Er, what? The bill of rights was 1689. English law has developed quite a lot since then. That's what legal systems do: develop in response to changing conditions. If you're thinking of the US constitution, that document's second amendment (1791) refers to the right of the people (not each person) to bear arms in the context of a "well regulated militia". Well regulated means that the US constitution demands tight gun licensing laws - it's long past time for US federal law to adhere to that particular constitutional requirement.

Hm. Maybe tell me where those massacres are even close to those in the US? Even if counting for a way larger population, the total number of innocent lives lost due to a massacre since the Port Arthur shooting in '96 is 82. That's from 1996 till 2020, so we're talking about 82 people in 24 years, so about 3 people per year. In a population of 27 Million. Don't know your math, but for me that doesn't sound too bad.

Fact is the law didn't stop at least 9 massacres, all using legally-obtained firearms.

That’s called moving the goal post. Australia didn’t fix their mass shooting problem, so you made it about how many. Nice job dodging the real conversation.

Er, in that case, the licencing requirements need tightening up - I reckon firearm self-defence training should be as tough for everyone as for UK police firearms officers (they have a high failure rate). I am reminded of what I've been told of UK train driving tests: no matter how well you perform in your test, if the examiner thinks you've got the wrong attitude to drive a train, he'll ensure you fail. As for Oz: what I'd read is that they had a huge problem with shootings (accidental and otherwise) in the Northern Territories, and mandatory training did in fact improve the issue there.

Exactly. The laws they put on the books are pretty good, but the enforcement of them can vary a lot.

It’s a constitutional right.

The constitution is man made - it can be changed, as has been done before.

So many errors. Every nation denies the right to murder, to steal, to break contracts. Those rights predate written law in Europe. We achieve freedom by adding restrictions. Of course every nation requires car drivers to pass a driving test to ensure road safety. The revenue gathered covers the cost of running the testing and licencing system. Yes every human being has the inalienable right to defend themselves - me, you, and that newborn baby there. That doesn't mean we've all got a right to own a machine for killing. My grandfathers needed killing machines to defend their nation against invasion. My father and myself have had no such need. This is better. Only one developed nation still hasn't understood that it's a good idea to severely restrict access to firearms: the USA. Look at the facts: it's bad for the USA.

I realize that the population sizes concerned are hugely different, but the ~30 year period known as The Troubles centred on Northern Ireland (pop, < 100th of the USA) killed about 3500 people in total. In round figures, that's about 1/400th the rate of killing per year, cf the recent US. This was during a period in which many participants considered themselves to be fighting a war which included the entire population of the UK as legitimate targets, and the official security forces sometimes didn't seem all that bothered who they shot at. So, even during a "war", NI's shooting/bombing death rate per capita was roughly a quarter of that of the USA in recent years. Think on that.

So it looks like those gun laws are working out great, huh? 😂

I don't know myself, but my husband is very keen on bows and has half a dozen of them

Is he a cellist?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

It's a zen thing. And these tools have other purposes besides killing. I get that you can't understand. I can't help you.

Tools, I have lots of. Guns are tools created to kill. Why love a tool created for killing? You refusing even to try to explain why says more about you than me.

As someone who likes guns, I have to say that you could not be more wrong by saying that they "have other purposes besides killing". That's literally the sole purpose of a gun - to kill. Whether it's killing a deer for food or killing an enemy in war, or whatever, they are designed to kill. To say otherwise is to deny what the tool is made to do. That said, I'm not at all against people owning & using guns if they do so responsibly - although when it comes to people with what amounts to an armory of guns, I find that to be a little scary since a lot of the people I see on the internet who have that many guns usually are bragging about how hard it would be to harm them & their families whole simultaneously coming off as wanting to get a chance to prove that. But again, if a person uses their guns responsibly, and doesn't have that mindset of "just try and take my guns & I'll show you that you can't", then I have no issue with that.

And I also have no issue with people having gun collections, if they're stored and used responsibly, of course.

@Harold O Freedom and the associated dangers are a gradual thing, not an ON/OFF thing. Varying degrees of freedom bring varying degrees of danger. By common consent my freedom to swing my fists end where I reach another one's nose. Consequently more people around means more regulation. Collecting firearms and stashing them under your bed and in the pantry is no problem if you live alone, miles away from anywhere and don't get visitors. Keep them where fifty people in the neighbourhood are "free" to use them and your freedom is rightfully curtailed, for everybody's safety and sanity's sake.

Apparently, some people don't like to have the truth spelled out to them