Is the American Dream behind the tragic US record on mass shootings?

Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

(AFP/Getty Images)

I wholeheartedly agree with your editorial regarding gun control following the latest mass shootings in Orlando. The number of mass shootings occurring last year is staggering and limiting the availability and fire power of guns should be a priority in spite of the pressure from the National Rifle Association.

Various reasons have been proposed to explain why these shootings occur, including terrorism, hate crime and insanity. All these factors apply anywhere in the world, but America stands out in the western world. Why?

Could it be the “American Dream“, the concept that anyone can ”make it“ (which broadly means get rich) by simple hard work? In reality you can't have winners without losers and if losers are despised and thrown on the scrap heap it is hardly surprising that the mentally fragile can sometimes flip and, given the ease with which assault weapons can be obtained, go on shooting rampages to release their frustrations.

Perhaps it is time for the Americans to reassess their concept of what being a “winner” is and – combined with modest gun control such as banning automatic weapons – aim to become a more compassionate nation than it now appears to be.

Patrick Cleary
Devon

I don’t often find myself sympathising with careerist journalists but Owen Jones is right to walk off Sky News in protest at the British media's refusal to acknowledge the extent of gay hate crime.

More recently a black gay man called Taj Paterson was the victim of an attack by a Jewish fundamentalist a vigilante ‘Shomrim’ group. As a result, Mr Patterson lost the sight in one eye. Perhaps reflecting the victim’s media status as a black gay man, only one British press outlet covered the story. But clearly homophobic attacks are still prevalent, particularly by fundamentalist groups, who police say “have become involved in acts of vigilantism”.

Gavin Lewis
Manchester

I never posted a coming out post anywhere; I just quietly got on with my life, telling friends along the way. However, after the Orlando Attack I have never been more proud to be gay.

As a community, and a society at large, we will take the time to mourn, and pay our respects, but it will inspire us to grow, to thrive, and to be the best we can, and take our message of acceptance, love and tolerance everywhere.

Isis may claim responsibility for this attack, but it is an act of cowardice. This was queer people in a queer space. If you cannot accept western society, then stay away from it. I respect all faiths and values, for there are different values and approaches in society.

So to all LGBTIQ+ people, I ask this. Carry on, don’t forget, don’t hate. Spread out message of acceptance and love. Don’t fear holding hands in public like I did for so long; don’t fear kissing your partner. Do drag, wear glitter, do whatever the hell you like, but do it with pride and love.

And to all our allies, thank you. Your support will always be valued to us. We love you like our own, and one day, I hope in my life time there will be no need for an LGBT community. We will just be a community as one.

Liam Lane
Address withheld

The latest atrocity in Florida is another reminder that US gun laws need to be changed. More than 13,000 Americans were killed last year by firearms, including 475 killed in 372 mass shooting incidents.

However, the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrator becomes an issue only if he is a Muslim, as we do not hear about the ethnicity of perpetrators of homicidal incidents committed by Caucasians, for example.

Since the latest murderer is from an Afghan origin, it is worth to remember that the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 which caused an unknown number of casualties but estimated at more than 100,000. Victims in Florida and Afghanistan deserve justice equally.

Mohammed Samaana
Belfast

Gordon Brown intervenes in the Brexit debate

I see Gordon Brown had wheeled himself out of obscurity again to make promises he cannot even fulfil. It is not a vow – which he made to the Scots and he was unable to effect its realisation as he had retired from Parliament – but a sort of wish-list to fool the gullible into thinking he can be “everywhere” like that general factotum , the buffoon Figaro. His wish, or idea would be “considered” by Cameron's government, said Cameron's spokesman.

As a Remain voter, I feel Gordon should be kept away from the fray. After his Vow to bring Devo-max to Scotland, Cameron responded with ‘English vote for English laws’. Gordon has never really recovered and rarely, if at all, speaks publically in Scotland. If it does, it is to an “invited” audience of bemused and passive onlookers.

John Edgar
Blackford

Reading Chuka Umunna’s comments, that voting to leave the EU equating to voting for the politics of the far right, reminds me of the scorn poured on the woman whom Gordon Brown met on the campaign trail a few years ago.

Brown and his assistants rejected the Labour supporter’s fears regarding the effects of immigration, in an unguarded moment when his microphone had been left on, as the thoughts of a bigot. Umunna is making the same mistake, born out of a lack of understanding of the fears of ordinary people.

These fears are not a reflection of bigotry or racism. Most Labour MPs have failed, over many years, to even accept that there was a problem with immigration, and they have only recently reluctantly begun to acknowledge the problem (while, I suspect, continuing to believe that these are the views of bigots).

Such condescending attitudes by MPs led to the position we now have, where a significant proportion of Labour voters are prepared to vote to leave the EU while Labour MPs are almost unanimously in the Remain camp. Elected Labour MPs are not reflecting the concerns of their constituents.

Mike Forster
Address withheld

The green spaces we know and love are better protected thanks to EU nature laws, and with just days to go until the EU referendum, it's time we put nature at the centre of the debate. Analysis last week by Loughborough University showed the environment is sidelined in the EU referendum debate, not appearing in the top 10 most prominent issues.

Many voters don't realise that EU membership gives extra protection to green spaces and rare species. Iconic wildlife hotspots across the UK including Wimbledon Common, the North York Moors, the Norfolk Broads, Chesil Beach, Brecon Beacons and Ben Nevis have an important extra level of protection under EU law.

Nearly 300 green spaces in Britain benefit from being part of an EU-wide network of protected areas. Almost 11,000 square miles of our country's most precious wildlife sites are recognised by the European Union as special areas of conservation for their rare and endangered species of birds, trees, plants and bugs.

Many of those wishing to leave the EU see nature protection as an unnecessary burden on UK business. We don't. It is incredibly important to protect our wildlife at an international level – the animals and habitats we take for granted locally are often rare in Europe – and the European Union is absolutely the best place to work together with our neighbours to do this.

To ensure these places stay as nature intended, and to protect the many valuable conservation sites that so many people enjoy, it is vital we vote Remain on the June 23.

Jean Lambert MEP (Green)
Molly Scott Cato MEP (Green)
Keith Taylor MEP (Green)

Nigel Farage displays unbelievable arrogance when he tells us (whether we “let” him or not) that it doesn’t matter if the pound loses value. Does he know better than nine out of 10 economic forecasters? His worrying brand of nationalism, based on emotion rather than fact, is far too close to 1920s Germany for comfort. Perhaps we are right to fear this tawdry Brexit campaign and its likely consequences.

Richard Greenwood
Bewdley

If the polls are right, we may well close our doors on the European community and single market on June 23/ If we really think that slamming the door on our friends, neighbours and continental cousins is a good idea, then we need very good reasons.

Trying to make our own house rules when we will have to continue to live and hopefully prosper in the continental community is facile rhetoric, not coherent reason. Barring entry to less than three Europeans per thousand Britons (the greatest net European migration we have yet seen) is jamming our fingers in the front door as we slam it.

Who do we think is going to mend and rebuild our house, look after our gardens, our grannies and our plumbing, buy our expertise and knowledge in our world class higher education system, cook and clean, and staff our hospitals, and so forth? Who is going to decide who we shut out and why?

We already have most favoured treatment from the EU, retaining our rights to check migrants as they come in. We also keep our sovereign currency, and hence our economic management. We already pay substantially less per head to the single for these rights than any other member state, thanks to our rebate. Our net direct cost is about the same as our own government currently spends on culture, media and sport – 1p in the pound of total government spending, a pretty miserly community precept given the advantages we already enjoy. And we already have both leading seat on the community council and our fair share of seats in the community parliament.

We are risking not only a substantial part of our livelihoods, but also half a century’s friendship, collaboration and mutual aid, for what? The uncertainty is frankly frightening, and we should be very fearful. If you must vote to slam our front door, please be very sure that this is the right, sensible and responsible thing to do – especially as the vote is democratic and self-governing, and will apply to all of us. My fingers are in the door jam, as well as yours, and those of your friends, neighbours and children.

David Harvey
Tynemouth

I sympathize with those who hold that, had Britain remained outside Europe, she could have done better by relying on a cultural, social, political and economic configuration and value system stemming from unique traditions and historical experiences.

Yet, the process of Europeanisation, reinforced by the forces of global adaptation, has altered all these elements to the extent that turning the clock back 40-odd years, even if possible, would take generations to achieve and involve colossal costs in terms of missed opportunities.

Hamid Elyassi
London, E14

I'm fed up with worthy articles from the liberal elite telling me I must vote remain, which nevertheless happens to be my instinct. The well-housed liberal superciliously calls the poor and the homeless “racist”, for simply wanting to be housed. They blithely separate the issues of housing crisis and migration, when they are inseparable.

I am an immigrant's son, tolerant of migration, but until migrants bring houses with them, housing provision must match migration as well as solve the indigenous housing crisis. Leader writers should disclose their housing situation before they lecture. And not another word about migration that does not speak of housing.

L Harley
Address withheld

Corbyn’s funny turn

I was astonished at Matthew Norman's attack on Jeremy Corbyn after his appearance on The Last Leg. What my husband and I saw was an honest, mildly humorous man who gave considered answers to the questions and held his own against a (very funny) bunch of satirists. I'm afraid Mr Norman has spent too long among the London- based cynics of today. After years of despairing at today's politicians who never answer any question without Party spin, it was refreshing to hear a real man speak.

Jill Buss
Alresford, Hants

No wonder Jeremy Corbyn is ambivalent about the EU. It must have crossed his mind that neither a welfare state nor, for that matter, a living wage is compatible in the long run with open borders. Staying in an ever-expanding EU, with its free movement of labour accord, has consequences – probably positive for the “haves” and certainly negative for the “have-nots”.

Yugo Kovach
Winterborne Houghton, Dorset

Questions to be answered over Saudi links

Surely even your correspondent Peter Yeung can read between the lines when CIA director John O'Brennan says that “there was no link between the Saudi government as a state or as an institution, or even senior Saudi officials, to [sic] the September 11 attacks.” That as much as acknowledges that there were direct links between individuals in Saudi Arabia and the plot. Moreover, in Saudi Arabia the distinction between state officials and “private persons” is blurred to say the least - the very kingdom belongs to the “private individuals” belonging to one particular family, as is made clear even in the very name of the country.

The links between “private Saudi citizens” and the 9/11 plot therefore still need to be revealed - with the details of the names, roles and status of those “private” individuals. If they are senior members of Saudi society, or even of the Saudi family, O'Brennan's words may be technically correct - but would still serve mainly to obscure rather than reveal the truth.

Douwe Korff
Emeritus Professor of International Law, London Metropolitan University

Public information broadcast

Surely, information on performance of private companies performing public duties should be published especially if it could harm them commercially. How else can free markets flourish if not with freely available information to allow properly informed choice?

Robert Park
Address withheld