I was watching my cat this morning out of my bathroom window. It did one of those mad pounces into the undergrowth and came out with a mouse. It then played with this poor creature picking it up and dropping it, pushing it with a paw, during which time the mouse shrieked in panic and terror. I wondered, why in such a situation in which death was certain, would a mouse shriek? I have heard animals in their death throws at night and the sound penetrates eerily. But this mouse could hardly be heard, so soft was it’s cry for help. On the other side of the valley I could hear hunting dogs barked in their cages; they would never go quietly.

And it then struck me what an accurate metaphor this is for the latest mass shooting in Florida, North America. On the news we watch the supporters of their lost loved ones holding vigils, whilst the hunting dogs- the politicians – bark. Mr Trump apparently believes the FBI have only enough resources to deal with two cases at once. One is an investigation into him and the other preventing mass shootings in schools. Clearly, in his view, if no resources were put into investigating him, all mass shootings would be prevented. Could he have an ulterior motive that he thinks no one, least of all the numbskull in the FBI, will spot?

I listened to a radio interview with an ex-close aid of his who said that a lot of Mr Trumps tweets, are jokes. Well if this is a joke, I can’t get it.

The ‘right to bear arms’ which many North Americans hold dear, is a general statement, that did not consider future technical developments or evolving attitudes in society. Amendments are possible to the constitution and the vagueness of this particular ‘right’ could be exploited by lawyers. For instance there are four specific areas that do not change the ‘right to bear arms’ but would reduce mass shootings. The first is raising the minimum age for this right, the second is increasing supervision, the third is tighter control of ammunition and the fourth is restricting availability of disproportionately lethal weapons.

That a young person aged eighteen, can buy a gun is absurd. This age could be raised to at least twenty one, maybe higher. The reason to make it higher is that statistically, young men are already the most likely age group to commit and be victim of violent crimes. The founding fathers didn’t know that and could not be expected to.

Any young person using a firearm, could be supervised by a person who has held a gun licence for a prescribed period, say five years. This would apply whilst carrying it in a public place and at a range. It’s a probationary period, tolerate by learner drivers and equally applicable to guns.

The second amendment only refers to bearing arms, not ammunition. Advocates for civilian possession of firearms would argue that ammunition is a firearm, but that is not the legal definition of a firearm in the UK so why should it be in North America? If the firearm is kept at home under the pillow of the delinquent son or daughter the rest of the family can sleep soundly, knowing the ammunition is at the firing range. That would apply to the parents as well, as there have been cases of parents shooting their children as they climb in windows late at night, having forgotten their key or broken a curfew. Everyone would get a good nights’ sleep.

Lastly, if I were a North American, could I go out and buy an Abrams tank and keep it on my lawn for ‘self defence’? It is a self propelled gun by any definition, after all. Hopefully this would not be allowed, so somewhere down the list of proportionate lethality, common sense kicks in. Do civilians need assault rifles for instance? I would argue not, but there is a line to be drawn and hopefully even the pro-firearm lobby would not like my tank pointing across the road at their house. Lawyers on both sides – get to work!

Once the laws have been worked on, there is another debate to be had. Are the ‘shooters’ mad or bad? In most cases their minds have been ruffled by something, and sociologists and psychiatrists could write books on each one; their deprived childhood, loss of loved ones, abuse by loved ones, trauma of all kinds. Yet do these events send every disturbed person out with a gun to ‘get their own back’ on perceived perpetrators? Probably not – so what makes that happen?

Others would argue that these shooters are just bad people who the devil has entered and deserve execution.

The two opposing views are clearly defined in a book I am reading called ‘The Truth About Why People do Bad Things’ by Tom Gash and published by Penguin. Mr Gash used to work as an adviser on ‘home affairs’ in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit in the UK.

Approaching the whole issue of crime with a clear head, he noticed two distinct attitudes, promoted by news media and popular entertainment. One he called the ‘heroes and villains’ and the other ‘victims and survivors’. The first is the shoot out by the cops, and courts that throw offenders into prison for long periods.

The second is trying to understand the causes of why people commit crime and tackling those causes. You might recognise the first to be common in right wing political policy and the second to be the stand point of the political left. We all tend towards one explanation or the other and most of the time we are wrong because we believe the myths perpetrated around crime. Read the book if you want to follow that thought. I raise it here because ‘gun control’ is clearly in the grip of mythical views, held by ‘opposing’ parties. I would like to believe that both sides hold a lot of common views such as the sanctity of life, the right of young people to go to school without fear.