# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Green Day - 21 Guns [Official Music Video]

# 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.description
"Guns aren't going anywhere, we need to come together to just listen." That's the first step in bridging the divide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legislation

Brady works tirelessly on Capitol Hill and in state houses across the country to ensure common sense gun laws are enacted and enforced.

Litigation

We have the strongest legal team in the country, representing victims and survivors among others, to challenge and change laws, state by state and nationwide.

Education

Armed with facts and solutions, every sector of the population can be part of the cultural change needed so all Americans can live free from the fear of gun violence.

There is no one solution to end this epidemic of gun violence and no one side has the answer. So our comprehensive approach fights every aspect with more than 45 years of research and real-world experience. Let's put the Brady plan into action now and get the job done right.

The Brady Plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brady works tirelessly on Capitol Hill and in state houses across the country to ensure common sense gun laws are enacted and enforced. We have the strongest legal team in the country, representing victims and survivors among others, to challenge and change laws, state by state and nationwide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut

# data[].attributes.subject
Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Connecticut State Police stood guard outside Sandy Hook Elementary School on Saturday morning. Credit... Don Emmert/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

A 20-year-old man wearing combat gear and armed with semiautomatic pistols and a semiautomatic rifle killed 26 people - 20 of them children - in an attack in an elementary school in central Connecticut on Friday. Witnesses and officials described a horrific scene as the gunman, with brutal efficiency, chose his victims in two classrooms while other students dove under desks and hid in closets.

Hundreds of terrified parents arrived as their sobbing children were led out of the Sandy Hook Elementary School in a wooded corner of Newtown, Conn. By then, all of the victims had been shot and most were dead, and the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, had committed suicide. The children killed were said to be 5 to 10 years old.

A 28th person, found dead in a house in the town, was also believed to have been shot by Mr. Lanza. That victim, one law enforcement official said, was Mr. Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, who was initially reported to be a teacher at the school. She apparently owned the guns he used.

Although reports at the time indicated that the principal of the school let Mr. Lanza in because she recognized him, his mother did not work at the school, and he shot his way in, defeating a security system requiring visitors to be buzzed in. Moments later, the principal was shot dead when she went to investigate the sound of gunshots. The school psychologist was also among those who died.

The rampage, coming less than two weeks before Christmas, was the nation's second-deadliest school shooting, exceeded only by the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, in which a gunman killed 32 people and then himself.

Law enforcement officials said Mr. Lanza had grown up in Newtown, and he was remembered by high school classmates as smart, introverted and nervous. They said he had gone out of his way not to attract attention when he was younger.

The gunman was chillingly accurate. A spokesman for the State Police said he left only one wounded survivor at the school. All the others hit by the barrage of bullets from the guns Mr. Lanza carried died, suggesting that they were shot at point-blank range. One law enforcement official said the shootings occurred in two classrooms in a section of the single-story Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Some who were there said the shooting occurred during morning announcements, and the initial shots could be heard over the school's public address system. The bodies of those killed were still in the school as of 10 p.m. Friday.

The New York City medical examiner's office sent a "portable morgue" to Newtown to help with the aftermath of the shootings, a spokeswoman, Ellen Borakove, confirmed late Friday.

Law enforcement officials offered no hint of what had motivated Mr. Lanza. It was also unclear, one investigator said, why Mr. Lanza - after shooting his mother to death inside her home - drove her car to the school and slaughtered the children. "I don't think anyone knows the answers to those questions at this point," the official said. As for a possible motive, he added, "we don't know much for sure."

F.B.I. agents interviewed his brother, Ryan Lanza, in Hoboken, N.J. His father, Peter Lanza, who was divorced from Nancy Lanza, was also questioned, one official said.

Newtown, a postcard-perfect New England town where everyone seems to know everyone else and where there had lately been holiday tree lightings with apple cider and hot chocolate, was plunged into mourning. Stunned residents attended four memorial services in the town on Friday evening as detectives continued the search for clues, and an explanation.

Maureen Kerins, a hospital nurse who lives close to the school, learned of the shooting from television and hurried to the school to see if she could help.

"I stood outside waiting to go in, but a police officer came out and said they didn't need any nurses," she said, "so I knew it wasn't good."

In the cold light of Friday morning, faces told the story outside the stricken school. There were the frightened faces of children who were crying as they were led out in a line. There were the grim faces of women. There were the relieved-looking faces of a couple and their little girl.

The shootings set off a tide of anguish nationwide. In Illinois and Georgia, flags were lowered to half-staff in memory of the victims. And at the White House, President Obama struggled to read a statement in the White House briefing room. More than once, he dabbed his eyes.

"Our hearts are broken," Mr. Obama said, adding that his first reaction was not as a president, but as a parent.

"I know there is not a parent in America who does not feel the same overwhelming grief that I do," he said.

He called the victims "beautiful little kids."

"They had their entire lives ahead of them: birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own," he said. Then the president reached up to the corner of one eye.

Mr. Obama called for "meaningful action" to stop such shootings, but he did not spell out details. In his nearly four years in office, he has not pressed for expanded gun control. But he did allude on Friday to a desire to have politicians put aside their differences to deal with ways to prevent future shootings.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut, who went to Newtown, called the shootings "a tragedy of unspeakable terms."

"Evil visited this community today," he said.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, described "a very horrific and difficult scene" at the school, which had 700 students in kindergarten through fourth grade. It had a security protocol that called for doors to be locked during the day and visitors to be checked on a video monitor inside.

"You had to buzz in and out and the whole nine yards," said a former chairwoman of the Newtown board of education, Lillian Bittman. "When you buzz, you come up on our screen."

The lock system did not go into effect until 9:30 each morning, according to a letter to parents from the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, that was posted on several news Web sites. The letter was apparently written earlier in the school year.

Video

People attending a vigil at the St. Rose of Lima Church in Newtown, Conn., describe their reactions after the fatal shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Lieutenant Vance said the Newtown police had called for help from police departments nearby and began a manhunt, checking "every nook and cranny and every room."

Officers were seen kicking in doors as they worked their way through the school.

Lieutenant Vance said the students who died had been in two classrooms. Others said that as the horror unfolded, students and teachers tried to hide in places the gunman would not think to look. Teachers locked the doors, turned off the lights and closed the blinds. Some ordered students to duck under their desks.

The teachers did not explain what was going on, but they did not have to. Everyone could hear the gunfire.

Yvonne Cech, a school librarian, said she had spent 45 minutes locked in a closet with two library clerks, a library catalog assistant and 18 fourth graders.

"The SWAT team escorted us out," she said, and then the children were reunited with their parents.

Lieutenant Vance said 18 youngsters were pronounced dead at the school and two others were taken to hospitals, where they were declared dead. All the adults who were killed at the school were pronounced dead there.

Law enforcement officials said the weapons used by the gunman were a Sig Sauer and a Glock, both handguns. The police also found a Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine.

One law enforcement official said the guns had not been traced because they had not yet been removed from the school, but state licensing records or permits apparently indicated that Ms. Lanza owned weapons of the same makes and models.

"He visited two classrooms," said a law enforcement official at the scene, adding that those two classrooms were adjoining.

The first 911 call was recorded about 9:30 and said someone had been shot at the school, an almost unthinkable turn of events on what had begun as just another chilly day in quiet Newtown. Soon, frantic parents were racing to the school, hoping their children were all right. By 10:30, the shooting had stopped. By then, the police had arrived with dogs.

"There is going to be a black cloud over this area forever," said Craig Ansman, who led his 4-year-old daughter from the preschool down the street from the elementary school. "It will never go away."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut (Published 2012)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 20-year-old man wearing combat gear and armed with semiautomatic pistols and a semiautomatic rifle killed 26 people - 20 of them children - in an attack in an elementary school in central Connecticut on Friday.

# data[].attributes.body
The Second Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Second Amendment, often referred to as the right to bear arms, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over gun control legislation and the rights of individual citizens to buy, own and carry firearms.

Right to Bear Arms

The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: "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 framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

During the Revolutionary War era, "militia" referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776

Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.

State Militias

But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.

However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of "organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia" by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.

So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.

Well-Regulated Militia

Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.

The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.

Those who argue it is a collective right point to the "well-regulated Militia" clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War.

On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.

Those who support stricter gun control legislation have argued that limits are necessary on gun ownership, including who can own them, where they can be carried and what type of guns should be available for purchase.

Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill, in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically.

This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court, which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

For a long time, the federal judiciary held the opinion that the Second Amendment remained among the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that did not fall under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which would thereby apply its limitations to state governments. For example, in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois, the Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and did not prohibit state governments from regulating an individual's ownership or use of guns.

But in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.

Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia lent the Court's weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes.

McDonald v. Chicago

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right."

Gun Control Debate

The Supreme Court's narrow rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases left open many key issues in the gun control debate.

In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of "presumptively lawful" regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

Mass Shootings

Since that verdict, as lower courts battle back and forth on cases involving such restrictions, the public debate over Second Amendment rights and gun control remains very much open, even as mass shootings became an increasingly frequent occurrence in American life.

To take just three examples, the Columbine Shooting, where two teens killed thirteen people at Columbine High School, prompted a national gun control debate. The Sandy Hook shooting of 20 children and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 led President Barack Obama and many others to call for tighter background checks and a renewed ban on assault weapons.

And in 2017, the mass shooting of 58 people attending a country music concert in Las Vegas (to date the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, overtaking the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida) inspired calls to restrict sales of "bump stocks," attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster.

On the other side of the ongoing debate of gun control measures are the NRA and other gun rights supporters, powerful and vocal groups that views such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights.

Sources

Bill of Rights, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government.
Jack Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Amendment II, National Constitution Center.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, LiveScience.
Second Amendment, Legal Information Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment, often referred to as the right to bear arms, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
5. Views on gun policy

The public is divided in overall views of gun policy in the United States. Yet large majorities of Americans continue to support a number of specific gun policy proposals, including restrictions on gun sales to the mentally ill and expanded gun background checks.

Attitudes about guns and gun policies divide gun owners and non-owners, Republicans and Democrats, and urban, suburban and rural residents.

Overall, 52% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter than they are today, while nearly as many say they are about right (30%) or should be less strict than they are today (18%).

Americans also differ about who should be able to own guns, where guns should be legally permitted and what types of guns should be legally available.

A majority of Americans (64%) say most people should be able to legally own guns, but some people should not. There is less agreement on the places that guns should be legally permitted and the types of guns that should be legally available.

Most people take a middle-ground approach on both questions: 35% say guns should be permitted in most places, while some places should be off-limits; another 28% say guns should be allowed in some places but not most places.

Similarly, a majority (70%) says that most or some types of guns should be legally available for sale in the U.S.; just 20% say almost all types of guns should be legally available, while only 10% say almost no types should be available.

As in the past, a number of specific gun policy proposals draw extensive public support. About nine-in-ten Americans (89%) favor preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns. Nearly as many favor requiring background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows (84%) and barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists (83%). Roughly two-thirds or more strongly favor all of these proposals.

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

Proposals for easing gun laws draw much less support. About half say they favor allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (46%) and allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (45%). Even fewer Americans support shortening waiting periods for buying guns legally (36%).

The public is broadly opposed to allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit: 81% oppose this proposal, with two-thirds strongly opposed. Just 19% favor allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit.

Gun owners, non-gun owners differ on most policies

Large majorities of gun owners and non-gun owners favor banning gun sales to the mentally ill, expanded background checks on gun sales and barring gun purchases by people on federal no-fly or watch lists. But there is less agreement on other policy proposals, including those that would make it easier to purchase and carry a gun.

Among those who don't own guns, 80% favor creation of a federal database to track gun sales, 77% back an assault-weapons ban and 74% support a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. No more than about half of gun owners support any of these policies.

The differences are just as stark regarding proposals for easing gun restrictions. Two-thirds of gun owners favor allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (67%) and allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in elementary and secondary schools (66%). These proposals draw support from less than 40% of people who do not own guns.

Other proposals draw less support from both groups, though about half of gun owners (53%) favor shorter waiting periods on gun sales, compared with 29% of non-gun owners. Just a third of gun owners and only 12% of non-gun owners support allowing people to carry guns without a permit.

Partisanship and gun ownership are factors in views of gun policies

Partisan views on gun policy proposals fall along similar lines as the opinions of gun owners and non-gun owners. Large majorities in both parties favor preventing the mentally ill from buying guns (89% each), background checks for private gun sales and gun shows (90% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans), and barring people on federal watch lists from buying guns (85% of Democrats, 82% of Republicans).

Other proposals are much more divisive. For instance, only about a quarter of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (26%) support allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places, compared with 72% of Republicans and Republican leaners. The gap is nearly as wide in support for allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in schools (26% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans).

Both partisanship and gun ownership are key factors in attitudes about gun policies. On several issues, there are wide differences between Republican and Democratic gun owners - and even larger differences between members of both parties who do not own guns.

Republicans generally are more likely than Democrats to own guns: 44% of Republicans and Republican leaners say they own at least one gun, compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. (For more on who owns guns, see Chapter 1.)

There is broad support among gun owners and non-gun owners in both parties for the bans on gun sales to the mentally ill and people on no-fly or watch lists, as well as for background checks on private gun sales.

But Republican gun owners stand out for their low levels of support for a federal gun database and bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Just 43% of Republican gun owners back a federal gun database, 38% favor a ban on assault-style weapons and 32% support banning sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Among Republicans who do not own guns - and Democratic gun owners and non-gun owners - each of these proposals draws majority support.

Overall, more Republicans than Democrats favor proposals to loosen gun control laws; however, this support is significantly stronger among Republican gun owners than among non-owners. Similarly, Democrats are less supportive overall, but Democratic gun owners give these proposals somewhat more support than Democrats who don't own guns.

A larger share of Republican gun owners support each of the proposals to loosen gun laws than any other group. About eight-in-ten favor allowing concealed carry in more places (82%) and allowing teachers to carry in schools (81%). A smaller majority backs shortening waiting periods to buy guns (61%), and about two-in-five favor concealed carry without a permit (43%).

Majorities of both Democratic gun owners and Republican non-owners have similar attitudes about shortening waiting periods and allowing concealed carry without a permit. These groups are divided on expanding concealed carry to more places and allowing teachers to carry guns in schools: about three-in-five Republicans non-owners favor them, compared with two-in-five Democratic owners - a gap of about 20 percentage points on each.

Democrats who do not own guns are strongly opposed to all of these proposals that would make gun laws less strict: Only about one-in-five support expanding conceal carry, carrying by teachers and shortening waiting periods, and just 9% support concealed carry without a permit.

Rural and urban residents diverge in views of many gun policies

Views on gun policies also vary widely by the types of communities in which people live. Rural residents are generally more skeptical of proposals to toughen gun laws than are people who live in suburban and urban areas. Rural residents also tend to be more supportive of proposals to loosen gun restrictions.

In part, these gaps reflect differences in partisanship and gun ownership in these communities. Rural residents are more likely than urban and suburban residents to identify as Republicans or lean Republican; people who live in rural areas also are more likely to own guns than those in other communities.

Still, majorities of rural, suburban and urban residents favor a federal gun database, expanded background checks and some restrictions on gun sales.

However, 57% of rural residents support allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places. Less than half of those in suburbs (45%) and urban areas (38%) support increased concealed carry. There are similar differences among people in different types of communities in views of allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools.

About half of Americans favor stricter gun laws

As with views of specific gun policy proposals, opinions about whether gun laws in the U.S. generally should be stricter or less strict are divided by partisanship, gun ownership and community type.

Democrats broadly favor making gun laws stricter than they are today. Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic leaners - including 78% of non-gun owners and 62% of gun owners - say gun laws in this country should be stricter than they are today.

Republicans and Republican leaners are divided: 46% say current gun laws are "about right," while 30% say they should be less strict and 24% say they should be stricter.

About half of Republican gun owners (52%) and 40% of Republican non-gun owners say gun laws are about right. More than a third of Republicans who do not own guns (35%) support stricter gun laws in the U.S., compared with just 10% of Republican gun owners. And while 37% of Republican gun owners say gun laws should be less strict, only 24% of Republican non-gun owners say the same.

Another factor in attitudes about the nation's gun laws is how gun owners and people who do not own guns feel about the prospect of their own future gun ownership. Most people who own guns say they can never see themselves not owning a gun: Among this group, just 18% say gun laws should be stricter. Among the smaller share of gun owners who say at some point they could see themselves not owning a gun, 59% favor stricter gun laws.

Among those who do not currently own guns, about as many say they could see themselves owning a gun at some point as say they could never see themselves owning a gun.

Among non-gun owners who are open to the possibility of owning a gun in the future, 51% favor stricter gun laws. By contrast, 75% of non-gun owners who say they can never see themselves owning a gun back stricter gun laws.

Majority says most people should be able to own guns

Gun owners and non-gun owners hold different views about who should be able to legally own guns, where guns should legally be permitted, and what types of guns should be legally available.

A majority of the public (64%) says that most people, but not all, should be able to legally own guns; however, there is a 24-percentage-point gap between owners and non-owners on this question. Fully 80% of gun owners say most people should be able to own guns, plus another 9% who say almost everyone should be able to. A majority of non-owners say most people should be able to own guns (56%), but about one-third either say that some, but not most, people should be able to own guns (24%) or say that almost no one should be able to own guns (12%).

Some respondents who said most, but not all, people should be able to own guns legally were asked to describe in their own words "what should disqualify someone from being able to legally own guns." Many gun owners and non-owners said people with mental health issues should be disqualified, as well as those who have felony convictions or histories of violent behavior.

Greater differences emerge between owners and non-owners on the places guns should be allowed and what types of guns should be available.

A majority of gun owners say people should be able to carry guns at least most places, while non-owners are more divided on the issue. About twice as many gun owners (34%) than non-owners (15%) say people should be able to carry guns almost everywhere. Conversely, four times more non-owners (20%) than gun owners (5%) say people should be able to carry almost nowhere.

Some who said people should be able to carry guns most, but not all, places were asked "what are some of the places ... people should not be able to legally carry guns?" Many mentioned crowded public places, schools, movie theaters and places that serve alcohol.

The share saying almost all types of guns should be legally available (36%) is higher among gun owners as well. Far fewer non-owners say this (12%). About twice as many non-gun owners (34%) as gun owners (15%) say some, but not most, types of guns should be available.

Those who said most, but not all, types of guns should be legally available were asked to share, in their own words, "What are some of the types of guns you think should not be legally available to buy?" These respondents frequently mentioned military-style weapons - though definitions of what constitutes "military style" differed considerably. Some people mentioned semiautomatic or automatic rifles, such as AK-47s, while others mentioned more powerful military equipment such as missiles, explosives, tanks and fighter aircraft.

Supporters of less strict gun laws more likely to contact elected officials

While relatively few people have ever contacted public officials about guns (15%) or given money to organizations taking positions on the issue (16%), gun owners are more politically engaged on gun issues than other Americans.

Gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to say they have ever contacted public officials to express their opinion on gun policy: 21% of owners say they have done this, including 9% who say they did so in the past 12 months, while only 12% of non-owners say they have ever done this.

Furthermore, those who think gun laws should be less strict are more likely to contact public officials on the issue (22% have ever done so), compared with those who think gun laws should be stricter (15%) or are about right (10%). This gap increases further among gun owners: About as many gun owners who want less strict laws (19%) have contacted officials in the last year as owners who want stricter laws have ever contacted officials (20%).

A larger share of gun owners contribute money to organizations that take positions on gun policy (28% have ever done so and 12% have in the last year) than non-owners (10% ever and 6% in the last year).

Public split over protecting right to own guns or controlling gun ownership

The public is closely divided over whether it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership. In a nationally representative Pew Research Center survey conducted April 5 to 11, 2017, among 1,501 adults over 18, 51% said it was more important to control gun ownership and 47% said protecting the right to own guns is more important (see long term trends on the public's views about guns).

These attitudes have been mostly stable over the past eight years - with the public about evenly divided between protecting gun rights and controlling ownership.

Attitudes on which is more important have shifted about 5 points since last August, however. Then, 52% said it was more important to protect gun rights, compared with 46% who said it was more important to control gun ownership.

Republicans and Democrats remain widely divided over the importance of protecting the right of Americans to own guns. About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican leaners (76%) say protecting gun rights is more important, compared with about a quarter of Democrats and Democratic leaners (22%).

The gap between the two parties has increased significantly since 2000, when there was an 18-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Democrats. Today there is a 54-point gap.

Public divided over the National Rifle Association's influence on gun laws

The public is divided over whether the National Rifle Association (NRA) has too much influence or the right amount when it comes to gun laws in this country: 44% say it has too much and 40% say the right amount. Another 15% say it has too little influence.

Compared with gun owners, adults who do not own guns are more likely to say the NRA has too much influence. Half of non-owners say the NRA has too much influence and just 34% say the right amount. About half of gun owners (53%) say the NRA has the right amount of influence and 29% say it has too much. Few in either group say it has too little (17% among gun owners and 14% among non-owners).

There are bigger differences in the way the NRA is viewed among Republicans and Democrats. Two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the NRA has too much influence; only 15% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the same. About two-thirds of Republicans say it has the right amount of influence, compared with 21% of Democrats.

A similar share of Republican gun owners and non-owners say the NRA has the right amount of influence (67% of owners and 62% of non-owners). Democrats tend to see the NRA similarly, regardless of whether they personally own a gun: 60% of Democratic gun owners say the NRA has too much influence; 67% of Democrats without a gun say the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The public is divided in overall views of gun policy in the United States. Yet large majorities of Americans continue to support a number of specific gun policy proposals, including restrictions on gun sales to the mentally ill and expanded gun background checks.

# data[].attributes.body
GUNS = PROTECTION

Guns are a necessary tool in a violent world. They provide protection from muggings, home invasions, terrorist incidents, and mass shootings. Furthermore, an armed citizenry is (as a last resort) a guarantee against tyranny. Should it ever come to insurrection, then the people would have the means to rise in armed revolt against the authorities and overthrow them. Even if it never comes to that, the threat of armed rebellion will help preserve government from tyranny.

# data[].attributes.body
STATES SHOULD HAVE A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE

Guns are not a defence against tyranny. The rule of law is the only defence against tyranny. The idea that armed people could overthrow a professional army is laughable; it might have worked in the 18th Century, but the capability gap between civilians with small arms and modern armies with tanks and stealth bombers is now a yawning gulf.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun deaths in the U.S. increase in 2017 more than any year in decades.

# data[].attributes.body
GUNS ≠ PROTECTION

It’s very, very rare for mass shooters to be stopped by an armed civilian. There have been cases (such as when an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit potentially foiled a mass shooting in Chicago in 2015). However, in the event of a mass shooting, armed citizens could actually make the situation worse by confusing first responders and people around them about who the shooter is. In addition, gun owners are more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than they are an intruder.