# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A reporter from NBC News tried to embarrass President Donald Trump while he was in South Korea speaking at a joint press conference alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in in Seoul on Tuesday.

While many of the questions centered around the Korean Peninsula, Ali Vitali brought up the issue of gun control in an overt attempt to grandstand.

"You've talked about wanting to put extreme vetting on people trying to come into the United States," Vitali said with a smug tone. "But I wonder if you would consider extreme vetting for people trying to buy a gun."

Trump called her out for choosing his trip to Asia to bring up the issue of gun control.

"Well you're bringing up a situation that probably shouldn't be discussed too much right now," Trump said. "We could probably let a little time go by, but it's okay if you feel that's an appropriate question even though we are in the heart of South Korea."

Trump then pointed out that if more extreme gun vetting were in place, the man who took out the gunman might not have been able to have his gun and more people would have died.

Law enforcement officials confirmed that the good Samaritan who took out the shooter saved countless more lives from being lost.

WATCH:

Vitali failed to acknowledge the fact that a previously released report indicated that the Texas church shooter was ineligible to purchase a firearm, however due to a mistake made by the Air Force under the Obama administration, the shooter was able to purchase the firearm because his criminal records were not reported to the FBI. The system did not fail, the government failed.

Interestingly, no media outlets reported Vitali's name or the news organization that she represented at the time of this report; reports simply stated, "a reporter asked."

Vitali also tweeted out her remarks and sentiments following her stunt:

I asked @POTUS about gun control after yet another mass shooting. He says its too soon to discuss, but wouldn't have helped in TX anyway.
- Ali Vitali (@alivitali) November 7, 2017

.@realDonaldTrump has advocated "extreme vetting" for ppl trying to come to the US. Would he consider the same for ppl trying to buy a gun? https://t.co/dFhnAPiNbi
- Ali Vitali (@alivitali) November 7, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: NBC Reporter Tries To Use Texas Shooting To Embarrass Trump In South Korea, Fails Miserably

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A reporter from NBC News tried to embarrass President Donald Trump while he was in South Korea speaking at a joint press conference alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in in Seoul on Tuesday. While many of the questions centered around the Korean Peninsula, Ali Vitali brought up the issue of gun control in an overt attempt to grandstand.

# data[].attributes.headline
America's Unique Gun Violence Problem Explained

# data[].attributes.subject
America's Unique Gun Violence Problem Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America's unique gun violence problem, explained in 16 maps and charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the developed world, these levels of gun violence are a uniquely American problem. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rules for discussing firearms in the United States obscure the obvious solutions.

Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP

A parable:
A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain. At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic-but more lethal-is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them. After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won't work. "No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said 'stilts' when the proper term is 'piles,' so why should anybody listen to you?" So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.
The deadliest mass shooting in American history has restarted the long debate whether something can be done to impede these recurring slaughters. That debate is conducted pursuant to rigid rules.

Rule 1. The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it's out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it's out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, "Why do so many Americans die from gunfire?" but "What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?"

Rule 2. The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.

Rule 3. The debate must always honor the "responsible gun owners" who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners. It's out of bounds to ask for some proof of this claimed responsibility, some form of training for example. It's far out of bounds to propose measures that might impinge on owners: the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers.

Rule 4. Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety. No matter how blatantly gun advocates appeal to fears and fantasies-Sean Hannity musing aloud on national TV about how he with a gun in his hands could have saved the day in Las Vegas if only he had been there-nobody other than a lefty blogger may notice that this debate is about race and sex, not personal security. It's out of bounds to observe that "Chicago" is shorthand for "we only have gun crime because of black people" or how often "I want to protect my family" is code for "I need to prove to my girlfriend who's really boss."

These rules are powerful, and I myself have sometimes played the game according to them. I suggested here in The Atlantic back in 2015:

A requirement that gun owners carry insurance would not only protect potential accident victims-including gun owners, since many gun accidents are self-inflicted-against economic loss. An insurance requirement would create incentives for more responsible gun behavior. Just as insurance companies offer better rates to those who install burglar alarms, so they might offer better rates to those who install secure gun safes. Just as a prior accident raises the future cost of car insurance, so careless gun owners will be encouraged to exercise better care in the future.

I still think this is a good idea. But I've come around more and more to the gun advocate point of view that there is something artificial and even dishonest about the technocratic approach to gun control. There's nothing wrong with, say, Nick Kristof's list of ideas in an October 2 New York Times column of proposals such as

Limit gun purchases by any one person to no more than, say, two a month, and tighten rules on straw purchasers who buy for criminals. Make serial numbers harder to remove.

But once you have accepted that it's reasonable for citizens to accumulate firearms at the rate of 24 a year, it's hard to imagine that there is really anything else you can do that will prevent a lot of gun deaths. Americans die from gunfire in proportions unparalleled in the civilized world because Americans own guns in proportions unparalleled in the civilized world. More guns mean more lethal accidents, more suicides, more everyday arguments escalated into murderous fusillades.

It's of course imaginable that by undertaking a vast network of ultra-intrusive interventions into family and personal life, a society could reduce those negative outcomes even without reducing its arsenals of firearms.

Leah Libresco, in a much praised article in the October 3 Washington Post offered just such an alternative.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

...

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

There are many ways to describe such a project, but "narrowly tailored" is not it. There are some 23 million American men over age 65. Identifying which of them are depressed-and then providing access to mental health for that subgroup-would be a social intervention of a very large scale. Even more impressive though is the project to identify young men at risk of violence and then to dissuade them from it. Since one of the most powerful indicator of that risk is race, undertaking such a project while also complying with civil rights laws will be more daunting yet. It is as if we decided that rather than crudely require airline passengers to wear seatbelts during turbulence, we instead would take the "narrowly tailored" approach of mapping all the air pressure variations throughout the planet's atmosphere in order to pilot around them.

There are subtle, sophisticated, and nuanced approaches to the gun problem that balance the rights of gun owners against the imperatives of gun safety. They may well even make some difference at the margin. But they are unlikely to make any significant difference. Americans debate these approaches not because they are likely to be effective, but because the methods that will work-that have worked in every other advanced society-are here politically taboo.

Was there one legal change that could have thwarted Stephen Paddock? Probably not. But the reason crimes like his are so common here, and so rare in western Europe, is not that we are afflicted with more Stephen Paddocks than they, but because their Stephen Paddocks find it so much more difficult to obtain guns, and especially large quantities of guns. It is not impossible there either of course. The jihadist terrorists who killed 130 people in November 2015 carried rifles, as did the Charlie Hebdo killers.

But a society is in a much better position to stop shooting deaths when it can tightly regulate the buying and carrying of weapons long before they are ever used to murder anybody. In all but a half dozen American states, it would be perfectly legal for people like the Charlie Hebdo killers to walk to the very front door of their targets with their rifles slung over their shoulders, lawful responsible gun owners to the very second before they opened fire on massed innocents.

Like the villagers in the flood plain in my parable, Americans are unlikely to see much benefit from their ingenious technical solutions to gun violence so long as guns are easily available to just about everyone who wants them.

So in a limited sense, the gun advocates are right. The promise of "common sense gun safety" is a hoax, i.e. Americans probably will not be able to save the tens of thousands of lives lost every year to gun violence-and the many more thousands maimed and traumatized-while millions of Americans carry guns in their purses and glove compartments, store guns in their night tables and dressers. Until Americans change their minds about guns, Americans will die by guns in numbers resembling the casualty figures in Somalia and Honduras more than Britain or Germany.

It's truly hard to imagine that this change will be led by law. Guns are inscribed into the Constitution of the United States and the individual states. On the other hand, it's also in most states legal for a parent to strap her child into a car seat, roll the windows up tight, and smoke a pack of cigarettes in the vehicle. Parents almost universally refrain, not because they are compelled, but because they love their children and will not willingly expose them to acknowledged dangers.

Maybe the most decisive first step toward a safer society is to think less, for now, about (comparatively rare) mass shootings-and think more instead about (horrifyingly commonplace) everyday tragedies like this one in Tampa, Florida, on September 21: "A 4-year-old Florida girl has died after accidentally pulling the trigger of a gun when she reached into her grandmother's purse for candy."

Or this one, September 29, in Dearborn, Michigan: "Two three-year-old children have been shot by another toddler at a home daycare facility in the US state of Michigan." Or this, from Kentucky on August 1: " Police said a 2-year-old died Monday after being shot in the head in his Louisville home. ... [T]he boy and his 3-year-old brother found the gun in the top of a closet."

The adults who exposed those children to death and injury surely thought they were doing the right thing by having guns in their home. But they were wrong, dead wrong. As Melinda Wenner Moyer writes in the current issue of Scientific American: "The research on guns is not uniform, and we could certainly use more of it. But when all but a few studies point in the same direction, we can feel confident that the arrow is aiming at the truth-which is, in this case, that guns do not inhibit crime and violence but instead make it worse."

And the surest sign that gun advocates know how lethal the science is for their cause is their determination to suppress it: since the mid-1990s, Republicans in Congress have successfully cut off federal funding for non-industry gun-safety research. That's not what you do when the facts are on your side.

Gun safety begins, then, not with technical fixes, but with spreading the truthful information: people who bring guns into their homes are endangering themselves and their loved ones.

Such a change would not in itself prevent massacres like that in Las Vegas, any more than relocating the village in my parable would stop all drownings. Creeks course down hillsides as well as through valleys. But in an America where guns were viewed as they are in Australia or Canada, the project of moving two dozen of them into a hotel suite would likely be detected somewhere along the way. The person moving those guns would find himself in trouble-not for murder-but for some petty gun infraction. His weapons might be confiscated, or he himself sent to prison for some months. His plan would be interrupted very likely without anyone ever imagining what had been contemplated. Mass shootings so seldom happen in other countries not because they have developed carefully crafted policies against shootings, but because they have instituted broad policies to restrict guns.

Those countries do not restrict gun ownership to zero. According to the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey, rates of gun ownership in Switzerland and Finland are more than half the US rate; in Canada, France, Norway, and Sweden more than one-third the US rate.

But those countries do tightly regulate the movement of guns from place to place. Because they regard gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right, they screen much more carefully not only for criminal records, but for histories of addiction, mental health treatment, and domestic violence. They test whether applicants for gun licenses can in fact, and not just in self-assessment, handle their weapons responsibly. They protect against major gun crime with the same "broken windows" policing philosophy that Americans used to secure their cities in the 1990s: lawbreakers typically commit a lot of petty infractions on their way to bigger crimes, and enforcing against the former can head off many of the latter.

Even more basically: because there are fewer guns and gun owners to track, those who are dangerous stand out more conspicuously, before it is too late. By living above the floodplain, those countries better manage the flood. Americans insist instead on seeking the one technical fix that would save lives without reducing guns. It's an illusion for which Americans annually pay a higher price in blood than they shed in most of the nation's wars.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy (2020). In 2001 and 2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rules for discussing firearms in the United States obscure the obvious solutions. A parable: A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain. At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic-but more lethal-is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun Control is Wrong on so many Levels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun laws in America this shouldnt even be an issue. Our Second Amendment right not only states the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but more importantly for this issue, shall not be infringed.

During the Revolutionary War, most of the Americans fought Britain with their own guns. The people insisted that the U.S. Constitution have a Bill of Rights to stop the government from taking their weapons.

Who do you think would voluntarily give up a weapon they paid for, a weapon that may be used for protection of their family? An honest, law-abiding citizen. Unfortunately, many of these citizens will follow orders and disarm themselves, leaving them helpless against an armed criminal. If a person thinks criminals will voluntarily give up their weapons, that person is delusional.

If guns were to be banned, we would see a surge in the black market for guns.

If a murderer does not have a gun, but wants to kill others, he will find something to complete his task, whether its a pencil, a car, a knife, or whatever. We are trying to stop evil in this world that we cannot prevent.

Studies have shown that locations where guns have been outlawed, neighborhood burglaries increased. We cannot rely on the police to deter crime. Remember: the police arrive after a crime has been committed.

Banning guns will favor the criminals, by taking advantage of innocent victims.

I also believe we shouldnt have areas or locations where firearms are prohibited there is no better place for a killer to release anger than at a mall or school where they will not face any threats. I believe guns should be allowed on college campuses with the exception that the school should know its students that carry guns.

While some people say this would only increase the number of bullets flying in the air, there is a chance that the shooter would be stopped before they ever start. With a number of defenseless citizens in a specific location, there is zero percent chance that somebody will stop the shooter until the police arrive, which is too late.

We need to understand that we cannot stop crimes and murders. And banning guns would be a step, or two, backwards instead of moving forward in the right direction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun laws in America - this shouldn't even be an issue. Our Second Amendment right not only states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," but more importantly for this issue, "shall not be infringed." During the Revolutionary War, most of the Americans fought Britain with their own guns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is common practice to set legal ages for activities that require maturity such as voting, driving, and drinking alcohol. Purchasing and possessing a firearm necessitate the same, or greater, ability to act responsibly, and data shows that young adults account for a disproportionate number of gun homicides and suicides. By strengthening our minimum age laws for purchasing and possessing firearms, we will help protect our young people and the public at large from all too common tragedies.

Laws imposing minimum age requirements for the possession and purchase of firearms are intended to decrease access to firearms by young people and, correspondingly, to decrease the number of suicides, homicides, and unintentional shootings among that population.

In 2014, 21,101 people under the age of 21 were shot by guns. 3,265 died from those gunshot wounds..)) Of these deaths, 1,925 were classified as homicides, 1,145 as suicides, and 122 as the result of unintentional shootings;

Firearms were used in 41% of suicide deaths among individuals under age 21 in 2014.

Laws that prohibit unsupervised possession or purchase of firearms by children and young people can prevent tragedies. Based on data from the FBI, 18- to 24-year-olds account for a disproportionate percentage of arrests for homicide and violent crime in general. A survey of convicted gun offenders in 13 states found that nearly a quarter of them would have been prohibited from obtaining firearms at the time of the crime if the minimum legal age for possessing any type of firearm was 21 years. Yet, as described below, federal law and the laws in most states continue to allow unsupervised access to firearms by individuals in these age groups.

Additional information about laws preventing child access to firearms is included in our summary on Child Access Prevention.

Federal law in this area distinguishes between long guns (rifles and shotguns) and handguns, and between gun possession and gun sales. Federal law also provides stronger age restrictions for sales by licensed gun sellers.

Minimum Age for Gun Sales and Transfers

Under federal law -Handguns Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)

Licensed firearms dealers
Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.

Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18.

Unlicensed persons
Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions*.

Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.

Minimum Age for Gun Possession: Subject to limited exceptions*, federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18. Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.

*Exceptions: Federal law provides exceptions for the temporary transfer and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.

Several states and the District of Columbia impose minimum age requirements that extend beyond those contained in federal law. Those laws generally fall into four categories:

Laws imposing a stricter minimum age for handgun purchases than federal law;

Laws imposing a minimum age for all long gun purchases, from licensed or unlicensed sellers;

Laws imposing age requirements for possession of handguns that are stricter than federal law; and

Laws imposing a minimum age for possession of long guns.

Additional information about laws preventing child access to firearms is included in our summary on Child Access Prevention.

State Minimum Age Laws That Extend Beyond Federal Law

State Laws Governing Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Firearms
For citations to these laws, please see the chart above.
States Imposing Minimum Age Requirements for All Firearm Purchases

Although federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling long guns to persons under 18, there is no federal regulation of the sale of long guns by unlicensed dealers to minors. Similarly, while federal law prohibits handgun sales by licensed dealers to persons under 21, unlicensed dealers are prohibited only from selling handguns to persons under 18. As listed above, many states have imposed a minimum age for the purchase of all firearms, including both handguns and long guns, regardless of whether they are purchased from a licensed firearms dealer.

States with Stricter Minimum Age Requirements for Possession of Handguns than Federal Law

Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Washington, and the District of Columbia impose minimum age requirements for the possession of handguns which are stricter than the federal minimum of 18.

States Imposing Minimum Age Requirements for Possession of Long Guns

While federal law prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers from selling a long gun to anyone under 18, there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun. Twenty-three states have enacted laws to at least partially close this gap, and impose a minimum age at which persons can possess long guns. Many of these laws contain exceptions which allow younger children to possess long guns where the minor's parent or guardian is present, or when the minor is engaged in hunting or target shooting.

Selected Local Law

New York City

In New York City, however, no person under age 21 may be granted a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry any firearm, with certain exceptions. It is also unlawful to transfer a firearm to any person under age 21 unless he or she is exempted. A person under 21 may carry, fire or use a rifle or shotgun without being subject to the permit requirement if he or she is in the presence of, or under the direct supervision of, a permit holder, or engaged in a military drill, competition, or target practice at a firing range.

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

Minimum age of 21 is imposed for all handgun sales, from licensed or unlicensed sellers (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, District of Columbia).

Minimum age of 18 is imposed for all long gun sales, from licensed or unlicensed sellers (22 states and the District of Columbia).

Minimum age of 21 is imposed for possession of handguns (Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia).

Minimum age of 18 is imposed for possession of long guns (16 states and the District of Columbia).

Younger teens are allowed to possess long guns only under direct adult supervision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is common practice to set legal ages for activities that require maturity such as voting, driving, and drinking alcohol. Purchasing and possessing a firearm necessitate the same, or greater, ability to act responsibly, and data shows that young adults account for a disproportionate number of gun homicides and suicides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, gun control advocates are renewing calls for tightening regulation on firearms.

If the story sounds familiar, it's because a similar dynamic has played out time and time again in recent years, after every new gut-wrenching incident of gun violence makes headlines.

On the federal level, at least, the interest and attention in new legislation has led to almost no action in decades, despite numerous polls showing widespread public support for measures like strengthened background checks and banning certain types of high-capacity gun magazines and military-style assault rifles.

With such a high death toll this time, perhaps the pressure for change will be greater. Here are five big obstacles that stand in the way.

The NRA

The National Rifle Association is one of the most influential interest groups in US politics - not just because of the money it spends on lobbying politicians, but also because of the engagement of its 5 million members.

It opposes most proposals to strengthen firearm regulations and is behind efforts at both the federal and state levels to roll back many existing restrictions on gun ownership.

In 2016 the NRA spent $4m on lobbying and direct contributions to politicians as well as more than $50m on political advocacy, including an estimated $30m to help elect Donald Trump president.

Its overall annual budget is roughly $250m, allocated to educational programmes, gun facilities, membership events, sponsorships, legal advocacy and related efforts.

More than just the numbers, however, the NRA has developed a reputation in Washington as a political force that can make or break even the strongest politicians.

It grades politicians on their votes and directs its resources and those of its membership - both financial and organisational - to supporting its fiercest advocates and defeating staunch opponents.

As one former Republican congressman told the New York Times in 2013: "That was the one group where I said, 'As long as I'm in office, I'm not bucking the NRA.'"

Could it change? Gun-control groups, backed by wealthy benefactors like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have become more organised in recent years, attempting to match the NRA's political might. As long as pro-gun groups keep racking up the legislative and electoral wins, however, they'll still be king of the hill.

Were Las Vegas guns altered to fire more?

Las Vegas shootings: Is the gunman a terrorist?

Obama: Guns laws were the biggest frustration of my presidency

Gerrymandering

Most recent attempts to pass new federal laws regulating firearms are over before they ever really begin, stymied in the US House of Representatives, which has been in Republican hands since 2011.

In June 2016 a group of Democratic politicians staged a sit-in on the floor of the House to protest the Republican House leadership's decision not to hold a vote on two gun-control bills.

The House tends to have a pro-gun-rights tilt for the same reason it has recently tended toward the Republican Party in numbers larger than the pure national congressional vote total would indicate.

Due to the way the lines of House congressional districts are drawn, many by Republican-controlled state legislatures, there are more "safe" seats for Republicans than there are for Democrats.

In these congressional districts, the politicians are more responsive to their primary voters, who tend to be motivated by hot-button issues like gun rights. The price for crossing these voters is much higher than alienating those who, while perhaps more in favour of gun control, do not vote in Republican primaries.

Demographics also play a part in the pro-gun sentiment in the House, as there are more rural districts with higher levels of gun ownership than there are urban ones. Racking up big pro-gun-control majorities in urban areas does little to change this political reality in the House.

Could it change? Unless there's a flood of big-city liberals itching for the country life, demographics will be what they are. There have been some efforts to crack down on overly partisan gerrymandering, however. Barack Obama has made it one of his post-presidency goals, and the Supreme Court is currently considering a legal challenge to Wisconsin legislative districts that give a distinct advantage to Republicans. Getting politics fully out of line-drawing will be a tall task, however.

The filibuster

If a gun-control bill were to make it out of the House of Representatives, it would still face a challenge in the Senate, where the rural-urban divide plays itself out on the state level, as well. States dominated by big-city voters, such as New York, Massachusetts or California, are outnumbered by rural and Southern states with pro-gun sentiments.

The rules of the Senate can also thwart efforts to enact more stringent firearm regulation, thanks to the "filibuster" - a procedural hurdle that means most major pieces of legislation need the backing of 60 out of 100 senators to pass, rather than a simple 51-vote majority.

In 2013, following the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, it appeared that efforts to strengthen gun-purchase background checks had significant bipartisan support in the Senate. After a concerted lobbying effort by the NRA, however, the bill received only 56 votes in favour, four short of the mark necessary to break the filibuster.

No gun-control measure has come close to passage since then.

Could it change? Mr Trump has been perhaps the most vocal proponent of doing away with the Senate filibuster, as he views it as an obstacle to enacting his legislative agenda. A majority of senators are on the record against changing the rules, however.

The courts

With Congress more interested in rolling back existing firearm regulations than implementing new ones, left-leaning US states have taken a greater role in implementing gun-control measures.

After the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, 21 states passed new gun laws, including imposing assault weapons bans in Connecticut, Maryland and New York.

Some of the laws have run up against another barrier, however - the US judicial system. In recent years the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the right to own personal weapons such as handguns is enshrined in the constitution.

The Second Amendment says that "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-control activists point to the introductory clause as evidence that the amendment was meant primarily to create a "well regulated" militia. In 2008, however, a sharply divided court held that the Second Amendment provides a broad right to firearm ownership that prohibits stringent registration requirement for personal weapons.

Since then, lower courts have considered challenges to state-imposed assault weapon bans, registration requirements and open-carry prohibitions. So far the Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the new cases, however.

Could it change? Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch has made it clear he views Second Amendment rights broadly. The president is filling out the ranks of the lower courts with pro-gun-rights judges. If anything, the judiciary is moving to the right on this issue.

How Trump turned against gun control

What gunfire tells us about weapons used in Las Vegas

The enthusiasm gap

Perhaps the single biggest obstacle to new gun-control laws at the national level is that opponents tend to hold fiercely to their beliefs, while support for new regulation tends to ebb and flow around each new instance of violence.

The NRA's strategy, and that of pro-gun politicians, is to wait out the storm - to delay legislative efforts until attention turns elsewhere and the outcry fades.

Pro-gun politicians offer their thoughts and prayers, observe moments of silence and order flags flown half-staff. Then, in the quiet, legislative efforts are deferred and ultimately derailed.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters "there's a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country".

Mr Trump, in comments as he left the White House for Puerto Rico, said "we will be talking about gun laws as time goes by".

As time goes by. As that song from the film Casablanca says, it's still the same old story.

Could it change? According to one poll during the 2016 presidential campaign, guns were an important issue for both Democrats and Republicans. That could be a reflection of that year's record-setting mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub or the first indication of a new trend.
Follow Anthony Zurcher on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five reasons US gun control won't happen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, gun control advocates are renewing calls for tightening regulation on firearms. If the story sounds familiar, it's because a similar dynamic has played out time and time again in recent years, after every new gut-wrenching incident of gun violence makes headlines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pew reports that Americans are largely split on whether it's more important to control gun ownership or protect the right of American to own guns. | Getty

Fifty-two percent of Americans believe that the country's gun laws should be more strict than they are today, according to a Pew Research poll conducted this spring.

Thirty-four percent of people surveyed by Pew said they believe American gun laws should be a lot more strict than they are currently, while 17 percent said they should be somewhat more stringent.

Story Continued Below

Thirty percent think the current gun laws are "about right," while 18 percent said American gun laws should be less strict. Eight percent said they should be a lot less strict and 10 percent think they should be somewhat less strict.

The Pew study released Thursday takes an in-depth look at Americans' attitudes toward guns and their gun ownership habits. It found big gaps in the beliefs about gun control and the risks associated with guns between people who own them and those who do not.

For example, just under half the respondents, 47 percent, said they consider the right to own guns essential to their sense of freedom. Thirty-four percent view the right to own guns as important but not essential, while 19 percent said it is not important to them.

But a solid majority of gun owners - 74 percent - said the right to own a gun is essential to their personal sense of freedom. Just 35 percent of respondents who do not own guns said so.

There's a divide on the question of gun control, too. While 62 percent of non-gun owners say the country's gun laws should be more strict, just 29 percent of gun owners said the same (44 percent of gun owners think current laws are about right, while 27 percent said they should be less strict).

On the question of who should be allowed to own a gun, a majority of respondents, 64 percent, answered "most people." Eighty percent of gun owners said this, as did 56 percent of non-gun owners. Just under a quarter of non-gun owners, 24 percent, said just "some people" should be able to own a gun legally, while 19 percent of respondents said so overall.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Pew reports that Americans are largely split on whether it's more important to control gun ownership or protect the right of American to own guns. A slim majority, 51 percent, said gun control is more important, compared to 47 percent who said gun rights should be the priority. That's roughly flipped from August 2016, when 52 percent of respondents told Pew that gun rights are more important and 46 percent prioritized gun control.

Not surprisingly, the survey results indicate a large partisan divide on this and other gun control questions. Seventy-six percent of Republicans told Pew this year that protecting Americans' gun ownership rights is more important than gun control, while just 22 percent of Democrats said the same.

The survey, conducted from March 13 to 27 and April 4 to 18, had a sample size of 3,930, including 1,269 gun owners, and an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent. The margin of error in the sample of gun owners was plus or minus 4.8 percent.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pew survey: 52 percent of Americans want stricter gun laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty-two percent of Americans believe that the country's gun laws should be more strict than they are today, according to a Pew Research poll conducted this spring. Thirty-four percent of people surveyed by Pew said they believe American gun laws should be a lot more strict than they are currently, while 17 percent said they should be somewhat more stringent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Counterarguments to typical claims of those who oppose gun control laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Counterarguments to typical claims of those who oppose gun control laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 arguments against gun control - and why they are all wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Rifle Association and its allies have their post-shooting routine down cold. They wait a day or two and then respond with a blistering array of attacks against gun-safety advocates calling for reform.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dissatisfaction with Gun Control Laws at Highest Levels Since 2001-Gun Laws Too Strict

# data[].attributes.subject
Dissatisfaction with Gun Control Laws at Highest Levels Since 2001-Gun Laws Too Strict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook and the failed attempt to curb Americans' Second Amendment rights that happened soon afterwards, American dissatisfaction with gun laws has reached its highest levels since 2001, but, it's because the proportion of Americans who feel they're too strict has risen.

Gallup's Rebecca Rifkin wrote on January 30 "Americans' dissatisfaction with U.S. gun laws and policies has increased to 55%, nearly matching the high of 57% in 2001. Forty percent are satisfied, down from the historical average of 47% since Gallup began asking this question in this way in 2001."

Additionally, Rifkin added, "this year, the gap between those wanting stricter gun laws and those wanting less strict laws narrowed as a result of a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who want less strict laws, now at 16% up from 5% a year ago. Support for making gun laws stricter fell to 31% from 38% last January."

As a result, Refkin writes:

Americans have become more dissatisfied with gun laws over the past year, but this is attributable to a greater percentage who say gun laws are too strict, rather than not being strict enough. Americans' changing views could set the course for future gun law debates and legislation.

We've seen this issue time and again bury Democrats in elections. Colorado lost two anti-gun state senators in recall elections last September, where women, Hispanics, and blue collar workers banded together to protect their Second Amendment rights. These aren't the regular groups you see in the conservative camp. It also proves that the pro-Second Amendment rights coalition is much more bipartisan. Liberals like their guns too!

Lastly, the reason Democrats decided to go silent on this issue after 2000 is because it cost them the presidential election. Forget Florida, if Gore had won Tennessee ( his home state), West Virginia, and Arkansas, he would've won.

Instead, he tried to out-gun control his Democratic opponent in the primaries, Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), which cost him dearly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dissatisfaction with Gun Laws at Highest Levels Since 2001 - Gun Laws Too Strict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook and the failed attempt to curb Americans' Second Amendment rights that happened soon afterwards, American dissatisfaction with gun laws has reached its highest levels since 2001, but, it's because the proportion of Americans who feel they're too strict has risen.

# data[].attributes.body
Largely, the current public gun control debate in the United States occurs after a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between Jan. 2000 and July 2014. Proponents of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws, background checks, and more protections against the mentally ill buying guns. Opponents of more gun laws accuse proponents of using a tragedy to further a lost cause, stating that more laws would not have prevented the shootings.

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

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

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

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

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

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

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro 3

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

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

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

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

Pro 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Con 1

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

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

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

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

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

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

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

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

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

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

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

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

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

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

Con 4

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

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

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

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

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

Did You Know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun control: Five reasons why it won’t work

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun control: Five reasons why it won’t work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over one month after the Newtown massacre, people are still talking about tightening gun control in America. Here's why that may not be a good idea.

After the horrific Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a sense of fear gripped the nation. Stores pulled guns from their shelves. Cities organized gun buyback events. Lawmakers pledged to tighten gun laws. Bulletproof backpack sales spiked, and some kids even took guns to school for protection.

Through it all, the national debate turned once again to gun control: Should citizens even have guns? And what can we do to prevent future shooting tragedies? The Democrat party responded with clamor for more gun control. On Jan. 16, President Barack Obama signed three memorandums and announced 23 executive actions to help "reduce gun violence."

His plan emphasizes stronger background checks, bans on "assault weapons," and more emergency resources in schools. Last Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" that would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of more than 150 types of firearms, including rifles, pistols and shotguns. Feinstein is known for her anti-gun stance. She championed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 and only banned 18 specific firearms.

Although, gun violence did drop in the 1990's, a University of Pennsylvania study shows that the 1994 ban had too many loopholes and had no statistical effect on the number of mass shootings. Murder and violent crime rates continued to fall even after the ban expired. In addition to pressing for useless gun regulations, many Democrats also engage in political doublespeak. They talk about banning "assault weapons;" however, there is no set definition of an "assault weapon." It is whatever a given individual wants it to be.

They are against "military-style weapons," but these guns bear a purely cosmetic resemblance to military weapons and would never be used by the military. They speak of the dangers of "semi-automatic weapons," which sounds scary until you realize that "semi-automatic" refers to any gun that can shoot more than once without reloading (nearly every gun that shoots is semi-automatic).

They talk about "reducing gun violence" and promoting "gun safety" (can you really argue against reducing violence or promoting safety?) instead of what they're really doing, which is attacking our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms by tightening gun control laws. But no matter what terminology they use, gun control is not going to work, and here's why:

Reason #1: There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. In theory, a more strict gun law could work. In 1996, Australia implemented a strict assault weapons ban with few loopholes. The country banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and spent $500 million buying approximately 600,000 guns from private citizens. But this isn't Australia.

There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown.

Reason #2: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship.

Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people's rights being removed little by little. You can't carry your guns around in public.

Now you can't own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can't have any guns at all-time to amend the Constitution. That's an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile.

Reason #3: Mass shooters don't follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation's most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course.

But that didn't stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. Even Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the administration lacks the time to enforce existing gun laws on background checks, saying to an NRA representative, "We simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

Reason #4: Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence. Some people think that if we just get rid of guns, violence will lower dramatically. Those people are naive, especially when only 2.6 percent of all murders are committed with some type of rifle.

Thomas Jefferson once quoted criminologist Cesare Beccaria on the dangers of disarming citizens. He said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Criminals would continue finding ways to illegally acquire guns while robbing and attacking law-abiding citizens who suddenly have no means of self-defense.

Reason #5: The cause of mass shootings isn't guns; it is mental health. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" at first seems like a stupid pro-gun argument. It sounds juvenile, and it is much too easy for liberals to counter with, "Well, people need the guns to kill people," which is true.

The point is, we need to target the source of the problem, not the tools used. We need to talk about mental illness and how we can help provide services, resources and other support to those who need it. One mother posted her struggles with her mentally ill son onto her website titled "The Anarchist Soccer Mom." She writes about how her son transitions between a sweet boy who loves Harry Potter and a terrifying, screaming boy who threatens to kill her. She pleads for people to realize the real problem behind mass shootings:

"I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza's mother. I am Dylan Klebold's and Eric Harris's mother. I am James Holmes's mother. I am Jared Loughner's mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho's mother. And these boys-and their mothers-need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun control: Five reasons why it won't work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over one month after the Newtown massacre, people are still talking about tightening gun control in America. Here's why that may not be a good idea. After the horrific Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a sense of fear gripped the nation. Stores pulled guns from their shelves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With Congress showing no desire to tackle the scourge of shootings in America, President Obama unveiled Tuesday a raft of executive actions aimed at stemming gun violence.

The highly anticipated White House address came in the wake of high-profile mass shootings across the country - each one prompting the President to demand that Congress take action.

CRITICS RIP INTO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE ACTION ON GUN CONTROL

Those calls were met with silence, so the President decided to go it alone. Among the measures a teary Obama unveiled were stiffer background checks covering all gun sales, and enhanced tracking of lost firearms.

Predictably, the NRA blasted Obama's actions as "ripe for abuse" and insisted that the White House "has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment."

EDITORIAL: THE PRO-DEATH PARTY - GOP COMPOSED OF PANDERING LIARS STOKING FEAR ON GUNS

Here's a look at the major arguments by the NRA and its allies against any measures to curb gun violence - and a rebuttal from advocates well-versed in the executive actions pushed by Obama.

1. CLAIM: THIS WILL LEAD TO THE GOVERNMENT CONFISCATING OUR GUNS

Reality Check: There's nothing in the executive actions that will lead to gun confiscation, advocates say. The President's actions will simply narrow the loophole that allows people to buy guns from an unlicensed dealer - at a gun show or through the Internet - without a background check.

(Photos by iStock )

2. CLAIM: THIS WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO OBTAIN GUNS

Reality Check: The executive actions won't affect any law-abiding person who is looking to buy a gun and can pass a background check, experts say. They also won't qaffect the many law-abiding gun owners who trade and sell guns occasionally or as a hobby. Instead, the orders will crack down on sellers who are evading the background check requirement and selling guns regularly.

VICTIM'S DAD: OBAMA'S GUN CONTROL MEASURES ARE COMMON SENSE

3. CLAIM: THIS WON'T ACTUALLY PREVENT SHOOTINGS OR STOP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING THEIR HANDS ON GUNS

Reality Check: Advocates note that loopholes in federal law allow criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill to go online or to gun shows to buy guns with no background check, no questions asked. The best way to keep guns out of dangerous hands, they say, is by closing this loophole. And while Obama's executive actions do not close the loophole entirely - only congressional action can do that - they're an important step in cracking down on traffickers who fill the black market with guns that flood our streets and endanger our communities.

VAST MAJORIY OF AMERICANS WANT TOUGHER GUN LAWS

4. CLAIM: THIS VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Reality Check: There's nothing in the executive actions that violate the Second Amendment at all, advocates say. Federal law already requires background checks at gun shops - these executive actions just seek to narrow the loophole that allows guns to be sold by those "in the business" of selling firearms, because if you're making a living selling guns, you should be running background checks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A look at major arguments by the NRA on gun violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Congress showing no desire to tackle the scourge of shootings in America, President Obama unveiled Tuesday a raft of executive actions aimed at stemming gun violence. The highly anticipated White House address came in the wake of high-profile mass shootings across the country - each one prompting the President to demand that Congress take action.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Control: Tighten regulations to reduce gun-related violence?

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Control: Tighten regulations to reduce gun-related violence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control: Tighten regulations to reduce gun-related violence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debate.org is a dynamic social community where you can voice your opinion on today's hottest issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

So far, President Trump has declined to discuss gun control policy in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that killed 59 people and wounded 500 others.

More: Trump to console Las Vegas after deadly shooting, but he's unlikely to change gun policy

More: President Trump calls Las Vegas shooting 'an act of pure evil'

Trump has significantly changed his position on access to guns over time. We break it down:
January 2000
In his book, The America We Deserve, Trump wrote that Republicans "refuse even limited restrictions" on guns and said they "walk the NRA line." Trump was referring to the National Rifle Association of America, which advocates for gun rights. Trump expressed support for the assault weapons ban and longer waiting periods to purchase guns.
December 2012
Trump supported President Obama's remarks about tighter gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting.
July 2015
Trump said mass shooting are a fact of life during a 2015 interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

"It's the same old story. But what are you going to do? There are many people like that and what are you going to do? Institutionalize everybody? So you're going to have difficulties," he said.
October 2015
During a Republican primary debate, Trump says he carries a gun "on occasion, sometimes a lot. I like to be unpredictable."

He also said he would change the policies at his resorts that don't allow guns on property.
November 2015
Trump argued that gun background checks "accomplished very little" and declared himself "a very big Second Amendment person," in his book Crimped America.
December 2015
Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa that more guns could stop mass shootings. If more people were able to carry firearms, they could have stopped the shootings in Paris and California from earlier that year.

"Take Paris," he said, referring to the November 2015 attacks that represented the deadliest violence Paris had seen since World War II. "If a few people had guns on their belt, on their shin, in their jacket, instead of being slaughtered - you might have lost some, you definitely would have lost the bad guys - but it wouldn't have been hundreds of people with many more expected to die, that are in the hospital dying now. Then you go to the tragedy that we just had in California."

On Dec. 2, 2015, two people opened fire in a shooting rampage in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 individuals.
March 2016
Trump said the gun issue is a matter of states' rights.

"It is a state issue and we can certainly help," Trump told a news channel in Grand Rapids, Mich."But it's a big issue, you know it's getting, I don't know it seems to be, I remember 30 years ago I just do not remember these things happening."
June 2016
Trump meets with NRA officials to discuss a proposal for a gun ban for those on the no-fly list and terrorist watch list.

Also,Trump argues at a campaign rally in Texas that the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., could have been less deadly if the people in the PULSE night club were able to shoot back.

"If some of those wonderful people had guns strapped right here, right to their waist or right to their ankle, and this son of a bitch comes out and starts shooting, and one of the people in that room happened to have it and goes boom, boom, you know what? That would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight, folks, that would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight," he said.

NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre disputed Trump's statement, saying people shouldn't carry guns when out drinking.

Trump then took to Twitter to clarify he meant guards and employees - not patrons - should have guns in nightclubs.
September 2016
Trump said people who are carrying guns should be stopped by police, citing the controversial "stop and frisk" practices once used in New York. The program in New York has since been struck down by a court ruling.

"You know, [the police are] proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person and they'll look and they'll take the gun away," Trump said during an interview with Fox News. "They will stop, they will frisk, and they will take the gun away, and they don't have anything to shoot with."
October 2016
Trump declared during a U.S. Supreme Court debate held during the campaign that the Second Amendment is "under absolute siege" and said if his political opponent Hillary Clinton was elected, it "will be a very, very small replica of what it is now."

At a Las Vegas debate against then-Democratic nominee Clinton, Trump said he is a very strong supporter of people's right to bear arms.

He noted he was proud to have the National Rifle Association's endorsement in the race.
February 2017
Trump signs a bill allowing mentally ill individuals to purchase guns - reversing an executive order former President Obama signed to block such sales following the San Bernardino shootings in 2015.
April 2017
Trump delivers keynote speech at the NRA convention, the first president to do so since Ronald Reagan. The organization spent more than $30 million in support of his candidacy.
June 2017
The president of a major gun violence prevention group challenged President Trump to a debate after his tweet in response to a London terror attack.

"The president indicated over the weekend he wants to have a gun debate, so name the time and place," Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wrote in a statement in response to Trump's tweet.
October 2017
President Trump offered his "warmest condolences" after Sunday's deadly shooting that killed at least 58 people and injured another 500 people in in Las Vegas. Trump offered no policy solutions in response to the mass shooting.

Trump avoided talk about gun control legislation and instead praised first responders and volunteers who worked to save lives.

"Look, we have a tragedy," Trump said Tuesday. "What happened is, in many ways, a miracle. The police department, they've done such an incredible job. And we'll be talking about gun laws as time goes on."

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2kpb65e

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How President Trump's positions on gun control have evolved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE So far, President Trump has declined to discuss gun control policy in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that killed 59 people and wounded 500 others. More: Trump to console Las Vegas after deadly shooting, but he's unlikely to change gun policy More: President Trump calls Las Vegas shooting 'an act of pure evil' Trump has significantly changed his position on access to guns over time.

# data[].attributes.headline
Would stricter gun control laws really prevent less shootings?

# data[].attributes.subject
Would stricter gun control laws really prevent less shootings?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's certainly an eye-catching headline: "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise." And after the Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it went viral: As of Wednesday afternoon, it had thousands of shares on social media, and more than 5,000 comments on the Washington Post page.

But despite the article's headline and author Leah Libresco's data journalism credentials, the column is surprisingly thin on studies and data. In fact, it cites no specific studies on gun control whatsoever.

Here's what seems to be the most evidence-based claim in the piece:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

That's ... it. The original article at FiveThirtyEight, which Libresco again pointed me to in an email for her main source of data, cites a couple of real studies, but it only cherry-picked the more negative findings in the field. (Even then, one study cited found that Australia's 1996 gun control law and buyback program was followed by a faster drop in gun deaths than would otherwise be expected; it's just unclear whether the policy was the main cause.)

The rest of the article makes no attempt to raise any other actual empirical research, only citing a few statistics about the demographics of gun deaths.

That's unfortunate, because there actually is a rich and growing body of evidence on guns. It's not perfect by any means - this is a tough issue to study, for reasons I'll get into below. But it's fairly persuasive.

In fact, it's so persuasive that it changed my mind. I was once skeptical of gun control; I doubted it would have any major impact on gun deaths (similar to the views I took on drugs). Then I looked at the actual empirical research and studies. My conclusion: Gun control likely saves lives, even if it won't and can't prevent all gun deaths.

America's affair with guns is unique in the developed world

To understand this issue, there's one thing you need to know: America stands alone when it comes to guns. Not only does the US have more guns than any other country in the world, it also has far more gun deaths than any other developed nation.

The US has nearly six times the gun homicide rate of Canada, more than seven times that of Sweden, and nearly 16 times that of Germany, according to United Nations data compiled by the Guardian. (These gun deaths are a big reason America has a much higher overall homicide rate, which includes non-gun deaths, than other developed nations.)

The US also has by far the highest number of guns in the world. Estimated in 2007, the number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning there was almost one privately owned gun per American and more than one per American adult. The world's second-ranked country was Yemen, a quasi-failed state torn by civil war, where there were 54.8 guns per 100 people.

In short, America has the most gun deaths in the developed world, and the most guns period. What's more, the research indicates these two issues are very much related.

The research is very clear: more guns mean more gun deaths

Going back to the Washington Post op-ed, Libresco argues that her research proved her initial bias - that gun control works - wrong.

But there have been much more thorough statistical analyses than what Libresco published at FiveThirtyEight or wrote about in the Washington Post. They all point to one fact: Gun control does work to save lives.

Last year, researchers from around the country reviewed more than 130 studies from 10 countries on gun control for Epidemiologic Reviews. This is, for now, the most current, extensive review of the research on the effects of gun control. The findings were clear: "The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths."

The study did not look at one specific intervention, but rather a variety of kinds of gun control, from licensing measures to buyback programs. Time and time again, they found the same line of evidence: Reducing access to guns was followed by a drop in deaths related to guns. And while non-gun homicides also decreased, the drop wasn't as quick as the one seen in gun-related homicides - indicating that access to guns was a potential causal factor.

Based on the other research, this actually isn't a very surprising finding. Regularly updated reviews of the evidence compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center have consistently found that when controlling for variables such as socioeconomic factors and other crime, places with more guns have more gun deaths.

"Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide," David Hemenway, the Injury Control Research Center's director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.

For example, this chart, from a 2007 study by Harvard researchers, shows a correlation between statewide firearm homicide victimization rates and household gun ownership after controlling for robbery rates:

A more recent study from 2013, led by a Boston University School of Public Health researcher, reached similar conclusions: After controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level.

This holds up around the world. As Zack Beauchamp explained for Vox, a breakthrough analysis in 1999 by UC Berkeley's Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins found that the US does not, contrary to the old conventional wisdom, have more crime in general than other Western industrial nations. Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence - and that's driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.

"A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar," Zimring and Hawkins wrote. "A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London."

So America's easy access to guns seems to lead to more gun violence and death.

But let's focus on Australia and the UK in particular, since that's what Libresco did in her Washington Post piece.

It is true that this is a difficult area to study. In part, that's because these countries have such low homicide rates - to some degree because of previously existing, stricter gun control, criminal justice researcher Jerry Ratcliffe pointed out - that it's going to be difficult to produce any statistically significant findings. It's also difficult to wash out external effects, besides gun control, on gun deaths, even under the most statistically rigorous models.

The evidence from Australia in particular, though, is very suggestive. In her article for FiveThirtyEight, Libresco cited two studies - one from 2003 and another from 2016 - that found what she described as little evidence of the effectiveness of gun control. This seems to be true for the 2003 analysis. But the 2016 analysis is much more mixed, noting that there were faster drops in gun deaths after the buyback program was put in place, but failed to reach any hard conclusions because non-gun deaths also dropped more quickly (even more than gun deaths), suggesting that other variables were likely involved.

But this isn't the only research into Australia's laws. As my colleagues Dylan Matthews and Zack Beauchamp noted, other studies found positive impacts of the law. A review of the evidence by Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis, for one, concluded that Australia's law "seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

A 2010 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides. The drop in homicides wasn't statistically significant, largely because the country's gun homicide rate is so low that it's hard to tease out even sharp drops with a lot of certainty. But the drop in suicides was statistically significant.

Most tellingly, Leigh and Neill's study found that "the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back." Hemenway and Vriniotis reached similar conclusions in their review: "First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

By homing in on individual states and types of guns, these studies provide a more rigorous and robust look at Australia's law than a study like the 2016 analysis that Libresco cited, which broadly looked at nationwide data. And they conclude that the buyback program, along with other changes brought on by the 1996 law, reduced gun deaths.

But most importantly, this goes along with the rest of the evidence - including the extensive review published in Epidemiologic Reviews. When you put it all together, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than gun control does, at least to some extent, reduce gun deaths.

Gun control can't stop all violence. But it can help.

With that said, it's probably true that this aspect of the gun control debate is not emphasized enough: Guns are a factor, not the only factor. Other factors include, for example, poverty, urbanization, and alcohol consumption.

But when researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America's high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the US is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers - and stricter access to guns could help.

Another issue is that many of the policies researchers have studied seem to have, politically speaking, little to no chance in the US, at least at the federal level. Australia outright banned some types of guns, and set up a registry for all firearms owned in the country, required a permit for all new purchases. And, as if that wasn't enough, its buyback program was mandatory - meaning you had to turn in your weapons, which is essentially government-mandated confiscation.

America can't even get universal background checks through Congress. These much stricter measures have almost no chance of happening. That hinders the potential effectiveness of US laws: As Dylan Matthews explained, milder versions of gun control do have some evidence behind them in terms of reducing gun deaths, but they're nowhere as strong as the effects seen with stricter policies.

It's also true, as Libresco said on Twitter, that we could always use more research into gun policy (or, really, any policy issue). But the federal government has stifled gun research for years.

Still, the current research is clear: Gun control does cut down on gun deaths. A single data journalist's look at some of the evidence doesn't change that fact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The research is clear: gun control saves lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's certainly an eye-catching headline: "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise." And after the Las Vegas mass shooting on Sunday, it went viral: As of Wednesday afternoon, it had thousands of shares on social media, and more than 5,000 comments on the Washington Post page.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun Control Bills Proposed Since The Las Vegas Massacre is Losing Ground In Office

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun Control Bills Proposed Since The Las Vegas Massacre is Losing Ground In Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
David Becker / Getty

There's been little progress on major gun control legislation introduced into Congress since the deadly massacre in Las Vegas earlier this month.

The push to ban bump stocks, implement tougher background checks, and enforce smart gun technology have all fallen by the wayside.

A majority of voters support stricter gun laws, but there's a lack of bipartisan support in Congress.

A little more than three weeks after a gunman killed 58 people at a concert in Las Vegas, gun control advocates are still pushing for legislation to help prevent future massacres, but most of the legislation has already stalled in Congress.

After it was revealed that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks to increase how fast he could shoot, there seemed to be wide bipartisan support for regulating accessories that turn semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic ones. Even the National Rifle Association, a staunch pro-gun lobby, said it was willing to consider regulating bump stocks.

As with many gun control pushes, the effort has already fallen by the wayside despite the support.

A Politico poll released in October found that 64% of voters support stricter gun laws, but wide disparities exist between Republicans and Democrats. 83% of Democrats support stricter laws whereas 49% of Republican voters support them.

Here are all other bills introduced since the Las Vegas shooting that have fizzled out in Congress:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every major gun control bill proposed since the Las Vegas massacre is losing ground in Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's been little progress on major gun control legislation introduced into Congress since the deadly massacre in Las Vegas earlier this month. The push to ban bump stocks, implement tougher background checks, and enforce smart gun technology have all fallen by the wayside.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mass Shootings make Americans want stricter gun laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Mass Shootings make Americans want stricter gun laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The inaction bubbled into outbursts of frustration from Democrats on Monday, after at least 58 people were killed in a Las Vegas shooting.

"The thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference," said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a leading gun control advocate since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012. "It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something."

If this shooting follows the trend of others in recent years, public support for stricter gun control laws will spike temporarily -- and then that jump will mostly evaporate in the months ahead.

The most recent in-depth public polling on gun control that wasn't conducted in the wake of a mass shooting comes from the Pew Research Center, via two surveys conducted this spring.

Among the highlights from that poll and others conducted in recent years:

People agree there's a problem, but...

Pew found that 83% said they consider gun violence in the US a big problem -- including 50% who called it "a very big problem."

The divide comes when Americans -- 47% of whom said they consider the right to own a gun essential to their sense of freedom -- are asked what to do about it.

How about making it harder to obtain guns? Almost half, 47%, said there would be fewer mass shootings if it were harder for people to legally obtain guns in the United States, while 39% said that wouldn't make a difference, and 13% said it would lead to more mass shootings.

One example of how difficult it is to build public support for stricter gun laws came last year in Nevada, where a ballot measure to expand gun background checks was approved -- but barely, winning 50.4% support to 49.6% opposition out of more than 1.1 million votes cast. That vote came despite Pew finding 65% of Americans support background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows.

Some other areas of seeming agreement: 68% told Pew they favor a ban on assault-style weapons, while 64% favor banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Huge partisan splits

The partisan divide over guns starts with ownership: 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents own guns, compared to just 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

Even among gun owners, the differences are stark: 91% of Republican gun owners say owning a firearm is essential to their freedom vs. 43% of Democratic gun owners. The majority of Democratic gun owners say they never carry theirs; 63% of Republican gun owners say they carry theirs at least some of the time.

Democrats, Pew found, are far more likely than Republicans to describe gun violence as a very big problem. Democrats overwhelmingly favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, banning assault-style weapons and banning high-capacity magazines, while Republicans broadly oppose those measures.

Republicans, meanwhile, are about twice as likely as Democrats to favor allowing concealed carry in more places (82% to 41%) and allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns (81% to 42%).

Divided views of the NRA

Democrats see the National Rifle Association -- the leading lobbying group against all forms of stricter gun laws -- as a bogeyman in the debate over gun control.

But the general public is much more divided on the NRA. Forty-four percent of those polled told Pew the NRA has too much influence over gun laws in the United States, while 15% said it has too little influence and 40% said it has the right amount of influence.

Spikes after mass shootings

Support for stricter gun laws tends to spike in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings.

In a CNN poll in June 2016, shortly after the Pulse nightclub shooting, 55% said they favored stricter gun control laws, 42% were opposed. That was up from 46% who felt that way in fall 2015 and the highest share to say so since January 2013, about a month after the Sandy Hook shootings.

There were sharp partisan divides on whether gun laws should be tightened, with 78% of Democrats in favor of more restrictive laws while 68% of Republicans opposed them. Independents tilted in favor of stricter laws, 53% to 44%.

The same poll found 54% in favor of a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault rifles and 54% behind a ban on sale and possession of high-capacity magazines.

The most recent public polling on the topic comes from Quinnipiac University, this June, just after the shooting at a congressional baseball team's practice. That poll found 57% of registered voters felt it was too easy to buy a gun in the US today, 6% said it was too difficult and 32% say it's about right. That poll also found that 57% felt the US would be less safe if more people carried guns and 35% thought the country would be safer.

But Gallup's long-term trend shows that while support for stricter gun laws generally increases after mass shootings, much of that bump eventually fades.

In the spring, Pew found that 52% said gun laws in the country should be more strict than they are today, while 18% said gun laws should be less strict and 30% said they are about right -- giving those in favor of changing laws a narrow majority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
americans want stricter gun laws after shootings. then interest fades. - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans want stricter gun laws after shootings but interest fades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The inaction bubbled into outbursts of frustration from Democrats on Monday, after at least 58 people were killed in a Las Vegas shooting. "The thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with continued legislative indifference," said Connecticut Sen.

# data[].attributes.headline
Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only Make Citizens Less Safe

# data[].attributes.subject
Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only Make Citizens Less Safe