I don't know if it's true that there's a link between gun-owning and poverty, but I can easily believe it. As for the link between killing and religious fervour, you only have to look at Palestine, Bagdad or Northern Ireland to see that's true. Basically, guns are needed to force your views on others ... or else!

It is suggested that this debate has not been reignited by the latest killings, but by people with an agenda [to impose stricter gun laws]. Nonsense! Of course the killings started it all over again. But it probably was the anti-gun lobby that started it. Why would people who support the right to have guns want to? The time for the gun lobby to start trumpeting about the right to bear arms isn't after a mass killing, it's when a little old lady chases away unarmed burglars with a shotgun. That, they would say, proves the right to have a gun is necessary. (Over here, little old ladies have chased intruders away with broomsticks. Isn't that much better?)

It is said that any new controls laws are doomed to failure because the existing laws don't work. Does that apply to all legislation: if a law doesn't work, then it's too bad, you can't try to improve it? That sounds like BS to me!

It has also been asserted that the problem is neither the guns nor poverty, but the fact that people as a whole lack compassion for their fellow man and have ceased to be part of society. What a searing indictment of society - American society, that is. And it's probably why Americans display so much paranoia; why shopkeepers keep guns under the counter; why people are scared to walk along the streets; why they carry concealed weapons, so that if someone does pull a gun on them, they have a 50:50 chance or less of surviving. They would rather someone die than lose $10 or a credit card. It's probably why they think it's so important to be able to defend their property against intruders, even by taking life without bothering to find out if the intruder is armed. That way, every situation is turned into a kill-or-be-killed incident and the intruder has little choice but to arm himself beforehand.

(Here's a tip for those of you who care whether you kill an unarmed man or not: if he has a gun in his hand, he's armed; if his hands are empty, or just full of swag, then he isn't.)

I admit that I'm never going to understand why it's important to have the right to carry guns. I'm perfectly happy to be prevented from owning one, and I feel safer too. I do run the risk of being mugged still, or of being involved in an armed robbery, but I am confident that I will survive unless I do something stupid, like trying to shove the man's nasal bones back into his brain. I've never been trained to kill, with weapons or without them, so I'd get it wrong if I tried. Over here we try to defuse tense situations, not inflame them. We have fewer deaths as a result.

As Mkemse says, there is no valid reason for an ordinary citizen to own automatic or semi automatic weapons. None at all. They are not for target shooting, because you spray the weapons as you fire them (killing any unfortunate person in the way, innocent or guilty - guns do not discriminate). They are not for hunting, unless you like your meat minced "on the bone". They have no other purpose than killing people, and, normally, a citizen in a civilised society has no reason to kill another person, or to expect to have to kill one.

But there are some who think anyone should be able to have any weapon they want. Why? Who are they afraid of? Are the burglars in USA all soldiers? One wonders whether this right extends to the right to have a nuclear bomb? If not, why not? And I just do not buy the argument that, by owning a gun, the government is prevented from usurping the rights and freedoms of citizens. It's drivel!

George Washington has been mentioned as someone who would carry an automatic weapon now. Remember, at first George Washington was a traitor and a rebel. Maybe what grew out of his actions was a good thing, but he needed to be armed because of the dangerous path he chose to go down. And he caused a lot of men to die. Not for freedom: Americans are no freer than Britons. They died to take power away from the existing government and give it to him.

I didn't mention the Colorado shooting in my list above ... I wonder who this shooter was defending himself from. It was right that the shooter was killed to prevent further deaths and fortunate that someone was around who was able to do so. But a private security man? That's an armed civilian! Where were the police? If they are policing a land where every other person seems to be "packing heat" the police should be everywhere so that they don't lose control. Mind you - you'd have to pay for it in your taxes.

I don't want to go near the fact that the armed security man was employed by a religious group. I'm horrified!

Is a car a weapon? No more than a pencil is. Both can kill, but neither is designed for killing. They have useful functions that are peaceful. A driver who is drunk may be dangerous, but he won't want to kill everyone in a shopping mall or a school; in fact he won't want to kill anyone. So the comparison is fatuous.

A gun is designed for killing. That's it's real function and purpose, although I suppose you could use it as a paperweight too. But if you allow it into the hands of a lunatic, you are asking for trouble. And you're likely to get it sooner or later. Maybe five or six time a year. Dozens of innocent lives lost - but - hey - it's OK for anyone to own guns, just in case George Bush goes off his head.

Talk about burying your head in the sand ...

TYWD