By Alan L. Moss

In spite of the public outcry, gun violence continues to increase.

The numbers are staggering.

Between 2014 and 2017, total incidents of gun violence in the United States are up by 19 percent, from 51,848 to 61,701; deaths rose by 24 percent, from 12,558 to 15,619; and the number of children and teens injured or killed by guns skyrocketed by 35 percent, from 2,942 to 3,975. By international standards, these numbers reflect gun violence many times that experienced by other developed nations.

According to a recently released report by the Giffords Center, New Jersey averages 280 gun-related homicides, 184 gun-related suicides, 764 nonfatal interpersonal shootings and 599 unintended shootings per year.

Our vulnerability to out-of-control gun violence is reflected in last month's chaos at Trenton's Art All Night festival at which a gang dispute resulted in one death and 29 injuries, one critical, as gunfire exploded and patrons ran for the exits.

It is the haunting image of young students in school hiding from a deranged shooter with a weapon of war that hits home. From the 1999 Columbine massacre to the 2018 Santa Fe shooting, over 214,000 students have been directly exposed to gun violence in 216 schools. The fear implanted by such incidents knows no geographic border, seeping into the minds of millions of our youth.

Perhaps the one positive from all this carnage has been the determination of young people to take action that might effect change.

In March, hundreds of thousands of students, including many from New Jersey, joined the pro-gun-control March for Our Lives across the U.S. At the same time, students in schools across New Jersey participated in a school walkout of their classrooms as part of a national show of activism to call for an end to gun violence in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

While such exuberance is to be complimented, to be honest and responsible, one must be aware of the difficulty of their task and the requirements of a winning strategy. All too often, we have seen such displays peter out as opposing forces stand in the way. For example, in 2011 an Occupy Wall Street protest movement received global attention objecting to social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and undue influence of corporations on government. However, without a specific program of objectives and a means to reach them, it had little or no impact.

To fully appreciate the task at hand, we must be aware of how each branch of the U.S. government has reacted to the scourge of gun violence and efforts to reduce the toll.

How could it be that those who represent us in Congress can stand by while our children and grandchildren are sacrificed to the gun lobby? In fact, the reality is far darker. Rather than standing by, the Congress has been a willing participant in promoting the slaughter. For example, when a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found a strong association between keeping a gun in the home and an increased risk of homicide, the National Rifle Association lobby responded: It had Congress pass legislation that forbids the CDC from using federal funds for studies that advocate or promote gun control.

If Congress were the only culprit, one might turn from the legislative to the executive branch to reverse the nation's path. Sadly, our president has the same spineless position when it comes to reducing gun violence in America. At first he seemed to support banning assault-style weapons and instituting universal background checks. However, all it took was one meeting with the NRA to move him from increased gun controls to arming teachers and a federal commission on school safety that is not dealing with guns. In the shadow of NRA demands, this brash bully cowers as a child in school praying the shooter will not find him.

Unfortunately, turning to our judicial system has been another dead end.

When the District of Columbia sought to reduce inner-city gun violence by restricting the ownership of handguns and requiring legally owned rifles and shotguns to be kept unloaded or locked, the Supreme Court found these requirements violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This, although the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, was passed to facilitate the formation of a fighting force if invasion or insurrection threatened. Such misreading of the amendment has doomed similar efforts to bring sanity to the availability of guns in America's high-crime areas.

Attempts to limit campaign contributions that give the gun lobby (and others) the ammunition to win political support also have been decimated by the Supreme Court (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976). In that and later decisions, it found that campaign-expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech; corporations were given the go-ahead to spend from their general treasuries to influence ballot initiatives; and aggregate limits on political giving by an individual to candidates, political action committees and party committees combined were found to be unconstitutional. These decisions have opened the floodgates to bribery through campaign donation.

In summary, the deck has been stacked by those who pay for policies that benefit their bottom line. If we are to return to prioritizing the welfare of our citizenry, including gun control, a new deck must be dealt. When we cannot protect children in school without armed guards, our system has strayed too far for routine solutions.

Certainly, we must encourage those young people and others dedicated to reducing gun violence to continue their efforts to elect state and federal representatives who support gun-control initiatives. There has been mixed success at the state level in instituting improved gun regulation through ballot initiatives. However, there is no escaping the fact that significant, national gun control will not be possible without a revision of the Second Amendment and the removal of campaign financing from federal elections.

First, the Second Amendment must be revised to allow restoration of the assault-style weapons/ammunition ban, universal background checks and comprehensive gun bans in high-crime areas. These steps should be combined with gun-buyback programs to help rid neighborhoods awash with firearms and the violence they bring, and initiatives to bar dangerous individuals from gun ownership.

Second, a new amendment must be fashioned to relieve federal political candidates of the burden to raise campaign funds. Formulas should be developed to estimate reasonable funding requirements for those who represent a minimum of voter potential either through party acceptance or other proof of popular support. Under this system, the federal allocation of campaign funds would be the only financial resources devoted to election expenditures.

By removing the demand on candidates to raise huge amounts of campaign cash, our representatives would have significantly more time to devote to their principal responsibilities. At the same time, a new cast of dedicated lawmakers may be attracted to elected service.

To implement these recommendations, a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution -- called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures -- is one of two processes authorized by Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution whereby the Constitution may be altered.

Amendments also may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, this approach appears doubtful since Congress would not be expected to vote away their special-interest campaign funds. In both cases, the proposed amendments are forwarded to the states and ratified when three-fourths (38) agree.

Since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, six amendments have been ratified -- in 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992. The need for further revision could not be more critical. Some may characterize this solution as a dream, but without it, the safety of our children and the ability of the nation to adopt policies that respond to the will of the people will continue to be our national nightmare.

Alan L. Moss, former wage-hour chief economist and congressional fellow to the late U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, is the author of six books, including "Selling Out America's Democracy" (Praeger, 2008).

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.