Stu... very few are really good at it. We depend on voice, body language, eyes (facial expression)...etc. You at least read and respond to what you read instead of just making a quick remark. It ain't necessary to agree on everything to further education & comprehension

So... I will have a go at this:

"At the end of the day, if people in the US thought there should be no guns then that consensus would (ideally, if it happens anywhere these days) be listened to. But the consensus amongst your countryfolk is that guns are good and the odd massacre and accidental death is a price worth paying for your 'freedom'. "

Sadly it doesn't really work like that. Polls have shown that a majority of the total population actually does favor some serious revision gun laws...(not total ban, as there are still areas of wilderness where guns actually make some sense). But that majority is distributed in awkward ways in different states and cultural areas... and unless you live here, it's hard to comprehend the concept of "states rights".
   Imagine if Sussex & Lancashire and Wessex and Kent & Norfolk all were allowed to allow or ban firearms depending on changing voting habits... and if each had different rules... and if cities in each could modify the basic rules to suit local opinion. ... and if Kent allowed guns and London didn't, Londoners could just pop over to Maidstone and buy whatever they wanted.
That's what we have...even more complex... and imagine if every 10 years the voting districts in all the areas were redrawn by whatever party was in power to group voters they approved of together to maximize their representation in Parliament. That's what we have. And all those awkward legal situations are set in Constitutional law which can only be changed by a tedious process involving voting---by whom? By states which have just been redistricted by the ruling party.... who also 'may' get to appoint judges to settle complaints ABOUT the voting & redistricting system and...oh yes, on the legality of various gun laws.
Much of all this made sense in 1789 when we decided to forego being ruled by mean old King George. *grin*

So... the "consensus" among us may not be what is enacted into law in any particular place. Every 4 years we get to elect a president who has certain abilities to control stupid laws passed, but even he is not elected by pure national majority, because we have the "electoral college" where more populous states get more votes. This has twice resulted in the election of a man who got less than a majority. Guess what it would take to revise the electoral college system?

There are multi-millions of us who do NOT like gun laws, abortion laws, labor laws, etc...but the system is awkward to change... and all too many have given up trying to vote as a losing battle, because much of each voting round is influenced by huge amounts of money. We need to change the "campaign finance laws".... guess how that would be done?

ALL THAT is why I plead with Brits to at least show they SEE our problem, even if it seems crazy.... sweeping generalizations just don't cover the situation. Some of us are trying.. and we have 'some' media which are doing a pretty good job of waving the problem in the face of everyone who will listen.... (did I mention we have about umpty-eight competing media outlets?)

Our one hope right now is that the newly emerging 'minorities' will register and change the voting patterns... if they are not totally redistricted into patterns which make them irrelevant.

But.. I live here. I have to try.