# data[].attributes.body
These killings caused by guns are so frequently killing children due to the fact that gun laws are weak enough to allow either the mentally unwell or teenagers(or a combination of both) to have easy access to guns that can inflict many deaths in a matter of moments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
16 Facts About Gun Violence And School Shootings - Sandy Hook Promise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun violence and school shootings are a uniquely American epidemic. Sandy Hook Promise is shining a light on these important facts and statistics.

# data[].attributes.body
This article takes a closer look at how normally after a school shooting, prevention efforts aimed at addressing the mental illness of perpetrators are targeted. But this characterizes so many adolescents and young adults and makes it impossible to predict who is going to take murderous action. Mental health is easy to see as the target of root cause and preventative efforts. Instead, we need to establish limiting access to firearms if one is considered a danger to self or others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We were all shaken, once again, by the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. Our hearts go out to the friends, family, teachers and community of those innocent lives lost.

The question we're all desperately asking, now, is how to prevent future school shootings, and how to prevent what can be viewed as nothing short of pathological normalcy.

Since the beginning of 2018 there have been 18 school shootings in the United States, and since 2013 nearly 300. What is so shocking is the lack of action in Congress and the White House to directly address this horrifying event and, indeed, series of events. The fact that this kind of violence is becoming a "normal" event is astounding, outrageous, and terrifying.

While some commentaries speak about prevention efforts aimed at addressing the mental illness of perpetrators, we know from the Safe School Initiative of the Secret Service in 2002 and from many other studies that millions of youth fit the profile of this alleged assailant - angry, aggressive, marginalized, isolated, and having access to firearms, possibly including an assault rifle. We also know that many others have histories of family loss, bullying, and/or turmoil and emotional problems. And most have given warnings of some kind in advance.

But as the Secret Service concluded, this profile characterizes so many millions of adolescents and young adults, that we can never predict who is going to take murderous action. Mental health is easy to see as the target of root cause and preventative efforts. But it misses the boat.

Some have argued that anyone who would do what the latest alleged perpetrator did is, by definition mentally ill. We hear over and over from some politicians and the NRA, that "it's the individual, not the assault rifle." This kind of allegation is clearly an over-simplification. Not all murderers have mental illness, though some do for sure.

What we do know is that anyone who threatens or is determined to be a danger to self or others may be committed to a psychiatric facility involuntarily under the Baker Act, and this is where psychiatrists may well be able to help. When there are warning signs of immanent harm, an involuntary psychiatric evaluation with possible commitment to a psychiatric facility is called for.

Beyond mandated psychiatric evaluations, there are strong considerations of limiting access to firearms if one is considered a danger to self or others. In fact, there are petitions to limit access to firearms for any individual with an "extreme protection order."

This is where mental health professionals can intervene to evaluate an individual; when the public is in danger; and where limitations of firearms due to serious questions of mental illness must be evaluated immediately.

But saying that mental illness in general is the root cause of gun shootings and screening or other preventative measures would be the right and effective course of action to protect the public fails to be an effective or efficient approach. The current and proposed approaches for enhanced background checks, though admirable and necessary, are inherently flawed in many ways.

The fact is that over 20% of youth and adults in the United States have a mental illness. If we choose to go down the path of identifying and caring for mental illness as part of this mission, we need to cast a very wide net - something that would, indeed, be wonderful for our society - but not clearly and directly related to preventing gun violence. 24% of individuals in our nation will at some point in their lives suffer a mental illness. 50% of psychiatric disorders begin before age 14 and 75% begin by age 26.

But these efforts, while praiseworthy, are off the present mark.

Individuals with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. And if we walk down the garden path of blaming mental illness, those who have any history of substance use, mood, anxiety, autistic spectrum, attention deficit disorder and learning disorders, impulse disorders, or a wide range of other problems are at risk of losing their right to bear arms. Background checks are, indeed necessary, but when a psychiatric disorder surfaces, whom do we include and whom do we exclude? Our constitutional right is up for grabs.
What We Can and Should Do
Now for the low hanging fruit: The fact is, as aptly noted in the New York Times Opinion article, How to Reduce Shootings, that there are clear actions that should be taken. The United States has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, the largest arsenal of personal firearms, and the least set of regulations. The argument that placing more restrictions on the procurement and use of firearms and banning military assault rifles threatens the second amendment is patently false.

As the author of the NY Times article correctly implies, violating motor vehicle regulations such as speeding infractions, DUIs, failing car inspections, or not using seat belts would eliminate one's ability to own a car. Sure, these violations may restrict one's use of a motor vehicle, but the inception and increased restrictions on use of motor vehicles have decreased deaths by 95%. The rules for owning and operating cars has not limited our right or ability to own them.

The same argument is true for our ability to own firearms - while we have this right, we need far more restrictions. Facts are facts: When the 10-year ban on assault rifles from 1994-2005 was in effect, mass shootings fell by 37%. When it was lifted, since 2005, it rose 183%.

New firearm legislation would save lives. Why then, is Congress stalled? Why will they not even debate the issue of banning assault rifles?

Some might disagree noting that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right - very different from our right to own cars. However, the 2nd Amendment as originally written, addresses the right to bear arms for a militia to protect the security of a free state. Historically, this has been broadened and interpreted as individual's right to bear arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court in 2008, uncoupled the original connection with a militia and extended it for other purposes such as self-defense. But it also ruled that "dangerous and unusual weapons" are not protected by the second amendment.

We also need to ask the right questions, draw the right conclusions, and explore possible solutions that are backed by evidence. President Trump today claimed that violent video games and movies cause violent behavior when there is no scientific basis that there is any causal relationship between violent videogames or movies and mass shootings.

What we do need to know is whether there is a correlation between certain vulnerable youth, who may already have aggressive traits, and their exposure to violent media leading to more aggressive behavior.
The Issue of Copycat Phenomena and the Media
The other consideration is the need for more resources to study copycat behavior in homicides and mass killings. Research has clearly demonstrated that media coverage of suicides may increase copycat behavior among adolescents for about a two-week period, and there is some evidence to support the same for mass shootings.

The evidence is so convincing that the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), along with others, developed guidelines for media coverage of suicides to prevent copycat phenomena. They also produced Recommendations for Reporting on Mass Shootings, including instruction to media outlets to avoid reporting that increases misunderstanding and prejudice of mental illness, and to include information about treatment and prevention.

While we do need to ensure that those who carry firearms are mentally sound and need more complete background checks on individuals seeking firearms, this is no time to play the mental health card.

We desperately need to keep our children and society safe. We need action to prevent more devastating events like the one we just endured in Parkland, Florida. There is too much at risk.

Gene Beresin is Executive Director of the MGH Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds. For parents who want to learn more about how to talk with your kids about school shootings see Another Shooting - An Important Moment to Comfort and Talk With Our Kids. And for more about the red herring of guns and mental illness see the article posted on The MGH Clay Center.

A version of this blog was originally posted on the MGH Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Preventing School Shootings: It's Guns, Not Mental Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We were all shaken, once again, by the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. Our hearts go out to the friends, family, teachers and community of those innocent lives lost. The question we're all desperately asking, now, is how to prevent future school shootings, and how to prevent what can be viewed as nothing short of pathological normalcy.

# data[].attributes.body
This source presents multiple methods to strengthen gun control in the United States, some more restrictive than others. This article also effectively illustrates through the graphics it contains how each gun control method could have potentially prevented specific shootings, therefore saving the lives lost in these shootings before they were taken. Overall, this article emphasizes how important each of the measures are, with the main goal being to prevent mass shootings from ever happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After each mass shooting in America, ​lawmakers debate a familiar menu of gun control polices. Yet no major reforms have passed Congress since 1994 - and the killings continue. On Wednesday, for instance, multiple people were shot dead at the Molson Coors corporate complex in Milwaukee. The killer's motives and methods are still unclear.

A new database from The Violence Project provides some insight into the history of mass shooting and what measures, if any, could affect them. ​Researchers there conducted a detailed study of 167 mass shootings resulting in 1,202 deaths that have occurred in the U.S. since 1966.

We've cross-referenced their data with five types ​of gun​ control ​proposals. The analysis reveals that if all of these policies had been in effect at the federal level, ​they would have ​had the potential to ​prevent 146 out of 167 shootings, including all but one shooting in the past five years.

Shooting potentially affected by proposed gun bill

There is no guarantee that these laws would be effective in stopping motivated killers from ultimately achieving their goal. Also, some of the proposals are more recent and could not be expected to have stopped attacks in the distant past.

Here are five types of gun laws and which shootings they could have addressed.

Seeks to stop someone from buying a gun for someone else. Read more

The two shooters at Columbine High School​, both minors during the planning phase, had a​n older friend purchase a firearm for them at a gun show. A ban on straw purchases would ​have prevented that.

F​irearms ​would have to be kept in a locked box ​when not in use. Read more

This law aims to prevent unauthorized people, like children, from accessing firearms. In 2001, an underage shooter in Sacramento ​who was blocked from purchasing a semiautomatic weapon was able to kill five people using his father's firearms.

​This would prohibit the sale of many high-powered rifles. Read more

After the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, some members of Congress pushed to restore an assault weapons ban that had expired in 2004. The new ban would have included semiautomatic weapons that weren't in the 1994 law, including the rifle used at Sandy Hook, but the effort failed.

Years when the federal assault

weapons ban ​was ​in effect

Unlicensed dealers would be required to vet ​prospective buyers with the FBI. Read more

Private sellers, such as those at gun shows, are not required to run a background check on purchasers. Even when background checks are required, they are often sloppy. That was the case in Charleston, S.C., where the shooter was able to purchase a firearm because a felony he committed had not been reported to the FBI.

Prohibits firearm access to someone who makes violent threats or is suicidal. Read more

​The ​man who killed 17 people at ​Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in ​Parkland, Fla., had attempted suicide, and ​his threats to attack a school had been reported to the local sheriff. A red flag law could have given someone the opportunity to intervene.

​See what might have happened if different policies, or combinations of policies, had been in effect since 1966.

Straw Purchase Red Flag Safe Storage Assault Weapon Ban Background Check

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many mass shootings might have been prevented by stronger gun laws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After each mass shooting in America, ​lawmakers debate a familiar menu of gun control polices. Yet no major reforms have passed Congress since 1994 - and the killings continue. On Wednesday, for instance, multiple people were shot dead at the Molson Coors corporate complex in Milwaukee. The killer's motives and methods are still unclear.

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights gun control laws in other countries in comparison to the lax gun laws in America. The source is packed with statistics of homicide rates and also talks about instances of gun violence and how the other countries responded to such tragedies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by a series of mass shootings by gunmen in civilian settings. In particular, the killing of twenty schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 prompted a new national discussion about gun laws. However, legislation that would have banned semiautomatic assault weapons was defeated in the Senate despite extensive public support. In 2017, mass shootings at a music festival in Las Vegas and at a church near San Antonio have rekindled the gun control debate and invoked comparisons of U.S. gun policies and those of other wealthy democracies.
United States
Gun ownership in the United States is rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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

At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court has rolled back certain gun laws. In 2008, the court struck down a Washington, DC, law that banned handguns.

Federal law provides the basis for firearm regulation in the United States, but states and cities can impose further restrictions. Some states, such as Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify federal gun legislation, but legal analysts say these are unconstitutional.

In January 2016, President Barack Obama took several actions intended to decrease gun violence, including a measure requiring dealers of firearms at gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks.

As of 2017, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire. In the days after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, in October, some lawmakers expressed provisional support for a federal prohibition of so-called bump fire stocks, devices that allow semiautomatic guns to fire at a rate approaching that of automatic weapons.

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about 35-50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, according to a report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. It ranks number one in firearms per capita.The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations. But many gun rights proponents say these statistics do not indicate a causal relationship and note that the rates of gun homicide and other gun crimes in the United States have dropped since highs in the early 1990s.
Canada
As in the United States, Canada's national government sets gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and municipalities can supplement. And like its southern neighbor, Canada's gun laws have often been driven by gun violence. In 1989, a student armed with a semiautomatic rifle killed fourteen students and injured more than a dozen others at a Montreal engineering school. The incident is widely credited with driving major gun reforms that imposed a twenty-eight-day waiting period for purchases; mandatory safety training courses; more detailed background checks; bans on large-capacity magazines; and bans or greater restrictions on military-style firearms and ammunition.

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

Changes to the law in 1995 required individuals to obtain a license to buy guns and ammunition, as well as register all firearms. However, in 2012, the requirement to register nonrestricted guns was dropped, and related public records were expunged.
Australia
The inflection point for modern gun control in Australia was the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, when a young man killed thirty-five people and wounded nearly two dozen others. The rampage, perpetrated with a semiautomatic rifle, was the worst mass shooting in the nation's history. Less than two weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country's gun laws in cooperation with the various states and territories, which regulate firearms.

The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting in Melbourne in 2002, Australia's handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts say these measures have been highly effective, citing declining gun death rates and the absence of gun-related mass killings in Australia since 1996.
Israel
Military service is compulsory in Israel, and guns are a part of everyday life. Much of the population has indirect access to an assault weapon by either being a soldier or a reservist or a relative of one. By law, most eighteen - year-olds are drafted, psychologically screened, and provided at least some weapons training after high school. After serving typically two or three years in the armed forces, however, most Israelis are discharged and subject to civilian gun laws.

The country has relatively strict gun regulations, including an assault-weapons ban and a requirement to register ownership with the government. To become licensed, an applicant must be an Israeli citizen or a permanent resident, be at least twenty-one-years-old, and speak at least some Hebrew, among other qualifications. Applicants must also show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as self-defense or hunting.
United Kingdom
Modern gun control efforts in the United Kingdom have been precipitated by extraordinary acts of violence that sparked public outrage and, eventually, political action. In 1987, a lone gunman armed with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly seventy miles west of London, killing more than a dozen people and then himself. In the wake of the incident, known as the Hungerford massacre, Britain introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons.

A gun-related tragedy in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996 prompted Britain's strictest gun laws yet. A man armed with four handguns shot and killed sixteen schoolchildren and one adult before committing suicide in the country's worst mass shooting to date. The incident sparked a public campaign known as the Snowdrop Petition, which helped drive legislation banning handguns, with few exceptions. The government also instituted a temporary gun buyback program, which many credit with taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply.
Norway
Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway-where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high-until right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik killed seventy-seven people in attacks in Oslo and at an island summer camp in 2011. Though Norway ranked tenth worldwide in gun ownership, according to the Small Arms Survey, it placed near the bottom in gun homicide rates. (The U.S. rate is roughly sixty-four times higher.) Most Norwegian police, like the British, do not carry firearms.

In the wake of the tragedy, some analysts in the United States cited Breivik's rampage as proof that strict gun laws-which in Norway include requiring applicants to be at least eighteen years of age, specify a "valid reason" for gun ownership, and obtain a government license-are ineffective. "Those who are willing to break the laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms, and will get a hold of weapons whether doing so is legal or not," wrote Charles C. W. Cooke in National Review. Other gun control critics have argued that had other Norwegians, including the police, been armed, Breivik might have been stopped earlier and killed fewer victims. After the massacre, an independent commission recommended tightening Norway's gun restrictions in a number of ways, including prohibiting pistols and semiautomatic weapons, but changes were not made.
Japan
Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan's highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun homicide rate, which is the lowest in the world at one in ten million, according to the latest data available. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite small, reflect this.

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

Some analysts link Japan's aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.
This backgrounder first appeared on the Council on Foreign Relations' website. View the original report here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jonathan Masters, Council on Foreign Relations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do U.S. gun laws compare to other countries?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by a series of mass killings by gunmen in civilian settings.

# data[].attributes.body
This is another source that discusses legislation in place that would make it much more difficult to get hands on a firearm and carry out a school shooting. Additionally, since school shootings have been on the rise in America, nearly every school district in the country has adopted some sort of lockdown drill. However, these drills are no solution, even just practicing the lockdown plans put in place they negatively impact student mental health and increase fear. However, if stricter legislation was made and enforced, school shooting drills would most likely not need to be practiced as frequently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Can We Prevent Gun Violence in American Schools?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun violence in schools is preventable, but school leaders and policymakers must support strong gun safety measures to keep kids safe.

# data[].attributes.body
It is extremely important to look at an argument from all angles and all sides. This article starts off with the pro of gun control - for example  lower firearm fatality rates,  reduce mass shootings, protect vulnerable populations, and reduce suicide rates. In contrast, the source also covers cons; stripping away a constitutionally protected right and introduced other ideas instead of gun control like gun violence interventions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brittany Hopkins Contributor

Gun control pros and cons ignite heated debate. To have stories like this and more delivered directly to your inbox, be sure to sign up for our newsletter.

Gun Control, In Brief

Gun control pros and cons ignite heated debate. Republicans and Democrats support reducing gun violence and deaths. However, whether gun control restricts constitutional rights or saves lives remains a divisive question. Before further diving into partisan opinions, let's review the basics.

First, "gun control" refers to legal measures meant to restrict possession or use of firearms by civilians. These measures reflect a broad range of restrictions. They can regulate the types of firearms manufactured; who can buy or sell them; whether or how they're carried in public; and beyond.

Most developed nations impose gun control measures in some form. Singapore, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan maintain some of the tightest gun restrictions. The US, where gun ownership is constitutionally protected, has some of the least restrictive laws.

US federal law prohibits gun possession by some types of people and the manufacture and sale of specific types of guns - namely machine guns. Licensed gun dealers must also conduct FBI background checks on buyers to verify whether their gun rights are restricted. Individual states impose gun regulations, too. California, New York, and Massachusetts maintain some of the strictest gun laws. Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming boast some of the least restrictive.

Now, let's explore gun control pros and cons.

Gun Control Pros

First, gun regulations can help reduce gun deaths. US states with more laws regulating guns have lower firearm fatality rates. Country comparisons show the same pattern. The US has a much higher rate of violent gun deaths than countries with stronger gun control laws like Singapore, Japan, and the UK.

Secondly, regulations like banning assault weapons may reduce mass shootings. In 1996, following 13 mass shootings in 20 years, Australia banned semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. The country experienced zero mass shootings in the 20 years that followed.

Additionally, gun control measures can help protect vulnerable populations. For example, in the US, domestic violence issues are 500 times more likely to become homicides when a gun is present. The American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds that higher gun ownership rates correlate with higher rates of domestic violence homicide.

Lastly, gun control measures can reduce suicide rates as well. According to the CDC, suicides account for 60 percent of gun-related deaths in the US. Guns are the most common method of suicide. Studies indicate that states with lower rates of gun ownership see lower suicide rates. Canada and Austria have also seen reduced suicide rates after introducing tighter gun control policies.

Gun Control Cons

First, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution 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." In 2008, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Americans' right to own guns - unrelated to military service. Gun rights advocates maintain that regulations that make it harder to possess guns lawfully are unconstitutional.

Secondly, some research suggests that common US gun control measures barely impact mass shooting rates. Political scientists with the University of Missouri-Columbia argue that assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans and background check requirements only minimally reduce US mass shootings. "For instance, enacting a statewide assault weapons ban decreases the number of mass shootings in the state by one shooting every six years." The researchers also found no evidence that these regulations reduce the total number of mass shooting deaths.

Lastly, other violence prevention strategies may reduce gun violence and save lives more effectively. For example, Boston implemented Gun Violence Intervention - an interpersonal community-policing strategy - in the mid-990s. This resulted in a 63 percent monthly reduction in youth homicides.

Gun Control Pros and Cons: Where Both Parties Stand

Americans remain deeply divided on gun control overall. However, public opinion polls regularly find majority support for some type of regulation.

For example, Pew Research finds that 85 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats believe people with mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase guns. Additionally, 70 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats support background checks for private and gun show sales. However, other propositions receive stark disagreement. Republicans show far more support for expanding concealed carry rights. On the other side, Democrats are much more in favor of tracking gun sales through a federal database and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Despite regular discussion - especially following high-profile mass shootings - the federal government hasn't passed a new gun control measure since 1994. To pass a 10-year assault weapons ban, urban Democrats teamed up with moderate Republicans representing suburban constituencies. Republican leaders and Democrats representing southern and rural areas opposed the measure.

Similar dynamics remain in play at the state level today. In general, Democratic-controlled states pass more gun restrictions while Republican-run states actively work to loosen gun laws. Still, populous Democratic states impose stronger gun restrictions than rural and southern states controlled by either party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control Pros and Cons: Where Both Parties Stand - The Flag

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brittany Hopkins Contributor Gun control pros and cons ignite heated debate. To have stories like this and more delivered directly to your inbox, be sure to sign up for our newsletter. Gun control pros and cons ignite heated debate. Republicans and Democrats support reducing gun violence and deaths.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses another possible safety measure to take in response to gun violence within schools... adding more guns to the equation on the teacher side. The article goes on to discuss the dangers that accompany this idea and how teachers did not sign up for this when becoming teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
American Public Health Association (APHA) publications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)