Con la carnicería en Uvalde, Texas, y Buffalo, Nueva York en mayo de 2022, han comenzado nuevamente los llamados para que el Congreso promulgue el control de armas. Desde la masacre de 20 niños y cuatro miembros del personal en la Escuela Primaria Sandy Hook en Newtown, Connecticut, en 2012, la legislación presentada en respuesta a los asesinatos en masa ha fracasado sistemáticamente en ser aprobada por el Senado. Les pedimos a los politólogos Monika McDermott y David Jones que ayuden a los lectores a comprender por qué nunca se aprueban más restricciones, a pesar de que la mayoría de los estadounidenses apoyan leyes de control de armas más estrictas.

Los asesinatos en masa son cada vez más frecuentes. Sin embargo, no se ha aprobado ninguna legislación significativa sobre armas en respuesta a estos y otros tiroteos masivos. ¿Por qué?

Monika McDermott:Si bien siempre hay una mayoría a favor de restringir el acceso a las armas un poco más de lo que lo hace actualmente el gobierno, por lo general es una pequeña mayoría, aunque ese apoyo tiende a aumentar en el corto plazo después de eventos como los tiroteos masivos recientes.

Tendemos a encontrar que incluso los propietarios de armas apoyan restricciones como la verificación de antecedentes para todas las ventas de armas, incluso en las ferias de armas. Así que ese es uno que todos respaldan. El otro aspecto que respaldan los hogares que poseen armas es que no les importa que las fuerzas del orden quiten las armas de las personas que han sido juzgadas legalmente como inestables o peligrosas. Esas son dos restricciones sobre las que puede obtener un apoyo unánime virtual del público estadounidense. Pero el acuerdo sobre elementos específicos no lo es todo.

Esto no es algo por lo que la gente clame, y hay muchas otras cosas en la mezcla por las que la gente está mucho más preocupada en este momento, como la economía. Además, la gente está insegura sobre el déficit del presupuesto federal y la atención médica sigue siendo un problema perenne en este país. Así que ese tipo de cosas superan la legislación de control de armas en términos de prioridades para el público.

Así que no se puede pensar simplemente en el apoyo de la mayoría a la legislación; hay que pensar en prioridades. A las personas en la oficina les importa cuáles son las prioridades. Si alguien no lo va a expulsar debido a un problema, entonces no lo hará.

El otro problema es que tienes esta visión diferente de la situación de las armas en los hogares que poseen armas y en los que no las poseen. Casi la mitad del público vive en un hogar con un arma. Y esas personas tienden a estar significativamente menos preocupadas que aquellos en hogares que no usan armas de fuego de que pueda ocurrir un tiroteo masivo en su comunidad. También es poco probable que digan que leyes de armas más estrictas reducirían el peligro de tiroteos masivos.

La gente que no tiene armas piensa lo contrario. Piensan que las armas son peligrosas. Piensan que si restringimos el acceso, se reducirían los tiroteos masivos. 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.