Two years ago, British journalist Dan Hodges wrote on Twitter: “In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the U.S. gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”
After the attack that killed 20 children and several adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, mass shootings became normalized, and so did the idea that nothing can be done to prevent these tragedies.
According to the Washington Post, the FBI defined a “mass murder” as “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location” in the 1980s. After the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Congress defined “mass killings” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”
The U.S. has faced over 1,500 mass shootings since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive.
Although Sandy Hook seemed to be the turning point in the gun control debate, Congress’s lack of action in response to mass shootings says otherwise.

What Congress Is and Isn’t Doing
The Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal for certain people to ship, transport, receive and possess firearms. These people include, but are not limited to, people with certain criminal records or mental illnesses, illegal immigrants, drug addicts and veterans with dishonorable discharge.
Under the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, anyone convicted of domestic abuse is prohibited from buying firearms. Federal law also requires that licensed gun dealers conduct background checks on potential customers through a database run by the FBI.
However, there are many loopholes in these laws. Most people with mental illnesses do not have a court statement as evidence, so their illnesses are often unrecorded. Similarly, many domestic abuse cases are unreported.
Small-scale sellers, including those who do business at gun shows, are not required to do background checks. This loophole allows many people to purchase firearms at the shows, including people prohibited from doing so under federal law.
According to the New York Times, the attackers in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting and the 2017 Texas shooting were mentally ill and convicted of domestic abuse, respectively, yet both pieces of information failed to be entered into the background check database, allowing the shooters to purchase their weapons.
In 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was enacted. This ban included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of specific semi-automatic weapons defined as assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 10 year ban expired in 2004 and failed to be renewed.
Studies on the effects of the ban showed that although the ban did not appear to affect gun violence during the short period it was enacted, there was evidence to suggest that it could have reduced the number of shootings if it was in effect for a longer period.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the last major piece of gun control legislation to make it into law. Since the 1994 ban, legislation to increase gun control has been proposed and repeatedly shot down.

 According to PBS, a FRONTLINE examination showed that after the Newtown shooting, states passed more than twice as many laws expanding gun owners’ rights than they did gun control laws. By the end of 2013, only 43 gun control laws had passed, even though states were considering more than 500 pieces of gun control legislation within three months of the shooting. After the 2015 San Bernardino attack, the Senate rejected a bill to tighten background check requirements on potential gun buyers.
When Britain and Australia faced mass shootings, both countries instituted strict gun control laws, “but the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society,” said New York Times writers Max Fisher and Josh Keller.

What are people lobbying for?
It is no secret that gun rights advocates led by the National Rifle Association (NRA) have a powerful lobby, one that most politicians will not confront. Lobbyists advocating for gun rights effectively argue that people should not politicize mass shootings and that after a shooting is not the time to debate the issue surrounding gun control.
Gun rights advocates claim that weapons make society safer by giving people the power of self-defense. Following the Newtown shooting, the NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Not only do advocates led by the NRA make arguments for the protection of gun rights, but many gun rights interest groups fuel political campaigns and parties.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), gun rights advocates gave roughly $41.9 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups since 1989. The NRA provided $22.9 million since 1989 and $54.3 million in outside expenditures during the 2016 election alone.
On the other hand, gun control advocates argue that allowing more people to carry weapons makes an everyday dispute more likely to escalate to lethal force.
Gun control interest groups have provided $4.2 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups since 1989 and only $3 million in outside spending during the 2016 election cycle, according to the CRP.
These numbers make clear the dominance that gun rights advocates have in lobbying Congress and the gun industry.

What needs to be changed, and how?
For years, the NRA and gun rights lobbyists have intimidated gun manufacturers and politicians into opposing gun control legislation. Because of a strong lobby and extreme funding from the NRA, it seems impossible for politicians to support and pass gun control legislation without jeopardizing their careers.
After the Sandy Hook attack, thousands of members joined gun control groups. Supporters speed-dialed legislators every Friday at exactly 9:30 a.m., the moment the horrific shooting began. Groups formed to  march against gun violence, and advocates attended legislative hearings to show their support for gun control legislation.
As PBS Senior Reporter Sarah Childress said, Americans who want to see concrete and permanent change must take action and aim for the goal of creating “enough baseline support for legislators so they can vote for gun-control measures without fearing for their political lives.”