Why is it so hard for America to realise that its gun obsession is responsible for the epidemic of mass shootings?

I find myself on the wrong side of 55 and in the position that I have always kept up with national and international affairs since I was an early teen. I should stress that I have always relied on quality media and not some dubious outlets be it now or 40-odd years ago.

Never in all those years have I read or seen a report of a law-abiding decent citizen going about their normal routine in the US and rescue innocent victims of gun crime! Never has an ordinary person unholstered their legal firearm and shot down a “terrorist” mentally deranged individual or a would be political assassin, thereby saving the day.

I am equally certain that in the unlikely event that a card-carrying member of the NRA reads The Independent that they will quote some obscure minor occurrence in a one-horse town to justify this continued insanity.

Sadly I have no faith in the current administration doing anything apart from worsening an already lamentable situation.

Robert Boston
Kent

There is a straightforward answer to America’s ongoing and deplorable gun culture, and that is the rigorous control of the supply of ammunition.

The Second Amendment (which is the cause of the problem) states: “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.” It is this law which the National Rifle Association has hijacked.

Leaving aside the obvious point that a militia is entirely different from a collection of individuals, the population at large (the people) are permitted to store at home (keep) and carry (bear) firearms. The amendment says nothing about ammunition. Now, it is the ammunition which renders the firearms as truly lethal and, as in commonly known, in most US states ammunition can be bought online on in person with zero oversight.

I am not trying to split hairs on some arcane definition. When I was in the army doing my national service in an infantry regiment, the rifles were kept in the armoury and the ammunition was safely and securely locked away elsewhere. It makes obvious common sense.

America’s gun ownership is unique. The number of guns owned per 100 residents is approximately 112 weapons, and according to research by US Congress there are currently some 300 million guns in ownership, which means there are roughly twice as many guns per capita as in 1968.

Once you control the supply of ammunition, its availability will rapidly decline and herein lies a practical remedy. How many more bloodbaths do the Americans want before they take decisive action?

David Ashton
Shipbourne

President Trump describes the killings in Las Vegas as acts of “pure evil”. I wonder how a sick man who has lost the balance of his mind can be described as “pure evil?” What comes closer to “pure evil” is the power of the gun lobby, and the lack of adequate firearm controls in Nevada in particular and in the US in general.

LJ Atterbury
Poland

Doubtless many views will be aired on the letters page regarding the situation in Catalonia. Hopefully there is a consensus that, whatever the rights and wrongs of a referendum and independence, the spectacle of Spanish police attacking civilians who wish to make their voices heard is horrifying. The statement from our own foreign office in support of the Spanish government’s actions is pretty scary, too.

Lynda Newbery
Bristol

Though sympathetic to Catalan aspirations when they were being suppressed during the Franco dictatorship, I think that pressing ahead with a referendum that was clearly illegal was provocative and irresponsible.

Having said that, the heavy-handed response of the central government is deplorable. After forty years of relative peace and stability since the end of the dictatorship (leaving aside the specific problem of ETA terrorism), it is heartbreaking to watch Spain return to the methods of the police state.

Eamonn Rodgers, emeritus professor of Spanish and Latin American studies, University of Strathclyde

I was born in 1954.

As you are aware women born in 1954 are now unable to retire until the age of 65 or 66.

An additional five or six years.

I have worked all my married life and have paid full contributions, but unknown to myself and others in this age group, the Government decided to increase the retirement age. I will have to work an additional six years before I can claim my pension.

I haven’t spoken to anyone who was advised about it. Now the Government has said it is listening to college entrants, saying their student loans will be reduced. Why?

Why have they not listened to the thousands and thousands of women who have kept this country going for the past 40 or 50 years?

Why could they not increase in six-monthly increments if they must raise the age, not just add an additional five years?

It seems very much that they are looking after the future but couldn’t care less about the past.

What type of government is this?

Women of this country are being discriminated against.

Bring the age of retirement back down to 60.

Jenny Davies
Hereford

The question posed by Ben Chu has to be squared up to by the true believers of the Left. He asks whether the Netherlands can be described as socialist because it has a state-owned rail system, or France socialist because it has a national energy company, or Germany socialist because it has rent controls (Capitalist? Socialist? It’s time we dropped such meaningless labels).

However it would be a mistake to completely banish the word “socialism” from the political lexicon. As the sociologist Émile Durkheim observed a long time ago, at its root the word does have one clear and precise and unambiguous meaning. Rather than signifying a specific type of economic or power structure, socialism “is a cry of pain”.

Ivor Morgan
Lincoln

How timely that a bastion of free-market economics (Monarch) should go bust at a time when the pro-Brexit Tory leadership continue to believe their own rhetoric about the rosy isolationist times ahead.

I wonder how many of those who voted Brexit and were stranded or have lost their jobs feel now? Any chance of a second, properly informed vote, as we glimpse the truth of times to come?

Simon Watson
Worcestershire

“Building a country that works for everyone.”

Who is the Conservative Party kidding? Yes, if you own your own house, have a regular income, good health, no debts and do not need to rely on anyone else for ANYTHING.

I cannot think of many in that category.

Philip Pound
Sydenham