When people in the United States discuss gun regulation, the conversation tends to center around the policy implications within our borders — how guns are used to protect life and property, and how they are a guaranteed freedom. But the implications matter across the border, too, in neighboring Mexico.

A study, published this morning on the political science blog The Monkey Cage, shows that violent crime in Mexico has risen when it’s easier to access firearms in neighboring US states. In particular, this study looked at the assault weapons ban, and how its expiration effected the homicide rate across the border from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. It attributes 16.4 percent of the increase in Mexican homicides to the expiration of the assault weapons ban:

The expiration relaxed the permissiveness of gun sales in border states such as Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, but not California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. Using mortality statistics over 2002-2006, we show that homicides, gun-related homicides and crime gun seizures increased differentially in Mexican municipios located closer to entry ports in these other border states, relative to entry ports in California. Our estimates suggest that the U.S. policy change caused at least 239 additional deaths annually in municipios near the border during post-2004 period. …Our findings suggest that U.S. gun laws have exerted an unanticipated spillover on gun supply in Mexico, and this increase in arms has fueled rising violence south of the border.

Since California’s ban on assault weapons remained in place when the federal ban expired, the effects were drastically different:

For Republicans who oppose stricter gun laws, this study may pose some cognitive dissonance. The manufactured scandal over government program “Fast and Furious” — a misguided program started under Bush that allowed Mexican criminals to walk away with guns for the purpose of tracking their movements — has been a mainstay of Republican attacks on Obama in the last year. Republicans have insisted that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder put border patrol agents’ lives at risk by allowing the guns to walk.

But this study points to the expiration of the assault weapons ban as a way to curb violence at the border, and that’s something that’s desperately needed, not just for the security of US border patrol agents, but for both countries on the whole. Mexican violence, particularly at the border has been horrific over the last few years. That violence spills over the border into the US. If this study is right, a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which has been proposed in the wake of the shooting in Newtown, CT, might help staunch the flow of violence, at home and abroad.

The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary has galvanized the American public to start taking the 48,000 deaths from gun violence per year seriously. Fifty four percent of Americans, according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll, favor tighter gun control — a five year high. A Huffington/YouGov poll came to similar conclusions.

Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) will likely stand in the way, given its long history of blocking even the most minimal restrictions on gun owners. Here are six times when the NRA has been on the wrong side of what should be uncontroversial gun rules:

1. Wanted people on the terrorist watch list to be legally able to acquire guns. Inasmuch as it makes sense to have a secret “terrorism watch list,” one would think a primary reason would be to prevent people who might commit terrorism from accessing the weapons that one uses to do so. Yet people on the watch list are still allowed to by guns: in 2010 alone, at least 247 people suspected of involvement with terrorism bought guns legally. While 71 percent of NRA membesr support closing the so-called “terror gap,” the NRA claims efforts to close the loophole are plots by “politicians who hate the Second Amendment.”

2. Opposed required background checks on every gun sale. Forty percent of all gun sales legally take place without background checks on the purchaser, because federal law doesn’t require them for so-called “private” gun sales at places like gun shows. Eighty percent of gun crimes involve guns purchased in this fashion. NRA members recognize how dangerous this law is; 69 percent of them support a “proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.” Yet the NRA opposes any effort to close this loophole, calling it “a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.”

3. Lobbied to allow warlords to get arms on the international market. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a small step towards the regulation of the massive international weapons trade, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of murderous insurgents and terrorists. It contains zero restrictions on domestic gun markets. Yet the NRA has vigorously opposed the ATT, calling it an “attack on our Second Amendment freedoms” by “global gun grabbers.”

4. Wanted to prevent the public from accessing information about where guns come from. Though there’s a federal database that traces sales of guns used in crimes, you’ll never know what’s in there. That’s because NRA has helped muscle through the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” (named after sponsor, former Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]) to the federal gun code, which prevent the public, journalists, academic researchers, some police officers, and people suing the gun industry from accessing crucially valuable data. The Tiahrt Amendments were passed over the objection of federal and local law enforcement.

5. Pushed to keep guns in bars. Guns and drunk people don’t mix well. Yet when the Tennessee legislature was considering banning guns in establishments that make most of their money from booze, an NRA lobbyist was given a rare opportunity to address the state GOP caucus opposing the bill. It died.

6) Supported forcing all business owners to allow guns on their property. Many business owners are understandably nervous about permitting people to bring loaded guns to work. Yet the NRA has pushed legislation in a number of states that would force businesses to allow employees to bring guns to work provided they leave them in their cars.

Interestingly, there’s not much for politicians to gain from pandering to the NRA’s gun maximalism: Despite consistent political rhetoric to the contrary, the lobby isn’t nearly as powerful as one might think.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) has a long record of campaigning and governing as a friend to gun-owners and received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association during his 2008 campaign. But in light of Friday’s horrific mass school shooting, Warner said Monday he believes it is time to pass meaningful gun control. He joins NRA-backed Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and other lifelong gun-rights advocates in saying the Connecticut tragedy changed his mind.

Warner told Virginia’s WTVR:

WARNER: I’ve been a long-time supporter of Second Amendment rights. I believe every American has Second Amendment rights, the ability to hunt is part of our culture. I’ve had a NRA rating of an “A” but, you know, enough is enough.

I’m a father of three daughters and this weekend, they all said, “Dad, how can this go on?” And I, like I think most of us, realize that there are ways to get to rational gun control. There are ways to grapple with the obvious challenges of mental illness. And the idea that we can just kind of ignore this issue — I join with the President, and I think reasonable folks in both parties, and, I think, the overwhelming majority of Americans who are gun owners, who believe that we’ve got to put stricter rules on the books.

Watch the video:

Warner said he is not ready to back specific legislation, but in separate comments, suggested restoring the assault weapons ban and limiting the size of ammunition clips as possible steps.

Crocket Keller, owner of Kellers Riverside Gun Store near Austin, TX, announced on local radio show KRLD that he would start offering a discount for teachers who want to carry a concealed weapon after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut on Friday. Keller talked enthusiastically of the need to arm teachers:

HOST: In light of this tragic, tragic shooting, teachers, educators may be wanting to get themselves certified to carry a concealed handgun. If they came to your store, what would you do for them and what kind of guidance would you give?

KELLER: Well, as we do with veterans, I would offer them a discount. Our normal rate is $110, so I would give them a rate of $90. If they are teachers, we would be more than happy to do that. We need to lobby our various state governments to allow teachers to be armed. We have airline pilots that now carry pistols or weapons of some sort. I think the same thing needs to happen in these gun-free zones that are so dangerous.

Keller went on to argue, “Any place where the citizenry is not allowed to defend itself is at risk.” This is a common claim by pro-gun advocates that has been debunked repeatedly. While many gun rights advocates have argued that armed teachers could have saved the lives of the Newtown children, not a single mass murder in the past 30 years has been stopped by a civilian with a gun. Moreover, an analysis by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that the high accessibility of guns creates a higher risk of homicide across the board at the city, state, and national levels.

Support for stricter gun safety laws rose in the aftermath of the tragic shooting last week at Sandy Hook elementary school, according to a poll from the Huffington Post/ YouGov.

Generally, the public has become more and more inclined to support looser gun laws over the years. A 2010 Gallup poll found that only 44 percent wanted stricter gun laws, while 54 percent hoped to see more lax restrictions. But the massacre in Newtown seems to have swayed public opinion, however briefly, in favor of more restrictions. Here are some of the most important numbers from Huffington Post’s poll:

• 50 percent say gun control laws should be more strict, while only 14 percent say they should be less strict. 29 percent support no change.
• 51 percent support banning semi-automatic weapons, and 54 percent would like to see magazine clips for such weapons made illegal.
• 46 percent believe that stricter gun laws could prevent mass shootings. Only 34 percent think mass shootings could be prevented by more private citizens carrying guns.
• After a mass shooting, it’s the right time to have a conversation about gun control, according to 44 percent. Forty three percent disagree.

On Monday afternoon, ABC released similar results, finding that 54 percent support stricter gun laws, while 59 percent would be in favor of a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips. White, blue-collar men are the biggest opponents to gun safety laws, the poll finds.

These numbers don’t quite constitute a mandate for gun safety laws, but they do indicate that the public is most receptive to such a conversation when human cost of loose gun laws is the public consciousness. Collective memory can fade quickly, however. After the shooting at a high school in Columbine, CO, 66 percent supported stricter gun laws — a number that fell, in just three years, by more than 10 points.

Mass murder is a sad but inevitable consequence of the wonderful Second Amendment, according to an inhouse editorial in one of America’s leading conservative magazines. National Review’s editors, writing in response to the recent massacre in Connecticut, delivered a full-throated defense of the right to own guns. When confronted with the reality of mass-killings, the editors said “too bad:”

The practical consequence of living for nearly two-and-a-half centuries under the almost universally benevolent protection of the Second Amendment is a society in which there are hundreds of millions of guns…Those upset with the order of things are welcome to try, and doomed to fail, to repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutional process. But the guns of America aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and generic calls to “do something” — even insofar as doing something is desirable — must reckon with this fact.

On Friday, the president promised “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” We doubt that something like this is possible, in a way consistent with the principle and the fact of the Second Amendment. If the possibility of terrors like Newtown are a reminder of why we need politics, their reality is a reminder that politics can do only so much.

The editorial’s authors would do well to familiarize themselves with recent history before they make claims about what’s in the Constitution. In 2008 — which was much more recently than “nearly two-and-a-half centuries” ago — the Supreme Court held for the very first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm. More importantly, that decision also gave special constitutional status to the most commonly used murder weapon in the country — handguns. So America has only lived under the “benevolent protection” the National Review seeks to protect for about four years. Prior to 2008, a total ban on handguns and other particularly dangerous firearms was entirely permissible.

It’s not clear why the National Review thinks their argument is supposed to convince people that the Second Amendment is a good thing. As Politico’s Dylan Byers writes, their argument essentially boils down to “preventing more tragedies might be possible, but it is not possible unless you repeal the Second Amendment, which you cannot do. Thus, therefore, ergo: The tragedy in Newtown, Conn., is a price that is paid for protection of the Second Amendment.”

Ultimately, however, not even this Supreme Court believes in the kind of Second-Amendment-run-amok that the National Review favors. Though it’s true that the Supreme Court’s overbroad interpretation of the Second Amendment limits policymakers’ options for addressing gun violence, there are a number of clearly permissible gun regulations that have been proven to reduce deaths from gun violence.

More than 150 protesters rallied in front of the National Rifle Association’s lobbying offices nearby Capitol Hill, berating the group’s role in maintaining easy, unfettered access to firearms in the United States.

The NRA has been completely silent on the mass-shooting in Connecticut, even shutting down its own Facebook page. Meanwhile, 150,000 people have signed a White House petition demanding the president take action on gun control.

Attendees at Monday’s rally, organized by CREDO, held signs reading “Teachers stand up to gunmen but Congress won’t stand up to the NRA” and “ARMS ARE FOR HUGGING — GUN CONTROL NOW”. With chants of “shame on the NRA,” the group marched from Spirit of Justice Park to the NRA’s Federal Affairs Division, which is responsible for the organization’s lobbying efforts.

Photos from today’s event:

One protester, Eddie Weingart, held a sign reading “I’m a victim of gun violence.” Weingart witnessed his mother being shot and killed by her ex-husband with a 12-gauge shotgun in 1981. “He then turned the gun on me,” Weingart explained. “The gun malfunctioned and that’s the reason why I’m here today.” His loss has drove him to do whatever he can to prevent other similar tragedies.

Watch his story:

In the decade between 2000 and 2009, more than 298,000 people were killed by gunshots in the U.S., almost 30,000 people a year. Excluding natural causes of death such as heart attacks and cancer, gunfire was the second-leading cause of death; only automobile accidents killed more people.

Since Friday’s massacre in an elementary school in Newtown, CT, lawmakers — and even life-long National Rifle Association members — have come out for sensible gun safety and health measures that could avert future shootings. While “no single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society,” after reviewing the literature and speaking with experts, ThinkProgress has identified five steps President Obama, Congress, federal agencies, and the states can take in response to the nation’s high rate of gun violence:

1) States should submit their mental health records. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a database to collect data from state governments and federal agencies of individuals who are banned from purchasing firearms. These include: felons, fugitives, persons convinced of misdemeanor crime for domestic violence, unlawful users of or those addicted to drugs, the mentally incompetent, undocumented immigrants, dishonorably discharged veterans, people who have renounced citizenship, domestic violence abusers, among others. Despite this improvement, the database is still far from complete. A report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds “major failure by 23 states in submitting mental health records to the system, with 17 states reporting fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all.” States can do a better job of complying with the mandate and the federal government should establish clear reporting guidelines and fund the requirement.

2) Federal agencies should submit mental records into the NICS. Following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, the Justice Department developed a list of “steps the government could take to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals,” including using “information on file at other federal agencies” to bolster the database. Currently, “52 of 61 federal agencies that are required to submit records have not done so.” President Obama should issue an executive order directing agencies to submit their records to the NICS.

3) Full background check on all gun transactions. Since the passage of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks. Congress should consider legislation like The Fix Gun Check Act, which expands background checks to include guns purchased at: “gun shows, flea markets, private sales, through newspaper advertisements, and online purchasers.” Individuals on the federal government’s watch list of terror suspects should also be prohibited from purchasing firearms.

4) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold 10 or more rounds. In 1994, Congress passed a ban against high-capacity magazines and banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain assault weapons. The law wasn’t perfect — for instance, it grandfathered existing assault weapons and ammunition magazines and manufacturers could bypass the ban with minor modifications — but studies did find a drop in use of assault weapons and high capacity magazines following passage. The law was allowed to expire in 2004, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has pledged to introduce a new ban that would cover the sale and importation of assault weapons, certain kinds of bullets, big drums and extended magazines.

5) Improve treatment of mental illness. It’s currently easier for a poor person to obtain a gun than it is for them to receive treatment for mental health issues, as state governments continue to cut services to balance budgets. States have slashed “at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012″ — representing the “largest reduction in funding since de-institutionalization in the 1960s and ’70s. In 2012, 31 states cut more than $840 million. Obamacare will require health plans on statewide exchanges to cover mental health services as one of its “essential health benefit” categories, though states ultimately carry most of the discretion when it comes to defining what these services are and how much funding they will receive.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday found that public support for gun safety is an all time high, with 54 percent favoring tougher gun laws. “Fifty-nine percent support a ban specifically on high-capacity ammunition clips, a step on which partisan and ideological gaps narrow substantially and ‘strong’ support peaks.”

In his one term in the U.S. House and his tenure in South Carolina politics, Senator-Designate Tim Scott (R-SC) has earned a reputation as one of the nation’s strongest opponents of gun restrictions. On his campaign website, the card-carrying NRA member notes his strong support of the right to bear arms and promises to fight attempts to weaken gun rights “in any way.”

Though his words and deeds, he has worked to advance an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment:

• Wants to prevent law enforcement from tracking purchases of multiple large guns: Scott co-sponsored legislation this year — HR 3814 — to specifically prevent gun dealers from informing law enforcement at the Department of Justice when an individual purchases multiple rifles or shotguns.
• Wants concealed-carry nearly nationwide: Scott co-sponsored a bill that would allow Americans to carry concealed firearms in nearly every state. Last year, Scott pushed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, which would force nearly every state to follow other states’ concealed-carry laws. As a result, Ian Millhiser writes, “it would allow nearly anyone to shop around for the one state that is willing to issue them a license to carry a concealed firearm, and then force other states to honor that license.”
• Wants gun dealers to be able to sell across state lines: Scott co-sponsored legislation to allow gun dealers to sell weapons across state lines. Currently there are restrictions on the sale and trafficking of firearms across state lines, but Scott pushed a bill last year — the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act — to gut those protections.
• Believes guns should be exempted from bankruptcy: Scott co-sponsored legislation last year that would allow people who declare bankruptcy to exempt up to $3,000 in weapons from their list of assessable property. In Scott’s opinion, firearms are so sacrosanct that they shouldn’t be treated like regular property.
• Called guns the “cornerstone of our democracy”: On his congressional website, Scott says that the right to own guns is a “cornerstone of our democracy.” He continues: “the federal government should never interfere with this right.”
• Wants to overrule local law and legalize weapons in DC: Scott co-sponsored a bill to take away the District of Columbia’s ability to determine for itself what its gun laws should be. This measure proposed to overrule DC’s laws, despite the city’s long history of sky-high murder and violent crime rates.
• Believes gun control is a joke. Interviewed by NRA News during the 2012 campaign, he defended South Carolina’s strong tradition of supporting the Second Amendment and endorsed Rick Perry’s “use both hands” approach to gun control. This referred back to a 2011 town hall event he hosted with Texas Gov. Perry (R), where he laughed while asking the presidential hopeful if he supported gun control. Perry jokingly responded, “I’m for gun control, use both hands.”

Scott will replace resigning Sen. Jim DeMint (R), himself a strong opponent of gun control, in early January

The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held for the first time in American history that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a firearm. Yet even that decision makes clear that this is not a right to “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller permits concealed carry bans. It allows bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons such as machine guns or assault rifles. And it allows laws banning “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Heller also makes clear, however, that the single most deadly kind of firearm sold in the United States — handguns — enjoy special constitutional status. As “the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, handguns cannot be banned. Since Heller, lower courts relied on its reasoning to strike lesser regulation of handguns as well.

Handguns are not simply the most commonly chosen weapon for lawful firearms owners, however, they are also the weapon of choice for murderers. According to the FBI, firearms accounted for approximately 47,500 murders in 2001-2005. Nearly 8 in 10 of these murders involved a handgun:

So there are any number of sensible reforms, such as assault rifle bans or restrictions on concealed carry, which Congress could enact right now. Until the Supreme Court removes the special protections accorded to handguns, however, lawmakers will have to fight the most dangerous weapon in the nation with one arm tied behind their backs.

President Obama hinted strongly last night that he would back legislation to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country, and several lawmakers are already planning to introduce gun regulations in order to reduce the likelihood that another horrific mass killing happens again. Whatever new gun rules they propose, however, the National Rifle Association is almost certain to oppose them. Here are five things every lawmaker in the country should bear in mind when they are deciding whether to be swayed by the NRA’s opposition:

1) The NRA’s Candidates Got Their Clocks Cleaned Last Month: The NRA Political Victory Fund spent a massive $16,554,803.07 seeking to elect its preferred candidates last November. They might have accomplished more by burning the money. Just 0.81 percent of these expenditures benefited a winning candidate.

2) An NRA Endorsement Is Virtually Useless: According to an analysis of all 1038 NRA endorsements in the 2004-2010 election cycles, the NRA’s endorsement swung the result in just four races — meaning that the chance that an NRA endorsement will be the factor that places a pro-gun candidate in the House is less than 0.4 percent. The analysis also determined that most candidates garner no boost whatsoever for an NRA endorsement, although “Republican challengers who get endorsed when they run against Democratic incumbents do about 2 percentage points better than similar candidates who don’t get the endorsement.”

3) Democrats Gain Nothing From Pandering To The NRA: One group that has nothing to gain from appeasing the NRA is Democrats. The 2004-2010 analysis mentioned above found that “Democratic incumbents who are endorsed by the NRA get no statistically significant advantage from being endorsed,” and a similar study of the 1994 and 1996 election cycles determined that an NRA endorsement “had almost no impact for Democrats who were endorsed, Republican incumbents who were endorsed, or any kind of candidate in 1996.”

4) Gun Ownership Is Steadily Declining: Lawmakers hoping to appeal to gun owners are reaching out to a steadily dwindling base. In 1977, 54 percent of American adults lived in a gun-owning household. By 2010, that figure declined to 32 percent:

5) Not Even NRA Members Believe All Gun Regulations Are Wrong: NRA members overwhelmingly support a wide range of reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees, and mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen.

A growing number of gun advocates are calling for sensible gun safety regulations in the aftermath of Friday’s tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) — a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association — spoke out in favor of regulating assault weapons during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, calling such laws “common sense.”

“I want to call all our friends in the NRA, sit down and have this discussion,” he explained. “Bring them into it. They have to be at the table. We all have to”:

MANCHIN: I just came with my family from deer hunting. I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway. It’s common sense. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.

Manchin’s comments followed Joe Scarbarough’s declaration of support for gun safety. The former Florida Congressman received the NRA’s highest ratings over his four terms in Congress, but on Monday he opened Morning Joe with a monologue in which he admitted that the tragedy “changed everything.” Scarbrough called for a comprehensive approach that addresses what he called “the toxic brew of a violent popular culture, a growing mental health cris, and the proliferation of combat-styled weapons”:

SCARBOROUGH: I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across america. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-styled, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas. It’s time for politicians to start focusing more on protecting our school yards than putting together their next fund-raiser.

The NRA has remained silent in the wake of the tragedy, pulling down its Facebook page, while its Congressional allies refused to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows. But gun safety advocates aren’t about to let the urgent moment of action pass. During a prayer vigil in Newtown last President Obama promised to “use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.” “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard,” he asked. Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

Meanwhile, lawmakers plan to introduce a renewed ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Advocates have also called on states to post their mental health records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and additional legislation requiring full background check on all gun transactions. Polls show that even NRA members back these reforms.