Flanked by four children from across the country, President Obama today unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence in America through an extensive package of legislation and executive actions not seen since the 1960s.
Obama is asking Congress to implement mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, including private sales; reinstate a ban on some assault-style weapons; ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds; and crackdown on illicit weapons trafficking.
The president's proposal also includes new initiatives for school safety, including a call for more federal aid to states for hiring so-called school resource officers (police), counselors and psychologists, and improved access to mental health care.
Obama also initiated 23 executive actions on gun violence, policy directives not needing congressional approval. Among them is a directive to federal agencies to beef up the national criminal background-check system and a memorandum lifting a freeze on gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality," Obama said at a midday news conference. "If there's even one thing that we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try.
"And I'm going to do my part."
The announcement comes one month after a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., left 26 dead, including 20 children. Obama called it the worst moment of his presidency and promised "meaningful action" in response.
Maqndel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
Andrew Cuomo Signs New York Gun Control Law, Obama Readies Federal Plan Watch Video
'The View' on NRA Shooting App: Think It Out Watch Video
The proposals were the work of an Obama-appointed task force, led by Vice President Joe Biden, that held 22 meetings on gun violence in the past three weeks. The group received input from more than 220 organizations and dozens of elected officials, a senior administration official said.
As part of the push, Obama nominated a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which leads enforcement of federal gun laws and has been without a confirmed director for six years. The president appointed acting director Todd Jones, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, to the post, if the Senate confirms him.
The administration's plan calls for aid to states for the hiring of more school resource officers, counselors and psychologists. Obama also directed the Department of Education to ensure all schools have improved emergency-response plans.
He also called on Congress to make it illegal to possess or transfer armor-piercing bullets; it's now only illegal to produce them.
"To make a real and lasting difference, Congress must act," Obama said. "And Congress must act soon."
Officials said some of the legislative measures Obama outlined could be introduced on Capitol Hill next week. The pricetag for Obama's entire package is $500 million, the White House said.
"House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations," a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said in response to Obama's announcement. "And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that."
The proposals are already being met with stiff opposition from gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, which overnight released a scathing ad attacking the president as an "elitist hypocrite."
"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the narrator of the NRA ad says. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"
Obama has questioned the value of placing more armed guards at schools around the country, although his proposal does call for placement of more police officers at public schools. The NRA opposes most of the other gun restrictions Obama has proposed.
"Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority," the NRA said in a statement after Obama's announcement.
"Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the group said. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."
Gun violence recommendations are expected from Vice President Biden on Tuesday
The proposals are expected to contain substantive and symbolic ideas to curb gun violence
Presidents use symbolism to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change
Washington (CNN) -- The pictures told the story: Vice President Joe Biden looked solemn, patrician and in control as he sat at a long table in the White House, flanked by people on both sides of the gun control issue.
The images conveyed a sense that the White House was in command on this issue.
And that's the point. Historically, presidential administrations have used symbolic imagery—at times coupled with marginal actions—to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change.
"Politics is a risk taking project," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and CNN contributor. "They put together these commissions in response to some crisis. You try a hundred things and hope something works."
As Biden's gun control task force recommendations land on the desk of President Barack Obama, political experts say it is important that his administration sends a clear signal that it has things in hand.
Obama says gun lobby stokes fear of federal action
That is especially critical in what will likely be an uphill battle to push specific changes, like an assault weapons ban, as part of a broader effort on gun control.
The first move in the image battle will be to appear to move quickly and decisively.
"You have to give the Obama administration credit for one thing: They've learned from history to do things quickly," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said of previous task force initiatives that fizzled.
In 2010, Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, a former Democratic White House chief of staff, to come up with a proposal to balance the budget and cut the debt.
Like the gun task force, Simpson-Bowles reviewed current regulations, gathered input from the public and engaged in tense internal conversations. But after months of working on a proposal—a blend of steep revenue increases and spending cuts—the group struggled to agree to a solution. The president did not take up the recommendations.
Obama largely avoided the issue of gun control during his first term.
He wrote an opinion piece two months after the 2011 assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, acknowledging the importance of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the piece he also called for a focus on "effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."
Newtown searches for answers a month later
But in the aftermath of that shooting and as the election season loomed, the Justice Department backed off from a list of recommendations that included a measure designed to help keep mentally ill people from getting guns.
For now, at least, there is a sense in Washington that the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting where 26 people -- 20 of them young children -- were slaughtered could lead to meaningful legislative reform.
Public opinion would seem to suggest that the White House efforts are well timed.
In the month since the massacre, a new poll showed the percentage of Americans who said they were dissatisfied with America's gun laws has spiked.
The Gallup survey released on Monday showed 38% of Americans were dissatisfied with current gun regulations, and wanted stricter laws. That represented 13-point jump from one year ago, when 25% expressed that view.
"You want to strike while the iron is hot," Sabato said. "We Americans have short attention spans and, as horrible as the Newtown shooting was, will anyone be surprised if we moved along by spring?"
The White House has since worked overtime to show it considers gun control an urgent matter.
The vice president has spent the last week meeting with what the White House calls "stakeholders" in the gun control debate.
On Monday, Biden was to meet with members of a House Democratic task force on guns, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services.
Universal background check: What does it mean?
In a series of face to face discussions on Thursday, Biden sat down with the National Rifle Association and other gun owners groups before conferring with representatives from the film and television industry.
In a sign the White House is prepared to move aggressively on its proposals, Biden made public comments just before meeting with the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby.
"Putting the vice president in charge of (the task force) and having him meeting with these groups is intended to show seriousness and an effort to reach out and respond to concerns and wishes of various groups," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.
Still, the NRA expressed disappointment in its discussion with Biden and later released a statement that accused the administration of mounting "an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."
Organizations seeking tougher gun control laws insist an assault weapons ban is critical to addressing the nation's recent rash of mass shootings. However, such a ban could be difficult in a Congress mired in gridlock.
"The bully pulpit is limited. It's hard for the president to sustain that momentum," Zelizer said of the White House's gun control efforts after the Newtown shootings. "The thing about symbolism is, like the shock over Newtown, they fade quickly."
Newtown opens eyes to other gun violence against young people
CNN's Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report
VILLIERS-LE-BEL: Thousands of mourners gathered in the French capital on Tuesday to pay an emotional final tribute to three female Kurdish activists who were shot dead there last week.
Coffins containing the bodies of the three women and draped in the Kurdish flag were carried by female pall-bearers into a community centre in the Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel.
They were then placed on an altar surrounded by candles and wreaths in the yellow, red and green of the Kurdish flag before black-clad mourners, many of them clutching a single rose, filed past.
Photographs of the three women, Sakine Cansiz, Fidan Dogan and Leyla Soylemez were placed in front of their coffins for a ceremony attended by Kurds from all over Europe.
"We are here to ensure their commitment to the cause they fought for will not be forgotten," said 20-year-old Jiyan.
Fellow mourner Guler Biger wiped away tears and added: "May their killers be found soon."
The bodies of the three women were found inside a Kurdish information centre in Paris last Thursday. They had all been shot repeatedly in the head in what French authorities have described as an execution.
Victim Sakine Cansiz was a founding member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the other two women also had links to the outlawed group, which has been fighting for Kurdish self-rule in southeastern Turkey for nearly three decades.
The killings could have been linked to ongoing negotiations between the Turkish authorities and jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan that have raised hopes of a deal to end the conflict.
The negotiations are controversial with hardliners on both sides and one theory is that the murders may have been designed to derail the talks.
Kurdish activists believe the killings must have been the work of Turkish extremists while Turkey has suggested an internal PKK feud is a more likely explanation.
French police are investigating the possibility of a link to PKK fundraising activities, some of which have been described as extortion.
The women's coffins are due to be flown to Turkey on Wednesday for burial in their native towns or villages in the southeast of the country.
President Obama at an oil and gas production field near Maljamar, New Mexico in March, 2012.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Frida Ghitis: The U.S. will become the world's leading oil producer in a few years
Ghitis: It is truly transformational that the U.S. is giving up its addiction to foreign oil
Despite energy independence, we need to keep looking into green energy, she says
Ghitis: It's beneficial for the U.S. to not rely on unstable, undemocratic Middle East for oil
Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer and correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Follow her on Twitter: @FridaGColumns
(CNN) -- We pay a lot of attention to revolutions when they emerge suddenly and violently, but when a transformation arrives gradually and peacefully it's easy to miss.
Let's stop for a moment and take a look at a slow-motion development changing the world as we know it: The United States is giving up its addiction to foreign oil.
For decades, we bemoaned the awful toll this addiction has taken. The need for oil and natural gas -- much of it from Middle Eastern dictatorships -- shaped the foundation of global geopolitics. It created morally questionable alliances and repeatedly placed Washington in a position to choose between its fundamental values and its economic interests. Now all that could change.
When President Obama started his first term, the country faced stiff economic headwinds. Now, as he prepares to start his second term, the country enjoys a rare and unexpected tailwind, propelling it in one of the most important areas, with a host of positive implications.
Frida Ghitis
Clearly, the booming American oil and gas businesses are not problem-free, but the benefits -- economic, geopolitical and environmental -- of this impending energy independence far outweigh the drawbacks.
The days when Mideast oil-producing dictatorships and their friends at OPEC could so easily wave their power over a trembling, oil-thirsty West are on their way to becoming a relic of the past.
America still needs imported oil. But growing production and shrinking consumption have created a most promising trend. According to the International Energy Agency, the United States will become the world's leading oil producer in just a few years. Imagine that. The United States could produce more oil than Saudi Arabia as early as 2017 and become a net oil exporter by 2030.
And if you count other petroleum products, the future is already here. In 2011, the United States exported more petroleum products -- including gasoline, diesel and other fuels -- than it imported. That had not happened in more than half a century.
David Frum: A tax we could learn to love
The first major sign of impact is visible in Iran. The loosening of oil markets has strengthened the world's hand against oil-rich Iran. One main reason the international community has been able to impose strong sanctions on Tehran, aimed at persuading the regime to stop its illegal nuclear enrichment program, is that the global economy can do without Iranian oil. Iran's production has fallen 40%, a drop that not long ago would have created unacceptable economic hardships for the rest of the planet.
The trend is even more dramatic when you include natural gas, a product that is revolutionizing energy markets. The United States is about to become the second-largest exporter of natural gas behind Russia. Gigantic oil and gas finds in the United States and elsewhere are transforming the landscape, in some cases quite literally.
Other than rising oil prices, the reason for this shift is that new and controversial technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling have multiplied the amount of viable deposits in unexpected places. The techniques take an environmental toll, but there are upsides.
Fracking, as we keep learning, is creating very troubling problems, which deserve scrutiny. But it is helping to replace coal, the dirtiest form of energy production, with much cleaner natural gas.
Another dark lining in this silver cloud is that cheaper oil and gas will reduce incentives to produce green energies. Rather than abandoning the new sources of energy, efforts should focus on finding ways to reduce the negative impact of fracking and on continuing the push for alternative energy.
Fracking protesters say drilling jobs not worth environmental risks
The Obama administration now faces a balancing act as it starts its new term. Energy policy, the quest for full energy independence, must be weighed against the growing threat of climate change.
A decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is imminent and political pressure against fracking will grow. The president should support strong climate legislation, without reversing the powerful gains of surging U.S. oil and gas production, with all its transformational benefits. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Once upon a time, America was the Saudi Arabia of whale oil, the fuel of its day. Whale oil was displaced by hydrocarbon production, which the United States also dominated. That started changing with enormous geopolitical consequences after easy, high quality oil was found in the Arabian Peninsula and other parts of the Middle East.
The United States built alliances with autocratic regimes as part of a commitment to satisfy its needs and preserve the free flow of oil, which became the life-blood of the global economy.
For oil-rich countries, this brought enormous fortunes, but it also brought something known as the "resource curse." With wealth concentrated in the hands of autocrats, corruption mushroomed, and other sectors of the economy withered.
A trend away from the concentration of oil production in such an unstable, undemocratic part of the world bodes well. It bodes well for human rights, and it also bodes well, ironically, for the economies of oil-rich countries, which may at long last find an incentive to diversify into other industries. It certainly bodes well for the U.S. economy, which is already creating tens of thousands of jobs in industries related to the new boom.
William Bennett: Damon's film overlooks fracking's boon
In what sounds like something from another era, the Energy Information Administration forecast declining gasoline prices for the next few years. That's the first bit of good news for American consumers. The really good news is the knowledge that soon, every time you fill up your tank you will not be sending a piece of your paycheck to the Middle East.
That, among other things, is excellent news for America's balance of trade and for the soundness of the U.S. economy, which sadly now struggles with a politically dysfunctional Washington.
No matter how much oil the United States and its friends in the Western Hemisphere produce, the Middle East remains a principal global petroleum producer for the foreseeable future. The United States still needs to ensure the free flow of oil, because a stop in production will cause prices to spike on global markets, affecting the entire planet.
But America and its friends are becoming much less vulnerable to oil shocks. And supplies from other parts of the world are becoming more plentiful. The emerging changes in the world's energy markets, if they continue to develop, are nothing short of revolutionary.
As Obama prepares for a new term in office, they are gradually rerouting us from a destiny that we had thought was inescapable and rather dismal to one that, while far from assured, looks much more promising.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Frida Ghitis.
That's the recommendation being urged by federal health officials, local doctors and most experts who are commenting on this year's flu epidemic. But what exactly is in the flu vaccine, what forms does it come in, and why should we get vaccinated if there's still a chance we can get sick?
Play Video
Flu hits epidemic levels
Last week, the flu reached "epidemic levels," with 7.3 percent of all U.S. deaths caused by flu and pneumonia. Government estimates show 47 states are reporting widespread illness -- meaning at least 50 percent of its counties or subregions are reporting infections -- and high activity of influenza-like illness has been reported in 24 states and New York City. Officials expressed hope the flu may have peaked in some regions, but noted the severity of flu season is unpredictable.
Play Video
Calif. stockpiles flu vaccine to prevent epidemic
That's why people are being urged to get the flu vaccine, which the government calls the best way to prevent flu.
A new flu vaccine is developed every year in an attempt to provide the best chances to reduce risk of getting the flu or spreading the illness to others. So even for those who feel they won't get sick from the flu, experts note they should still get vaccinated because they may pass flu on to other people who are more at risk, such as young children, the elderly or persons with other medical conditions that weaken immunity.
The vaccines protect against infection and illness caused by the three influenza viruses -- or strains -- that a panel selects each year based on research that indicates which will be most common this season.
Play Video
Flu vaccine: Does it work?
This year's vaccine contains two influenza A strains and one influenza B strain, Dr. William Schaffner, the chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University who was immediate-past president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told CBSNews.com Tuesday. The A strains include an H1N1 strain similar to the one that caused a 2009 "swine flu" pandemic and a new H3N2 strain that is actually the strain that is causing most of the damage now, according to Schaffner, who served on the CDC panel that helped pick which strains would go into this year's vaccine.
"So that was a bull's-eye hit," he said.
The influenza B strain included in the vaccine is similar to a 2010 strain, but Schaffner said there is typically more than one B strain "smoldering" during flu season. While this vaccine targets one of them, he said, there's another strain out there causing about 6 to 8 percent of the disease, and this year's vaccine won't protect flu caused by that virus.
However, just because you get vaccinated doesn't mean you'll evade the flu.
A recent CDC study found this year's vaccine is about 62 percent effective, meaning it will prevent disease completely 62 percent of the time, according to Schaffner.
"It means that the glass is more than half full," he said. "It's not a perfect vaccine, but a good vaccine."
Even when the flu vaccine does not prevent a person from getting sick, it can lead to milder illness or prevent complications including pneumonia and even death.
Once vaccinated, the body takes about two weeks to develop flu-fighting antibodies, meaning people are still at risk for flu after they get the vaccine. That's why experts recommend vaccination early in the fall before flu season -- which typically peaks in late January or February -- gets under way. The vaccine's protection lasts through the spring, according to the CDC, so people need to get it every year. People who already got vaccinated this fall should not try to get another flu shot amid the reports of a flu epidemic.
There are two types of flu vaccines available for Americans, according to the CDC: the "flu shot" and the nasal spray vaccine. A flu shot contains a killed flu virus that is given with a needle, typically in the arm. All people ages 6 months and older, including healthy people, those with chronic medical conditions and pregnant women are recommended to get a flu shot.
This year, there are three different types of flu shots available. A regular flu shot approved for people ages 6 months and older, a high-dose flu shot designed for people 65 and older (the higher dose is meant to give the elderly better protection because immunity weakens with age) and an intradermal flu shot approved for people 18 to 64 years of age that is injected into the skin, rather than the muscle as is typical for the other shot formulations. The latter shot has a needle 90 percent smaller than those used for typical flu shots, and may cause redness but not the soreness that may accompany the regular flu shot's deeper muscle injections.
As for FluMist nasal sprays, these vaccines are made with live, weakened flu viruses that enter the body by being pumped through the nose. The viruses in the nasal spray vaccine do not actually cause the flu even though they are "live," because they are designed to only work in cooler temperatures of the nose and not warmer areas like the lungs. This vaccine is approved for use in healthy people ages 2 through 49 who are not pregnant and don't suffer from egg allergies or other chronic medical conditions. Schaffner noted children sometimes prefer these vaccines because doctors don't have to bring out needles; some adults prefer the sprays for that same reason, he said.
Generally, people who should not get vaccinated include those who are allergic to chicken eggs or have had a severe reaction to influenza vaccination in the past, children younger than 6 months of age and people who are already sick with a fever, who should wait to recover before they are vaccinated. People with Guillain-Barr? Syndrome, a severe illness that could lead to muscle weakness and paralysis, should also speak to a doctor to help decide whether to take the vaccine.
Some critics have taken issue with the vaccine being only 62 percent effective, or the fact that many people who have taken it are still getting sick.
Dr. Adam Stracher, director of the primary care division of the Weill Cornell Physician Organization at Weill Cornell Medical College, told CBSNews.com that the vaccine is safe, and a much better option than not getting any vaccine.
"While it may not be 100 percent effective, even in those patients who get the flu after getting the flu vaccine, they tend to have a milder illness than patients who haven't gotten the flu vaccine," he said.
Stracher adds that despite some common fears it's impossible to get the actual flu from the vaccine because it's only made of a component of the virus, but people can feel aches or a low-grade fever following vaccination as a response to a foreign protein being injected into the body.
Schaffner adds that less than 1 percent of people get a fever from the shot, and the nasal spray vaccine may lead to a runny nose or sore throat, but none of these things are considered a serious flu infection. He was blunt when assessing the common fears that the flu shot can cause the flu:
"That's malarkey," he said.
Improvements to the vaccine may also be on the horizon to improve future formulations.
18 Photos
Widespread flu found in 47 states
CDC officials have discussed some potential improvements coming down the pike, including a quadrivalent vaccine that protects against four flu strains instead of three, and new cell-based flu vaccines, Flucelvax, which recently became FDA-approved in November.
The traditional method to create a vaccine involves virus samples being injected into specialized chicken eggs which are then incubated. Egg fluids are later harvested and purified into the vaccine. The new technology involves small amounts of virus which is placed into fermenting tanks with nutrients and animal cells. The virus is then deactivated, purified and put into vaccine vials, a method officials believe is faster than egg-based production and could speed up manufacturing in the event of a pandemic.
Play Video
Report: Flu vaccine production slow, outdated
In December, Dr. Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease specialist who has studied medical records and flu studies dating back to the 1930s, told CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano that growing viruses in chicken eggs is slow, inexact and outdated.
"If we don't change our current vaccines, we will have some protection, but we will in two ways miss two very important goals: one, protecting old people at the highest risk of death and two, when the next pandemic emerges, we will miss the opportunity to protect against pandemic," he said at the time. Despite his concerns, he recommended people get the vaccine because it's safe, and some protection is better than none.
Schaffner also mentioned that doctors are investigating "universal" flu vaccines that would be capable of preventing all flu strains that people would only need to get once every 10 years. Dr. Francis Collins, chief of the National Institutes of Health, confirmed the vaccine's development in Dec. 2011.
However, until then, people should get the current vaccine which is safe, said Schaffner, who paraphrased Voltaire for his message:
"Waiting for perfection is the greatest enemy of the current good," he said.
The CDC noted during a conference call last week that there are spot shortages of this year's vaccine based on some reports it has received. The agency's website directs people to the HealthMap Vaccine Finder where people can plug in their zip code. Users are also asked to report any vaccine shortages they may experience through this website or tweet @vaccinefinder on Twitter with the hashtag #vaxshortage.
How you search Facebook is about to change. In fact, just the act of searching Facebook is probably about to start.
Facebook is trying to give Google a run for its money, with a new product called "Graph Search." It turns some of the personal information people have shared on Facebook into a powerful searchable database.
For the social network's 170 million users in the U.S., it's bound to change the way people interact with their Facebook friends. It also could mean lots more time wasted at work.
Facebook allowed ABC News "Nightline" behind the scenes ahead of today's product launch, an event shrouded in secrecy and rife with speculation. Company officials had sent out a tantalizingly vague invitation: "Come and see what we're building."
IMAGES: Screenshots of Graph Search and the offices where it was built
CEO Mark Zuckerberg has long wanted to develop a social search engine, even hinting back in September that one might be in the works. The new feature gives users the ability to easily search across the network and their friends' information. Company officials say they believe it has the potential to transform the way people use Facebook.
Graph Search: What Is It? Until now, the search bar you saw when you logged in to your Facebook page wasn't very powerful. You could only search for Timelines -- your friends' pages, other peoples' public pages and business or product pages.
But now, after close to a year and a half of development, the new "Graph Search" will allow you to search and discover more about your friends and other information that's been put on the world's largest social site.
Inside the Crucial 24 Hours Before Facebook's Graph Search Launch: Watch Tonight at 12:35 a.m. on ABC News "Nightline"
The new tool, available only to a limited set of U.S. users at first, turns key information that nearly a billion people have shared on the site -- including photos, places, and things they "like" -- into a searchable database tailored to your individual social network.
The new tool allows you to search across your friends' Timelines, without having to go to each of their Timeline pages to find out if they like a specific place or thing.
"I can just type in a short, simple phrase, like friends who like soccer and live nearby," Facebook product manager Kate O'Neill, told ABC News "Nightline" in an exclusive behind-the-scenes interview. "And now I'm getting the exact group of people that I'm looking for, so I can play soccer and ask them if they want to kick the ball around with me after work." O'Neill was able to narrow down the search in a demonstration only to show women.
MORE: Guide to Facebook's New Privacy Settings
The tool can search your friends' publicly shared interests, photos, places and connections. O'Neill showed ABC News how you can search for different musical artists and see which of your friends like them. She also showed how you can search a company and see which of your friends, or friends of your friends, work there. Additionally, you can search for photos of a specific place -- like Big Sur -- and the Graph Search will return images your friends might have taken of the location.
Right now, you can't search for things that were shared in a Timeline post or an event. However, O'Neill confirmed that this would be added to Graph Search later.
Privacy and Opting Out The new product raises obvious privacy questions. Will personal information now pop up in the Graph Search, even if you never wanted to share it? How about those photos you never wanted to have on Facebook in the first place, or the ones you thought you were sharing only with your close friends?
"[Privacy] is something, of course, we care a lot about, and so from the very beginning we made it so that you can only search for the things that you can already see on Facebook," Tom Stocky, one of the lead Graph Search senior engineers, told "Nightline."
Stocky also pointed ABC News to Facebook's recent privacy tool changes, which allow you better to see what personal information your friends and others can see on Facebook. O'Neill showed the new Activity Log tools as well as the photo "untag" tool, which lets you contact others who might have a photo of you posted that you'd wish they'd take down.
When asked if users can opt out of the new search in general, Stocky said that they can choose to change the privacy settings on each of their pieces of content.
Gun violence recommendations are expected from Vice President Biden on Tuesday
The proposals are expected to contain substantive and symbolic ideas to curb gun violence
Presidents use symbolism to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change
Washington (CNN) -- The pictures told the story: Vice President Joe Biden looked solemn, patrician and in control as he sat at a long table in the White House, flanked by people on both sides of the gun control issue.
The images conveyed a sense that the White House was in command on this issue.
And that's the point. Historically, presidential administrations have used symbolic imagery—at times coupled with marginal actions—to shift public opinion or affect larger political or social change.
"Politics is a risk taking project," said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and CNN contributor. "They put together these commissions in response to some crisis. You try a hundred things and hope something works."
On the eve of the Biden-led gun control task force recommendations to President Barack Obama, political experts say it is important that his administration sends a clear signal that it has things in hand.
That is especially critical in what will likely be an uphill battle to push specific changes, like an assault weapons ban, as part of a broader effort on gun control.
The first move in the image battle will be to appear to move quickly and decisively.
"You have to give the Obama administration credit for one thing: They've learned from history to do things quickly," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said of previous task force initiatives that fizzled.
In 2010, Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, a former Democratic White House chief of staff, to come up with a proposal to balance the budget and cut the debt.
Like the gun task force, Simpson-Bowles reviewed current regulations, gathered input from the public and engaged in tense internal conversations. But after months of working on a proposal—a blend of steep revenue increases and spending cuts—the group struggled to agree to a solution. The president did not take up the recommendations.
Obama largely avoided the issue of gun control during his first term.
He wrote an opinion piece two months after the 2011 assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, acknowledging the importance of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In the piece he also called for a focus on "effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place."
But in the aftermath of that shooting and as the election season loomed, the Justice Department backed off from a list of recommendations that included a measure designed to help keep mentally ill people from getting guns.
For now, at least, there is a sense in Washington that the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting where 26 people -- 20 of them young children -- were slaughtered could lead to meaningful legislative reform.
Public opinion would seem to suggest that the White House efforts are well timed.
In the month since the massacre, a new poll showed the percentage of Americans who said they were dissatisfied with America's gun laws has spiked.
The Gallup survey released on Monday showed 38% of Americans were dissatisfied with current gun regulations, and wanted stricter laws. That represented 13-point jump from one year ago, when 25% expressed that view.
"You want to strike while the iron is hot," Sabato said. "We Americans have short attention spans and, as horrible as the Newtown shooting was, will anyone be surprised if we moved along by spring?"
The White House has since worked overtime to show it considers gun control an urgent matter.
The vice president has spent the last week meeting with what the White House calls "stakeholders" in the gun control debate.
On Monday, Biden was to meet with members of a House Democratic task force on guns, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services.
In a series of face to face discussions on Thursday, Biden sat down with the National Rifle Association and other gun owners groups before conferring with representatives from the film and television industry.
In a sign the White House is prepared to move aggressively on its proposals, Biden made public comments just before meeting with the National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby.
"Putting the vice president in charge of (the task force) and having him meeting with these groups is intended to show seriousness and an effort to reach out and respond to concerns and wishes of various groups," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University.
Still, the NRA expressed disappointment in its discussion with Biden and later released a statement that accused the administration of mounting "an agenda to attack the Second Amendment."
Organizations seeking tougher gun control laws insist an assault weapons ban is critical to addressing the nation's recent rash of mass shootings. However, such a ban could be difficult in a Congress mired in gridlock.
"The bully pulpit is limited. It's hard for the president to sustain that momentum," Zelizer said of the White House's gun control efforts after the Newtown shootings. "The thing about symbolism is, like the shock over Newtown, they fade quickly."
CNN's Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report
AUSTIN: Fallen cycling hero Lance Armstrong personally apologised Monday to staff members of the Livestrong cancer charity ahead of his much anticipated interview with talk show diva Oprah Winfrey.
"Lance came to the Livestrong Foundation's headquarters today for a private conversation with our staff and offered a sincere and heartfelt apology for the stress they've endured because of him," Livestrong spokeswoman Rae Bazzarre told AFP.
She added that Armstrong -- a cancer survivor who founded the charity in 1997 -- urged Livestrong staffers "to keep up their great work fighting for people affected by cancer."
Journalists staked out Armstrong's home in Austin earlier Monday ahead of his interview with Winfrey, during which the disgraced cyclist is reportedly planning to admit to doping.
For years he has repeatedly denied taking performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France and other big cycling events.
Reporters, photographers and TV crews took up positions Monday across the street from Armstrong's opulent Austin home, which is surrounded by a 2.4-metre stone wall.
The interview with Winfrey is scheduled to be taped at Armstrong's home on Monday and is to air on her OWN cable network on Thursday.
The announcement that Armstrong had agreed to an interview has sparked widespread speculation that he might finally confess to being a drug cheat after years of strenuous denials.
According to USA Today, Armstrong plans to confess in the interview to doping throughout his career, but will not go into great detail about specific cases and events.
It will be Armstrong's first interview since he was stripped in October of his seven Tour de France titles after the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said he helped orchestrate the most sophisticated doping program in sports history.
Any confession by Armstrong could have legal or financial ramifications, particularly among big-name corporate sponsors such as Nike that had loyally stood by him even as doping allegations grew.
Since the International Cycling Union effectively erased him from the record books, Britain's The Sunday Times has sued Armstrong for more than £1 million over a libel payment made to him in 2006.
It had paid Armstrong £300,000 to settle a libel case after publishing a story suggesting he may have cheated, and now wants that money plus interest and legal costs repaid.
On Sunday, the Sunday Times took out an ad in the Chicago Tribune newspaper setting out 10 questions that Winfrey, whose OWN media network is based in the Midwestern metropolis, should ask Armstrong.
"Is it your intention to return the prize money you earned from Sept. 1998 to July 2010?" read one question. "Did you sue the Sunday Times to shut us up?" went another.
A Texas insurance company has also threatened legal action to recoup millions of dollars in bonuses it paid him for multiple Tour victories.
Armstrong's years of dominance in the sport's greatest race raised cycling's profile in the United States to new heights.
It also gave the Texan -- diagnosed in 1996 with late-stage testicular cancer that had spread to his brain and lungs -- a unique platform to promote cancer awareness and research.
The Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised almost US$500 million since its creation in 1997.
In the wake of the allegations, several top sponsors dumped Armstrong and on November 14 the Livestrong Foundation dropped his name from the non-profit organisation he founded.
NEW: Armstrong didn't address steroids during tearful apology, spokeswoman says
NEW: Disgraced cyclist is sorry work is stressful for those at Livestrong, she says
Armstrong has agreed to 90-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey
Armstrong is expected to talk about doping allegations, her network says
(CNN) -- Just hours before he was to tape an interview expected to address allegations of performance-enhancing drug use, disgraced cycling legend Lance Armstrong apologized to the staff of the cancer charity he started, a publicist for the charity -- Livestrong -- said.
Armstrong was tearful during the 15-minute meeting and didn't address the issue of steroid use in cycling, Rae Bazzarre, director of communications for the Livestrong Foundation, said.
Bazzarre added that Armstrong offered a "sincere and heartfelt apology for the stress they've endured because of him."
He urged them to keep work hard to help cancer survivors and their families.
Armstrong is scheduled to sit down in his hometown of Austin, Texas, with talk show queen Oprah Winfrey on Monday for his first interview since he was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles in a blood-doping scandal.
For decades Armstrong has denied he used performance-enhancing drugs or doped, but he was linked to a doping scandal by nearly a dozen other former cyclists who have admitted to doping.
What Armstrong says or does not say to Winfrey can have ramifications.
Some media outlets have reported that Armstrong has been strongly considering the possibility of a confession, possibly as a way to stem the tide of fleeing sponsors and as part of a long-term redemptive comeback plan.
But such a confession might lend weight to the lawsuits that could await him.
The interview will not air until 9 p.m. ET Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network. But the speculations swirled Monday.
"I don't think we're going to get an out-and-out confession," says CNN sports anchor Patrick Snell. "I think we're going to get something like, 'This is what went on during this era of trying to compete at the highest level.'"
Snell cautions, though, that a confession may not come at all.
Armstrong, 41, has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs as well as illegal blood transfusions during his cycling career.
Winfrey will ask Armstrong to address the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's October report, which said there was overwhelming evidence he was directly involved in a sophisticated doping program, a statement from her network said last week.
The International Cycling Union, which chose not to appeal the USADA's lifetime ban, stripped Armstrong of his record seven Tour victories.
The World Anti-Doping Agency also agreed with the sanctions, which means Armstrong may not compete in sports governed by that agency's code.
Before the ban, he was competing in Ironman triathlons and had won two of the five events he had entered.
Since the ban he has entered two non-sanctioned events.
Report: Armstrong offered to donate $250,000 to anti-doping agency
Why now?
So, why might Armstrong choose to make a confession now?
"I would suspect that he sees this as certainly his best way forward," Snell says. "He would have taken strong legal advice, of course. When you look at the kind of stuff that Oprah's done over the years, it's a chance to get ... heartfelt emotions across."
The New York Times has reported that Armstrong was contemplating publicly admitting he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Such an admission might lead toward Armstrong regaining his eligibility.
One of his attorneys denied Armstrong was in discussion with the two anti-doping agencies.
Attorney Tim Herman, in a recent e-mail to CNN Sports, did not address whether Armstrong told associates -- as reported by the newspaper -- that he was considering an admission.
But such an admission could open him up to lawsuits, something Armstrong is likely well aware of.
"He is surrounded by the best legal advice, the best legal team," Snell says. "It's very hard for anyone to imagine him going into this without having been fully briefed, made aware of absolutely every scenario."
Winfrey has promised a "no-holds-barred" interview, with no conditions and no payment made to Armstrong.
Drug tests
In the past, Armstrong has argued that he took more than 500 drug tests and never failed.
In its 202-page report that detailed Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions, the USADA said it had tested Armstrong less than 60 times and the International Cycling Union conducted about 215 tests.
The agency did not say that Armstrong ever failed a test, but his former teammates testified as to how they beat tests or avoided the tests altogether.
The New York Times, citing unnamed associates and anti-doping officials, said Armstrong has been in discussions with USADA officials and hopes to meet with David Howman, chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency. The newspaper said none of the people with knowledge of Armstrong's situation wanted to be identified because it would jeopardize their access to information on the matter.
Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, an athlete who confesses to using performance-enhancing drugs may be eligible for a reinstatement.
Awaiting Armstrong's 'last word'
Armstrong: The legend and the fall
Armstrong has been an icon for his cycling feats and celebrity, bringing more status to a sport wildly popular in some nations but lacking big-name recognition, big money and mass appeal in the United States.
He fought back from testicular cancer to win the Tour from 1999 to 2005. He raised millions via his Lance Armstrong Foundation to help cancer victims and survivors, an effort illustrated by trendy yellow "LiveSTRONG" wristbands that helped bring in the money.
But Armstrong has long been dogged by doping allegations, with compatriot Floyd Landis -- who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after failing a drug test -- making a series of claims in 2011.
Armstrong sued the USADA last year to stop its investigation of him, arguing it did not have the right to prosecute him. But after a federal judge dismissed the case, Armstrong said he would no longer participate in the investigation.
In October 2012, Armstrong was stripped of his titles and banned from cycling. Weeks later, he stepped down from the board of his foundation, Livestrong.
It is unclear whether Armstrong would face criminal prosecution for perjury should he confess. Armstrong was involved in several cases where he gave sworn testimony that he never used banned drugs.
CNN's Steve Almasy Jillian Martin and Chelsea J. Carter contributed to this report.
AUSTIN, Texas Lance Armstrong apologized to the staff at his Livestrong cancer foundation before heading to an interview with Oprah Winfrey, a person with direct knowledge of the meeting told The Associated Press.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was private.
Play Video
Lance Armstrong to "speak candidly" to Oprah Winfrey
38 Photos
Lance Armstrong
Stripped last year of his seven Tour de France titles because of doping charges, Armstrong addressed the staff Monday and said, "I'm sorry." The person said the disgraced cyclist choked up and several employees cried during the session.
The person also said Armstrong apologized for letting the staff down and putting Livestrong at risk but he did not make a direct confession to the group about using banned drugs. He said he would try to restore the foundation's reputation, and urged the group to continue fighting for the charity's mission of helping cancer patients and their families.
After the meeting, Armstrong, his legal team and close advisers gathered at a downtown Austin hotel for the interview.
The cyclist will make a limited confession to Winfrey about his role as the head of a long-running scheme to dominate the Tour with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs, a person with knowledge of the situation has told the AP.
Winfrey and her crew had earlier said they would film the interview, to be broadcast Thursday, at his home but the location apparently changed to a hotel. Local and international news crews staked out positions in front of the cyclist's Spanish-style villa before dawn, hoping to catch a glimpse of Winfrey or Armstrong.
Armstrong still managed to slip away for a run Monday morning despite the crowds gathering outside his house. He returned home by cutting through a neighbor's yard and hopping a fence.
During a jog on Sunday, Armstrong talked to the AP for a few minutes saying, "I'm calm, I'm at ease and ready to speak candidly." He declined to go into specifics.
Armstrong lost all seven Tour titles following a voluminous U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report that portrayed him as a ruthless competitor, willing to go to any lengths to win the prestigious race. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart labeled the doping regimen allegedly carried out by the U.S. Postal Service team that Armstrong once led, "The most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."
Play Video
Anti-doping chief: Armstrong bullied witnesses
In a recent "60 Minutes Sports" interview, Tygart described Armstrong and his team of doctors, coaches and riders as similar to a "Mafia" that kept their secret for years and intimidated riders into silently following their illegal methods.
Yet Armstrong looked like just another runner getting in his roadwork when he talked to the AP, wearing a red jersey and black shorts, sunglasses and a white baseball cap pulled down to his eyes. Leaning into a reporter's car on the shoulder of a busy Austin road, he seemed unfazed by the attention and the news crews that made stops at his home. He cracked a few jokes about all the reporters vying for his attention, then added, "but now I want to finish my run," and took off down the road.
The interview with Winfrey will be Armstrong's first public response to the USADA report. Armstrong is not expected to provide a detailed account about his involvement, nor address in depth many of the specific allegations in the more than 1,000-page USADA report.
In a text to the AP on Saturday, Armstrong said: "I told her (Winfrey) to go wherever she wants and I'll answer the questions directly, honestly and candidly. That's all I can say."
After a federal investigation of the cyclist was dropped without charges being brought last year, USADA stepped in with an investigation of its own. The agency deposed 11 former teammates and accused Armstrong of masterminding a complex and brazen drug program that included steroids, blood boosters and a range of other performance-enhancers.
Play Video
Lance Armstrong offered donation to USADA during investigation
Once all the information was out and his reputation shattered, Armstrong defiantly tweeted a picture of himself on a couch at home with all seven of the yellow leader's jerseys on display in frames behind him. But the preponderance of evidence in the USADA report and pending legal challenges on several fronts apparently forced him to change tactics after more a decade of denials.
He still faces legal problems.
Former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping, has filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit that accused Armstrong of defrauding the U.S. Postal Service. The Justice Department has yet to decide whether it will join the suit as a plaintiff.
The London-based Sunday Times also is suing Armstrong to recover about $500,000 it paid him to settle a libel lawsuit. On Sunday, the newspaper took out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune, offering Winfrey suggestions for what questions to ask Armstrong. Dallas-based SCA Promotions, which tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win, has threatened to bring yet another lawsuit seeking to recover more than $7.5 million an arbitration panel awarded the cyclist in that dispute.
The lawsuit most likely to be influenced by a confession might be the Sunday Times case. Potential perjury charges stemming from Armstrong's sworn testimony in the 2005 arbitration fight would not apply because of the statute of limitations. Armstrong was not deposed during the federal investigation that was closed last year.
Many of his sponsors dropped Armstrong after the damning USADA report — at the cost of tens of millions of dollars — and soon after, he left the board of Livestrong, which he founded in 1997. Armstrong is still said to be worth about $100 million.
Livestrong might be one reason Armstrong has decided to come forward with an apology and limited confession. The charity supports cancer patients and still faces an image problem because of its association with Armstrong. He also may be hoping a confession would allow him to return to competition in the elite triathlon or running events he participated in after his cycling career.
World Anti-Doping Code rules state his lifetime ban cannot be reduced to less than eight years. WADA and U.S. Anti-Doping officials could agree to reduce the ban further depending on what information Armstrong provides and his level of cooperation.
