He wrote "results", so I think he targeted the fact that weapons are still essentially freely available in the USA (at least it looks that way from over here in Europe). This can be seen as really effective lobbying given how many times it has been argued that weapons shouldn't be so easily available anymore without any changes to existing laws.
> weapons are still essentially freely available in the USA (at least it looks that way from over here in Europe)
They're really not. Automatic weapons made after 1986 are banned; automatic weapons made before that date are extremely expensive and require permission of local law enforcement and revocation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. Firearms may no longer be sold by mail, as they were for most of our nation's history. Firearms may not be sold by private parties across state lines. All commercial sales require a background check. In many states it's illegal to sell a firearm privately; in some states you can't even legally give a weapon to a family member as a gift. Many states and some localities impose unreasonable restrictions on magazine size and cosmetic features. Some states impose registration requirements, which means that law enforcement has the ability to confiscate all legal weapons at will.
> This can be seen as really effective lobbying given how many times it has been argued that weapons shouldn't be so easily available anymore without any changes to existing laws.
I think the conditions above indicate how ineffective the pro-gun lobby has been, given that almost none of it is constitutional.
(although it's worth noting that for most of its history the NRA was a pro-gun-control organisation)
