Las Vegas
Following the shooting in Las Vegas, in which at least 58 have died and over 500 injured, the debate on gun control is back on the agenda.
Following the shooting in Las Vegas, in which at least 58 have died and over 500 injured, the debate on gun control is back on the agenda.
I have always taken the view that there will always be those who want to do harm to others; murder and random killing is sadly a part of the human condition, and there is little than can be done to stop it. What Government can control however, is the consequences. A man with a knife can kill a few people. A man with a military grade rifle can kill hundreds. Surely it is not that difficult to see that if access to guns is prevented, killings on the scale seen in Las Vegas could simply not happen?
Some are suggesting that gun control is pointless. After all drug control's have not worked. Despite the laws that exist drug addiction remains a problem and thousands die as a consequence. This is a ridiculous comparison. Unlike the man with the rifle, the man with a syringe will kill just one person, himself.
I write this as an Englishman looking in from the outside, wondering why after so many mass killings in the last few decades America does nothing to control the possession of guns. The Second Amendment was included in the American Constitution at a time when soldiers used muskets, when even the best trained might be able to fire 3 or 4 shots a minute. Now a citizen can easily get his hands on a rifle that can fire hundreds of rounds in seconds, and create complete carnage in the process.
Surely it is time for the laws on gun ownership to change to reflect the realities of the modern world?
4th October 2017