How a single person was able to obtain the weaponry that killed 58 people and wounded nearly 500 in 10 minutes is the question that has tortured Las Vegas and the nation in the days following Sunday’s deadly shooting spree.

The heinous act by mass murderer Stephen Paddock — with the highest casualty count in modern American history — has renewed debate both nationally and in the state over laws governing the use and possession of firearms, with a spotlight being shined into Nevada’s own gun laws.

While a number of editorials and columnists have criticized Nevada’s gun laws as being “lax,” the vast majority of states outside of California and New York don’t have laws limiting the number of guns that can be purchased at one time or requiring a permit to own a firearm.

Gun culture is baked into Nevada — a 2015 survey estimated that roughly 37.5 percent of Nevadans owned a firearm, and the right to “keep and bear arms for security and defense” was added into the state’s Constitution in the early 1980s. A ballot measure seeking to extend background checks to private sales won on the narrowest of margins in 2016, losing in 16 of the state’s 17 counties with only populous Clark County backing the initiative.

Police say that Paddock appeared to have legally purchased the firearms used in the shooting and passed background checks at multiple firearms stores across Nevada, California, Utah and Texas. Law enforcement officials have recovered 47 guns from three locations owned by the 64-year-old, including 23 guns found in the Mandalay Bay hotel room where the deadly shooting occurred.

Nevada lawmakers haven’t made major changes to the state’s gun laws since 2015, when legislators approved a bill repealing Clark County’s 72-hour waiting period and handgun registry as part of giving the state Legislature the sole authority over localities to regulate firearms. That bill — SB175 — also clarified the definition of justifiable homicide and prohibited people with domestic violence convictions or extended protection order from possessing firearms.

That means barring an unlikely special session, advocates will have their first crack at potentially changing the state’s gun laws in January 2019 when the part-time Legislature gavels in for its normal 120-day session.

Here’s a quick look at what Nevada law does and doesn’t allow when it comes to guns.

Basics

While Nevada law sets some limits on who can carry a gun and where it can be carried, the state does not require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun, nor set any limits on the number of guns that can be purchased at a single time.

Only a handful of states, including California, Hawaii and New York require some form of permit or license before a person is allowed to buy a firearm, and only three — California, Maryland and New Jersey — set limits on the number of firearms that can be purchased at a single time.

State law sets relatively common limits on who is prohibited from possessing a gun, including people with felony or domestic violence misdemeanor convictions, fugitives, illegal drug users, people not legally in the country or who are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Minors are allowed to shoot firearms under certain circumstances, such as with parental guidance at a range or while hunting.

Nevada is also one of 42 states that does not limit the number of rounds in a magazine. It does prohibit the manufacture or sale of any “metal-penetrating bullet.”

The state also has no additional restrictions on purchasing or ownership of semi-automatic weapons outside of existing federal guidelines, and the state has no clear guidelines or prohibitions on the use or sale of weapon modifications such as a “bump stock" — a weapon modification used by Paddock that uses a spring mechanism and the recoil from firing a weapon to rapidly pull the trigger.

Democrats in Nevada’s congressional delegation on Wednesday all signed onto measures that would ban “bump stocks."

Concealed Carry Weapon/Open Carry

Nevada generally allows “open carry” as long as the person isn’t prohibited from owning or using firearms or if they’re on the campus of a school, college or day care center.

Concealed carry weapon (CCW) law is slightly different — state law makes Nevada a “shall issue” state, which requires county sheriffs to issue permits to applicants who meet certain minimum requirements, such as being over the age of 21, completing a background check and taking a course in firearm safety.

The state also practices CCW reciprocity, meaning that certain out-of-state CCW holders are allowed to legally carry their firearms concealed as long as their home state meets certain minimum training requirements. As of 2016, Nevada recognizes concealed carry permits from 30 other states.

Nevada has issued nearly 120,000 active concealed carry licenses as of July 2017, with the bulk — 71,000 — in Clark County.

Background checks

Nevada laws require the state’s nearly 1,000 licensed firearm dealers to process any sale through a state Department of Public Safety database that verifies whether or not the prospective buyer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Nevada is one of 12 states that runs its own “Point of Contact” system for background checks rather than relying on the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. State officials say the system handles more than 100,000 requests a year, and say it’s more comprehensive than the FBI system because it can draw on state criminal history records unavailable to other agencies.

Gun control advocates attempted to expand the web of background checks through a ballot initiative that would require private party, person-to-person gun sales and transfers to first undergo a background check. It extends several exemptions for family members or temporary transfers.

That measure, which was staunchly opposed by the National Rifle Association and state Republicans, narrowly passed on the 2016 ballot by a margin under 10,000 votes out of more than 1.1 million cast.

But Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s office issued an opinion in December calling the measure “unenforceable,” as it required background checks to go through the FBI’s system as opposed to the state’s, which the federal law enforcement agency refused to do because of an existing agreement with the state.

Attorneys for the group backing the ballot measure are threatening to take legal action against the state if it does not take steps to implement the measure by mid-October.