<% ballot="" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %>Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
�			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%	�	No: <% =percentno %>%

The madness of American gun culture is thrown into relief by the actions of our children. It is damning to think that both the idea of blowing away one's schoolmates, and the weaponry needed to carry this out, are so readily accessible to teens. Reform is clearly needed, but the gun lobby becomes ever more defensive and uncompromising with every new massacre.
Don Gorton, USA

It's too late. Due to Americans' gun culture there are far too many guns in that country. But quite apart from that, many Americans will blithely talk about their bill of rights - which is 200 years out of date - conveniently forgetting the "...well regulated militia..." bit. I think they're mad, quite frankly.
Ray Marsh, Australia

American society has become a sick society, where people are obsessed with guns, money, scandals and the like. Right to bear arms never implied that individuals could have a cahet of guns at home and children could carry guns to school. Americans should be more obsessed with the "Right to bear and raise decent, educated children". than the "Right to bear arms".
John Vandam, USA

I think without the law to control the guns, people will feel unprotected.
Wang Jihong, Singapore

To believe that we live in a country based on freedom and not be allowed to own a gun is absurd. Automobiles claim more lives than guns, however, no efforts are made to ban vehicles. The reason is because their too convenent and it would be political suicide. The gun ban issue is an attempt of politicians to prey on the fears of people uneducated, as far as weapons are concerned, and further their careers. Maybe the politicians should be more concerned with the wellbeing of the country and not their individual careers.
Michael A. Cianciotta, USA

Free ownership of guns simply makes the problem worse. It is guaranteeing that any criminal will be carrying a gun. Also, the idea that ordinary members of the public are supposed to be able to successfully and safely protect themselves with guns is extremely hard to believe. I would like to visit the USA, but I really would not feel at ease walking down the street knowing most people I pass could easily be carrying a loaded gun.
Matthew Bennett, England

Guns are particularly dangerous in that their use can be so unpremeditated and lend temptation to their use. If you lose your temper and have no gun then nothing more than a few bad words...but if you have a gun - then BANG ! So every sort of gun (not just handguns) should be banned for civilian use.
Graham Russell, England

While the deaths of these children in the past year are tragic, should we hold all law abiding gun owners responsible for the actions of a few?I am a handgun owner and also a parent . If you want to keep your child from killing somebody with your responsibility keep them locked up in the correct manner. It is a simple problem to solve. I lock my weapons in a safe that is in another safe that has trigger-locks on every gun. The problem with the USA is that we never want to take the responsibility for any of our actions. If this school boy was brought up correctly maybe he wouldnt have such a fascination with guns. One more question I have is this, what if this child stole his parents automobile and drove it into his classmates? Would we be banning the importation of Jaguar XKE's into the country? I dont think so.
Chuck D, USA

The problem is not now, and never has been, a "madman with a gun". The problem is that invariably, inevitably, whenever such a massacre occurs, the madman had THE ONLY gun. While it might be nice to wave our magic wands and make all guns disappear, it isn't going to happen. And to ban guns to law-abiding citizens without taking guns away from violent criminals is to sentence us law-abiding folk to death or, at the very least, imprisonment within or own homes.
Ken Mitchell, USA

I will grant that there might be some major cultural problems with the US-that violence is ubiquitous in entertainment, that some of today's parents might not be doing the greatest job (or, are unable to), and so on. But Americans-especially those in the US gun lobby-have to realize one thing...and I hope they take this to heart. A hunter does not need an assault rifle to shoot ducks, and a person who feels the need to carry a gun does not need a automatic pistol. These were the weapons involved here, and they were designed for one purpose-to kill people. They ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. I would favor a total ban on weapons, but since this is a minority view in the US, I'd settle for a reasonable alternative: the automatic and semi-automatic arms have to go. Any sensible (yes, sensible) person does not need to fire off multiple rounds in rapid succession for any purpose. To think that a person would ever have a need (under the rules of the Second Amendment and of common sense) to have a weapon designed for battlefields to defend himself or to shoot game is absolutely untenable and foolish.
Tom Soule, USA

While an immediate review of small arms licensing is in order, the more permenant solution may be to attempt to establish new social and cultural trends among the American population that oppose the violent use and - preferably - proliferation of personal arms. This solution, however, will probably take a few decades to show satisfactory results. Meanwhile, the sad truth is that innocent people are still going to die and the legislative and security bodies will have no choice but to deal with the consequences of the current "Pulp Fiction" culture, while a new, and less violent culture is being evolved - if ever.
Sherif Kholeif, Egypt

It seems to me that the US constitution was written during the Colonial times. Hence, owning a gun was necessary for obtaining food. Today, there is no reason to have guns for obtaining food, supermarkets do the job quite well. Finally, if guns make one safe, the United States should be the safest country in the world! It is time for them to realize that gun control is necessary; children should not be obtaining guns at any time.
Bob, Canada

Of course - all guns should be banned in this violence-worshipping country. That was obvious even before the Jonesboro tragedy. That this is a violent land should be no news to anyone. I hear over and over after these horrendous events that they happen in places where "these kind of things just don't happen." Well, they can and do happen everywhere here - if it weren't obvious before Oklahoma City, then it certainly became so in its aftermath. The illusion of the immunity of small-town America from this sort of thing is a dangerous one. That America is long gone, if indeed it ever existed. There can no longer be oases of isolation where individual liberties take precedence over a responsibility to the common welfare.
R. McNaughton Phillips, USA

What America needs is a better social service system, community policing, more involvement on a community level and more emotional support for children. This debate deflects time and effort from things that would really help.
Jeffrey L. Jennings MD., USA

Here in the UK we have banned guns and yet we still get people shot almost every day. We still have armed police response units running around pointing their machine guns at people. Banning lawfully held guns hasn't worked here and we had hardly any guns to start with. With all the guns in America, banning guns will leave the criminals, all of whom are armed, free to terrorise a nation. Your law abiding US citizen doesn't kill people, it's the criminals and the insane ones that do. They are the ones that should be banned.
Ian Taylor, England

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up their freedoms for the sake of security deserve neither." The founding fathers of the United States had enough wisdom to include the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. If you read this document carefully, you will notice that this document was written to protect citizens from government tyranny. But what guarantee do we have if the government simply refuses to adhere to this document? After all, it may just be a piece of paper to some people. The answer is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment is clearly not about hunting or collecting antique firearms. This is quite obvious when you read the commentaries of the authors of the Bill of Rights.
Many of us here in America take these rights very seriously, and will not accept gun control as a solution.
Steve Lemelin, USA

The influence of monied lobby groups such as the N.R.A. appear to be in evidence in the astonishing avoidance on Clinton's part of the issue of gun control. The raft of attacks on children with other children carrying guns would seem to provide the best motivation for gun control. The absence of such laws is an embarresment. We need both campaign finance reform and gun control. But one may not follow without the other; the saddest news.
Willard Brooks, U.S.A.

The US ALREADY has laws against doing these things. They do not seem to be working. What logic concludes that MORE laws would be different? The solution is in strong enforcment of reasonable laws (targeting lawbreakers) rather than restricting the rights of all citizens.
Bob Parker, USA

Self defense is a natural right, and a handgun is the most effective means of self defense that an ordinary person can deploy. I have used one three times in my lifetime to do so. No one was ever killed, and the evil doers were thwarted. What could be better than that?
Doug Smith, USA

Guns should go. Anyone who wants one should get a licence, prove that they are responsible, and have a clean criminal record. Ownership should be tigtend up, people should have to demonstrate they know how to use them, and how to store them - ie locked up and apart from any ammunition. Banning them outright, while an excellent idea, isn't going to happen.
Adam, US

The AP story about the 15 year old girl who was hung and beaten to death with a rock doesn't seem to have made most of the news sevices. This isn't a gun problem. This is a societal problem. But everybody wants to blame something else because to admit it's a societal problem is an admission that we failed as parents, and teachers. We can ban guns, but that won't stop this trend. We must reassess our value structure and get back to the basics before they are lost.
Michael Keck, USA

Of course it's time for reform. Only a morally bankrupt person could claim that the cost of gun ownership is an acceptable price to pay for their freedom to own guns. The trouble is that most Americans have never known what a sane, violence averse culture is like. This is all they know, and they assume it's the only way things could be. I suggest that all American TV networks should declare one month as "gun-free TV month". It would be a great way to experience the alternative, and also to remember the victims of this senseless obsession with guns.
Geoff Arnold, USA

We have a social stigma and banning handguns will not solve the problem. Like an ulcer, handguns appear to be the problem.Treat the ulcer and the problem appears to be solved, but if you don't treat the cause of the ulcer the ulcer will return.Handguns are the same.Taking the handgun away does not solve the problem, it only treats the symptom.
Ken Curtis, Canada

It is wrong to believe that the responsibility relies purely on the individual and not the weapon. We all have to admit that it is human nature to, at times, feel extreme anger and frustration at someone, possibly irrationally. This is especially true for children who perhaps can't express themselves as clearly as adults, feel misunderstood or simply haven't formed a true picture of justice. If a gun is at hand then it is instinct in such occassions to grab it, whether with intent to use it or not. Without the gun there, the option is removed. It is as simple as that. Of course other weapons can be used instead, but in the UK generally knifes, clubs, chains, fertilizer bombs etc aren't used in the gun's place. Banning handguns will save lives, because it is a sad fact that people are generally more impulsive and less civilised than we would like to believe.
Chris Allen, UK

Which Right is next-speech? religion? well? The second ammendment is the one that protects the rest.You cannot even modify it. Some people will never learn their history .We need a President who will enforce laws already on the books instead of trying to pass more politically correct laws. I am an American citizen not a subject, I will give up my gun when they pry my dead hands from it. I am not a lawbreaker, I am not a radical, I am a health care worker who works with the handicapped, but I will stand by the Constitution of the United States - not the politically correct crowd.
Clarence Nadeau, USA

"Guns dont kill, people do", a poor reason to avoid solving a real problem. Because of our outdated gun laws (or at least their interpretation), we have managed to destroy the 'security' of ourselves. Our country has earned a bad name in the international arena due to our gun culture. Removing guns will not solve the problem, but it will be a major step towards avoiding the kind of violence, we are witnessing. If someone 'snaps', lets see to it that it becomes physically difficult for him to express his anger over someone innocent. If we can't prevent the violence, atleast we can make it difficult. Come on guys, lets shed away that 18th century mentality of possessing guns. Guns just kill. We are about to enter the 21st century and I want my kids to play with toys and not guns.
Subod, USA

The proposition that the tool used is responsible for the occaision of the murder is ridiculous!
John Galt, USA

Strict gun control laws have done little to prevent gun violence in those states and localities that have implemented them in this country. Washington DC has a complete ban on guns, yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the country. The FACT is that criminals that want guns can get guns. Even teenaged criminals such as the one who shot his classmates in Oregon can find some hood to sell him stolen guns illegally. If guns are banned, the only result in this country would be the creation of a profitable black market, which would create yet more violence, not less. Law abiding citizens, by definition, are the only ones who obey gun control laws...and they are not the problem.
Rick Partlow, USA

It is not the fault of guns. The teenager violated numerous laws in obtaining, possessing, and using firearms. None of which stopped him. Another law banning firearms would have not made a difference. He would still have obtained one. Now if the teachers had been armed, what differnce that might have made ? Blaming the object, rather than the person is the mentality that has gotten us into this position in the first place. Individual responsibility and accountability must be restored.
John Rickards, USA

It's hard enough to get certain kinds of machine guns banned. In all likelihood a handgun ban will never happen.
Ted Chodock, USA

I feel that there is no need for handguns, and that the only reason for them is that they may be concealed. I think they should be available only to law enforcement or people who can show a very good reason for having one.
Danny McAllaster, USA

Because we live in a different culture, we British are mystified that likeable, intelligent, civilised Americans won't ban handguns. And you won't. But banning guns is not the only way to reduce gun misuse. We insure against our car injuring someone, why not our gun? Compulsory gun-insurance would have many benefits without breaking the principle of the right to bear arms. The role of insurance companies would not be to pay compensation, that would be the price of failure, but to screen out dangerous people, and insist on guns being responsibly secured, so they could not be misused by children, as happened in this case. This wouldn't do anything about illegally held guns, and it wouldn't bring past victims back to life, but it should reduce gun misuse and the number of victims. I am sure responsible gun-owners, who are genuinely horrified at the these massacres, wouldn't mind paying insurance, in order to keep guns out of the wrong hands. After all, we do it with the car.
George Kendall, UK

The notion of being allowed to own a gun to protect yourself is absurd. Homes that have guns are three times more likely to have an accident or incident involving a firearm than those that don't. That is not the kind of protection I choose for myself. Guns were invented for war and killing people, they have practicaly no other reasonable use. Hunting might be considered a sport and fun by some people, but I question if it is worth the cost in human tradegy, let alone any moral arguments against killing defenseless animals. It would be an almost impossible task to disarm America, but that does not excuse us from trying.
Daniel Lucas, USA (UK, Citizen)

The constitution of the United States is cited by gun supporters as saying that citizens "have the right to bear arms...". The full text actually continues to say"...in order to arm a militia." It must be taken into account that this was written over 200 years ago in a group of colonies without an organised military unit. It is stupid to assume a law that applied 200 years ago is relevant today. The current arguement is that guns are needed to protect against guns. Statistics show that more injuries are caused on accident than in self-defence. Quite simply, the use of guns is propagating itself. People need to say enough is enough. Yet most Americans are either looking for the easiest "solution" or put less value on life than other countries (the death penalty is an example). Hand guns only purpose is to injure or kill, there is no other use for them. If Americans wanted to reform their society, they are going to have to ban hand guns and be "outnumbered" on the streets for a time until guns are intercepted and numbers diminish. It is the only way to bring peace back to the schools and the country.
Philip Moss, Austria

As you stated in your article very accurately, citizens of the United States enjoy a written, constitutionally protected right to possess arms. This includes handguns. It is not only defended by the "pro-gun" lobby, as you called it, but also those who simply believe in freedom and the rights given to us by the framers of the Constitution. Some of those people may hate guns, not own them, and don't want to own them. However, in a land of rigorous freedom of speech and ideas, sometimes you have to accept things with which you do not agree. Surely it is not an absolute right, and we do have have restrictions on who may purchase and legally possess a gun. Sometimes they get into the wrong hands. But you have to face a choice: restrict the freedom of every law abiding citizen who wishes, for whatever reason, to exercise their right to possess a gun, or violate our own Constitution just for the sake of a few criminals and isolated incidents. In writing our Constitution and drafting the second amendment to the Constitution (the amendment that protects our right to bear arms), the authors looked to British common law and other British traditions regarding the right to bear arms. Your country enjoys a long history of protecting the right to bear arms, and that is what we based it on. In banning the handgun in Britain, I and many others here thought it a gross overreaction to one single act of an obviously disturbed person. An act that could still occur anywhere and anytime. I object to your characterization of America having a "gun culture," whatever that means. You must still think of us as the land of the wild west and gun toting cowboys ready to draw a pistol at the first sight of trouble. I hate to disappoint, but that image is entirely incorrect these days. The UK has a population of roughly 58 million. The US, 258 million, more than 4 times as large. It is only logical that such incidents will occur more frequently. There are other societal reasons, I do admit. Our television is too violent, parents are absent from their children's lives too frequently, and clearly we are missing signals from these children that their behavior is about to become violent. However, applying a solution that may or may not work in your nation is not the appropriation route to take here. We must deal with issues that CAUSE these acts to occur, not the method used in the act. Banning handguns would be analogous to placing a band-aid on a gaping, bleeding wound to your body. You would be dealing with the symptoms not the disease itself.
Graham Barron, USA

Last year the people of Washington state voted to reject a new state law that would require handguns to be fitted with a trigger locking mechanism. At the time, even the police backed the 'NO' vote because they said it would be a law that would be difficult to inforce. Attitudes must change.
Luke Hankin Washington State, USA (British citizen)

Although a firearm is an effective way to kill many, let's not confuse form with the underlying reasons for violence in America - corruption of social and personal values, the banalization and glorification of agressive behaviour, mental sanity, and the "victimization" of every conflict. No guns? There are still knifes, clubs, chains, fertilizer bombs, arson...and bare fists.
Roberto Rodrigues, Brazil

A ban on handguns in the US would be a foolish attempt at reform. The US is not the UK. A ban would be as effective as prohibition. A large black market would form, and with the amount of weapons the US produces, it would be easy to obtain them. This would leave the average lawful citizen at the mercy of criminals. This is not acceptable. If we are to change the US weapons laws, we must move to the heart of the matter and address the violent and aggressive behaviour in our society. The normal social restraints are being lifited as we move into the next millenium, and as a result increasingly obsene acts such as the Oregon and Arkansas shootings, occur. Social change is slow and progress is often immeasureable leaving short term politicians no bounty to claim. This obviously presents a problem for the US, but if we are to really affect change in the US, a ban on handguns is not the best first step.
Eli Williams, USA

The right to bear arms, as is often quoted should mean "the right to bear arms to defend oneself and one's family and friends in times of danger", not to embark on mindless killing sprees and definitely should not mean the sale of arms to juveniles and ex-criminals or anyone without proper background checks. The constitution CAN and SHOULD be amended in this respect. That is what constitutional amendments are for - to be able to adapt to the current time and NOT to reflect the period of time in history when the constitution was actually written (when crime and criminals were much rarer and handguns were not sold on every street corner!)
S. Lahiri, USA

They should ban handguns, but they won't. I have lived in the USA for almost six years now and the American attitude towards gun ownership continues to amaze and appall me. The NRA, which has considerable political clout, is more interested in protecting its members' "right to bear arms" than they are in protecting the country's school children. I have noticed that much of the American media coverage is focusing on the sociological factors that prompted the boys to commit these murders rather than calling for gun control. Unfortunately, I think that reflects a tacit resignation by the American public that no effective action can, or will, be taken to restrict the possession of handguns.
R A Chadwick, USA

After the most recent killings in another school in the US, enough is enough. America must put its macho ideals behind itself. The great American ideal of protecting and honouring the flag and homeland, seem somewhat irrelevant to the danger within.
Shane O'Neill, Ireland

How anyone can teach a child to use a gun of ANYKIND, is beyond sanity. A child has little to no understanding of the concepts of life and death, without such awareness how can ANYONE handle a gun with respect and caution. America's insistance that it does not want guns to be banned suggests whole heartedly how much it values the lives of its population and most of all its children.
Michael Carr, England

The issue is less handguns, but more to the point, easy handgun accessibility. Confiscation and/or registration would create a political fire storm that no politician could survive, but greater restriction on importation and sales could have a significant impact. Gun Shows, the public trading fairs that are usually held at public buildings, must be curtailed. Finally, however, the public's appetite for violence in films and on television must not be pandered to. "Shoot-em-up" violence is to civil liberty as pornography is to love.
P.M. Summer, USA (Texas)

I wish they would ban handguns, but I won't be holding my breath for a decision.
Bob Tubbs, United Kingdom

How can Americans deny that the uncontrolled prevalence of firearms in their country is THE major factor in these tragedies? The tragedies in Scotland, England, and Tasmania were news because they are unusual events. The tragedies in America are news because they show how crazy the American gun laws are. Why is the right to life less important than the right to bear arms? Get real America. Control firearms. Protect your children by taking away the tools of death.
Mike Ellison, Canada

The proliferation of handguns in America is no longer an inner city and race related problem.It has now moved to surburbia. Americans will now have to take action as it a problem that effects them directly.
Fintan Whitty, USA

Having lived in a society where one didn't have to wonder whether the fellow next to you was "packing" (England) I certainly have had the luxury of living in both worlds. I am firmly against guns, and if a toy had killed this many people it would surely have been banned years ago. As for the second ammendment, it is definately up to interpretation. I choose to interpret that it allows state sponsored government to bear arms, in times of insurection.
Carole O'Brien, US

Your goal of banning handguns in the US is very idealistic. It is also about as realistic as Mid East peace. Changing the US constitution on this issue would be all but impossible and it would take years. Collecting a quarter of a billion guns from the public could never happen without household searches. Stricter enforcement of existing laws is a much more pragmatic approach. If the magistrate presiding over the initial gun possesion charge had taken this case as seriously as it should have been and denied bail on Wednesday, Thursday's events would have never unfolded.
J Jones, Atlanta, USA

Murder comes freely to any willing hand, whether by gun or bomb or poison. The means for committing murder cannot be successfully restricted: psychopaths will simply substitute other, and possibly deadlier, means. On the other hand, every government that has committed mass murder against its own people did so only after disarming them. Could Hitler have succeeded in all but exterminating German Jews if he had not first disarmed them? The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto made the S.S. pay dearly when it came to exterminate them, with little more than a few dozen handguns among hundreds of desperate fighters. Finally, American citizens have a significantly better record in using deadly force to prevent crime than do American police. A government monopoly on handguns is neither wise nor safe.
Rick Bennet, USA

How many more innocent children must be killed by fire arms before Americans accepted that their gun laws must be reformed. The right to bear arms is incompatible with the right to live. Until the culture of gun ownership in the USA is changed to one of not being acceptable (like drink driving), innocent people will continue to die.
Matthew Lindley, UK

Anyone who has doubts about the nurses story should read ,should read a book called 'Behind the Vail' by Lydia Laube.She is a nursing sister who worked in Saudi Arabia for some years,and her book is full of instances of 'accidents' happining the nursing staff that upset officals and harsh sentences for the most minor offences.A couple of chapters of this book will convience anyone of these two nurses are innocent.
R and A Saunders, Western Australia

The old line is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. However, the line should be supplemented with "but guns sure help". The latest event (Oregon) demonstrates that guns are generally used on people you know. They are rarely used to stop crime. A complete gun ban would seam reasonable to me. Too bad the GOP is bought and paid for by the NRA. The US gun laws will never be reformed until the GOP are in the minority in both houses of government.
Gary Sellani, USA

Gun nuts insist that an unhinged person is just as likely to use another weapon as a gun. Nevertheless, people who experience "the urge to kill" appear to be more likely to act upon their impulses when a handgun is available. Perhaps adult "gun collectors" have the emotional wherewithall to handle their living-room arsenals. But their kids cannot. How many more bodies must pile up before the NRA acknowledges that they are as instrumental in these murders as the tobacco lobby was in generations of smoking-related cancer deaths?
Barbara Lagowski, USA

It seems that violence, under any of its forms, is an easy way out of doubt as well as confrontation with oneself or others. Anyone of us can see it at work within one's own life, even in a seemingly casual situation, be it through, harsh words or violent action. In this given context and in a country in which handguns are sold to anyone freely, the temptation is strong to think that we will witness an escalation in violence unless some limits are imposed to contain its progress.
Gesinus, Switzerland

As an American who has spent a lot of time in the UK, I must say that I admire the British policy on handguns. I truly believe that the British policy is advancing the culture in a more positive direction. Eventually there will exist in the UK a generation for whom guns are something that "used to exist". America should likewise move in this direction. What are guns accomplishing? All I see is murder and continued threats of violence from people who own guns.Gone are the days when we need to hunt to survive, and I don't believe that we are in any danger from an armed invasion by a foreign country. Isn't that why we have a miliary? Leave the guns to them if must have guns at all.
Robert D. Hickman, USA

I find it disgusting that some people would use this tragedy to further their political objectives. We will never disarm. We know that such an act is a clear signal to those who think they know what is best for us to come in and take our freedoms away. I know that the people of the UK love to belittle their American cousins for their backward ways. But to tell the truth we don't give a damn what you think.
Bill, Virginia

Keep problems in perspective: far more innocent children are killed by cars than are killed by guns. Banning guns might save a few lives, but more lives could be saved by replacing reliance on cars with use of public transit systems. Saving the environment would merely be a side benefit.
Mathew, USA

Before the National Rifle Association and the rest of the pro-gun lobby clog this site up with propaganda, let's just look at the Second Amendment IN FULL. It reads, "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." That's it. Nothing about hunting, nothing about sport shooting. And look at the words "Well regulated Militia." In the 1700s, when the founders of the USA drafted this, standing armies were thought to be destructive of republican liberty. So if the state were endangered, it would be the responsibility of the citizens, like Cincinnatus, to take up their guns and defend it. Today, things are quite different. We have a standing army defending not only our republic, but the absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia, the constitutional monarchies of the UK, Norway and Japan, and on and on. But I don't demand the repeal of the second amendment, --just implementation of its original intent. If you want a gun in the US, you should have to join the "Well-regulated militia." Guns should be in the possession of ONLY the members of the armed forces of the USA, the National reserves, and the National Guard. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Jeff Myhre, USA

I re-read many of the comments from the last time this issue was debated. I have debated this same issue in college lectures many times too. However I do not see the reason for the hostile attitudes that come across in the comments. The answer is not in banning guns. Or name calling between nations. It is not something that can be legislated at all. There are currently laws (man & God's) on the books that state taking the life of another is illegal. Yet, deaths (in school or otherwise) continue to occur due to "crimes of passion." The answer lies in holding people accountable to their actions. There is a wide spread lack of responsiblity going on in this country. Since the 1960's "anything goes", be yur own person and "it is not my fault, but society, government..." whatever the latest popular excuse is this country has been on a downward slide into a fertile ground for this type of crimes. After all what can you expect when so many children are left to raise themse! lves because of high divorce rates or an economy that demands a two income household. I love my country and do not appreciate the derrogatory lables that are often to given to it. However, I think that perhaps it is time that as a Nation it is time for us to realize we have a serious situation going on. Thank you for the oppertunity to give my 2 cents.
S.Johnson, USA

I can see how the strict gun laws here (UK) have no effect what so ever as criminals are finding it easier and easier to get guns. America should not go down the same path that we took for that and several other reasons. There are a lot of extremely violent criminals in USA and the citizens of the US should be allowed to defend themselves and their family. I think that there should be liberal gun laws in the US in respect to what type of guns should be allowed. It should however tighten up its rules on who is allowed to own guns. There should be some mental tests or something along those lines.
G C, England

The problem lies in the American Constitution. The phrase "right to bear arms" comes from the American Revolutionary War. We had no army at the time and so the Constituion was written so that an "organized armed militia" can help defend the country. This was the true intent of the clause. It has since been warped into "we Americans can have any and all weapons in our house". If allowed, red-necks would have bazookas, machine guns, cannons and tanks sitting in their back yards. I believe in a person's right to own a revolver for home defense, and bolt-action rifle or shotgun for hunting. AK-47s and other semi-automatic guns and handguns are designed for no other purpose but killing people. You do not hunt dear and quail with AK-47s. If you limit people to revolvers (6 bullets, slow reload) and single/double shot, bolt-action rifles and shotguns, you would see this kind of violence drastically reduced, while preserving the "American Heritage", such that it is. But in most American's eyes, it's either all or nothing. The National Rifle Association (NRA) fights for legal ownership of any type of weapon, while other try to make America totally gun free. Neither will ever succeed. Unfortunately, it's in our Constitution and is interpretted in a warped way.
Randall Keefer, USA

These problems can only be solved if the whole attitude of firearms in society is changed. Making guns harder to obtain is only the first step - people should realise that they are dangerous and must always be taken seriously. 'The right to bear arms' should not be allowed to apply to those without responsiblity or respect towards weapons capable of killing others.
Steve Francis, UK

I think all sane, intelligent people see that guns have no place in any civilization. Unfortunately, most of those who insist on possessing guns are neither intelligent nor civilized. Change needs to start with the education of the Neanderthal element in this country. When one considers, however, that Congress is currently dominated by Neanderthals, such change seems unlikely to happen soon.
Matt Simon, USA

Anyone who has children knows that they learn by imitation. If the irresponsible and amoral media outlets in America continue to appeal to the lowest common denominator in human nature and obsessively show images of violence on TV, these incidents involving children will continue to occur. The mix of uncontrolled access to the tools of violence and this media blitz have made such deadly events happen. We desparately need control on these two fronts. Constitutional arguments against gun control are outmoded and self-serving on the part of gun manufacturers and the NRA. England has no guns. Why can't we?
John Sollami, United States

Blaming guns for the current violence is tantamount to blaming cars for drunk driving. When I was a boy in rural Ohio, we all had guns of our own, or at least access to them, and yet there was no violence of any kind. It seems then, we are placing the blame on the tool, rather than the cause or causes. If we do not address the causes, we will be banning guns, knives, broken bottles, and sticks. According to the Justice Department, 11% of murders are committed with bare hands (more than ten times the assault weapon murder rate). Shall we ban hands?
David Suesz, USA

If you had asked me this question a few years ago I would have said "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which is a rational reply if you can assume that people who have access to guns are adults with a modicum of common sense. Unfortunately that assumption can no longer be made. Surely the gun lobby (which must contain a few who shoot at targets for sport, like me) would not object to some control over the storage and access of weapons? While people who are immature or sociopathic, or both, can get their hands on a loaded gun the argument for the right to bear arms becomes more and more foolish. Stop being so stubborn, and save yourselves.
Fiona Kellington, UK

Stricter gun control laws and an attempted ban of the handgun is not the answer. Stricter laws only punish the law abiding citizen who seeks to defend him or herself. Do you honestly believe most criminals are legally in possession of the guns they use to commit these crimes? Repeat offenders are unable to clear the procedural hurdles already in place for legal gun ownership. Under stricter laws the black market will thrive, resulting in a well-armed criminal element. We need to focus on the cause and not the effect. We should focus on the problems of our people, particularly our youth. Guns are not the problem. If guns cause crime, matches cause arson. Think about it.
Bob Wilson, United States

Banning handguns is only part of the solution to our violence problem. Our popular culture - movies, TV, video games, music - is saturated with violent images and messages that violence is fun, violence is the solution to all problems, violence is exhilarating to watch and fun to take part in. The aggregation of these words and pictures is ultimately desensitizing. To counter this numbness, programmers resort to increasingly sensational images in the hope of maintaining or enlarging their market share. The wonder is not that children are slaying their classmates. The wonder is that more children are not.
Jonathan Silvers, USA

I can think of no good reason why any normal citizen needs to own a gun. The sole function of a gun is to kill. The blood of all the children murdered in US schools this year is on the hands of gun owners and the US gun lobby. They violently oppose even the most moderate of reforms. No politician who is serious about tackling violent crime could possibly oppose stricter gun ownership laws. It's time individuals were held responsible for their crimes, and for a start the US gun lobby should be held responsible for the huge numbers of murders involving firearms in the US .
David Scotson, UK

I hope readers in the UK keep in mind the fundamental differences in the US and UK constitutional systems. While I, and many other Americans, favour a ban on handguns, achieving that goal in light of the 2nd amendment is a long way off.
Lee Sawyer, USA

Further proof that the US is the most violent nation on Earth. And, apparently, dedicated to staying that way.
Paul D McGill, Canada

Guns are just a tool, and human beings are notorious for making one tool do the job of another tool. Banning guns will simply make people look for different ways to kill each other; it will not solve the real problem. It's like putting a band-aid on a broken knee.
Steven Knox, USA

I don't imagine that we'll ever repeal our Second Amendment, but continuing with our laissez-faire attitudes towards managing our weapons will provide for future tragedies. The simple fact is that I can walk away from my computer and buy a legal gun in 30 minutes. There will be a cursory check of my residence and criminal history, and no check at all regarding my training. If I require training to obtain a licence to drive, why is it that I need none to buy an equally dangerous device?
There is a clear need to ban assault weapons, hollow-tipped bullets, and plastic handguns which cannot be detected with automated devices. So long as the National Rifle Association opposes any legislation restricting assault weapons, we and our children are exposed to mortal danger.
James Pol, USA

One wonders if Americans have even been able to read or understand English. Their Constitution states that "the people" have the right to bear arms, not "a person". "The people" is a collective noun, and quite rightly all Americans have the right to bear arms to defend themselves i.e. join the army. Even in England the people have the right to bear arms to defend themselves, but we do it by joining the armed forces, not blowing away children, and innocent bystanders.
Peter England, UK

As a native of Scotland now living in Alabama I can tell you that no matter the number of these tragic events Americans will continue to be "gun daft". Among the more absurd responses I heard after the Jonesboro, Arkansas school shootings was that "if more students and teachers were armed they could have fired back". With that kind of thinking is it any wonder that even the most limited restrictions on guns will never be passed.
Scott Corscadden, United States

Another tragedy. Our sympathies are with the families of the killed and injured. After Dunblane, society in Britain backed a change in the law and gave up the freedom to own registered handguns. Society in the US may one day decide to do the same. But that is entirely a matter for them. As long as they choose to keep the freedom to have handguns and other weapons readily accessible, they as a society and individuals bear the responsibility for the risk of such incidents and for punishing those guilty of the resulting crimes. To any American reading this, I would add that this is a legitimate point of comment for your British cousins - friends can disagree about a matter of principle, but it doesn't stop them being friends. I would guard your country's right to choose as much as I hope you would guard my country's decision after Dunblane.
David Holdgate, UK

Only when a public figure that our president likes becomes a victim might he suggest a handgun law to Congress. Or if it happened at his daughter's college you'll see how fast he'll whip up a law. Other than that he'll just wait until this happens twenty more times before finally considering doing something. Thanks Mr President.
Cheryl Natter, USA

This latest tragedy must spur radical changes to the gun laws in America. The killings and overall violence can not continue. Human life is too precious. No matter what the gun lobby might say, I feel it cannot be denied that if guns were not so readily available, these terrible events would be a great deal rarer.
Samantha Myers, UK

The gun may be a weapon but it only becomes an instrument of death if the user is disturbed. I agree that if that instrument was not so easily to get hold of, the risk would be less. And maybe that should mean the introduction of reforms. However, these reforms should go hand in hand with social reforms to help the causes of despair which lead to violent behaviour.
James Miles, UK

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | �