The right to bear arms....

Hi,

I hope they change the law and hopefully these types of incidents will become a thing of the past.

There is no right to bear arms in the UK but a very similar event happened here. 

The Connecticut incident is a terrible tragedy which brings back sad memories - so many things are reported as being similar to the Dunblane massacre that it's like living through that day all over again.

So many young lives lost - the reason behind it, we may never know. 

Condolences to all involved. 

Cofnchtr.

There are certainly no guarantees, but I can't help feeling that a gun culture makes it more likely. No doubt it will (rightly) spark more debate.

Cno

My god. In 2009 (the latest year with figures) 31,347 people were killed by firearms in the US. 

It'll never change. The gun lobby in the US is too strong. There'd be a backlash if ever guns were outlawed over there. But if Obama can pull it off, great. I can't see any political figures tackling the issue though.

There will always be the odd nutter, but how many massacres have we had in 5 years? Less than the US have had this year!

It just EDITED me off that it is the innocents and their families that have to suffer - the killers take their own lives, removing any sort of justice or closure that the victims families should have the right to.

More than half of those are suicides but even so. The statistic that I can't believe is the one I heard in a song some years back, every two years American guns take more American lives than the whole Vietnam war and that appears to be true, there were around 54,200 Americans killed during the Vietnam war.

A Rage Against The Machine track by any chance?

I agree. It's so imbedded in their Constitution, that it can amount to political suicide to try and change it.

Another "Poisened Chalice" is a National Health service, which was originally sold as "Socialized Medicine" and the first step towards communism; when in fact, I believe it was a cynical step to avoid paying for a NHS at the time. I believe this message may still be holding strong.

No, no, no, it is not! Everybody always quotes or implies only the second part of the Second Amendment to the Constutution of the United States!! What the Second Amendment to the American Constitution DOES say is something like "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The second Amendment was proposed on 25th September 1789 and ratified on 15th December 1791, see this link http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html I take that to mean that because the security of the free State depends on a well regulated (people's) militian, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. BUT, that was over two centuries ago. America no longer depends on a (people's) militia, America now has proper professional Armed services, with General and Air Marshals and Admirals and lots of ordinary servicemen and women. Therefore, the security of the state does NOT now depend on a well-regulated peoples' militia, and so, the American people have no right to keep and bear arms!

Nobody seems ever to remember the first phrase in the Second Amendment! The American people have no more right to keep and bear arms than do the people of Scotland.

You seem well versed in this, but this ruling appears to say different: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR201006...

In fact, this "Right to bear arms" was strong enough to get the 28 year old  ban on firearms in Chicago overturned, in the light of it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/07/07/ST20100707....

Thanks for those links, CnoEvil! One can only hope that perhaps a different collection of Supreme Court judges may come to a different interpretation of the 1791 amendment than the conclusions reached in the very recent links that you give. As everyone is saying, there have been many of these mass shootings before, and every time people say that "Something must be done, we must change". But nothing ever does. Remember the late actor Charlton Heston saying at a meeting of the National Rifle Association (I think it was) that the gun would have to be taken "from my cold dead hand", to great applause. Frankly, I'm very gloomy.

This was the sentiment behind my thread!

Sadly, I don't think they have the political will to change things.

All laws can be changed if the political will is there.

No, Consolidated, Tool and Die.

Irrespective of the Constitution, the right to bear arms is so entrenched an aspect US culture that it'll take far more than the latest school massacre to force a change in mindset.

Certainly there are sections of US society that would welcome strict prohibition on fire arms, but even if there was a political will to change, opposition from the right would be likely be sufficient to veto any move. Give it a month and the debate will dampen down, until the next mass shooting. It's tragic, but that's how it is. 

Correct.