America's Gun Problem, Explained

It has sadly become a familiar pattern in the United States. After each mass shooting, President Barack Obama would step up to the podium once again to speak to the nation, often with visible anger and deep frustration over the repeated gun violence.

"As I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough," Obama said in October, shortly after the shooting at Umpqua Community College. "It does not capture the heartache, grief, and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America next week or a couple of months from now."

This is a point that, by now, Americans are very familiar with. After every single mass shooting, there's a call for more gun control. Maybe some bills get introduced. Critics respond with concerns that the government – and usually Obama in particular – is trying to take away their guns. The debate stalls. Nothing seems to happen, particularly on a national scale.

Despite widespread public anger and grief following each mass shooting event, there remains no significant progress or change. Understanding this requires an examination of both the shocking numbers about gun ownership and gun violence in America and our country's unique connection to firearms, which differs from all other developed nations, and the political dynamics that perpetuate our cultural and legal systems, which sustain routine gun violence in American life.

1) America's gun problem is completely unique

Compared to other developed nations, the United States experiences an unusually high level of gun violence. According to United Nations data compiled by the Guardian, the U.S. gun homicide rate is nearly six times higher than Canada’s, over seven times higher than Sweden’s, and about 16 times higher than Germany’s. These gun-related deaths significantly contribute to America’s elevated overall homicide rate, which includes both gun and non-gun fatalities.

A key factor in understanding this disparity lies in another statistic: the United States has the highest number of privately owned firearms worldwide. In 2007, estimates showed there were 88.8 civilian-owned guns for every 100 people in the country – nearly one gun per person, and more than one for every adult. Yemen ranked second with 54.8 guns per 100 people, despite being a conflict-ridden country.

To put that into perspective, Americans represent just about 4.43% of the global population but own roughly 42% of all civilian firearms worldwide. That said, not every American owns a gun. Surveys by the Pew Research Center and the General Social Survey reveal that gun ownership is concentrated among a relatively small portion of the population. These core facts illustrate the distinct nature of gun culture in the U.S. There's a strong link between the number of guns in circulation and the prevalence of gun violence – one that researchers suggest is at least partially causal. Yet those who do own firearms often form a highly vocal group, strongly opposing gun control and influencing lawmakers to reject proposed regulations.

2) More guns mean more gun deaths. Period.

The evidence on this issue is incredibly consistent: a higher number of firearms leads to more gun-related deaths. Despite this, those against gun control often try to shift the focus to other explanations for America’s high levels of gun violence, mental health being a common one. However, Jonathan Metzl, a mental health expert at Vanderbilt University, explains that this theory doesn't hold up. Individuals with mental illness are actually more likely to be victims of violence, not the ones causing it. While a notable percentage of mass shooters – up to 60 percent – may show signs of psychological distress, Metzl notes that stronger indicators of gun violence include factors such as substance abuse, poverty, a history of violent behavior, and, importantly, access to firearms.

Another common belief is that more armed citizens would reduce the frequency or impact of mass shootings by allowing individuals to defend themselves. But research strongly refutes this idea. Higher rates of gun ownership are associated with more gun deaths, not fewer. Studies and simulations have shown that in the chaos of an active shooter situation, even trained gun owners often struggle to intervene effectively, and in many cases, may end up harmed themselves rather than stopping the violence.

The link between gun ownership and gun violence is strongly supported by research. Studies from the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center consistently show that even after accounting for factors like poverty and crime rates, areas with higher numbers of guns also have higher rates of gun-related deaths.

David Hemenway, director of the center, emphasized this point in Private Guns, Public Health, writing that extensive U.S. data shows a clear pattern: more firearms in a community are tied to more homicides.

Experts generally agree that this connection is rooted in the country’s lenient gun laws and widespread gun culture. Easier access naturally results in more firearms in circulation – and with that, more deaths. The research supports this not only for gun-related murders, but also for suicides, domestic violence, and incidents involving law enforcement. Addressing these issues likely requires both limiting access and reducing the number of guns overall.

Of course, guns aren’t the only driver of violence. Issues like alcohol abuse, economic hardship, and city living also play roles. Still, when researchers factor in these variables, the U.S.’s elevated levels of gun violence continue to be closely tied to its unmatched rate of gun ownership.

Despite repeated public outcry after mass shootings and the evidence pointing to gun prevalence as a key factor, meaningful federal action remains limited. The reasons behind that lack of progress are more complicated than they might first appear.

3) Americans tend to support measures to restrict guns, but that doesn't translate into laws

Many Americans say they’re in favor of specific gun control policies. Pew Research Center surveys show wide support for things like universal background checks, restrictions on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, and even a national database to monitor gun sales. Yet, despite this support, these ideas rarely become law.

One key reason is that proposed reforms often collide with a deeply rooted belief in the right to own guns. That belief, widely shared across political lines, can override support for individual policies. Opponents of gun control use this to their advantage by framing even the most widely supported measures, like background checks for private gun sales, which have 85% support, as threats to gun rights, fueling resistance, and slowing progress.

This isn’t exclusive to gun policy. A similar pattern appeared with the Affordable Care Act. While most Americans liked its parts, such as protections for people with preexisting conditions, many disliked the law as a whole due to confusing messages about “government takeovers” or “death panels.” When issues are complex, simple slogans can win out over facts.

It's also important to remember that while pro-gun control voices may outnumber those against, the opposition tends to be louder and more motivated. These opponents are often more politically active, and they have the support of a well-organized and influential gun lobby.

4) The gun lobby, as we know it, is relatively recent but enormously powerful

No political group in the U.S. wields more influence on gun issues than the National Rifle Association (NRA). Surprisingly, this wasn’t always the case. For much of its early history, the NRA focused more on sport shooting than on political activism. In fact, the group even supported certain gun regulations. Back in 1934, then-president Karl Frederick stated, "I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."

Things changed dramatically in 1977 when a shift in leadership pushed the NRA in a more hardline direction. Rising crime rates in the 1960s and 1970s led to increasing calls for stricter gun laws. Many members feared those laws would lead to the government removing firearms altogether. As a result, they backed Harlon Carter, a staunch opponent of gun restrictions, as their new leader. This marked the beginning of the NRA’s transformation into the powerhouse we know today.

This history helps explain why the NRA fiercely opposes nearly all forms of gun control. The organization sees seemingly modest rules, like banning certain weapons or tracking gun sales, as dangerous first steps toward a total ban on private ownership, which they claim violates the Second Amendment. Even though legal experts often disagree with that view, the fear it sparks has proven politically powerful.

Whenever new regulations are proposed, the NRA mobilizes its base to push back hard. While only a minority of U.S. households – between 34% and 43% – report owning guns, those gun owners tend to be vocal, politically active, and concentrated in conservative states. Their influence is enough to make many lawmakers fear losing NRA approval.

That influence is reinforced by the group’s political rating system. Candidates in many areas see a good grade from the NRA as essential to winning votes. Some even go to extreme lengths to show their support for gun rights. One example is Senator Ted Cruz, who appeared in a video cooking bacon on a machine gun – an over-the-top gesture to show his loyalty to the cause.

While several campaigns have tried to counter the NRA, few have lasted or gained serious traction. Groups like StopTheNRA.com had short lifespans. But there’s been a shift. Kristin Goss, author of The Gun Debate, believes that newer organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and Americans for Responsible Solutions are better organized and more effective. These groups have more funding and grassroots support and have encouraged Democrats to speak more openly about gun control.

Still, they face a big hurdle: intensity. People who oppose gun laws often care more deeply and are likelier to vote based on the issue. As Republican strategist Grover Norquist once said, “The question is intensity versus preference.” While many voters say they support new laws, they don’t always act on that support at the ballot box. Gun rights supporters, on the other hand, do.

Goss, now a political scientist at Duke University, points out that passion often comes from a personal fear – gun owners worry about losing their rights. Gun control advocates are typically driven by the goal of reducing violence, which can feel more abstract. However, that’s changing. Victims of gun violence and their families are becoming more involved, putting faces to the issue and building an emotional connection.

Progress at the national level is slow, but state legislatures have taken action. Some states have passed tougher laws, while others have loosened them. Washington and Oregon added rules requiring background checks on all gun purchases, even private sales, in the past year. As Goss noted, “In blue states, gun laws are getting stricter. And in red states, in some cases, the gun laws are getting looser.”

Despite signs of change, the NRA still holds enormous sway. Its supporters and political influence continue to shape America’s gun policy, especially in Congress and conservative states, making reform at the national level difficult, even when similar measures have worked well elsewhere in the world.

5) Other developed countries have had huge successes with gun control

In 1996, a 28-year-old man entered a café in Port Arthur, Australia. After finishing his meal, he pulled out a semi-automatic rifle and began shooting. The attack left 35 people dead and injured 23 others, marking the deadliest mass shooting in Australian history.

In response, Australia quickly passed new gun control laws. These included bans on automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. A large-scale buyback program was launched, which led to the government collecting and destroying around 650,000 firearms. Authorities also introduced a national gun registry and made it mandatory to obtain a license for any new gun purchases. These changes went far beyond what is typically suggested in U.S. gun legislation, especially in terms of reducing the number of guns already in circulation.

Following the reform, Australia saw a significant decline in gun-related deaths. Within seven years, gun homicides dropped by roughly 42 percent, and gun suicides fell by 57 percent, based on a review by Harvard researchers.

While it's hard to measure how much of the decline can be directly tied to the buyback, researchers David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis believe it played a significant part. They pointed out two key findings: the sharpest decrease in firearm deaths involved the types of weapons removed through the buyback, and areas with higher rates of gun returns saw larger declines in gun deaths.

One study by Australian researchers suggested that returning about 3,500 guns for every 100,000 residents was linked to up to a 50 percent reduction in gun homicides and a 74 percent drop in suicides. While the fall in homicide rates wasn’t statistically strong, the decrease in suicide rates was significant.

Perhaps most notably, Hemenway and Vriniotis observed that before the new law, there were 13 mass shootings over an 18-year span in Australia, causing over 100 deaths. In the 14 years that followed, there were none.

6) Although they get a lot of focus, mass shootings are a small portion of all gun violence

The number of mass shootings in the U.S. varies widely depending on how they're defined – from a dozen to several hundred each year. These acts of violence are heartbreaking and deeply impact victims, families, and communities across the country.

But other forms of gun violence claim far more lives and often receive less attention. Even using the broadest definition of mass shootings, they accounted for about 500 deaths in 2013. In comparison, there were over 11,200 gun-related homicides that year. Gun suicides were even more common, with nearly 21,200 lives lost. Although suicide prevention is rarely highlighted in gun control conversations, it plays a crucial role. For example, in Israel, where many citizens serve in the military, a high number of weekend suicides led officials to require soldiers to leave their weapons on base. That simple change led to a 40% drop in suicides among service members, according to an Israeli study.

While public officials often respond to mass shootings with renewed calls for stricter gun laws, the broader scope of everyday gun violence is more complex to ignore, even if it doesn't always make headlines. Mass shootings do force Americans to face the consequences of widespread firearm access and lax regulations.

Still, the national response has often been passive. Take the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 young children, six staff members, and the shooter died. Despite public outrage, no major federal laws were passed. Since then, estimates suggest that more than 980 mass shootings have occurred, with no sign of that number slowing down.