No automatic right

Another mass shooting in the United States – this time with a higher loss of life than ever before – has inevitably reopened the debate over gun control. It is often assumed that there are no restrictions on ownership because it is enshrined in the constitution as a personal liberty.

But this is not the case. Laws vary from state to state. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that some of the most relaxed gun laws are in Nevada, scene of the Las Vegas massacre which has added the name of Stephen Paddock to the roll call of infamy as one of his country’s most prolific mass murderers.

Changing federal gun laws is a forlorn task, as President Barack Obama discovered – even after a score of children were killed at Sandy Hook in Connecticut five years ago. The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Moreover, Donald Trump has made clear his support for the gun lobby, and public backing for stricter laws has declined even as the number of mass shootings has increased.

But there is still a discussion to be had around the limitations that can be placed on the right to ownership, not least because it is not only Americans who are killed in these incidents. What was apparent once again from the Las Vegas slaughter was the impact of automatic weapons in the hands of a madman. For 10 years from 1994, US federal law banned the sale of many types of assault rifles as well as high-capacity magazines. However, the law expired and was never renewed, though some states retain tighter restrictions on such weapons. If anyone has the populist credentials to make the case for controls over the guns that can kill so many in such a short space of time, Mr Trump has. He should use them.