# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/12/09/the-right-to-bear-arms-isnt-up-for-debate/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.washingtonoutsider.org/the-second-amendment-not-outdated.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The increase in mass shootings is a much hyped myth. The drop in gun crime is a little noticed reality.

In the wake of the murderous rampage at Orlando's gay nightclub Pulse-the nation's worst mass shooting ever-it's inevitable that politicians would respond by calling for tighter gun-control laws. As Hillary Clinton put it on the Today show, "We need to get these weapons of war off the streets. We had an assault weapons ban, it expired, and we need to reinstate it."

Inevitable, yes, and understandable too. And totally besides the point. Laws addressing criminal behavior aren't going to prevent terrorism.

By every account, the shooter Omar Mateen was ideologically and theologically motivated- he called 911 to pledge his loyalty to the leader of the Islamic State before starting his homophobic attack-and thus unlikely to be deterred by legal prohibitions. His father told NBC News that his son was disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, his ex-wife said that he had beaten her, and his former workmates called him "toxic" and aggrieved by "women, race, and religion." Exactly how reducing law-abiding citizens' legal access to weapons will stop a jihadist bent on a suicide mission or even a garden-variety nut job from a rampage is something politicians don't pause to explain, especially since they never seriously suggest pulling a significant portion of the 357 million guns in America out of circulation.

More specifically, the assault weapons ban that Clinton cites was in effect from 1994 until 2003 and had no discernible impact on gun violence. A 2004 study ( PDF) commissioned by the Department of Justice found that gun crime did decrease during the ban, which outlawed 18 types of rifles and large-capacity magazines (LCMs). But because assault weapons-whether rifles or pistols-were so rarely used in shootings, the researchers concluded that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." The authors argued that if the assault weapons ban were reinstated, its "effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

As telling, it's not immediately clear whether one of Mateen's weapons-an AR-15 rifle, among the most popular of its type in the country-would have been covered by the ban. Depending on a series of mostly cosmetic differences, some AR-15s were banned and others weren't.

Nor is there reason to believe that mass shootings are on the rise over the past 30 years or so. Writing in the wake of last fall's shooting at a community college in Oregon, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, widely regarded as the authority on mass shootings, say there is no clear pattern. "Using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed," he wrote in USA Today, "the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

In fact, one of the most unremarked-upon developments of the past two decades is a massive, nation-wide reduction in violent crime, especially gun-related violent crime. In 1993, according to Pew Research figures, there were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people. In 2014, the latest year for which there is full data, the rate was 3.4 percent, a decline of nearly 50 percent. "Nonfatal violent firearm crime victimizations dropped even over the same time frame, from 725 per 100,000 to 175 per 100,000.

The result of such a decline is that crime is no longer an issue in national politics the way it was from at least the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon capitalized on rising crime rates, riots, and anti-war protests by running commercials that promised an end to "domestic violence" and that "the wave of crime is not going to be the wave of the future in America." George Wallace similarly pledged to "make it possible for you and your families to walk the streets of our cities in safety." Such appeals continued for decades, through the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 and Bill Clinton's 1992 spot bragging that he and Al Gore "sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty."

By the mid-1990s-at the exact moment most criminologists (including Fox) predicted a historic surge in lawlessness by "super-predators"-crime was off the table as an issue. The reasons for the decline in crime are multiple and not all are unalloyed goods. The reduction of lead in the environment, for instance, may explain some reduction in anti-social behavior and so does an increase not just in the number of police but the use of computer-assisted policing. But it's also true that massively heightened levels of incarceration and aggressive methods that violated civil liberties such as "stop and frisk" played a significant role.

Apart from its gruesome body count, the Orlando shooting is particularly heinous because it targeted gays, a group that until recently was denied legal and cultural support from "normal" society and as likely as not to be harassed as helped by law enforcement. But it shouldn't be used to effect policy changes that will do nothing to prevent the terroristic violence that Mateen perpetrated. Indeed, even the post-9/11 protocols that are in place to monitor likely terrorists failed in this instance, as Mateen was investigated at least twice by the FBI based on tips from co-workers, his background, and his behavior.

Where Hillary Clinton has called for increased gun control, of course, Donald Trump has called for an equally unconstitutional and impossible ban, this one on Muslims and Middle Easterners. The Orlando shooting presents politicians as both crusading and cynical, as they can only offer up solutions that will do nothing but inflame the pre-existing prejudices of their constituents.

The one thing that they-and perhaps us, too-cannot countenance, especially in an era when violence is at a low ebb, is that evil cannot be fully exterminated from our lives.

In the wake of the murderous rampage at Orlando's gay nightclub Pulse-the nation's worst mass shooting ever-it's inevitable that politicians would respond by calling for tighter gun-control laws. As Hillary Clinton put it on the Today show, "We need to get these weapons of war off the streets. We had an assault weapons ban, it expired, and we need to reinstate it."

Inevitable, yes, and understandable too. And totally besides the point. Laws addressing criminal behavior aren't going to prevent terrorism.

By every account, the shooter Omar Mateen was ideologically and theologically motivated- he called 911 to pledge his loyalty to the leader of the Islamic State before starting his homophobic attack-and thus unlikely to be deterred by legal prohibitions. His father told NBC News that his son was disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, his ex-wife said that he had beaten her, and his former workmates called him "toxic" and aggrieved by "women, race, and religion." Exactly how reducing law-abiding citizens' legal access to weapons will stop a jihadist bent on a suicide mission or even a garden-variety nut job from a rampage is something politicians don't pause to explain, especially since they never seriously suggest pulling a significant portion of the 357 million guns in America out of circulation.

More specifically, the assault weapons ban that Clinton cites was in effect from 1994 until 2003 and had no discernible impact on gun violence. A 2004 study ( PDF) commissioned by the Department of Justice found that gun crime did decrease during the ban, which outlawed 18 types of rifles and large-capacity magazines (LCMs). But because assault weapons-whether rifles or pistols-were so rarely used in shootings, the researchers concluded that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." The authors argued that if the assault weapons ban were reinstated, its "effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

As telling, it's not immediately clear whether one of Mateen's weapons-an AR-15 rifle, among the most popular of its type in the country-would have been covered by the ban. Depending on a series of mostly cosmetic differences, some AR-15s were banned and others weren't.

Nor is there reason to believe that mass shootings are on the rise over the past 30 years or so. Writing in the wake of last fall's shooting at a community college in Oregon, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, widely regarded as the authority on mass shootings, say there is no clear pattern. "Using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed," he wrote in USA Today, "the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

In fact, one of the most unremarked-upon developments of the past two decades is a massive, nation-wide reduction in violent crime, especially gun-related violent crime. In 1993, according to Pew Research figures, there were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people. In 2014, the latest year for which there is full data, the rate was 3.4 percent, a decline of nearly 50 percent. "Nonfatal violent firearm crime victimizations dropped even over the same time frame, from 725 per 100,000 to 175 per 100,000.

The result of such a decline is that crime is no longer an issue in national politics the way it was from at least the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon capitalized on rising crime rates, riots, and anti-war protests by running commercials that promised an end to "domestic violence" and that "the wave of crime is not going to be the wave of the future in America." George Wallace similarly pledged to "make it possible for you and your families to walk the streets of our cities in safety." Such appeals continued for decades, through the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 and Bill Clinton's 1992 spot bragging that he and Al Gore "sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty."

By the mid-1990s-at the exact moment most criminologists (including Fox) predicted a historic surge in lawlessness by "super-predators"-crime was off the table as an issue. The reasons for the decline in crime are multiple and not all are unalloyed goods. The reduction of lead in the environment, for instance, may explain some reduction in anti-social behavior and so does an increase not just in the number of police but the use of computer-assisted policing. But it's also true that massively heightened levels of incarceration and aggressive methods that violated civil liberties such as "stop and frisk" played a significant role.

Apart from its gruesome body count, the Orlando shooting is particularly heinous because it targeted gays, a group that until recently was denied legal and cultural support from "normal" society and as likely as not to be harassed as helped by law enforcement. But it shouldn't be used to effect policy changes that will do nothing to prevent the terroristic violence that Mateen perpetrated. Indeed, even the post-9/11 protocols that are in place to monitor likely terrorists failed in this instance, as Mateen was investigated at least twice by the FBI based on tips from co-workers, his background, and his behavior.

Where Hillary Clinton has called for increased gun control, of course, Donald Trump has called for an equally unconstitutional and impossible ban, this one on Muslims and Middle Easterners. The Orlando shooting presents politicians as both crusading and cynical, as they can only offer up solutions that will do nothing but inflame the pre-existing prejudices of their constituents.

The one thing that they-and perhaps us, too-cannot countenance, especially in an era when violence is at a low ebb, is that evil cannot be fully exterminated from our lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the murderous rampage at Orlando's gay nightclub Pulse-the nation's worst mass shooting ever-it's inevitable that politicians would respond by calling for tighter gun-control laws. As Hillary Clinton put it on the Today show, "We need to get these weapons of war off the streets.

# data[].attributes.body
There was ALOT of homosides done

# data[].attributes.headline
"People have a greater chance of dying in mass shootings if they're at school or work."

# data[].attributes.subject
"People have a greater chance of dying in mass shootings if they're at school or work."

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how gun controlling is bad but in ways it can be good! there are pros and cons about gun owning and gun controling!!

# data[].attributes.body
There can be more ways to safety gun controling and gun is NOT the answer....

# data[].attributes.body
As said in the article it said that there can be more options for self safety if needed, but guns are not the only option.

# data[].attributes.body
This essay states that although the legal age to be able to buy a gun is 18, you can buy a gun through private sellers at gun shows.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Universal Background Checks - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CSGV engages in robust advocacy for commonsense gun reforms, including universal background checks. Currently, there are gaping holes in the background check system; this allows guns to fall into the wrong hands and facilitates illegal trafficking. Expanding background checks to private and online sales is critical to preventing gun violence.

# data[].attributes.body
There are pros and cons to guns in our houses, but this site says them all. more than 40,000 people died due to gun accidents or events. But having a gun can also protect you from having a robbery or an intruder. -owen q

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives really good pros and cons about gun controllling

# data[].attributes.body
"People have a greater chance of dying in mass shootings if they're at school or work."
"A Visual Guide: Mass Shootings in America." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

# data[].attributes.body
For example this article states that every year another 4 million guns will enter the market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brendan McDermid/Reuters

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

The San Bernardino massacre is unique in several respects, but it does bring into focus an important issue with broad relevance: How do dangerous people obtain guns, and what should the police and courts be doing to make those transactions more difficult?

The shooters-Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik- utilized several guns in their attack on Farook's co-workers during a holiday party in November that killed 14 and injured 22. In addition to two pistols, this husband-wife team had two military-style rifles that were purchased by a friend and neighbor, Enrique Marquez Jr.

It appears that Farook relied on Marquez because he doubted that he could pass the background check that gun dealers are required to conduct on all buyers. Marquez has now been charged with several crimes, including making a "straw purchase"-that is, he swore to the dealer that he was buying the guns for his own use, but in fact he was acting on behalf of Farook.

How does this terrorist attack relate to the more routine gun violence that afflicts many American neighborhoods? Criminal assaults with guns kill 30 Americans every day, and injure another 170.

The guns carried and misused by youths, gang members and active criminals are more likely than not obtained by transactions that violate federal or state law. Unlike in the case of Enrique Marquez, it is rare for the people who provide these guns to the eventual shooters to face any legal consequences.

How can this illicit market be policed more effectively?

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now
Undocumented and unregulated transactions
When asked where and how they acquired their most recent firearm, about 60 percent of a cross-section of American gun owners reported buying it from a gun store, where the clerk would have conducted a background check and documented the transfer in a permanent record required by federal law. (The other 40 percent received it as a gift or acquired it in a private transaction that in most cases was legal.)

But while a majority of owners obtain their guns in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal, the same is not true for criminals.

A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals-those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason.

Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store, because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states.

Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if they had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, if they were acting as a straw purchaser or if they violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions.

The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police.

A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.
The supply chain of guns to crime
While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer-including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals.

That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.

The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.

In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.

There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault.

There are about 500,000 violent crimes committed with a gun each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year.

Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions.

That compares with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year.
All in the family
So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook's friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.

Also important are "street" sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one.

Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders.

Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority.

It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook's social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Opinion: Gun control-where do criminals get their weapons?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article first appeared on The Conversation . The San Bernardino massacre is unique in several respects, but it does bring into focus an important issue with broad relevance: How do dangerous people obtain guns, and what should the police and courts be doing to make those transactions more difficult?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FBI Director James Comey said the man accused of killing nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon.

Comey said flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun in South Carolina on April 16 - weeks before he allegedly attacked black churchgoers in a failed attempt to fuel a race war.

"We are all sick that this has happened," Comey told reporters Friday. "We wish we could turn back the clock. ... What we can do is make sure we learn from it, get better."

Comey said he had ordered an internal review of FBI policies and procedures surrounding background checks for weapons purchases. The bureau's examiners conduct criminal checks before guns are bought in about 30 states; the remainder of states generally perform their own checks.

Here's what the FBI director says happened.

On April 11, Roof tried to buy a handgun at a store in West Columbia, S.C. And under normal procedure, that paperwork was assigned to an examiner at the FBI's unit in West Virginia. The unnamed FBI examiner turned up Roof's arrest on March 1 on a felony drug charge - but the system did not show a conviction, and it wasn't enough to deny the purchase.

So she kept checking. And, Comey said, the first mistake comes in here. Roof's rap sheet mistakenly listed the Lexington County, S.C., sheriff's office as the arresting authority. The examiner then reached out to the sheriff's office and prosecutors in Lexington for more information.

The sheriff's office told her the Roof case was not theirs and advised her to check with police in Columbia, S.C.

And now, Comey said, the second mistake was made. The examiner consulted a contact sheet for local contacts in Lexington County, and didn't see anything for Columbia. So she called West Columbia, where Roof allegedly tried to buy the gun, instead. Local authorities in West Columbia said they had no record of the case, and the examiner turned to other matters while she waited to hear from prosecutors.

Under the normal process, if gun dealers do not hear back from the FBI with a flat denial in three business days, they are free to sell the weapon to the person who filled out the biographical paperwork. And that's what the gun store did with Roof on April 16.

Weeks later, on the evening of June 17, Roof allegedly sat through an hourlong Bible study session in the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston before opening fire, killing pastor Clementa Pinckney and eight other parishioners. Roof now faces state charges, including murder and a weapons offense. Federal authorities are investigating whether Roof, who posted a hate-fueled manifesto online and posed with photos of the Confederate battle flag, committed a hate crime, as well.

The FBI background check worker, described by Comey as an experienced examiner who has been "struggling" over the church shooting, never heard back from prosecutors in Lexington. But if she had called police in Columbia and seen their arrest record on Roof, she would have known he had admitted to possessing a controlled substance. And that, Comey said, would have triggered an FBI denial of his weapons purchase on the grounds that he was "an unlawful drug user or addict."

Comey said FBI officials in South Carolina, who have developed a relationship with family members of the church shooting victims, would brief them on the situation and his call for an internal review.

"All of us grieve for their unspeakable loss," Comey said. "I want to know if there are ways to improve our process, our procedures and our training."

Comey said he gathered and assessed the facts Thursday night, notifying the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement: "It's disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws. The American people, and especially the victims' families, deserve better."

Even before the Roof case emerged, the inspector general's office in the Justice Department had been auditing the National Criminal Background Check System. A spokesman there said the review involves "the effectiveness of processes related to the FBI's referral of denials to ATF; ATF's initial screening and referral of denials to its field offices for investigation; ATF field offices' investigation of denials; and the U.S. Attorney Offices' prosecution of crimes associated with denials."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FBI Says Background Check Error Let Charleston Shooting Suspect Buy Gun

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FBI Director James Comey said the man accused of killing nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon. Comey said flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun in South Carolina on April 16 - weeks before he allegedly attacked black churchgoers in a failed attempt to fuel a race war.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/
This website talked about how Hillary would do more background checks when people buy guns. It also had more info on gun control.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.usnews.com/topics/subjects/gun-control-and-gun-rights
The Second Amendment is a very talked about subject, on election day it's the biggest thing talked about

# data[].attributes.body
Facts on gun control http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

# data[].attributes.body
why we need gun control
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/gun-control-america-history-timeline/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/gun-control-isn-t-the-answer.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/index.html
This article is about gun violence in the US compared to other countries. Also this article shows graphs on why we should get stronger gun control laws because the crime rate is much higher.

# data[].attributes.body
http://time.com/4512255/charleston-loophole/This article states various facts about gun control and overall expresses that loop holes in gun control laws make it too easy for criminals and mentally ill people to gain control of guns.

# data[].attributes.body
http://gun-control.procon.org/
This article lists some pros and cons about gun control.

# data[].attributes.body
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's views on gun controlhttp://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-and-trump-on-gun-control-2016-9

# data[].attributes.headline
Torre Oliveri: Stricter background checks

# data[].attributes.subject
Torre Oliveri: Stricter background checks

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/10/421789047/fbi-says-background-check-error-let-charleston-shooting-suspect-buy-gun
In this article a suspect of the Charleston shooting buys a gun

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how we will end up having stricter gun control laws no matter if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is elected president. I think this is important as this will the the future of gun control in the U.S. And there is a chance that controversy will spark up with people who are against gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, while claiming to respect the second amendment, has made clear that she wants to see tighter control on gun ownership that "tries to save some of these 33,000 lives that we lose every year."

But no matter whether it's Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who captures the White House next week, America's frightening rate of death by gunshot wounds will certainly be forced into retreat. One day.

Because it is inconceivable that the people of such an advanced nation will tolerate an ever-worsening state of armed violence and insurrection, there must come a time when solutions already tested and championed by the United States are deployed to reduce the country's toll of 33,000 firearm-related deaths each year.

In hindsight, how naïve were we to imagine that the massacre at Columbine High might prove to be the tipping point? Thirteen years and 421,000 American gun deaths later, even the slaughter of 26 mainly white children and teachers at Sandy Hook couldn't induce the US Congress to act. Clearly, the country's gun death toll must get worse before it gets better.

But take heart, America already has the solutions.

Since 1934, US federal law has mandated licensing and registration for machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and rifles. It works. Such firearms quickly became, and remain the guns least used in crime. Today, the few states that similarly regulate much more common handguns point to similar effects, even when undermined by their gun-lax neighbors.

On its roads, America dramatically reversed the soaring toll of death and injury by automobile with a holistic array of evidence-based public health measures. The world followed suit. Licensing and registration did not lead to mass confiscation, and cars remain objects of maleness, power and freedom.

Other US-led successful public health campaigns, from tobacco harm reduction to HIV/AIDS, saved countless millions of lives, all in the face of years of denial and quasi-religious opposition from self-interested groups. It can be done.

Unique to the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is just that -- an amendment. As with universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery and Prohibition, Americans are free to change an outdated law when they so choose. The solution to armed violence, America's fatal flaw, is not unthinkable.

Granted, armed violence is a multi-faceted, often intransigent public health problem, which spans a dozen disciplines. Yet for 20 years, the US gun lobby has successfully suppressed research in this field.

Imagine the outcry if for two decades the transportation industry lobby had managed to choke off all federal funds for road safety research. To prevent and reduce firearm injury, America's medieval purge of knowledge and evidence must, and will be overcome.

In many other nations, improvements are well under way. Latin Americans, for example, suffer gun death rates to make your toes curl. For this reason Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia joined Australia, the United Kingdom and democratic countries in the Pacific Rim in mounting massive national disarmament and firearm destruction programs, each followed by fewer gun deaths.

With millions of new firearms sold each year around the world, and perhaps at best only a million destroyed, it's an uphill struggle. Yet the unmistakeable global trend is to tighten firearm legislation and its enforcement, not to accept the least credible excuses for unbridled gun ownership. In the United States, the most common of these is fear, according to a study this year by academics at Harvard and Northeastern universities.

America's epidemic of gun violence has already proven too much for any one president. Even if Trump were to spark armed insurrection, even if Clinton were to deliver on the NRA's biggest nightmares, next week's election winner can only boost the next peak, or perhaps trigger a brief trough in those horrible gun homicide and gun suicide charts.

But as with the toll of road-related deaths, a range of long-term public health initiatives will gradually work in parallel to save countless lives. Gun buyer background checks, micro-stamping of firearms and ammunition as a crime-busting tool, smart guns that only the owner can fire -- and yes, licensing and registration -- must ever so slowly become the norm.

This pair of presidential candidates will be long gone, but America's children will insist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
stricter gun control is innevitable  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump or Clinton, stricter gun control is inevitable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.constitutionparty.com/gun-control-1/
This article focuses on the right to bear arms. It focuses on infringements of the second amendments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kendall Rayome: Should the US have stricter gun regulations?

# data[].attributes.subject
Kendall Rayome: Should the US have stricter gun regulations?

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm
This article shows the statistics about how many deaths/injuries have occurred within the last 20-30 years associating with guns.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html
This shows a realistic assessment of the gun control system and show its weaknesses and strengths. Some people that are mentally unfit are in possession of a firearm. This is only one weakness of the gun control system.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
This article states facts and statistics about gun control. Overall, the statistics show that death and homicides by guns have increased in recent years.

# data[].attributes.body
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01064462
This article tells the reader the cons about guns.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about some facts on gun control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about gun control. Learn about ownership rates, crime, background checks, accidents, politics, and more.

# data[].attributes.headline
The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. 

# data[].attributes.body
By, Jacob Robinson

# data[].attributes.body
They should have stricter gun control because people who want control or advantages are willing to kill innocent people to get what they want even if they don't get it . It is easy for them to get guns and just kill innocent people if the gun laws aren't strict enough.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John R. Houser was dangerously mentally ill, too ill to carry a gun. Of that, there is little doubt.

Over 16 years, Mr. Houser, 59, had been charged with hiring a man to burn down a lawyer's office and named in a domestic violence complaint. In 2008, after Mr. Houser threatened to kill his daughter's fiancé, a judge issued a temporary restraining order and ordered him hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation. In 2014, he threatened to shoot law enforcement officers who were trying to evict him, then booby-trapped the house to start a natural gas fire.

His record was frightening enough that an Alabama sheriff refused to issue him a concealed weapons permit. But like most states, Alabama requires no permit to buy a firearm. His wife said she repeatedly threw his handguns into the Chattahoochee River, fearing that he would harm himself or others. Mr. Houser just bought more.

Holed up in a Motel 6 in July 2015, Mr. Houser wrote in a journal that Dylann Roof, the white man charged with gunning down nine black members of a historic Charleston, S.C., church the previous month, had the right idea, but the wrong targets.

"Thank you for the wake-up call, Dylann," he wrote.

Later that month, Mr. Houser walked into a movie theater in Lafayette, La., carrying a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol that he had bought at a Phenix City, Ala., pawnshop the year before. Ten minutes into a showing of the comedy "Trainwreck," he opened fire, killing two moviegoers and wounding nine more. Before the police arrived, Mr. Houser put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

After nearly two decades of expanding legal access to firearms, a succession of horrific shootings like Mr. Houser's have refocused attention on gun control. Since the 2012 massacre of 26 elementary school children and teachers in Newtown, Conn., gun control advocates have scored some significant victories in state legislatures. Nationwide, several polls suggest that public opinion has shifted markedly in favor of stricter gun laws.

And for the first time since Al Gore called for tighter firearm restrictions in his losing 2000 campaign, gun control is a top-level issue in the presidential contest, as well as in two close Senate races and four state ballot initiatives.

"The national dialogue has changed," said Prof. Robert J. Spitzer of the State University of New York at Cortland, who has written five books on gun policy.

Still, an examination of high-casualty shootings emphasizes not only how porous existing firearms regulations are, but also how difficult tightening them in a meaningful way may be.

The New York Times examined all 130 shootings last year in which four or more people were shot, at least one fatally, and investigators identified at least one attacker. The cases range from drug-related shootouts to domestic killings that wiped out entire families to chance encounters that took harrowing wrong turns.

They afford a panoramic view of some of the gun control debate's fundamental issues: whether background checks and curbs on assault weapons limit violence; whether the proliferation of open-carry practices and rules allowing guns on college campuses is a spark to violence; whether it is too easy for dangerously mentally ill or violent people to get guns.

The findings are dispiriting to anyone hoping for simple legislative fixes to gun violence. In more than half the 130 cases, at least one assailant was already barred by federal law from having a weapon, usually because of a felony conviction, but nonetheless acquired a gun. Including those who lacked the required state or local permits, 64 percent of the shootings involved at least one attacker who violated an existing gun law.

Of the remaining assailants, 40 percent had never had a serious run-in with the law and probably could have bought a gun even in states with the strictest firearm controls. Typically those were men who killed their families and then themselves.

Only 14 shootings involved assault rifles, illustrating their outsize role in the gun debate. Nearly every other assailant used a handgun. That is in line with a federal study that concluded that reviving a 1994 ban on assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds would have a minimal impact, at best, on gun violence.

But there were also cases in which victims arguably would have lived had they been in a state with tighter firearms restrictions, because it would have been harder for their attackers either to get guns or to carry them in those circumstances. That includes several of nine attackers who were dangerously mentally ill but still met the federal standard for gun possession.

For instance, Mr. Houser's two forced hospitalizations for mental illness - lasting from one week to almost a month - did not disqualify him from buying a gun under federal or Alabama law because no court had involuntarily committed him for treatment. Yet in at least six states, his history of illness and violence would probably have barred him from possessing a gun or made it extremely hard to obtain a permit to buy one.

Heath Taylor is the sheriff in Russell County, Ala., where Mr. Houser lived and legally bought the handgun used in his assault. He said Mr. Houser should have been barred from gun ownership years before he opened fire in the Louisiana theater.

"The country has to address this," Sheriff Taylor said. "I'm not for labeling someone as mentally ill for the rest of their lives, but there are warning signs that should prevent the purchase of a gun, and we are just not doing it."

Background checks: Slipping through the net

In two earlier articles, The Times analyzed the 358 shootings last year - almost one a day - in which at least four people, including attackers, were killed or wounded.

For this article, focusing only on the fatal shootings in which at least one attacker was identified, we sought to determine whether those assailants legally possessed their weapons, what type of gun was used and whether tighter gun laws might have averted their assaults.

The fact that so many cases involved attackers already barred from owning guns goes right to a central issue in the gun control debate: whether background checks by licensed dealers should be expanded to include gun shows and private sellers.

To the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates, such statistics show that the current system has failed to keep guns out of criminals' hands and should be fixed, not expanded.

Donald J. Trump, whose Republican presidential candidacy draws deep support from the N.R.A., has cited federal studies of state prison inmates showing that more than three out of four got their guns from friends, relatives or on the street, avoiding the licensed dealers who would check their backgrounds. During the presidential debates, Mr. Trump argued that tougher police tactics, not tighter firearms laws, were the remedy for gun homicides that have recently spiked in some major cities.

Hillary Clinton has noted that since 1994, when licensed dealers were first required to check potential buyers, about 2.6 million sales have been blocked to people barred from gun ownership. Expanding background checks, she says, will close a vast loophole in an otherwise effective law.

"We've got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them," she said during the first debate.

Polls indicate the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners and N.R.A. members, support that approach. The debate is white hot in Maine and Nevada, where voters will decide next month whether to join 18 states and the District of Columbia that already require some form of broader checks.

It was virtually impossible to determine whether expanded background checks would have deterred the illegally armed attackers involved in the shootings examined for this article. In many cases, police officers never recovered the weapons, and even when they did, they did not always investigate where the firearm came from. A trace by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives generally shows only the original seller and buyer, while the typical gun used in a crime is 11 years old.

But a stronger law could arguably have made it harder for at least one gunman to find a willing seller. David Ray Conley III, 48, had already spent nearly 12 years in prison for five felonies, including armed robbery, when he bought a handgun online in the summer of 2015, according to broadcast reports.

A few weeks later, law enforcement officials told reporters then, Mr. Conley climbed through the unlocked window of his ex-girlfriend's house in Houston and shot her, her husband and her six children, ages 6 to 13, including his own son.

A judge has imposed a rule of silence in the case, cloaking details of Mr. Conley's gun purchase. He has pleaded not guilty.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the N.R.A.'s Institute for Legislative Action, called Mr. Conley's reported online firearm purchase an anomaly. "One case," she said. "One case out of how many?"

But to gun control advocates, the example bolsters studies indicating that criminals are flocking to online gun bazaars where individual, unlicensed sellers need not check the backgrounds of in-state buyers. In Nevada, a study by Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group founded by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, found that nearly one in 11 shoppers on such sites was legally prohibited from possessing firearms.

Denying guns to the dangerously unstable: Is the bar too high?

Although mental illness is not a good predictor of violence, many gun policy experts agree that federal law allows too many people who are dangerously unstable to buy firearms virtually without oversight. It denies guns only to people who have been involuntarily committed for inpatient treatment, a practice vastly more complicated and far less common than in 1968, when the federal law was adopted.

A handful of states have adopted tighter restrictions, limiting gun ownership by mentally ill people who have been either voluntarily admitted for inpatient care, forced into outpatient treatment or held for as little as 72 hours. A few, including New York, require mental health professionals to report people who appear dangerous to themselves or others - information that can be used to deny them a gun purchase.

And in Washington State, a ballot measure, modeled after a California law, would allow law enforcement officers, family and household members to seek emergency court orders disarming people at risk of harming themselves or others. Three other states have similar but more limited measures.

Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said two decades of experience with restraining orders against domestic abusers had proved that such court interventions reduce violence. The N.R.A. disagrees, saying the Washington measure will strip gun owners of their rights "merely on the say-so of someone else."

No such provisions were in place in the states where mentally ill gunmen carried out nine of the 130 shootings last year. Police inquiries into several cases later showed that family and household members feared disaster in the making, but felt helpless to avert it.

In Menasha, Wis., Sergio Valencia del Toro, a 27-year-old Air Force veteran who had served in Iraq, had quit taking psychiatric drugs or seeking psychological help after 14 visits in four years to military or veterans' health clinics.

He battled alcoholism, saw visions out of the corner of his eye, imagined himself spraying bullets into a packed dining room and once held a gun to his head on an outing with his girlfriend's family. He told a mental health worker that he contemplated suicide daily. According to a police report, Charles Peterson, his girlfriend's father, said he had ordered Mr. del Toro to remove his firearms from their home, although he denied that in a brief phone interview with The Times, saying, "There were no reasons to take guns from him."

Mr. del Toro's girlfriend, Haylie Peterson, said he told her he wanted to rejoin the military "so that he could kill people." Fearing he was a sociopath, she was on the verge of ending their relationship. Yet she did not report his violent tendencies to the authorities because "she felt it would not have done any good," a police report stated.

Neither did Mr. del Toro's psychologist at the Department of Veterans Affairs, even after reviewing a November 2014 disability questionnaire in which Mr. del Toro wrote that he had previously thought, "If I'm gonna take myself out, I might as well take other people with me." He wrote that he no longer felt that way, and the psychologist, noting that Mr. del Toro seemed to be functioning well, decided that he was not disabled.

Unaware of Mr. del Toro's psychiatric problems, the Menasha police hired him as an auxiliary officer in January 2015.

On a balmy Sunday evening four months later, a neighbor alerted Ms. Peterson to a shooting on the town's popular pedestrian bridge. Immediately suspecting her boyfriend, she checked the bedroom where he kept three rifles, three shotguns and four handguns, mostly bought online. A semiautomatic handgun and a revolver were missing.

Drunk and distraught, Mr. del Toro had bicycled to the bridge, where a family of five was walking their dog and watching the ducks. He gunned down an 11-year-old girl, her father and another man, wounding the girl's mother, before he shot himself.

When investigators obtained Mr. del Toro's health records, said Aaron Zemlock, a police spokesman, "We were kind of dumbfounded."

"I've been a gun owner my whole life," said Mr. Zemlock, who recently left the department, "but this guy was a ticking time bomb."

In Conyers, Ga., relatives feared the same about Jeffrey Scott Pitts. Thirty-six and unemployed, he was schizophrenic but refused to take his medication, his cousin told the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

After Mr. Pitts barricaded himself in a room, his father obtained a court order to have him picked up by the police. He spent more than a month in a mental institution, although court records suggest that he was never involuntarily committed.

He was hospitalized again in 2011 "because he was so crazy," but was released the next day, his father, Miles Alan Pitts, told investigators.

"I knew something was going to happen," he said. "I figured he would either kill himself or kill us."

In five states and the District of Columbia, that first hospital stay would have meant at least a temporary ban on firearm purchases. But like most states, Georgia follows the looser federal standard.

When Jeffrey Pitts bought AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, his father locked them away in a basement safe. But unknown to him, Jeffrey had also bought a Glock .45-caliber handgun.

On a Sunday afternoon, exactly four weeks after the Wisconsin bridge shooting, he burst into a liquor store with his handgun, furious because the store owner had accused him of stealing. In less than six seconds, he fatally shot the owner and a customer.

He might have killed others had Todd Scott, a customer buying a six-pack, not fired at him with his own handgun.

"He was very surprised that he was not the only one in the store with a gun. He got the heck out," Mr. Scott said. (It was one of only two of the 130 shootings last year in which law enforcement officials said a legally armed victim or bystander had fired back in a clear-cut case of self-defense.)

Mr. Pitts then drove to his parents' house, where he shot open the back door and wounded both of his parents before forcing his father to open the safe with the assault rifles. When Brad Lockridge, a Rockdale County deputy sheriff, confronted him in the garage, he was dressed in a bulletproof vest buttressed with a steel plate and was holding the AR-15, loaded with a 100-round magazine. He fired at the deputy, who wounded him with a volley of bullets. Then Mr. Pitts killed himself with his handgun.

"Should he have had guns? No, that's why his parents took the guns from him," said Mr. Lockridge, now a city police officer.

"But legally was he able to purchase guns? Unfortunately, yes."

Assessing risk: The power of permits

Eleven states and the District of Columbia require a permit or license before purchasing a handgun or, in some cases, any kind of firearm. Most of them - and some other states, too - have broadened the federal ban on gun purchases to cover other high-risk individuals, including those convicted of serious, violent misdemeanors or drug, alcohol or firearm-related offenses, or anyone under 21. Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey also let law enforcement officials deny permits if an applicant appears to present a public safety risk.

Ohio is not in that group. So it was not hard for Barry Kirk to get a gun.

Mr. Kirk, a part-time Columbus, Ohio, ironworker, had a host of problems and a hair-trigger temper. In 2004, his wife accused him of punching her in the face, a criminal complaint that was dismissed after he underwent counseling. Five years later, when an aide in the governor's office said he could not help him get unemployment compensation, Mr. Kirk exploded again.

"I guess I'm going to have to make a big boom or start shooting people," he told the aide in a telephone exchange, adding, "I just want you to know this so when it happens and hits the newspapers, you'll know it was me."

Soon four police officers were at his door. "I asked Mr. Kirk if he planned to shoot anyone. Without hesitation, he stated, 'Yes,'" one officer wrote in his report. "Mr. Kirk stated if he ended up losing his house, he would carry out a shooting."

Mr. Kirk was arrested and pleaded guilty to telecommunications harassment, a serious but not violent misdemeanor in Ohio.

By 2015, his troubles had deepened. His wife had left him. A bank was foreclosing on his house. He had filed for bankruptcy.

Across the street, the Anderson family presented a stark contrast. John Anderson, 31, had started an asphalt paving company. His wife, Christina, 30, was studying to be an X-ray technician. They often hosted neighborhood barbecues. "Everyone liked them," said Gregory Sheppard, a Columbus police detective.

Mr. Kirk was the exception. Mr. Anderson had briefly employed him but dismissed him, suspecting illegal drug use, said Tina Chaffin, Mr. Anderson's mother-in-law.

On the Saturday before Thanksgiving, after passing a background check, Mr. Kirk, 50, bought a Glock semiautomatic handgun from a Field and Stream sporting goods store. That Monday, as Mr. Anderson carried groceries into his kitchen after work, Mr. Kirk burst through the back door, demanding money, then killed Mr. Anderson with two bullets to the head.

Seven-year-old Landon Anderson fled upstairs to his sister's bedroom. His mother ran after him, locked the door and frantically called 911.

In a scene befitting a horror movie, Mr. Kirk blew out the lock and killed the mother and son. The daughter, Makyleigh, then 12, was shot in the shoulder and both hands, which she had thrown up in protection. A third bullet grazed her skull. Detective Sheppard said she survived only because Mr. Kirk "assumed she was dead."

Police officers killed Mr. Kirk as he fled.

Like roughly one-third of Americans, Mr. Anderson kept a handgun at home, for protection. But like an estimated 99 percent of crime victims, he did not use it - probably because he had no chance to retrieve it, the detective said. Ms. Chaffin, who is now raising Makyleigh, said Mr. Kirk did not deserve the same gun rights as her son-in-law.

"I don't understand how some of these people get to even purchase a gun," she said.

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said requiring a permit to buy a handgun is perhaps the most effective way to keep firearms away from dangerous people. In the three years after Missouri eliminated its requirement in 2007, his research found, gun homicide rates jumped 25 percent, even as they declined nationwide. Conversely, Connecticut's gun homicide rate fell 40 percent in the decade after it began requiring permits in 1995.

"It is just a lot more intimidating to go eyeball-to-eyeball with law enforcement rather than just going into your local gun shop to buy a gun," Professor Webster said.

William B. Evans, Boston's police commissioner, said Mr.Kirk would not have passed muster with his department. "When in doubt, I put the safety of the public first," he said.

Open carry: Pushing the envelope

Although Americans broadly support some restrictions, like broader background checks, the ideological and cultural divides on others are yawning. Perhaps the best example is the debate over "open carry" - the right to display firearms, Old West-style, in public.

In fact, few states restrict individuals from openly carrying loaded firearms in public, although many prohibit it in specific locations such as churches and schools, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Until recently, however, few gun owners tested that latitude in urban areas. Even the N.R.A. warned its Texas members in 2014 that carrying rifles into restaurants and coffee shops "can be downright scary" and might provoke a backlash - before quickly disavowing the statement.

Increasingly, though, some gun owners are showing up visibly armed in crowded settings like political rallies as an expression of expansive Second Amendment rights, arguing that they are deterring criminals and trying to make openly carrying firearms seem an everyday, accepted practice.

To some city police chiefs, like Edward A. Flynn of Milwaukee, that is "lunacy." "It puts everyone at risk." he said. "Everyone."

Mrs. Clinton has argued that cities and rural areas should be allowed to adopt different gun rules. But over the years, gun rights groups have persuaded the vast majority of states to strictly limit the power of local governments to regulate guns, according to the law center.

The open carry trend is new enough that researchers have yet to assess its effect on public safety. But after a sniper killed five police officers in Dallas in July, President Obama, the city's mayor and the police chief all said the police had struggled to distinguish the gunman from law-abiding citizens with rifles slung over their backs.

And in Colorado Springs last year, open carry laws contributed to an 11-minute delay in the police response to Noah Harpham, a mentally ill man on a killing spree.

Although Mr. Harpham, 33, had never threatened violence, he was bipolar, had quit taking medication and had not seen his psychiatrist for about two years. By last Halloween, he had become so irrational that his stepfather took a plane to Colorado Springs, planning to hospitalize him, against his will, if necessary.

But before his stepfather arrived, Mr. Harpham left his apartment, carrying an AR-15 rifle and two small gas cans. A neighbor called 911, only to be told by the dispatcher that Colorado "is an open carry state, so he can have a weapon and be walking around with it" though she did note that the gas cans seemed "pretty suspicious." The call was classified as not urgent, then upgraded to a possible burglary.

Eleven minutes later, the neighbor called back, weeping and asking for an ambulance. "I just called a few minutes ago and the guy came back out," she said. "He fired a gun at somebody, and he's laying on the street dead."

The dead man was Andrew Myers, 35, a father of two and an Army veteran who had survived three tours in Iraq. Riding past Mr. Harpham on his bicycle, he had shouted: "What are you doing? You can't be out here with an automatic weapon on the street." Mr. Harpham shot Mr. Myers in the head, chest and back. Minutes later, he killed two women smoking on a front porch.

By the time the police reached him, Mr. Harpham was walking backward down the roadway median, a half-mile from where he was first spotted. After he fired at the officers, they shot and killed him.

Guns on campus: The new frontier

In 1981, Arizona was among 19 states that prohibited gun owners from carrying concealed handguns outside their homes, researchers say. Thirty-five years later - in a powerful testament to the gun rights movement's success - carrying a concealed weapon is legal nationwide; eight states, including Arizona, require no permit to do so.

The next frontier is the college campus, where firearms advocates have mounted a state-by-state campaign to allow guns. Opponents argue that giving guns to young people who are still learning to make responsible decisions - and are often soaked in alcohol, testosterone or both - is a recipe for disaster. But the movement has gained some momentum. Texas last year became the eighth state to let students carry concealed weapons on campus.

Arizona has yet to adopt such a law, but firearms do have a foothold there: in 2009, the Legislature outlawed any restrictions on keeping guns in locked vehicles, as long as the firearms are out of sight. That overrode the state educational board's broad prohibition against firearms at public universities.

Steven Jones grew up shooting in pistol competitions under the guidance of his father, an N.R.A. instructor who ran a gun supply business, according to police records. As an 18-year-old freshman at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, he kept a .40-caliber Glock 22 handgun in the glove compartment of his red Mustang.

One Friday evening last October, Mr. Jones parked his car on campus while he socialized with several friends from his new fraternity, Sigma Chi. One of them later told the police that they knocked on the door of an off-campus apartment building where members of a rival fraternity, Delta Chi, were partying and drinking heavily - a stunt called "ding-dong, ditch."

A half-dozen or more Delta Chi members ran out, yelling, and pursued them. One punched Mr. Jones in the face, knocking off his glasses. His two friends were knocked to the ground.

Mr. Jones ran to his car and unlocked it with a key fob. He told the police he was "freaking out" and could not find his keys to drive away, even though they were in his pants pocket. He retrieved his gun, loaded with 17 rounds of ammunition, got out of the car, flipped on the weapon's attached light and pointed it at Delta Chi members.

"Don't move," he said he yelled, warning them that he had a gun.

Some witnesses said Colin Brough, a 20-year-old junior, took a step or two toward Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones said two students charged at him, threatening to kill him. In the dark, without his glasses, he had trouble aiming, so he "hoped for the best," he said. He shot Mr. Brough just below the heart and in the shoulder. He hit a second student in the arm and hip.

The courtyard erupted into screams: "Why do you have a gun?" "Why did you shoot?" Several students tackled Mr. Jones and started punching him, trying to get the gun.

Afraid they would use it to kill him, Mr. Jones said, he fired into the air to drive them off. He hit a third student in the neck, just a fraction of an inch from a major vein, and a fourth student twice in the back, shattering his kidney.

As officers flooded the courtyard, Mr. Jones grew hysterical, wailing, apologizing and begging the officer handcuffing him for reassurance that he would be all right.

"I am so sorry," he said. "I'm so scared. Can I call my mom?"

Mr. Brough, a gregarious business management major, died of internal bleeding in the courtyard.

"Where does the responsibility lie?" asked Kimberly Prato, whose son Nicholas was one of the victims. "Do you blame it on an 18-year-old who was given a weapon by his parents to go to college? I don't know the answer, but I know it is out there."

Mr. Jones was indicted on charges of first degree murder and aggravated assault and has pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense.

This year, a bill that would have allowed students and professors to carry concealed guns on campuses like Northern Arizona University died in a state legislative committee. Similar bills were killed in 16 other states, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Douglas Brough, Colin's father, said he shudders to think what would have happened had other students been armed that night.

"Are you kidding me?" he said. "It would have been like the O.K. Corral."

THE DAILY TOLL

A Drumbeat of Multiple Shootings, but America Isn't Listening

THE DAILY TOLL

When Bullets Hit Bystanders

A Weekend in Chicago

'I Think About It Daily': Life in a Time of Mass Shootings

THE DAILY TOLL

A Drumbeat of Multiple Shootings, but America Isn't Listening

THE DAILY TOLL

When Bullets Hit Bystanders

A Weekend in Chicago

'I Think About It Daily': Life in a Time of Mass Shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
murders  attempted murders and homicides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What 130 of the Worst Shootings Say About Guns in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John R. Houser was dangerously mentally ill, too ill to carry a gun. Of that, there is little doubt. Over 16 years, Mr. Houser, 59, had been charged with hiring a man to burn down a lawyer's office and named in a domestic violence complaint.

# data[].attributes.body
This is about gun control helping illegal SMG's into the NRA into american circulation of the over 360,000,000 guns such as the Tac-9, MX4, P90 to name a few SMGs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"DIY submachine guns are popping up across the West Bank," the Washington Post reported recently in a piece about a weapon that has repeatedly played a role in Palestinian attacks upon Israelis. The guns are of a common type referred to as the "Carlo," based on the Swedish Carl Gustav M/45, which dates to the World War 2 era. The article added that hundreds of the submachine guns have been confiscated over the past year, and raids staged on 35 mechanics' shops that were cranking them out.

"The Carlo has remained so popular because of how little machinery and technical know-how is required to produce it," a Times of Israel story noted earlier this year. "A drill press, some welding equipment and blueprints from the internet are all that's needed to create one of these potentially devastating weapons." The story lamented that "it's nearly impossible to prevent its production."

Ironically, Israelis themselves relied on homemade submachine guns during their War of Independence. In their case, they knocked off copies of the British-designed Sten gun and fed them with ammunition manufactured in a clandestine factory beneath a laundry. Similarly to the weapon copied by West Bank mechanics, "the Sten used simple stamped metal components and minor welding, which required minimal machining and manufacturing," according to Wikipedia.

That simplicity is a feature of many simple, sheet-metal submachine guns dating to the war era. Desperate to satisfy the need to produce massive numbers of guns in short order, designers crafted weapons that could be made in any number of existing shops using general-purpose machinery. Long before 3D printers and CNC milling machines drove headlines about DIY firearms, those characteristics made such weapons natural choices for various insurgencies battling governments in regions across the world.

Because they're so easy to produce, submachine guns also became a natural go-to for non-political manufacture in countries that have strict gun control regimes. Brazil seems to be an especially fertile source for homemade automatic weapons. There's an online cottage industry in tracking Brazilian police announcements of gun confiscations and posting photos of the creative copies of commercially produced weapons-as well as weirdly innovative original designs.

Unsurprisingly, Brazil has a thriving market for Sten guns and the like made in car repair shops because it has a severely constrained legal market for firearms. Brazilians have to jump through hoops to get government permission to purchase guns, and even if they satisfy all requirements, police can say "no" on a whim. That leaves many residents of the country without a legal means to protect themselves from the country's extremely busy criminal class (60,000 murders every year, according to some estimates). Those criminals are, of course, well-armed courtesy of that black market described above.

Some of the country's lawmakers want to make it less-daunting to legally own the means of self-defense. But for now guns remain easily available only to those willing to break the law, which leaves opportunity for DIY manufacturers.

Australia also has famously restrictive gun laws of such exquisite legislative perfection that they bear emulation, according to leading presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Well, except that the Australian government is a tad upset about gun smuggling by outlaw gangs and the hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms in circulation. Officials plan yet another amnesty for owners to surrender the illegal weapons, although Sydney University gun policy analyst Philip Alpers told ABC News that he expects it to produce only " rubbish guns" that nobody values.

Because, honestly, if you've gone through the trouble and expense of purchasing one of the "perfectly constructed MAC 10 machine guns" manufactured by a jeweler turned underground arms dealer, why would you surrender it?

Like Brazil, diversity is characteristic of Australia's illegal arms makers, who also produce submachine guns inspired by the late Philip Luty, a Briton who created designs intended for home manufacture (he was imprisoned for his troubles, but his plans are widely available). Ten percent or more of illegal guns seized by Australian police are produced by underground armorers-with powerful and easily made submachine guns featuring prominently among them.

Australia is a much safer country than Brazil, and has a lower homicide rate than the United States. But at least one academic assessment has concluded that the crime rate seems to fluctuate independently of gun ownership. That new gun amnesty is motivated not just by a black market, but by a spike in crime including murders.

Because, once again, restrictions on the legal ownership of firearms have the greatest impact on the most law-abiding segment of society who submit with little resistance. They simultaneously fuel black markets in firearms that efficiently serve insurgents and criminals (as well as principled resisters to state authority). That leaves predators with a real advantage relative to their prey.

And, if you're going to make something illegally, you might as well get the most bang for your buck out of the means you have at hand. If you're looking to supply the demand for drugs, you cook methamphetamine in motel room laboratories. And if you're supplying the illegal arms market, you download the plans for a Sten gun to a laptop in a brake-repair shop.

From the West Bank, to Brazil, to Australia, history demonstrates that if you want people to start making their own submachine guns, all you have to do is legally restrict their access to firearms of all sorts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control Is Tax-Subsidized Marketing for Illegal Submachine Guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"DIY submachine guns are popping up across the West Bank," the Washington Post reported recently in a piece about a weapon that has repeatedly played a role in Palestinian attacks upon Israelis. The guns are of a common type referred to as the "Carlo," based on the Swedish Carl Gustav M/45, which dates to the World War 2 era.

# data[].attributes.body
They should have stricter gun control because people in our country take advantage of our gun law. If we had stricter gun control it would be harder to buy guns. The less guns people would have the harder it is to get guns to shoot people. Police should also investigate on people selling guns illegally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, while claiming to respect the second amendment, has made clear that she wants to see tighter control on gun ownership that "tries to save some of these 33,000 lives that we lose every year."

But no matter whether it's Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who captures the White House next week, America's frightening rate of death by gunshot wounds will certainly be forced into retreat. One day.

Because it is inconceivable that the people of such an advanced nation will tolerate an ever-worsening state of armed violence and insurrection, there must come a time when solutions already tested and championed by the United States are deployed to reduce the country's toll of 33,000 firearm-related deaths each year.

In hindsight, how naïve were we to imagine that the massacre at Columbine High might prove to be the tipping point? Thirteen years and 421,000 American gun deaths later, even the slaughter of 26 mainly white children and teachers at Sandy Hook couldn't induce the US Congress to act. Clearly, the country's gun death toll must get worse before it gets better.

But take heart, America already has the solutions.

Since 1934, US federal law has mandated licensing and registration for machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and rifles. It works. Such firearms quickly became, and remain the guns least used in crime. Today, the few states that similarly regulate much more common handguns point to similar effects, even when undermined by their gun-lax neighbors.

On its roads, America dramatically reversed the soaring toll of death and injury by automobile with a holistic array of evidence-based public health measures. The world followed suit. Licensing and registration did not lead to mass confiscation, and cars remain objects of maleness, power and freedom.

Other US-led successful public health campaigns, from tobacco harm reduction to HIV/AIDS, saved countless millions of lives, all in the face of years of denial and quasi-religious opposition from self-interested groups. It can be done.

Unique to the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is just that -- an amendment. As with universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery and Prohibition, Americans are free to change an outdated law when they so choose. The solution to armed violence, America's fatal flaw, is not unthinkable.

Granted, armed violence is a multi-faceted, often intransigent public health problem, which spans a dozen disciplines. Yet for 20 years, the US gun lobby has successfully suppressed research in this field.

Imagine the outcry if for two decades the transportation industry lobby had managed to choke off all federal funds for road safety research. To prevent and reduce firearm injury, America's medieval purge of knowledge and evidence must, and will be overcome.

In many other nations, improvements are well under way. Latin Americans, for example, suffer gun death rates to make your toes curl. For this reason Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia joined Australia, the United Kingdom and democratic countries in the Pacific Rim in mounting massive national disarmament and firearm destruction programs, each followed by fewer gun deaths.

With millions of new firearms sold each year around the world, and perhaps at best only a million destroyed, it's an uphill struggle. Yet the unmistakeable global trend is to tighten firearm legislation and its enforcement, not to accept the least credible excuses for unbridled gun ownership. In the United States, the most common of these is fear, according to a study this year by academics at Harvard and Northeastern universities.

America's epidemic of gun violence has already proven too much for any one president. Even if Trump were to spark armed insurrection, even if Clinton were to deliver on the NRA's biggest nightmares, next week's election winner can only boost the next peak, or perhaps trigger a brief trough in those horrible gun homicide and gun suicide charts.

But as with the toll of road-related deaths, a range of long-term public health initiatives will gradually work in parallel to save countless lives. Gun buyer background checks, micro-stamping of firearms and ammunition as a crime-busting tool, smart guns that only the owner can fire -- and yes, licensing and registration -- must ever so slowly become the norm.

This pair of presidential candidates will be long gone, but America's children will insist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
stricter gun control is innevitable  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump or Clinton, stricter gun control is inevitable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joshua Tantillo:                   NRA puts less than $150,000 into Gun Control Battle in California

# data[].attributes.subject
Joshua Tantillo:                   NRA puts less than $150,000 into Gun Control Battle in California

# data[].attributes.body
The NRA has put less than $150,000 into the California Gun control fight but has our over $4,000,000 into the same fight in Nevada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Those campaigning against the measure, including the NRA-affiliated California Rifle and Pistol Assn., have raised a combined $703,000, compared with $4.7 million raised by the pro side.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NRA not putting up much of a fight against California gun control ballot measure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Rifle Assn. has poured $4 million into fighting a Nevada initiative that would require background checks for firearms buyers, but the group has put just $110,000 into a California effort

# data[].attributes.headline
Darwin jesus calix bustillo.       I believe that gun control will not work.First, I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it. Guns themselves can't do anything it is the person with the gun that decides where the bullet goes.Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people will not make them less violent. It might make them more violent. Violent people can use anything to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people is no more than just taking one out of a thousand more ways to hurt, rob, or kill you.Also, gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.However, outlaws and gang members decided to keep making alcohol anyway. It was obvious that the Prohibition had failed. The latest ban that is having problems is the illegal drug bans.Now many of us know that most drugs that are illegal are bad to people’s health when used. However, when drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth became illegal outlaws and gangs saw a new business and started a war with many governments especially America. Outlaws produced and sold drug illegally to the public. Even today outlaws keep making them, selling them, using them, and innocent people are still getting killed over them. Outlaws will still find ways to smuggle, produce, and use guns to their advantage. The only thing that gun control will do is make it harder for law obeying citizens to get guns. This is one important thing to remember. Once something is outlawed only outlaws get it.That is why gun control will not work. ---Darwin Jesus Calix Bustillo

# data[].attributes.subject
Darwin jesus calix bustillo.       I believe that gun control will not work.First, I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it. Guns themselves can't do anything it is the person with the gun that decides where the bullet goes.Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people will not make them less violent. It might make them more violent. Violent people can use anything to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people is no more than just taking one out of a thousand more ways to hurt, rob, or kill you.Also, gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.However, outlaws and gang members decided to keep making alcohol anyway. It was obvious that the Prohibition had failed. The latest ban that is having problems is the illegal drug bans.Now many of us know that most drugs that are illegal are bad to people’s health when used. However, when drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth became illegal outlaws and gangs saw a new business and started a war with many governments especially America. Outlaws produced and sold drug illegally to the public. Even today outlaws keep making them, selling them, using them, and innocent people are still getting killed over them. Outlaws will still find ways to smuggle, produce, and use guns to their advantage. The only thing that gun control will do is make it harder for law obeying citizens to get guns. This is one important thing to remember. Once something is outlawed only outlaws get it.That is why gun control will not work. ---Darwin Jesus Calix Bustillo

# data[].attributes.body
This is about the different types of ammunition used in firearms such as green tip or red tip rounds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Today
Good morning. (Want to get California Today by email? Sign up.)
California has the nation's strictest gun laws. There is a waiting period, a written test and a number of restrictions on guns and gear. Some voters pondering Proposition 63 have asked: Haven't we done enough?

Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor, says no. He's developed the initiative that would push the state's gun limits even further.

Under Proposition 63, ammunition purchasers would be treated similar to gun purchasers. Before a Californian could buy even a single bullet of any kind, he or she would need to pay a fee of up to $50 and wait up to 30 days to obtain a four-year permit.

"The game changer in the country is going to be ammunition background checks," Mr. Newsom, who is running for governor in 2018, said in a phone interview.

Proposition 63 has drawn vehement opposition from civil liberties and policing groups who argue that it would make Californians less safe and impede law enforcement. What's more, they note, the state already created a law this year that added background checks for bullet buyers at the point of sale. (Mr. Newsom said that bill did not go far enough.)

Critically, opponents say, the wait time could put people in danger.

In one of the opposition group's campaign ads, a lone woman is depicted pulling a gun against an attacker in a dim parking lot, only to pull the trigger and hear the "click" of an unloaded weapon.

"All Proposition 63 seeks to do is pile on 34 more pages of more complex legalese on an already byzantine system of gun laws," said Sean Brady, counsel for the Coalition for Civil Liberties.

Proposition 63 also adds new felony charges for stealing firearms, broadens a ban on large capacity magazines and requires all felons to surrender their guns, among other measures.

Since 2000, the rate of gun violence in California has fallen by about 20 percent, according to Garen J. Wintemute, an epidemiologist who studies firearm violence at U.C. Davis. Whether that can be credited to tough gun measures is a subject of disagreement.

But firearm dealers say at least one outcome of the debate is certain: more sales.

Californians have been buying more guns than ever - last year, more than 890,000.
Dig into analyses of all 17 statewide measures by the Legislative Analyst's Office, CALmatters and Ballotpedia.

Image

Anila Ali, a Pakistan-born educator, campaigning for City Council in Irvine last week. Eleven candidates are vying for two open seats. Credit Melissa Lyttle for The New York Times

* With dirty tricks and veiled charges of religious intolerance, a campaign in Irvine reflects the turbulent currents of American politics. [ The New York Times]

* An investigation into a $72 million apartment complex in Los Angeles raised questions about the influence of cash on the political process. [ Los Angeles Times]

* With polls showing the state poised to legalize recreational marijuana, some cities are scrambling to pass temporary bans. [ The Mercury News]

* Mike Cernovich is a social media mastermind of the alt-right. He operates out of Southern California. [ The New Yorker]

Pedestrians and vendors share the sidewalk in Westlake, where the median household income is low for Los Angeles. Credit Ivan Kashinsky for The New York Times

* By one intriguing measure, the West, not the South, has the highest poverty rate in the country. [ The New York Times Editorial Board]

* San Diego's once thriving card room industry is struggling mightily, done in by a law passed in the 1980s. [ San Diego Union-Tribune]

* San Francisco's most expensive home sold in October for nearly $22 million. Now we know the buyer: a 30-year-old tech billionaire. [ SFGate.com]

Norman Brokaw in Beverly Hills in 1996. Credit Marlene Wallace/Getty Images

* Norman Brokaw, who rose from mail clerk to top mogul at the William Morris talent agency, died in Beverly Hills. He was 89. [ The New York Times]

* The Irvine Meadows amphitheater closed its doors after hosting music's biggest names for 35 years. [ Orange County Register]

* Joe Ide's debut novel, "IQ," set in Long Beach, kicks off what is likely to be a madly lovable new detective series. [ The New York Times]

* Scientists discovered a species of millipede with 414 legs and four penises in a California cave. [ The New York Times]

And Finally ...

An artist's depiction of Alexander von Humboldt in his library. Credit DeAgostini/Getty Images

Alexander von Humboldt - whose California namesakes include a county, a university and multiple parks - was the foremost scientist of his time.

Before Charles Darwin, the Prussian geographer was the first to establish an understanding of ecosystems in the early 1800s.

" The Invention of Nature" is the first biography of Humboldt in English in many years and its author, Andrea Wulf, was in California over the past few weeks to talk about it. We caught up with her over email.

What do you think Californians might be most surprised to learn about Humboldt?

John Muir's ecological thinking and ideas on forest preservation were hugely influenced by Humboldt. Muir once said: "How intensely I desire to be a Humboldt."

Andrea Wulf

What do you most admire about him?

His insatiable curiosity combined with an adventurous spirit - and his insistence that we should not just measure nature but also use our feelings and imagination to understand the natural world.

You make the case that he is the forgotten father of environmentalism. Why do you think he's not better known?

There are several reasons but here are two: there is not a single big discovery attached to his name (instead he came up with a holistic worldview), while his scientific approach combined the arts and the sciences which was unacceptable for 20th-century scientists who dismissed this as "romantic science."

Do Humboldt's insights continue to hold relevance today? How?

Yes. As scientists are trying to understand and predict global consequences of climate change, Humboldt's interdisciplinary methods and concept of nature as one of global patterns is more relevant than ever before.

California Today goes live at 6 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: The California Today columnist, Mike McPhate, is a third-generation Californian - born outside Sacramento and raised in San Juan Capistrano. He lives in Davis. California Today is edited by Julie Bloom, who grew up in Los Angeles and attended U.C. Berkeley. Follow him on Twitter. CAtoday@nytimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Today: A New Target of Gun Control Advocates - Bullets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Today Good morning. (Want to get California Today by email? Sign up .) California has the nation's strictest gun laws. There is a waiting period, a written test and a number of restrictions on guns and gear. Some voters pondering Proposition 63 have asked: Haven't we done enough?

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows that guns should just be banned to all people except for an authorized person, it quotes ''Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible''.

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/
Shows the gun laws in the different states and whats.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how they need to get automatic guns off the streets because people are using it in a bad way NRA  is defined as an acronym for the National Rifle Association, is an organization founded in 1871 that stands for the protection of the Second Amendment which guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. They only put 150,000 into california and 4,000,000 into nevada.The National Recovery Administration was a prime New Deal agency established by U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933. The goal was to eliminate "cut-throat competition" by bringing industry, labor, and government together to create codes of "fair practices" and set prices.

.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/gun-control-isn-t-the-answer.html

# data[].attributes.headline
The poll found 55 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, with 42 percent The poll found 55 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, with 42 percent opposed, which matches the highest level of support since the poll was taken in January 2013, just one month after Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. .

# data[].attributes.subject
The poll found 55 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, with 42 percent The poll found 55 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, with 42 percent opposed, which matches the highest level of support since the poll was taken in January 2013, just one month after Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. .

# data[].attributes.body
55 percent of americans want stricter gun laws

# data[].attributes.headline
Nearly 80 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans said they would support the next president, who takes office next January after the Nov. 8 election

# data[].attributes.subject
Nearly 80 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans said they would support the next president, who takes office next January after the Nov. 8 election

# data[].attributes.body
this tells us about gun control and it really just explains about gun control.

# data[].attributes.body
this tells us the gun control and about the gun rights and laws

# data[].attributes.body
For Anti Gun Control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The increase in mass shootings is a much hyped myth. The drop in gun crime is a little noticed reality.

In the wake of the murderous rampage at Orlando's gay nightclub Pulse-the nation's worst mass shooting ever-it's inevitable that politicians would respond by calling for tighter gun-control laws. As Hillary Clinton put it on the Today show, "We need to get these weapons of war off the streets. We had an assault weapons ban, it expired, and we need to reinstate it."

Inevitable, yes, and understandable too. And totally besides the point. Laws addressing criminal behavior aren't going to prevent terrorism.

By every account, the shooter Omar Mateen was ideologically and theologically motivated- he called 911 to pledge his loyalty to the leader of the Islamic State before starting his homophobic attack-and thus unlikely to be deterred by legal prohibitions. His father told NBC News that his son was disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, his ex-wife said that he had beaten her, and his former workmates called him "toxic" and aggrieved by "women, race, and religion." Exactly how reducing law-abiding citizens' legal access to weapons will stop a jihadist bent on a suicide mission or even a garden-variety nut job from a rampage is something politicians don't pause to explain, especially since they never seriously suggest pulling a significant portion of the 357 million guns in America out of circulation.

More specifically, the assault weapons ban that Clinton cites was in effect from 1994 until 2003 and had no discernible impact on gun violence. A 2004 study ( PDF) commissioned by the Department of Justice found that gun crime did decrease during the ban, which outlawed 18 types of rifles and large-capacity magazines (LCMs). But because assault weapons-whether rifles or pistols-were so rarely used in shootings, the researchers concluded that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." The authors argued that if the assault weapons ban were reinstated, its "effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

As telling, it's not immediately clear whether one of Mateen's weapons-an AR-15 rifle, among the most popular of its type in the country-would have been covered by the ban. Depending on a series of mostly cosmetic differences, some AR-15s were banned and others weren't.

Nor is there reason to believe that mass shootings are on the rise over the past 30 years or so. Writing in the wake of last fall's shooting at a community college in Oregon, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, widely regarded as the authority on mass shootings, say there is no clear pattern. "Using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed," he wrote in USA Today, "the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

In fact, one of the most unremarked-upon developments of the past two decades is a massive, nation-wide reduction in violent crime, especially gun-related violent crime. In 1993, according to Pew Research figures, there were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people. In 2014, the latest year for which there is full data, the rate was 3.4 percent, a decline of nearly 50 percent. "Nonfatal violent firearm crime victimizations dropped even over the same time frame, from 725 per 100,000 to 175 per 100,000.

The result of such a decline is that crime is no longer an issue in national politics the way it was from at least the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon capitalized on rising crime rates, riots, and anti-war protests by running commercials that promised an end to "domestic violence" and that "the wave of crime is not going to be the wave of the future in America." George Wallace similarly pledged to "make it possible for you and your families to walk the streets of our cities in safety." Such appeals continued for decades, through the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 and Bill Clinton's 1992 spot bragging that he and Al Gore "sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty."

By the mid-1990s-at the exact moment most criminologists (including Fox) predicted a historic surge in lawlessness by "super-predators"-crime was off the table as an issue. The reasons for the decline in crime are multiple and not all are unalloyed goods. The reduction of lead in the environment, for instance, may explain some reduction in anti-social behavior and so does an increase not just in the number of police but the use of computer-assisted policing. But it's also true that massively heightened levels of incarceration and aggressive methods that violated civil liberties such as "stop and frisk" played a significant role.

Apart from its gruesome body count, the Orlando shooting is particularly heinous because it targeted gays, a group that until recently was denied legal and cultural support from "normal" society and as likely as not to be harassed as helped by law enforcement. But it shouldn't be used to effect policy changes that will do nothing to prevent the terroristic violence that Mateen perpetrated. Indeed, even the post-9/11 protocols that are in place to monitor likely terrorists failed in this instance, as Mateen was investigated at least twice by the FBI based on tips from co-workers, his background, and his behavior.

Where Hillary Clinton has called for increased gun control, of course, Donald Trump has called for an equally unconstitutional and impossible ban, this one on Muslims and Middle Easterners. The Orlando shooting presents politicians as both crusading and cynical, as they can only offer up solutions that will do nothing but inflame the pre-existing prejudices of their constituents.

The one thing that they-and perhaps us, too-cannot countenance, especially in an era when violence is at a low ebb, is that evil cannot be fully exterminated from our lives.

In the wake of the murderous rampage at Orlando's gay nightclub Pulse-the nation's worst mass shooting ever-it's inevitable that politicians would respond by calling for tighter gun-control laws. As Hillary Clinton put it on the Today show, "We need to get these weapons of war off the streets. We had an assault weapons ban, it expired, and we need to reinstate it."

Inevitable, yes, and understandable too. And totally besides the point. Laws addressing criminal behavior aren't going to prevent terrorism.

By every account, the shooter Omar Mateen was ideologically and theologically motivated- he called 911 to pledge his loyalty to the leader of the Islamic State before starting his homophobic attack-and thus unlikely to be deterred by legal prohibitions. His father told NBC News that his son was disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, his ex-wife said that he had beaten her, and his former workmates called him "toxic" and aggrieved by "women, race, and religion." Exactly how reducing law-abiding citizens' legal access to weapons will stop a jihadist bent on a suicide mission or even a garden-variety nut job from a rampage is something politicians don't pause to explain, especially since they never seriously suggest pulling a significant portion of the 357 million guns in America out of circulation.

More specifically, the assault weapons ban that Clinton cites was in effect from 1994 until 2003 and had no discernible impact on gun violence. A 2004 study ( PDF) commissioned by the Department of Justice found that gun crime did decrease during the ban, which outlawed 18 types of rifles and large-capacity magazines (LCMs). But because assault weapons-whether rifles or pistols-were so rarely used in shootings, the researchers concluded that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." The authors argued that if the assault weapons ban were reinstated, its "effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

As telling, it's not immediately clear whether one of Mateen's weapons-an AR-15 rifle, among the most popular of its type in the country-would have been covered by the ban. Depending on a series of mostly cosmetic differences, some AR-15s were banned and others weren't.

Nor is there reason to believe that mass shootings are on the rise over the past 30 years or so. Writing in the wake of last fall's shooting at a community college in Oregon, Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, widely regarded as the authority on mass shootings, say there is no clear pattern. "Using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed," he wrote in USA Today, "the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria."

In fact, one of the most unremarked-upon developments of the past two decades is a massive, nation-wide reduction in violent crime, especially gun-related violent crime. In 1993, according to Pew Research figures, there were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people. In 2014, the latest year for which there is full data, the rate was 3.4 percent, a decline of nearly 50 percent. "Nonfatal violent firearm crime victimizations dropped even over the same time frame, from 725 per 100,000 to 175 per 100,000.

The result of such a decline is that crime is no longer an issue in national politics the way it was from at least the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon capitalized on rising crime rates, riots, and anti-war protests by running commercials that promised an end to "domestic violence" and that "the wave of crime is not going to be the wave of the future in America." George Wallace similarly pledged to "make it possible for you and your families to walk the streets of our cities in safety." Such appeals continued for decades, through the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 and Bill Clinton's 1992 spot bragging that he and Al Gore "sent a strong signal to criminals by supporting the death penalty."

By the mid-1990s-at the exact moment most criminologists (including Fox) predicted a historic surge in lawlessness by "super-predators"-crime was off the table as an issue. The reasons for the decline in crime are multiple and not all are unalloyed goods. The reduction of lead in the environment, for instance, may explain some reduction in anti-social behavior and so does an increase not just in the number of police but the use of computer-assisted policing. But it's also true that massively heightened levels of incarceration and aggressive methods that violated civil liberties such as "stop and frisk" played a significant role.

Apart from its gruesome body count, the Orlando shooting is particularly heinous because it targeted gays, a group that until recently was denied legal and cultural support from "normal" society and as likely as not to be harassed as helped by law enforcement. But it shouldn't be used to effect policy changes that will do nothing to prevent the terroristic violence that Mateen perpetrated. Indeed, even the post-9/11 protocols that are in place to monitor likely terrorists failed in this instance, as Mateen was investigated at least twice by the FBI based on tips from co-workers, his background, and his behavior.

Where Hillary Clinton has called for increased gun control, of course, Donald Trump has called for an equally unconstitutional and impossible ban, this one on Muslims and Middle Easterners. The Orlando shooting presents politicians as both crusading and cynical, as they can only offer up solutions that will do nothing but inflame the pre-existing prejudices of their constituents.

The one thing that they-and perhaps us, too-cannot countenance, especially in an era when violence is at a low ebb, is that evil cannot be fully exterminated from our lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the wake of the murderous rampage at Orlando's gay nightclub Pulse-the nation's worst mass shooting ever-it's inevitable that politicians would respond by calling for tighter gun-control laws. As Hillary Clinton put it on the Today show, "We need to get these weapons of war off the streets.

# data[].attributes.body
this has supporting ideas to help you on your argumentive essays and also it gives good reasons for gun control and also for stricter gun laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
According to the Tracker's data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870

# data[].attributes.subject
According to the Tracker's data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870

# data[].attributes.headline
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms

# data[].attributes.subject
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms

# data[].attributes.body
this shows essays about why we need stricter gun laws and gun control...

# data[].attributes.body
this shows why we need gun control.

# data[].attributes.headline
 The US has 5% of the world’s population, it had 31% all public mass shootings in the world. More Americans have died from guns in the united states since 1968 than on battlefields of all the worse, the number of deaths from warfare 1775-2015 is 1,396,733; the number of firearm-related deaths 1969-2015 is 1,516,863.

# data[].attributes.subject
 The US has 5% of the world’s population, it had 31% all public mass shootings in the world. More Americans have died from guns in the united states since 1968 than on battlefields of all the worse, the number of deaths from warfare 1775-2015 is 1,396,733; the number of firearm-related deaths 1969-2015 is 1,516,863.

# data[].attributes.headline
On average 31 Americans are killed each day as a result of gun violence...

# data[].attributes.subject
On average 31 Americans are killed each day as a result of gun violence...

# data[].attributes.headline
If guns where banned how will police work with criminals that have bout illegal guns or even got them in different places like Asia or North Korea and come back to where they live and cause havoc in there city then the police cant stop them because all guns would be banned

# data[].attributes.subject
If guns where banned how will police work with criminals that have bout illegal guns or even got them in different places like Asia or North Korea and come back to where they live and cause havoc in there city then the police cant stop them because all guns would be banned

# data[].attributes.body
This shows reasons why we need stricter gun laws

# data[].attributes.headline
"Honestly this is not going to change unless the people who want to prevent these kinds of mass shootings from taking place feel at least as passionate, at least as mobilized and well-funded as the NRA and the gun manufacturers are because the politics in Congress are such where even members of Congress who know better are fearful if they vote their conscience and support common sense measures like background checks, they're worried they're going to lose," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Minneapolis.

# data[].attributes.subject
"Honestly this is not going to change unless the people who want to prevent these kinds of mass shootings from taking place feel at least as passionate, at least as mobilized and well-funded as the NRA and the gun manufacturers are because the politics in Congress are such where even members of Congress who know better are fearful if they vote their conscience and support common sense measures like background checks, they're worried they're going to lose," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Minneapolis.

# data[].attributes.body
This gives a good debate about both sides if there should be more stricter gun laws or not.

# data[].attributes.body
"Ban Guns. All Guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don't sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known-as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that "gun control" at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-pageeditorial, asmuch as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. "Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership," the paper argued, making the case for "reasonable regulation," nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. "We shouldn't 'take them away' from people who currently own them, necessarily," writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme-an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns-to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It's not the only country that has psychosis. And yet we kill each other in these mass shootings at rates that are exponentially higher than anyone else. Well, what's the difference? The difference is that these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses, and that's sort of par for the course."Obama

# data[].attributes.subject
"The United States does not have a monopoly on crazy people. It's not the only country that has psychosis. And yet we kill each other in these mass shootings at rates that are exponentially higher than anyone else. Well, what's the difference? The difference is that these guys can stack up a bunch of ammunition in their houses, and that's sort of par for the course."Obama

# data[].attributes.headline
"My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We're the only developed country on Earth where this happens. ... And it happens once a week. And it's a one-day story. ... The country has to do some soul-searching on this." Obama

# data[].attributes.subject
"My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We're the only developed country on Earth where this happens. ... And it happens once a week. And it's a one-day story. ... The country has to do some soul-searching on this." Obama

# data[].attributes.headline
Gun laws should be a little stricter considering that's how so many people have died and even just the regular nerf or air soft guns have got kids shot just because people think that they have real guns

# data[].attributes.subject
Gun laws should be a little stricter considering that's how so many people have died and even just the regular nerf or air soft guns have got kids shot just because people think that they have real guns

# data[].attributes.body
Anthony parsons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's not that difficult to buy a gun in America.

Hundreds of stores sell guns, from big chains like Walmart to family-run shops like Ken's Sporting Goods & Liquor Store in Crescent, Ore. Or you can attend one of the dozens of gun shows that take place almost every weekend nationwide. People also regularly buy guns from neighbors or family members.

A background check is conducted only in store purchases. There, gun buyers have to fill out a form from the ATF, or the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Required information includes: name, address, place of birth, race and citizenship. A social security number is only "optional," though it's recommended. The form also asks questions such as:
*Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
*Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
*Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
*Are you a fugitive from justice?
*Have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
The store then calls the FBI, which runs a background check on the person through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also known as NICS. The background check can just take minutes.

NICS scans federal databases like the National Crime Information Center and Interstate Identification Index for information. If a purchaser has been convicted of a felony, or misdemeanors with sentences exceeding two years, or has been declared "mentally defective" by a court, then he or she won't pass the background check.

However, denials are rare, occurring less than 1% of the time. "More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials," the FBI says on its web site.

Related: Background checks take minutes

But gun buyers don't have to go through a background check when they make a purchase at a gun show.

Most Americans live somewhere near a gun show. The web site www.gunshows-usa.com lists 29 gun shows scheduled for this coming Father's Day weekend, from Las Vegas and Philadelphia to Hickory, N.C. and Salmon, Idaho.

You won't find them in cities like New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., where gun laws are far more restrictive.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, and President Obama tried to eliminate the gun show loophole in 2013, with a bill that would have expanded background checks. But Congress didn't pass it.

The President's effort came after the killing of 26 children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut.

After this week's gun violence at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, where a white man killed nine African Americans in a racially motivated attack, Obama hinted that he might try again.

Related: Gun violence costs taxpayers $500 million

"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries," he said, in a speech. "It is in our power to do something about it."

The killer, Dylann Roof, bought his .45-caliber Glock at a gun store in Charleston, where he would have been required to pass a background check. Though he had been arrested earlier this year for trespassing and drug possession, he apparently met the legal criteria.

Roof also displayed racist symbols on Facebook , but the FBI said that kind of information would not come up in a background check, since the database includes information on prohibited persons as defined in the Gun Control Act.

CNNMoney (New York) First published June 19, 2015: 2:55 PM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is how easy it is to buy guns in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of stores sell guns, from big chains like Walmart to family-run shops like Ken's Sporting Goods & Liquor Store in Crescent, Ore. Or you can attend one of the dozens of gun shows that take place almost every weekend nationwide. People also regularly buy guns from neighbors or family members.

# data[].attributes.headline
In 2016, over 12,000 people have died due to complications involving gun violence. At the BOTTOM of the list, 1,491 people died as a result of "defensive use", meaning that individuals claiming to really need their guns are arguably irrelevant, as there are more accident related deaths in America. 

# data[].attributes.subject
In 2016, over 12,000 people have died due to complications involving gun violence. At the BOTTOM of the list, 1,491 people died as a result of "defensive use", meaning that individuals claiming to really need their guns are arguably irrelevant, as there are more accident related deaths in America. 

# data[].attributes.headline
In 2016 alone, over 47, 584 people have fallen to gun violence. At the bp

# data[].attributes.subject
In 2016 alone, over 47, 584 people have fallen to gun violence. At the bp

# data[].attributes.headline
In 12 Years, Guns Killed More Than AIDS, War And Drug Overdoses Combined

# data[].attributes.subject
In 12 Years, Guns Killed More Than AIDS, War And Drug Overdoses Combined

# data[].attributes.body
In 2013, the amount of people killed by cars is just about even with the amount of people killed by guns.

# data[].attributes.headline
Because it is inconceivable that the people of such an advanced nation will tolerate an ever-worsening state of armed violence and insurrection, there must come a time when solutions already tested and championed by the United States are deployed to reduce the country's toll of 33,000 firearm-related deaths each year.

# data[].attributes.subject
Because it is inconceivable that the people of such an advanced nation will tolerate an ever-worsening state of armed violence and insurrection, there must come a time when solutions already tested and championed by the United States are deployed to reduce the country's toll of 33,000 firearm-related deaths each year.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. still has the same gun laws they had in the 17th century when it was first founded

# data[].attributes.headline
In 2015 There Have Been 355 Mass Shootings In 338 Days.

# data[].attributes.subject
In 2015 There Have Been 355 Mass Shootings In 338 Days.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on data from 2012 from the UN and the Guardian, the United States averages 29.7 firearm murders per 1 million people. The country with the next highest gun death rate is Switzerland, with 7.7 gun deaths per 1 million people.

# data[].attributes.body
There should be strictergun laws due to how easy it is to purchase a gun

# data[].attributes.headline
CNBC talks about how some people think guns should be ban and how if guns where banned than it would start a whole other argument and people will rage about it 

# data[].attributes.subject
CNBC talks about how some people think guns should be ban and how if guns where banned than it would start a whole other argument and people will rage about it 

# data[].attributes.headline
"President Ronald Reagan signed the much debated "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" on May 19, 1986. The new legislation -- a mixed bag of new standards and regulations -- was the product of long held negotiations among lawmakers from both parties and gun lobbyists.Most notably, the law banned the future sale of any fully automatic weapons, or machine guns, to private purchasers."

# data[].attributes.subject
"President Ronald Reagan signed the much debated "Firearm Owner's Protection Act" on May 19, 1986. The new legislation -- a mixed bag of new standards and regulations -- was the product of long held negotiations among lawmakers from both parties and gun lobbyists.Most notably, the law banned the future sale of any fully automatic weapons, or machine guns, to private purchasers."

# data[].attributes.headline
But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. I found this interesting in CNBC

# data[].attributes.subject
But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. I found this interesting in CNBC

# data[].attributes.headline
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia,” Barack Obama said last year.

# data[].attributes.subject
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia,” Barack Obama said last year.

# data[].attributes.body
There should be stricter gun laws due to the growing number of deaths per year in the US. Currently the US is averaging about 30,000 gun related deaths per year and over half of those are suicides. According to a poll taken in 2011 over 47% of American Adults have guns somewhere in there house. Every year an estimated 4 million new guns will enter the market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How do we reduce gun crime and Aurora-style mass shootings when Americans already own nearly 300 million firearms? Maybe by allowing more people to carry them.

Sven Liendbaek

Anti-gun advocates, meanwhile, should acknowledge that gun-control legislation is not the only answer to gun violence. Responsible gun ownership is also an answer. An enormous number of Americans believe this to be the case, and gun-control advocates do themselves no favors when they demonize gun owners, and advocates of armed self-defense, as backwoods barbarians. Liberals sometimes make the mistake of anthropomorphizing guns, ascribing to them moral characteristics they do not possess. Guns can be used to do evil, but guns can also be used to do good. Twelve years ago, in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard's murder, Jonathan Rauch launched a national movement when he wrote an article for Salon arguing that gay people should arm themselves against violent bigots. Pink Pistol clubs sprang up across America, in which gays and lesbians learn to use firearms in self-defense. Other vulnerable groups have also taken to the idea of concealed carry: in Texas, African American women represent the largest percentage increase of concealed-carry permit seekers since 2000.

But even some moderate gun-control activists, such as Dan Gross, have trouble accepting that guns in private hands can work effectively to counteract violence. When I asked him the question I posed to Stephen Barton and Tom Mauser-would you, at a moment when a stranger is shooting at you, prefer to have a gun, or not?-he answered by saying, "This is the conversation the gun lobby wants you to be having." He pointed out some of the obvious flaws in concealed-carry laws, such as too-lax training standards and too much discretionary power on the part of local law-enforcement officials. He did say that if concealed-carry laws required background checks and training similar to what police recruits undergo, he would be slower to raise objections. But then he added: "In a fundamental way, isn't this a question about the kind of society we want to live in?" Do we want to live in one "in which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is more guns?"

What Gross won't acknowledge is that in a nation of nearly 300 million guns, his question is irrelevant.

Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief of The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting. He is the author of Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do we reduce gun crime and Aurora-style mass shootings when Americans already own nearly 300 million firearms? Maybe by allowing more people to carry them. Anti-gun advocates, meanwhile, should acknowledge that gun-control legislation is not the only answer to gun violence. Responsible gun ownership is also an answer.

# data[].attributes.body
(Chapin Rockwell) NOTE: This is for both sides of the arguments. Helps with building your essay!

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

# data[].attributes.headline
"we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law". The reform of our criminal justice system plays a major role in fixing such issues, in conclusion to this article. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html

# data[].attributes.subject
"we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law". The reform of our criminal justice system plays a major role in fixing such issues, in conclusion to this article. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html

# data[].attributes.body
Anthony parsons

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

# data[].attributes.body
(Chapin Rockwell)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
gun control in america: how we got here - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Thursday night in Dallas, a peaceful protest against police violence was interrupted by a thunderous hail of gunfire -- an ambush from above that killed five officers and wounded seven more. Two civilians also sustained injuries.

# data[].attributes.body
In the U.S.  more than 10,000 Americans will likely be killed in Gun murders and another 20,000 in gun suicide.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/gun-control-debate-mass-shootings-gun-violence

# data[].attributes.body
(Chapin Rockwell)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.

The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.

Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.

But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.

President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.

That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering real funding for that enforcement up front.

So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun control isn't the answer. We already know how to stop the violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress.

# data[].attributes.headline
People should be able to buy weapon that are hunting grade (pistols, and shotguns) not assault rifles and snipers 

# data[].attributes.subject
People should be able to buy weapon that are hunting grade (pistols, and shotguns) not assault rifles and snipers 

# data[].attributes.body
(Chapin Rockwell)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News about gun control. Commentary and archival information about gun control from The New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
has an article and video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, while claiming to respect the second amendment, has made clear that she wants to see tighter control on gun ownership that "tries to save some of these 33,000 lives that we lose every year."

But no matter whether it's Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who captures the White House next week, America's frightening rate of death by gunshot wounds will certainly be forced into retreat. One day.

Because it is inconceivable that the people of such an advanced nation will tolerate an ever-worsening state of armed violence and insurrection, there must come a time when solutions already tested and championed by the United States are deployed to reduce the country's toll of 33,000 firearm-related deaths each year.

In hindsight, how naïve were we to imagine that the massacre at Columbine High might prove to be the tipping point? Thirteen years and 421,000 American gun deaths later, even the slaughter of 26 mainly white children and teachers at Sandy Hook couldn't induce the US Congress to act. Clearly, the country's gun death toll must get worse before it gets better.

But take heart, America already has the solutions.

Since 1934, US federal law has mandated licensing and registration for machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and rifles. It works. Such firearms quickly became, and remain the guns least used in crime. Today, the few states that similarly regulate much more common handguns point to similar effects, even when undermined by their gun-lax neighbors.

On its roads, America dramatically reversed the soaring toll of death and injury by automobile with a holistic array of evidence-based public health measures. The world followed suit. Licensing and registration did not lead to mass confiscation, and cars remain objects of maleness, power and freedom.

Other US-led successful public health campaigns, from tobacco harm reduction to HIV/AIDS, saved countless millions of lives, all in the face of years of denial and quasi-religious opposition from self-interested groups. It can be done.

Unique to the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is just that -- an amendment. As with universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery and Prohibition, Americans are free to change an outdated law when they so choose. The solution to armed violence, America's fatal flaw, is not unthinkable.

Granted, armed violence is a multi-faceted, often intransigent public health problem, which spans a dozen disciplines. Yet for 20 years, the US gun lobby has successfully suppressed research in this field.

Imagine the outcry if for two decades the transportation industry lobby had managed to choke off all federal funds for road safety research. To prevent and reduce firearm injury, America's medieval purge of knowledge and evidence must, and will be overcome.

In many other nations, improvements are well under way. Latin Americans, for example, suffer gun death rates to make your toes curl. For this reason Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia joined Australia, the United Kingdom and democratic countries in the Pacific Rim in mounting massive national disarmament and firearm destruction programs, each followed by fewer gun deaths.

With millions of new firearms sold each year around the world, and perhaps at best only a million destroyed, it's an uphill struggle. Yet the unmistakeable global trend is to tighten firearm legislation and its enforcement, not to accept the least credible excuses for unbridled gun ownership. In the United States, the most common of these is fear, according to a study this year by academics at Harvard and Northeastern universities.

America's epidemic of gun violence has already proven too much for any one president. Even if Trump were to spark armed insurrection, even if Clinton were to deliver on the NRA's biggest nightmares, next week's election winner can only boost the next peak, or perhaps trigger a brief trough in those horrible gun homicide and gun suicide charts.

But as with the toll of road-related deaths, a range of long-term public health initiatives will gradually work in parallel to save countless lives. Gun buyer background checks, micro-stamping of firearms and ammunition as a crime-busting tool, smart guns that only the owner can fire -- and yes, licensing and registration -- must ever so slowly become the norm.

This pair of presidential candidates will be long gone, but America's children will insist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
stricter gun control is innevitable  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump or Clinton, stricter gun control is inevitable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And 2016 is no different. At various stages, Donald Trump has held differing positions on the matter, but has been sufficiently in favor of protecting the second amendment to secure the support of the NRA.