather than an overprotective government, particularly when the courts have held that governments have no legal responsibility to provide protection when a person's life is threatened.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Ownership Provides Effective Self-Defense (From Gun Control, P 142-149, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. -- See NCJ-160164)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership. It is a concept cherished from the beginning of time and preserved most democratically within the English common law heritage, in which the defense of home, community, and kingdom rested upon an armed and ready populace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Julia Cusick Vice President, Communications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite arguments from the gun lobby and its allies, guns used for self-defense are not common, beneficial for society, or efficient in deterring mass shootings or criminal victimization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control, the Right to Self-Defense, and Reasonable Beneficence to All

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the strongest arguments against the implementation of gun control measures is that such measures violate the right to self-defense or security against attack. The argument, defended by Michael Huemer and others, claims that even if a particular gun control measure has good results overall, it infringes, in a manner which is prima facie seriously wrong, the rights of those who end up being killed or significantly harmed due to their resultant inability to defend themselves. We claim that uncertainty on the part of the government about who will be harmed by a particular gun control measure underwrites a strong response to this argument. If gun control measures save lives on balance, then they may increase each person’s chance of remaining safe relative to the information available to the government, even if they will cause some people to be harmed who otherwise would not have been. We draw on Caspar Hare’s arguments for the claim that there are no conflicts between morality and reasonable beneficence to contend that this fact would vindicate gun control policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Claim of Self-Defense Gun Use (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans are armed out of fear. But is that fear founded?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Firearms, Laws, Safety, Gun Rights, & Death | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Firearms Research | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Safety is Not a Substitute for the Right to Self-Defense - University of Wyoming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In discussions about gun rights, the conversation almost always drifts into a debate over safety. Gun control advocates say that fewer…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Julia Cusick Vice President, Communications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite arguments from the gun lobby and its allies, guns used for self-defense are not common, beneficial for society, or efficient in deterring mass shootings or criminal victimization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control: Opposing Viewpoints | Office of Justice Programs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun control is back in the U.S. political debate, in the wake of mass shootings in California, Boulder and Atlanta.

Democrats see stricter gun control as a step toward addressing the problem. In March 2021, as the House of Representatives passed two gun control bills, Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the " solutions will save lives."

Many Republicans disagree, arguing as Sen. Ted Cruz has that proposed laws seeking to require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers and to ban assault weapons are " ridiculous theater " that fail to reduce mass shootings.

As two political scientists trained in data analysis, we set out to determine whether gun control legislation actually prevents mass shootings. We collected data on all mass shootings that occurred between February 1980 and February 2020. We then examined key information on the perpetrators, weapons used and laws in effect at the time of shooting.

Our research, which is yet to be published in an academic journal, suggests that there is statistical evidence to support both parties' positions about gun control legislation.

While stricter gun control laws may make mass shootings slightly less common, our research suggests that the rhetoric of both parties may not tell the full story. Rather than federal gun control laws, policies that focus on violence prevention at the community or individual levels may be more effective at preventing mass shooting deaths.

Mass shootings in the past 40 years

We defined a mass shooting as a single incident in which a perpetrator with no connection to gang activity or organized crime shot and killed three or more people. This is similar to the definition Congress uses.

We found there were 112 of these events between 1980 and 2020; the number of mass shootings each year has increased over time. An overwhelming majority of mass shooters - 87% of them - obtained their firearms legally. Nearly all shooters - 93% - shot their victims in the same state where they obtained their weapons.

These facts suggest that existing gun laws and regulations governing gun purchases and firearms that cross state lines may not be working to reduce mass shootings. Our study did not address whether or how other forms of gun violence might be affected by those laws.

In fact, mass shootings tended to occur in states with stricter regulations. Of the states with the highest per capita rates of mass shootings, many - like Connecticut, Maryland and California - employ background checks and assault weapons bans.

By contrast, 18 states did not have a single mass shooting event over the entire 40-year period. Many of these states - like West Virginia, Wyoming and South Dakota - have high rates of gun ownership and relatively loose gun control laws.

But those data patterns don't tell the full story of our analysis.

The effects of gun laws

Gun laws aren't the only factors that affect where and when mass shootings occur. The number of police officers per capita, a community's population density and crime rate, and other demographic characteristics such as unemployment rates and average income can also matter.

We used statistical methods to control for those factors, narrowing our analysis to find out whether various types of gun control laws affected the number of mass shootings or number of mass shooting deaths in each state each year.

Specifically, we examined the effects of four different types of gun control legislation: background checks; assault weapons bans; high-capacity magazine bans; and " extreme risk protection order " or "red flag laws" that let a court determine whether to confiscate the guns of someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.

We found that background check requirements, assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans each reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States - but only by a small amount. For instance, enacting a statewide assault weapons ban decreases the number of mass shootings in the state by one shooting every six years. And none of the four types of gun control legislation correlate with fewer total mass shooting deaths.

And laws that remove an individual's right to own firearms if that individual poses a risk to the community do not affect the number of mass shooting events.

Beyond gun control

Our analysis suggests that Americans who want to make mass shootings less frequent and less deadly may want to think beyond gun control legislation.

Statistically, mass shootings tend to occur in large, densely populated states with higher income and education levels per capita. While these states often respond to mass shootings by passing gun control legislation, it may be that alternative avenues are more successful.

For example, we find that increasing the number of police officers per capita decreases the number of mass shootings.

There is a wide variety of policy options designed to prevent mass shootings. The American Psychological Association suggests a comprehensive community approach that works to identify prevention strategies that bring public safety officials, schools, public health systems and faith-based groups together to reduce gun violence.

Aaron Stark, who says he was almost a mass shooter, explains that mass shootings can be an act of desperation resulting from frustration, stress and an individual's perception that they lack power. This is in line with a new U.S. Secret Service report that suggests politicians may need to think beyond the accessibility of guns. Violence prevention strategies that focus on interpersonal and community relations may be more effective than gun control legislation.

Framing the debate

Many policy options involve value judgments stemming from beliefs about the U.S. Constitution and the power of government to regulate guns.

Among people who think that restricting gun access reduces mass shootings, people disagree over whether the country should prioritize the individual freedoms of gun owners or the safety and peace of mind of non-gun owners. These differing views can reflect different interpretations of the extent to which the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

States have a role to play, too. Federal gun policy covers the entire nation. But our data indicates that attention to state and local factors can play an important role in preventing mass shootings.

In the end, gun control remains a debate about facts and context, complicated by a disagreement over constitutional values.

[ Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In gun debate, both sides have evidence to back them up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control is back in the U.S. political debate, in the wake of mass shootings in California, Boulder and Atlanta. Democrats see stricter gun control as a step toward addressing the problem. In March 2021, as the House of Representatives passed two gun control bills, Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the " solutions will save lives."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Actor and activist Matthew McConaughey was among the speakers at the #MarchForOurLives in downtown Austin on March 24, 2018, which attracted more than 10,000 to the Capitol today. “This is an American issue,” McConaughey said of gun control. “It’s a Texan issue. It’s a legal and law-abiding gun owner issue. It’s a mother issue. It’s a father issue. And, quite literally, this is our children’s issue.” McConaughey also said that consensus leading to action should be above politics. “My hope here is that we can find a common ground on what I see as a very much a common-sense issue. This is an issue anchored in purpose for all of us. It’s not anchored in politics.” Photo by Madison Olsen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten Essential Observations on Guns in America | Office of Justice Programs

# 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
National Rifle Association of America (NRA), leading gun rights organization in the United States. The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) was founded in New York state in 1871 as a governing body for the sport of shooting with rifles and pistols. By the early 21st century it claimed a membership of nearly five million target shooters, hunters, gun collectors, gunsmiths, police, and other gun enthusiasts.

Among the NRA's more important activities beginning in the second half of the 20th century was its highly effective political lobbying and campaigning against virtually any legislative proposal for the control of firearms. It consistently characterized such measures as infringements of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a grave threat to individual liberty, maintaining that stance even in the wake of frequent mass shootings throughout the country (e.g., the Newtown shootings of 2012 and the Orlando shooting of 2016). Although the NRA typically declined to issue public statements following mass murders committed with guns, it has asserted that gun-control measures would not have prevented the violence, that mass shootings could have been avoided or mitigated if more bystanders or victims had carried guns with which to intervene or defend themselves, and that such tragedies are simply the price that must be paid for the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Following the publication in 1993 of a study funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that gun ownership increased the risk of homicide in the home, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to reallocate the CDC's budget for research on gun violence and to adopt a law, known as the Dickey amendment, that prohibited the CDC from using research funds to "advocate or promote gun control." The amendment effectively prevented the CDC from funding research on gun violence in subsequent years.

In 2018 Oliver North, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer who was a central figure in the Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s, was named president of the NRA. He soon became involved in a power struggle with NRA chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre as regulators investigated the organization's tax-exempt status amid allegations of financial improprieties. In 2019 North announced that he was resigning as president, noting that the NRA was in the midst of a "clear crisis."

In 2020 the New York state attorney general filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve the NRA on the grounds that LaPierre and other top officials had improperly used NRA assets to enrich themselves and their associates and to fund extravagant personal expenses in violation of state and federal laws governing nonprofit or charitable organizations. In 2021 the NRA declared bankruptcy and announced that it would reincorporate in Texas. However, later that year a federal judge dismissed the filing, stating that "the N.R.A. is using this bankruptcy case to address a regulatory enforcement problem, not a financial one." The decision meant that the New York lawsuit would continue.

The American NRA was modeled after the National Rifle Association in Great Britain, which had been formed in 1859. The British NRA has its headquarters near Woking, Surrey, England, and the American NRA is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Rifle Association of America | History, Lawsuit, Purpose, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Rifle Association of America (NRA), leading gun rights organization in the United States. The NRA was founded as a governing body for the sport of shooting. By the early 21st century it claimed nearly five million target shooters, hunters, gun collectors, gunsmiths, police, and gun enthusiasts as members.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center for Gun Violence Solutions | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Center for Gun Violence Solutions | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Center for Gun Violence Solutions combines the expertise of the country's most respected gun violence researchers with the skills of the nation's most experienced gun violence prevention advocates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
30 Years of Evidence, Impact, and Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Safe Storage Saves Lives: How to Safely Store Guns at Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy's 25th Anniversary Symposium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome - Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy's 25th Anniversary Symposium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why US gun laws get looser after mass shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US gun control: Advocates face obstacles as violence grows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Sense Gun Legislation vs. the 2nd Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun control advocate: People in the U.S. "begging for common sense gun laws for decades"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Northwestern Univ. Feinberg School of Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mass Shootings in Schools, Workplaces, and Other Public Settings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why are mass shootings on the rise in the US? - BBC News