As mass shootings attract more media coverage, 2016 presidential campaigns have begun making gun control legislation, or lack thereof, a central focus.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democratic presidential candidate, has done just that, proposing tough restrictions on gun sales and telling the stories of victims as families travel with him on the campaign trail.

His plan features some ideas stricter than his Democratic opponents such as fingerprint identification, an age requirement of 21 years to purchase a gun, revoking gun licenses when a law has been broken by the holder, expanding background checks and more.

O’Malley’s reform is more similar to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s, but varies entirely from Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., as Sanders believes gun legislation should fall on the states.

Whether the Second Amendment should be upheld through federal legislation or state legislation has been an ongoing discussion, something that K Lee Van Brocklin, academic adviser in business, says is more of a political argument than legal argument.

“It’s a political position statement,” Van Brocklin said. “[O’Malley’s] got to position himself with his base and, as with anyone in both parties, they’re going to say what they know appeals and provide as few details as they can.”

Mack Shelley, professor of political science, said people interpret the Second Amendment clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary to,” differently. She also said whether it’s literal or figurative, the right to bear arms is still a little cloudy.

“Just taking that very literally, that implies that the whole point originally was to provide for citizens who could mobilize with guns to fight off another British invasion basically, which wasn’t hypothetical back then at all,” Shelley said. “The hope was that there would be a citizen militia that could protect the country if necessary and that, from a historical perspective, that’s where the Second Amendment came from. It didn’t really have anything to do with your right to own a gun and shooting whoever you damn well please.”

However, since the amendment lays out the militia specifically and not individual gun ownership rights, Van Brocklin said the powers should go to the states.

“Powers not enumerated are reserved for the states, so the Second Amendment being the business of the [federal] government being created, well [the founders] only addressed the militia issue and said we’re not going to infringe,” Van Brocklin said.

O’Malley believes this right should be upheld federally. Conversely, Van Brocklin thinks local governments need to be held accountable, too.

“There is a problem with local government, and this is where the federal government ought to be supporting and partnering to address gun crime instead of writing new laws that symbolically accomplish something but really infringe law abiding people,” Van Brocklin said. “Yes, there’s a role for the federal government. I think it has more to do with supporting local governments and state governments in their efforts.”

The debate over who should be allowed to interpret the law is ongoing, along with the debate on whether citizens even need guns.

“If you live in a suburb or central city, you don’t necessarily need to have a gun for self-protection, or to ward off attacks from bears or shoot a deer if you’re hungry and want venison,” Shelley said. “So, as far as is there a dire need for people these days to carry guns around with them? I don’t really think so, but I think it has a lot to do with self-perception. People feel good about themselves when they can exercise that sort of dominance.”

Shelley said that just because there may or may not be a need for guns anymore doesn’t mean people don’t want them any less. Police and armed forces carry guns and tend to make people feel protected, which is what most people are going for when they own a firearm themselves.

O’Malley’s plan promises to expand background checks and looks to keep people with mental health issues away from firearms, but Van Brocklin says mental health can be a tricky subject to define.

“If you are not right in the head you shouldn’t have a gun in your hand, and I can’t think of anybody that would disagree with that statement, but who defines not right in the head,” Van Brocklin said.

O’Malley has launched what he calls an “Actions Not Words” campaign while he travels around the country. He can use gun control to stick out from other candidates on both sides.

“It’ll definitely restrict some gun [rights], but not as much as people may think,” said state Sen. Kevin Kinney, D-Oxford, who has endorsed O’Malley. “I don’t totally agree with it myself, but there are other aspects to his campaign I really do like.”

Some supporters think O’Malley’s strict plan follows well from his time in Maryland, and goes along with O’Malley’s “actions not words” slogan.

“He’s gaining ground every day as more people look at his well-drawn-out plans,” said state Sen. Rich Taylor, D-Mount Pleasant, who has also endorsed O’Malley. “It seems like everyone else has ideas but not plans across the board, he’s done a lot of this in Maryland and made it work in a bipartisan matter.”

Shelley said O’Malley’s time in Maryland succeeded in solving some gun-related issues; however, it could be hard to implement nationwide.

“In Baltimore — where he was mayor — it kind of worked. It was really a dire necessity given the murder rates,” Shelley said. “O’Malley’s plan is something that, if you’re relatively speaking, a hardcore progressive and firmly committed to gun control and reducing violence, and not worrying too much about the consequences politically. It’s about as close to perfect as you’re going to get.”

Van Brocklin suggests before O’Malley begins mandating any federal legislation to take a close look at what the people are truly concerned about and to identify the real issues at hand instead of being overly general.

“It’s hard to respond to something, other than when general statements are made you respond with a general question,” Van Brocklin said. ”I’m not judging what he’s trying to do but asking him for more clarification.”

Whether O’Malley will look into gun rights further before caucus season is up in the air, but it seems his supporters will stand by him no matter what.

“It’s just one issue that he has,” Kinney said. “I look at him as a whole candidate, and that’s what voters need to do.”

As for solving the gun reform argument, the nation’s leaders will have to set aside their differences to reach a solution.

“You wish you could just put everyone in a room including the NRA […] just sit down and say, ‘Can you make suggestions on how we can make this better?’ but because it’s such a political thing, that’s never going to happen,” Van Brocklin said.