We asked whether you had changed your mind on gun control after 58 people were killed in the Las Vegas shooting, the deadliest such attack in modern history

When a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers from his Las Vegas hotel room on Sunday night, he used guns and ammunition that appear to have been purchased legally.



The question haunting Las Vegas: what was the gunman's motive? Read more

The attack left 58 people dead and nearly 500 injured. Stephen Paddock, the shooter, had no serious criminal record. A gun store said he had passed a background check.

Requiring background checks on every gun sale has been the major policy goal of most American gun control groups. But many advocates say they are ready to take a tougher position.

We asked Guardian readers to share their thoughts on gun control – and in particular, if they had changed their mind in light of the Las Vegas shooting. Here’s a selection of their responses.

‘It would be a huge mistake to trust the government to be the only legal owners of certain weapons’ – David, North Carolina

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mourners pay tribute at a makeshift memorial on the Las Vegas Strip Photograph: Eugene Garcia/EPA

There is already too much of it. Certain states still highly restrict gun ownership and use while others seem to be getting better. There should be uniformity. We have the unalienable right to possess and carry firearms, and this should be respected throughout the United States.

I am sorry to hear about tragic shooting incidents like the one in Las Vegas, but restricting gun rights from the vast majority people who use them properly is not just and is not the answer. We live in a country which was founded on the precept that individual liberty is more important than the collective good – “give me liberty or give me death”, “live free or die”. While tragic, incidents like Las Vegas are the price we pay for individual liberty. Proposed gun restrictions might actually reduce these violent incidents, but at what price?

I am sure if we lived in a complete police state it would reduce the possibility of terrorist attacks, but I wouldn’t want to live in such a country.

The only restrictions I would like to see are ones that apply to both law enforcement and the general public. If the police don’t need them, and the national guard is not allowed to take them off a military base, then I guess I can live without them (I have no need for military weapons). But given the rampant nature of police abuse in this country, along with the increasing police state surveillance and tactics of our intelligence agencies, I think it would be a huge mistake to trust the government to be the only legal owners of certain weapons.

Unfortunately people have forgotten the importance of individual liberty, and are liable to cough it up recklessly for a little more security. Benjamin Franklin warned against these sort of people. Unfortunately these people are not just giving up their own rights, but also the rights of those who disagree with them on gun control.

‘We need to quit living in fear’ – Camy, Texas

Facebook Twitter Pinterest How guns kill people. Illustration: Mona Chalabi

Clearly, the idea that gun control means only dangerous bad people will get guns and then the safe law-abiding people can’t defend themselves or others is a debunked myth.

I’m definitely not for outright banning any and all guns. We can’t sit around and call over 30,000 gun related deaths a year the price of freedom. The price of freedom comes from necessary war, and actually defending freedom. The idea that an innocent civilian in the crossfire of an angry civilian who has a legally acquired gun is called currency for freedom is horrifying.

I grew up with guns and hunting. My grandparents owned a ranch and I fired my first rifle at four years old. Having guns around was just part of life. I can’t imagine growing up without a shotgun by the back door or in the truck. They weren’t just around for fun though. We had to defend our livestock from coyotes. I’m not sure what my family would do if we had to get rid of them; it would cause drastic damage to our family business.

It was a country music festival in Nevada, and I’m willing to bet at least half of the attendees have touted such an idea when confronted with gun control. Where were their guns to keep them or others safe that night? If they had a gun on them, what good would it have done? Could they have stopped any of it happening? No!

In the past I bought into the idea that it’s video games and violent music that leads to people behaving this way, but I doubt this shooter was spending his weekends immersed in Call of Duty. He wasn’t psychotic like the Batman movie theatre shooter. All my assumptions and beliefs have been blown out of the water this week.

There’s this idea that sometimes I buy into that one day the government and economy will collapse and the only way to be safe from people invading and stealing your stuff is to be armed. I’m not going to say such a thing will never happen, but it is far less likely than another mass shooting. I think we need to quit living in fear.

‘Which is the greater threat: too many guns or a Big Brother state?’ – Lori, Los Angeles

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A bump stock device fits on a semi-automatic rifle to increase the firing speed, making it similar to a fully automatic rifle. Photograph: George Frey/Getty Images

We have more gun control here in California than anywhere else – you cannot even buy ammunition for a pistol without being fingerprinted – yet we had our own mass shooting in San Bernardino. More regulation won’t stop this carnage; most of the atrocities committed by deranged people were done with legally obtained weapons. Short of confiscating all the guns already owned there isn’t much we can do to prevent this threat, but confiscation will never happen since it portends a kind of authoritarian government most people fear.

Bump stocks may be regulated or banned in some cases. Some states will enact tighter gun restrictions and others won’t. People will be very divided on the issue. But changes that follow won’t mitigate the problem. Criminals will find a way around the laws and law abiding people without ill intent will not be affected by new laws. I think most people know this. Unless we get to the root of the problem, which is civil decay, more regulation will be like tilting at windmills – ineffective and futile.

I’m not a gun lover but understand the complexities of this issue. Many people are weighing their options: which is the greater threat, too many guns or a totalitarian Big Brother State?

‘Ammunition regulation would be a stronger solution’ – Will, Quincy, Illinois

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flags on the grounds of the Washington Monument lowered to half-staff. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

I’ve always been a big supporter of proper gun control, but have also been one of the few people among my liberal peers who supports the right to own assault style weapons.

I have a fascination with military arms, both historic and modern, and even have a bucket list of guns I’d like to target shoot with. I enjoy target shooting, even though I haven’t been able to do it since I was a kid. Still, I’ve felt that there has been a distinct lack of proper gun control for a while now, regardless of my own interests; both in enforcement and general laws. With the advent of gun modification, as well as the more recent 3D printing of receivers, the issue comes more to the fore.

Ammunition regulation would be, in my mind, a stronger solution, like other countries have done. Allowing people to shoot SARs in controlled environments would be adequate, basically including ammunition in the fees, and restricting the amount of ammo you can legally own would be great. As well, open-carry SARs is just asking for trouble in the current US social climate. Open-carry any sort of firearm can be problematic in general.

I seriously doubt the laws will change any time soon. We’ve got a distinct lack of education about firearms, as well as a lack of acceptance for issues that will help outside of firearms; proper mental healthcare for all, as part of universal healthcare. That, combined with strong regulation in the firearm industry are both things that are opposed in the current political climate. I’ve got friends and family members who think of me as a communist because of my views, and I’m closer to their standpoint than many of my fellow liberally-minded friends on gun control issues (or, at least, I was)!

‘I would like to see the families of all 58 people killed in Vegas file a civil suit against the NRA’ – Sue, Scottsdale, Arizona

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Demonstrators with the activist group CodePink, along with other gun control advocates, hold a protest outside the headquarters of the NRA. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA

The ownership and sale of military grade weapons of any kind – guns, ammo, explosives, trucks, tanks of any type should be illegal. There is no justification for selling or giving this crap to civilians other than making money and we all know it.

No one in the USA needs to own any kind of semi-automatic weapon. No one should be able to purchase a weapon for hunting unless they have completed a training class in the use of that weapon. I grew up in a rural area where people hunted. I have no problem with people wanting guns for these purposes, but military grade weapons are not used to hunt rabbits and deer!

I would like to see the families of all 58 people killed in Vegas file a civil suit against the NRA. In this country justice only comes in civil litigation, criminal investigation is too controlled by political interests. Generally speaking, criminal justice prosecutes the poor and disadvantaged, civil justice deals with the wealthy and influential.

In reality there is widespread support for gun control, but it gets drowned out by the money of the right which has attached to gun ownership as a substitute for brainpower.