# data[].attributes.body
The part about gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hva skjedde med journalist Jamal Khashoggi? Presset øker nå på Saudi-Arabia. EU krever en uavhengig granskning, og USA er i Riyadh for å få svar.

# data[].attributes.body
4. Våpenkontroll

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Først så er det en ting må man være klar over. Republikanerne og demokratene kan ikke sammenlignes med norske eller europeiske partier.
- De amerikanske partiene er koalisjoner. Tradisjonelt stod demokratene til venstre, men hadde mange konservative velger, og republikanere stod til høyre, men hadde mange progressive velgere. Nå som partiene har blitt mer enhetlig, så har også det politiske systemet gått helt i stå, sier Geir Lundestad, historikeren som i mange år har skrevet bøker og holdt foredrag om amerikansk politikk.
Når det gjelder de to som representerer partiene denne gangen, så kan heller ikke de helt sammenlignes.

- Hillary Clinton og Donald Trump er veldig forskjellige i hvordan de snakker om politikk. Clinton er veldig detaljert, mens Trump snakker veldig generelt og ofte motsier han seg selv, sier førsteamanuensis ved Bjørknes Høyskole, Hilde Restad.

1. Økonomi

"It's the economy, stupid" har etter hvert blitt de berømte ord etter Bill Clintons suksessfulle valgkamp i 1992, da han vant over sittende president George Bush.

Økonomi er alltid viktig i amerikansk valgkamp, og de to partiene har to vidt forskjellige syn på hva som er riktig medisin.
- Dette er den klassiske forskjellen mellom de to partiene. Demokratene går inn for et høyere skattenivå og litt flere reguleringer. Republikanerne har blitt mer og mer imot skatt og reguleringer, sier Lundestad.
Men USA har et helt annet skattesystem enn Norge, og ett av de store problemene er hvem som skal skattlegges.

- Omtrent 40 prosent av amerikanere betaler ikke skatt på føderalt nivå, noe som gjør det vanskelig å kreve skatt fra middelklassen. Derfor er skattedebatten i USA en debatt om hvor mye man skal skattlegge de rike. Demokratene er villig til å gi høyere skatter, mens republikanerne svarer med å kalle dette en klassekrig, sier Eirik Løkken fra tankesmien Civita.

Og det er også forskjell på kandidatene.

- Clinton ønsker å øke skattene på de rikeste, mens Trump er imot, og en av de tingene han har vært veldig konsekvent på er at han er ønsker massive skattekutt, sier Restad.

- For mens det republikanske partiet ønsker å balansere budsjett gjennom skattepolitikk, så vil Trump sin skatteplan reduserer skatteinntektene med 70.000 milliarder kroner, sier Thor Steinhovden fra tenketanken Agenda.

Men det er et annet punkt som nok bekymrer republikanerne mer når det gjelder Trump enn hans skattepolitikk.
- Trump skiller seg fra veldig mange republikanere i sin omtale av offentlig helsetjenester. Han er mer positiv til en offentlig pensjonsordning og dette er store offentlige utgifter som republikanerne tradisjonelt ikke ønsker, sier historiker Hallvard Notaker, som har spesialisert seg på USAs nyere politiske historie og skrevet boka "Amerikansk valgkamp".
- En annen stor forskjell mellom partiene når det gjelder økonomi er innvandringsspørsmålet. Her har Trump vært veldig klar på at han ønsker å bygge en mur mot Mexico for å hindre ulovlig innvandring. Der er Clinton og demokratene på helt motsatt side. Clinton har varslet at noe av det første hun vil gjøre i løpet av de første 100 dagene i Det hvite hus er å få til en innvandringsreform for å få den mer human, sier Restad.

2. Statens rolle

I sin innsettelsestale i 1980 formet Ronald Reagan det som for mange republikanere har blitt deres læresetning. Staten er ikke løsningen på problemet - staten er problemet.

- Når det gjelder statens rolle så er de to partiene ganske forskjellige, i hvert fall i prinsippet. For republikanerne har i moderne tid blitt veldig påvirket av Reagans berømte ord, sier Lundestad.
- For Demokratene er staten et verktøy slik at de kan utligne forskjeller i samfunnet, mens for republikanerne er egentlig staten det verste som finns. De ønsker å flytte makt fra det sentrale ned til det lokale, sier Steinhovden.
Og mens Clinton plasserer seg på linje med partiet, så bryter Trump mer med republikanerne.

- Clinton ønsker at den føderale minstelønna skal heves og hun vil videreføre den offentlige helsereformen til Obama, sier Restad, før hun fortsetter:

- Trump er litt utakt med sitt partiet. Han har vært velvillig innstilt til enkelte velferdsgoder, såfremt det ikke går til feil befolkningsgruppe og da snakker vi for eksempel om innvandrere.

3. USAs rolle i verden

Amerikanerne har alltid sett på seg selv som verdenspolitiet og som det ledene landet i verden, og det er på mange måter det som binder mye av landet sammen.

- Både republikanerne og demokratene har vært opptatt av at USA skal ta en lederrolle i verden. Tradisjonelt har demokratene vært mer opptatt av å bygge internasjonale institusjoner, og spesielt i synet på FN ser man en stor forskjell på partiene. Republikanerne er veldig mye mer skeptisk til å la FN påvirke og styre hva amerikanske politikk skal være, sier Løkken.

Og mens Clinton blir sett på som en tredje periode av Barack Obama er det knyttet større usikkerhet til hva Trump mener.
- Trump er i utakt med sitt eget parti når det gjelder USAs utenrikspolitikk. Han snakker ikke så veldig mye om USAs militære-hegemoni. Det han er mest opptatt av er USAs økonomiske rolle og han snakker ofte om USAs politikk som transaksjonsforhold, sier Restad.
- Han snakker for eksempel om Nato, ikke som en allianse som skal demme opp for Russland, men som et regnestykke der de europeiske lederne ikke har betalt sin del av regning, sier hun.

- Det er nok dette som skremmer det konservative USA aller mest, sier Løkken.
For Clinton skjønner den enorme betydning Nato har som et styringsinstrument for USA i europeiske politikk, sier Lundestad.

På dette punktet er nok flere republikanere mer enig med Clinton enn Trump.

- Clinton er kjent som en hauk og vil nok passe bedre for mange republikanere enn det Trump gjør. Hun mener USA kan bruke militærmakt når det trengs, mens Trump tenker på utenrikspolitikk først og fremst som økonomisk politikk, sier Steinhovden.

4. Våpenkontroll

Hvis det er ett punkt som virkelig har skilt de to partiene de siste årene, så er det synet på våpenkontroll.

- Våpenkontroll pleier ikke å være en viktig valgkampsak i USA fordi det er ikke mange nok som ønsker en innstramming. I år har det blitt det, sier Notaker.

Og utgangspunktet er forholdsvis enkelt:
- Obama ønsker strengere våpenkontroll og innføre universelle bakgrunnssjekker, mens republikanerne ønsker retten til å bære våpen skal være hellig, sier Steinhovden.
På akkurat dette punktet så er årets kandidater veldig enig med seg selv.

- Både Trump og Clinton passer veldig godt inn som en typisk republikaner og demokrat. Trumps store støttespiller er våpenlobbyen i NRA. Mens Clinton har fått bunnkarakter av NRA og det illustrerer tydelig forskjellene mellom dem, sier Løkke.

Fengsel

Men på ett punkt er dagens republikanere og demokrater helt enige. Men det er et stort men.

- De er enige om at det altfor mange som sitter i fengsel i USA. 2,2 millioner sitter fengslet, og nå er det faktisk enighet at man må gjøre noe drastisk for å få ned antallet som sitter i fengsel, sier Lundestad.
- Det er en viss optimisme om man skal få til en bredt forlik i Kongressen om at det sitter for mange mennesker i fengsler, men ..., sier Notaker.
- Så er det Trump da. Han har kjørt knallhardt på at han er en Lov og Orden-politiker. Han skal bure inne skurker og bruke en hard knyttneven. Så da blir spørsmålet hvordan kan man kombinere Trumps harde retorikk med en midlere strafferettspleie og mykne opp det som har harde til.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fire forskjeller og en likhet på demokratene og republikanerne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Først så er det en ting må man være klar over. Republikanerne og demokratene kan ikke sammenlignes med norske eller europeiske partier. - De amerikanske partiene er koalisjoner. Tradisjonelt stod demokratene til venstre, men hadde mange konservative velger, og republikanere stod til høyre, men hadde mange progressive velgere.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Can my vote affect the law?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you're a casual hunter who goes shooting with your parents from time to time or you often find yourself repeatedly tweeting that Onion article about how there's "no way to prevent" mass violence, you almost certainly have an opinion on gun laws. And you probably know at least one person who has the complete opposite opinion (and you probably keep running into them at family events). But if you're wondering if things are going to swing your way on gun laws in the midterms, the answer won't necessarily have you winning future arguments.

In May, CNN reported that there already had been, on average, one school shooting per week in 2018 where there were casualties or deaths. According to in-depth reporting by Vox, there have been over 1,800 mass shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012. The United States is alone in these numbers: No other developed country has anywhere near the amount of gun-related deaths that America does.

Adopted in 1791, the Second Amendment states, "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." Whether those words grant all U.S. citizens the constitutional right to own guns without restriction is a debate that's been going on for much longer than this election cycle, and the midterms aren't going to instantly reverse or enshrine gun laws overnight.

Erich Schlegel/Getty Images News/Getty Images

But you are voting for the people who make those laws, so your vote does have an effect on policy in the long term. That being the case, you'll want to do some research on the candidates you're voting for, their positions, and their voting records on the subject.

It all starts with the Second Amendment. Gun rights activists say it's self-explanatory: U.S. citizens and residents should have the right to bear arms, end of sentence. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, say that text is centuries-old and argue that firearms and the role they play in everyday life have changed substantially since the Founding Fathers sat down and hashed things out.

But beyond the Constitution, there are federal laws that govern gun ownership. According to the Gun Control Act of 1968, you have to be at least 18 years old to buy a shotgun or rifle and ammunition. In order to buy any other kind of firearm, you have to be at least 21 years old. The Gun Control Act also prevents people who have been convicted of a felony, who use drugs, or who are mentally ill from buying guns.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 also mandates that anybody who is a licensed firearms dealer must conduct a background check on a prospective buyer. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed in 2005, protects gun manufacturers from being hit with civil lawsuits based on crimes committed using firearms. And those are just a few of the federal laws on the books regarding gun ownership and control. As you can see, the conversation has been going pretty much nonstop since 1791, and it doesn't look likely to end anytime soon.

Hannah Burton/Bustle

I thought gun laws were kind of all over the place.

It is left up to each individual state to determine where residents can carry a gun, if they need a permit for their weapon, and whether they're allowed to keep it hidden - that's called concealed carry.

If you want to find out what gun laws are in your area, there are a number of online tools you can use. If you like getting really into the details, the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan research organization, released a downloadable database of state firearm laws in 2016. If you're looking for a more general overview, a team of researchers performed a study, led by the Boston University School of Public Health, in May that also provides a database of state firearm laws.

How can I find out a candidate's voting record on guns?

In February, NPR published a tool that you can use to find out how the members of Congress who represent your state have voted on major gun legislation over the last 25 years. If you want to find out more about the positions of candidates who haven't served in public office yet, Vote411 has a personalized ballot tool that includes candidates' positions on similar issues. If all else fails, you can use one of these tools to find out who your candidate is - and then call them and ask.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Your Midterm Vote Could Actually Make A Difference On Gun Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you're a casual hunter who goes shooting with your parents from time to time or you often find yourself repeatedly tweeting that Onion article about how there's "no way to prevent" mass violence, you almost certainly have an opinion on gun...

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January 20, 2020

The legal basis for firearm possession in the US is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But how are guns regulated? DW looks at who can buy and sell them - and how one loophole undermines gun control.

Gun control is one of the most divisive issues in American politics. With each mass shooting - defined as four or more victims having been killed indiscriminately - antagonism grows between both sides of the gun control argument.

Proponents of stricter gun regulations fear for their safety in a country where there is an average of 88 guns per 100 people, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence estimates that around 114,994 people are shot each year in the US. This includes murders, assaults, accidents, police intervention, suicide attempts and suicides.

Opponents of regulatory arguments, however, also fear a loss of safety. They argue that restricting the right to bear arms would leave citizens unable to protect themselves in their daily lives or, in a worst-case scenario, from a government turned against the people.

Though regulations vary from state to state, there are a few key conditions for obtaining guns in the US.
1. Is there a minimum age?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which regulates firearms at the federal level, requires that citizens and legal residents must be at least 18 years of age to purchase shotguns or rifles and ammunition. All other firearms - handguns, for example - can only be sold to people 21 and older.

State or local officials may implement higher age restrictions but are not allowed to lower the federal minimum.

Read more: US gun control: 'Conservatives must say enough is enough'
2. Who's restricted from purchasing or possessing firearms?
Fugitives, people deemed a danger to society and patients involuntarily committed to mental institutions are among those who may not purchase firearms. People with prior felony convictions that include a prison sentence exceeding one year, or misdemeanors carrying sentences of more than two years, are also prohibited from purchasing firearms.

Federal law also blocks the sale of guns to people who have been found guilty of unlawfully possessing or using controlled substances within the past year. This includes marijuana, which, though legalized in many US states, remains illegal under federal law.

Other restrictions apply to people who have been issued restraining orders by courts to prevent harassment, stalking or threatening; people who have renounced their citizenship; dishonorably discharged military personnel; unauthorized migrants; and people temporarily visiting the US on nonimmigrant visas, for example as tourists.
3. Does the federal or state government regulate firearms?
The Second Amendment serves as the legal basis for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Read more: German weapons firms find lucrative market in United States

Though state and local governments regulate whether residents may, for example, carry guns in public, laws regulating who may receive or possess guns are set out at the federal level.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a division of the Department of Justice, administers the GCA. The ATF also regulates the standards for issuing licenses to gun vendors.

Shotguns, rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The purchase of semi-automatic weapons is legal in most states, as are automatic weapons made before 1986.

Read more: NRA ad sparks uproar with call to 'fight' Trump opponents
4. Who may sell firearms?
Like handgun owners, dealers interested in obtaining a Federal Firearms License (FFL) must be at least 21 years of age. They must have premises for conducting business and must alert a local law enforcement official at the time of submitting their applications to the federal bureau that regulates firearms. Just like gun owners, they must fulfill the same criteria regarding their history of prior convictions and mental state. The license fee costs $200 (€170) for an initial three-year period and $90 for each subsequent three-year-long renewal.

Selling firearms online also falls under these regulations. Although the purchase may be paid for online, the gun itself must be shipped to a registered FFL holder, who then conducts the necessary background check before handing the firearm over to its owner.

However, the law is unclear on what constitutes selling guns for profit. Any individual may sell firearms without a license if his or her motive isn't to make profit for livelihood through repeated and regular sales.
5. Is a background check required to purchase a firearm?
Yes. The amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act - known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 - requires holders of FFLs to conduct a background check. Potential firearm purchasers fill out a federal form known as the ATF 4473, which checks for prior convictions and other red flags. FFL holders then use the information provided on the form in the background check.

States may decide whether the background check is carried out solely by the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) or a combination of the NICS and state agency information. Roughly 30 states rely solely on the NICS.

Estimated to take under 10 minutes by phone or online, the check gives the FFL holder an immediate answer: approve, delay or deny. A delay indicates the need for further research for three business days, after which point FFL holders can act at their own discretion if the research proves inconclusive.

The Brady law, however, does not apply to someone who is obtaining a firearm from an individual without an FFL.
6. Do states require permits to purchase firearms?
Only a dozen of the US's 50 states require purchase permits for handguns. Of those states, only three - California, Connecticut and Hawaii - require permits for the purchase of rifles and shotguns.
Read more: Las Vegas shooter converted guns to automatics with gadget 7. Do states require permits to carry firearms?
California, for example, requires applicants to pass a written test and enroll in a gun safety class to obtain purchase permits. States with this requirement do not recognize the "concealed carry reciprocity" policies of some states, which allow gun owners licensed in one state to bring their weapons to another.

Most states require permits to carry handguns. Concealed carry and open carry vary by state. Some states allow residents to carry handguns without permits.
8. What is the 'gunshow loophole'?
By contrast, virtually no state requires a permit to carry rifles and shotguns. Massachusetts and New Jersey require people carrying rifles and shotguns to bring along a form of ID or a firearms identification.

The law on selling, receiving and possessing firearms is clear. Yet not every individual providing the gun in a transfer requires an FFL, which in turn means that not every buyer is legally subject to a background check. This potentially enables guns to fall into the hands of users who might otherwise not be allowed to own a firearm.

According to the ATF, anyone can sell a gun without an FFL from their home, online, at a flea market or at a gun show as long as he or she is not conducting the sale as part of regular business activity. One example would be someone who sells a firearm from his or her personal collection. Others who are exempt include those giving guns as gifts. Only individuals whose "principal motive" is to make a profit via sale must obtain an FFL.

Commonly referred to as the "gunshow loophole," this ambiguity also explains how a purchase can occur without a background check - and without breaking the law. A 2017 survey by Harvard and Northeastern universities estimates that roughly one in five transactions occur without a background check.

A gun may also be purchased on behalf of a third party as long as it is a gift and as long as the recipient does not violate federal restrictions on gun ownership to the best of the gift giver's knowledge. The same applies to the general transfer of guns. Children younger than 18 may possess guns that were given to them by parents or guardians as gifts provided that they have written permission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 facts about gun control in the US - DW - 01/20/2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The legal basis for firearm possession in the US is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But how are guns regulated? DW looks at who can buy and sell them - and how one loophole undermines gun control.