Paul Waldman is a contributing editor with The American Prospect magazine and the author and co-author of several books including "The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World."

The National Rifle Association tells elected officials that if they support any kind of restriction on guns, they are doomed to defeat at the polls, and many of them believe it. The truth, however, is that not only does the N.R.A. have virtually no effect on elections, the public is quite open to any number of sensible restrictions on guns.

This year, the N.R.A. spent over $13 million in a failed attempt to defeat President Obama. In the Senate, the group spent over $100,000 in eight races trying to elect their favored candidates. Seven of the eight lost, most by comfortable margins. That pattern is repeated in election after election.

This year, the N.R.A. spent millions to defeat President Obama and win eight Senate races. Its candidates lost all but one Senate race.

That isn't to say the group doesn't wield influence. The N.R.A.'s ability to sway elections may be a myth, but myths can be powerful. Members of Congress who have nothing to fear cower in the mistaken belief that the issue can only benefit those who want more guns in more hands. Even after one of their own colleagues was shot in the head at a public event, lawmakers did nothing.

Gun advocates note that when surveys ask broad questions on gun control, more Americans say they are against it than for it. But that can't be a result of our national debate. The last time we really debated the issue – in the 1990s – support for restrictions rose. But after the N.R.A. successfully convinced Democrats that they lost Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000 because of the gun issue (contentions contradicted by the evidence), Democrats retreated from the issue in fear. So in recent years, the debate has sounded like this: Gun advocates say Democrats are sending jackbooted thugs to take away everyone's guns, and Democrats assure everyone they have no plans to do anything of the sort. So it's not surprising that support for "gun control" has fallen.

But public opinion looks much different when you ask people specific questions. Polls show that majorities of Americans favor almost every restriction actually being proposed to set limits on gun ownership. For example, the General Social Survey has long found three-quarters of Americans saying everyone should have to get a permit from the local police before buying a gun. A Times/CBS News poll last year found 63 percent of Americans in favor of a ban on high-capacity magazines. When we have a real debate about what steps we can take to make mass shootings less likely and less deadly, it's those kinds of specific measures we'll be discussing, not abstract "gun control," and advocates of gun safety will have the public behind them.

Perhaps the horror of 20 children being killed in Newtown will finally push members of Congress to locate their spines and begin working to pass some sensible gun legislation. Consider that on the very same day as the Newtown massacre, a deranged man walked into a school in Chengping, China and tried to kill as many children as he could. He attacked 22 of them. But because he was wielding a knife, not one of the children died.