It may be three thousand miles away but what happens in the USA inevitably resonates in this country . Thus, the recent murders of 20 school children and six adults in a Connecticut school evoked the same feelings of outrage and horror n this country as they undoubtedly did  over there. It may not be our problem, but who could fail to be moved by the slaughter of so many innocents and why do such atrocities seem to occur with such alarming regularity in the USA?

For all the fact that Americans speak the same language as us they are a foreign nation and many of their customs and habits are radically different to ours. The right to bear arms is one such custom, enshrined as it is, in the Constitution dating back to 1776 when the newly proclaimed nation was fighting for its very existence. The carrying of guns made sense in those dangerous and lawless days but does it still? The USA is now the world’s most powerful nation and is, ostensibly at least, a leading light for freedom and liberty. In the 21^st century isn’t the carrying of guns something of an anachronism?

The gun lobby in the USA is immensely strong and influential in American politics and any attempts by the more enlightened members of society to curb gun ownership have always been comfortably defeated by those in favour of guns. Even the President has shied away from conflict with the gun lobby but this latest atrocity, plus the Christmas killings of fire fighters in New York State by another psychopath have brought the problem to the fore yet again.

From this side of the pond the problem seems almost beyond our comprehension. The growing opposition to gun ownership is perfectly understandable but I can also understand the views of the traditionalists eager to hang on to their constitutional rights. However, surely there has to be some middle ground? If a person is a deer hunter in the wilds of Wyoming or Colorado then he or she should be allowed to own a rifle but that ownership should be firmly regulated and licensed. I can also see why somebody living in the wilds might want to keep a gun for personal protection. Moving into the cities and suburbs however I cannot see any need or justification for keeping or carrying guns for personal protection provided the police do their job properly.

As for the ownership of assault rifles capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute, a type used increasingly in these mass murders, there can be no justification whatever. These horrific weapons by their very nature are designed purely and simply for killing people and the only place for them is the battlefield and never in the home of the ordinary citizen. Surely that must be obvious to all but the most unbalanced members of the gun lobby, though those particular members seem to be rather significant in number.

It’s incredible that, in the two weeks since the school murders, national sales of guns have actually gone up and the protestations from the gun lobby have grown louder. President Obama faces a difficult task indeed in dealing with an issue that is clearly firmly entrenched in the American psyche. In the long term he may well achieve his aims but how many more innocents will be slaughtered before his opponents finally see sense and allow the law to be changed?