Med blodbadet i Uvalde, Texas och Buffalo, New York i maj 2022, har uppmaningar åter börjat för kongressen att anta vapenkontroll. Sedan massakern 2012 på 20 barn och fyra anställda vid Sandy Hook Elementary School i Newtown, Connecticut, har lagstiftning som införts som svar på massmord konsekvent misslyckats med senaten. Vi bad statsvetarna Monika McDermott och David Jones att hjälpa läsarna att förstå varför ytterligare restriktioner aldrig passerar, trots att en majoritet av amerikanerna stöder strängare vapenkontrolllagar.

Massmord blir allt vanligare. Ändå har det inte antagits någon betydande vapenlagstiftning som svar på dessa och andra masskjutningar. Varför?

Monika McDermott:Även om det konsekvent finns en majoritet för att begränsa tillgången till vapen lite mer än vad regeringen gör för närvarande, är det vanligtvis en knapp majoritet – även om stödet tenderar att öka på kort sikt efter händelser som de senaste masskjutningarna.

Vi tenderar att upptäcka att även vapenägare stöder restriktioner som bakgrundskontroller för all vapenförsäljning, inklusive vid vapenshower. Så det är en som alla hamnar bakom. Den andra som vapenägande hushåll står bakom är att de inte har något emot att brottsbekämpande myndigheter tar bort vapen från människor som enligt lag har bedömts vara instabila eller farliga. Det är två begränsningar som du kan få virtuellt enhälligt stöd från den amerikanska allmänheten. Men enighet om specifika delar är inte allt.

Det här är inget som folk ropar efter, och det finns så många andra saker i blandningen som folk är mycket mer bekymrade över just nu, som ekonomin. Dessutom är människor osäkra på det federala budgetunderskottet, och hälsovård är fortfarande ett ständigt problem i detta land. Så den typen av saker toppar vapenkontrolllagstiftningen när det gäller prioriteringar för allmänheten.

Så man kan inte bara tänka på majoritetsstöd för lagstiftning; man måste tänka på prioriteringar. Människor på kontoret bryr sig om vad prioriteringarna är. Om någon inte kommer att rösta bort dem på grund av ett problem, kommer de inte att göra det.

Den andra frågan är att du har just denna olika syn på vapensituationen i vapenägande hushåll och icke-vapenägande hushåll. Nästan hälften av allmänheten bor i ett hushåll med en pistol. Och dessa människor tenderar att vara betydligt mindre oroliga än de i hushåll utan vapen för att en masskjutning kan inträffa i deras samhälle. De är också osannolikt att säga att strängare vapenlagar skulle minska risken för masskjutningar.

De som inte äger vapen tycker tvärtom. De tror att vapen är farligt. De tror att om vi begränsade tillgången så skulle masskjutningarna minska. So you've got this bifurcation in the American public. And that also contributes to why Congress can't or hasn't done anything about gun control.

How does public opinion relate to what Congress does or doesn't do?

David Jones:People would, ideally, like to think that members of Congress are responding to public opinion. I think that is their main consideration when they're making decisions about how to prioritize issues and how to vote on issues.

But we also have to consider:What is the meaning of a member's "constituency"? We can talk about their geographic constituency—everyone living in their district, if they're a House member, or in their state, if they're a senator. But we could also talk about their electoral constituency, and that is all of the people who contributed the votes that put them into office.

And so if a congressmember's motive is reelection, they want to hold on to the votes of that electoral constituency. It may be more important to them than representing everyone in their district equally.

In 2020, the most recent congressional election, among citizens who voted for a Republican House member, only 24% of those voters wanted to make it more difficult to buy a gun.

So if you're looking at the opinions of your voters versus those of your entire geographic constituency, it's your voters that matter most to you. And a party primary constituency may be even narrower and even less in favor of gun control. A member may have to run in a party primary first before they even get to the general election. Now what would be the most generous support for gun control right now in the U.S.? A bit above 60% of Americans. But not every member of Congress has that high a proportion of support for gun control in their district. Local lawmakers are not necessarily focused on national polling numbers.

You could probably get a majority now in the Senate of 50 Democrats plus, say, Susan Collins and some other Republican or two to support some form of gun control. But it wouldn't pass the Senate. Why isn't a majority enough to pass? The Senate filibuster—a tradition allowing a small group of Senators to hold up a final vote on a bill unless a three-fifths majority of Senators vote to stop them.

Monika McDermott:This is a very hot political topic these days. But people have to remember, that's the way our system was designed.

David Jones:Protecting rights against the overbearing will of the majority is built into our constitutional system.

Do legislators also worry that sticking their neck out to vote for gun legislation might be for nothing if the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the law?

David Jones:The last time gun control passed in Congress was the 1994 assault weapons ban. Many of the legislators who voted for that bill ended up losing their seats in the election that year. Some Republicans who voted for it are on record saying that they were receiving threats of violence. So it's not trivial, when considering legislation, to be weighing, "Yeah, we can pass this, but was it worth it to me if it gets overturned by the Supreme Court?"

Going back to the 1994 assault weapons ban:How did that manage to pass and how did it avoid a filibuster?

David Jones:It got rolled into a larger omnibus bill that was an anti-crime bill. And that managed to garner the support of some Republicans. There are creative ways of rolling together things that one party likes with things that the other party likes. Is that still possible? I'm not sure.

It sounds like what you are saying is that lawmakers are not necessarily driven by higher principle or a sense of humanitarianism, but rather cold, hard numbers and the idea of maintaining or getting power.

Monika McDermott:There are obvious trade-offs there. You can have high principles, but if your high principles serve only to make you a one-term officeholder, what good are you doing for the people who believe in those principles? At some point, you have to have a reality check that says if I can't get reelected, then I can't do anything to promote the things I really care about. You have to find a balance.

Wouldn't that matter more to someone in the House, with a two-year horizon, than to someone in the Senate, with a six-year term?

David Jones:Absolutely. If you're five years out from an election and people are mad at you now, some other issue will come up and you might be able to calm the tempers. But if you're two years out, that reelection is definitely more of a pressing concern.

Some people are blaming the National Rifle Association for these killings. What do you see as the organization's role in blocking gun restrictions by Congress?

Monika McDermott:From the public's side, one of the important things the NRA does is speak directly to voters. The NRA publishes for their members ratings of congressional officeholders based on how much they do or do not support policies the NRA favors. These kinds of things can be used by voters as easy information shortcuts that help them navigate where a candidate stands on the issue when it's time to vote. This gives them some credibility when they talk to lawmakers.

David Jones:The NRA as a lobby is an explanation that's out there. But I'd caution that it's a little too simplistic to say interest groups control everything in our society. I think it's an intermingling of the factors that we've been talking about, plus interest groups.

So why does the NRA have power? I would argue:Much of their power is going to the member of Congress and showing them a chart and saying, "Look at the voters in your district. Most of them own guns. Most of them don't want you to do this." It's not that their donations or their threatening looks or phone calls are doing it, it's the fact that they have the membership and they can do this research and show the legislator what electoral danger they'll be in if they cast this vote, because of the opinions of that legislator's core constituents.

Interest groups can help to pump up enthusiasm and make their issue the most important one among members of their group. They're not necessarily changing overall public support for an issue, but they're making their most persuasive case to a legislator, given the opinions of crucial voters that live in a district, and that can sometimes tip an already delicate balance.