An 11 year old boy has shot and killed an 8 year old girl in Tennessee.

here's the argument: what does right to bear arms mean? many here believe there are no limits to the definition of "arms." so can i have a tank? a nuke? walk around with a bazooka? why not?

so if there then IS a limit, that is the discussion that must take place. assault weapons?

this country is nuts in regards to guns. we have a sitting senator make a video where he cooks bacon on the tip of his automatic gun. these people are crazy. it won't change.

we had sandy hook where a bunch of kindergarteners were killed. were they to defend themselves with guns? in essence, the right's argument is that we should live in an uncivilized society where you are on your own at all times. "well granny, if you would've been packing heat, that b****** wouldn't have stole your pocket book. too effing bad."

Thing is, owning a gun, actually increases your chances of being a victim of a firearm related homicide, rather than reduces it. Very dramatically when you consider half of US gun deaths are suicides.

In fairness to Americans, I would like to point out that if I was American, I'd have s**t loads of guns, but I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of the law either.

Its mad that you can have an assault rifle, but go to prison for having LSD

Guns aren't a deterrent, clearly as displayed by the huge gun ownership in the US and the massive level of gun deaths. Trident worked in the cold war because it guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction. Where as owning a gun in a situation where the other guy has a gun, only slightly improves your chances, because a) its unlikely you'll have your gun b) gun only works as a deterrent if the other guy knows you have it c) if you do have it, and the other guy knows you have it, he's still more likely to have the advantage.

Where as having a nuclear weapons platform, that even if your enemy launches a strike that turns the whole of the UK into a smoking radioactive graveyard, devoid of life, is a deterrent - And Trident in a cold war scenario was a very effective deterrent (it was useless as an offensive platform mind).

Unfortunately, there is no clause nor amendment in the US Constitution that prevents the government from regulating what Americans can put in their bodies, so there you go. In fact, there used to be an amendment (the 18th one) that did specifically the OPPOSITE: it tried to tell Americans that they weren't allowed to put booze in their bodies. For some reason, that one didn't work out.

The troublesome 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution currently prevents much being done about the firearms epidemic, at least as how it's being read by the courts these days. It used to be interpreted more sensibly a generation or so ago, but the US Supreme Court has gone a lot more reactionary (and outright pro-gun) since then.

And, to be frank, there are a lot of Americans -- not necessarily most, but a lot -- who's opinion on gun ownership has completely fossilized to 19th century standards. I know this for a fact, because I see these people ranting on my Facebook feed practically every day.

Good luck trying to deal with that lot reasonably. I just read a comment from one of them linking to a paper asserting that the '97 handgun ban was instrumental in turning the UK into the police state hellhole that you're all living under today.