This morning I read that President Obama met the families of the Aurora shooting as a "father and husband" as much as a president. He told them, in a beautiful heart-felt speech, that the whole of the United States stood with them. He said that "out of darkness a brighter day will come."
He, like it seems every leading politician in the United States (with the notable exception of New York Mayor Bloomberg) did not say a word about gun control. I cannot help think that the reaction to such shootings, including that of Gabrielle Giffords, is one of a resigned inevitability. Tornadoes strike the Mid West, hurricanes hit Florida, people are massacred in gun shootings. It is almost a medieval form of fatalism: like the Black Death these tragedies are sent and people will suffer.
 |
| Life, Death, Suffering: all part of human existence |
You make think it is distasteful for me to be writing this blog whilst bodies are still lying in the morgue. I think that the distasteful thing here is the presence of dead bodies in that morgue of people who just wanted a night out in the cinema, not an attempt to look at the issues rather than ducking them. You may think that this is an American issue and it is only for Americans to comment on and resolve, or not. Your argument undoubtedly has some validity. However, if you subscribe to it, remind everyone to never comment on issues such as political oppression in China and Burma, people starving in Africa, tidal waves in Sri Lanka, the treatment of Palestinians, or indeed anything that happens outside that artificial construct you call your country.
Talking About the Issues
If I were affected by these shootings, I would not want (just) to hear Obama's dignified words of comfort. I would want to hear why this happened and what is being done to prevent others from suffering in the future. How will this "brighter day" come if no one is prepared to talk about the causes, much less actually do something about them?
The above tweet puts rather beautifully my own feelings on the NRA official line that "guns don't kill, people do" I feel real anger at the suggestion that these are harmless items that are only dangerous when the hands of the mentally imbalanced. They are designed to kill or injure: that is their simple and only purpose. Perhaps the US does have deep problems with anger or violence that other high gun ownership countries such as Switzerland and Canada don't. So what? Take away the guns, and that anger and violence won't be able to be expressed so easily in such a deadly way.
The Problem Is So Entrenched
What also distresses me is that when gun control is raised (banning or even restricting) you are met with a barrage of "oh that would never work, ownership is so entrenched" arguments. Is this ever an argument to do nothing? Was Apartheid so entrenched that it wasn't worth fighting it? You can produce any number of examples around the world from slavery, to the ending of segregation, to the political situation in Northern Ireland, where you find entrenched positions, powerful vested interests, hugely complex problems, and the requirement for massive political will to change the situation.
These "it's hopeless even trying" argument can be seen in the contrast between President Obama's total non-dealing with causes and finding solutions, and President Bush's reaction to the 911 attacks. Yes, you can disagree massively with what was done afterwards, but the complete inaction contrasts markedly with the highly and unrealistically ambitious task of taking on a chunk of the World in a "war on terror". 40 times as many people have died in gun related deaths from September 2001 through to now than did in the 911 attacks. Where has been the will to do a single thing about it?
11,000 people die annually in the US in gun related deaths; in the UK the figure is less than 50. Just think about that comparison. Don't think that Aurora is an isolated event: just click here for the list of 125 killing sprees in the United States between the Columbine massacre and this one compiled by New York magazine. Aurora is a particularly shocking deadly example, but such killings happen with terrifying, depressing regularity on a smaller scale.
Banning and Restricting Has No Effect
The "no point trying" argument isn't just to be seen in the US. You hear it here too chanted as a mantra. It is almost like it has infected the thought of otherwise critical, thinking people in Europe. Yes, there are millions of guns in circulation in the US. A total ban tomorrow would not end ownership overnight: how could it? But guns require maintenance, become out of date, and new ever more deadly models would not be coming on the market.
 |
| Efficient Weapon of Murder: Back on Sale in the United States |
It is absolutely remarkable that assault weapons were banned by President Clinton in 1994 and that ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. It has not been renewed. If I wanted a joint in England I wouldn't have a clue where to go. Dope is available, yes, of course - but it is not as easy to come by as walking into a café in Amsterdam where it is freely on offer. You are not thinking it through terribly well if you suggest that by banning or making sales harder you would not have any effect on ownership: of course you will. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the tighter the restriction, the potentially greater the effect. Yes, Norway happened. Where there is a enough determination there is a way, but the vast majority of such potential incidents will without doubt have been stopped by a ban on sales and ownership. That is very simply borne out by World statistics on gun deaths.
All sorts of other arguments are banded around too: it's not easy to change the Constitution. Well, it wasn't easy to end segregation. It's election year. Yes, that didn't stop the President's highly risky statement on same-sex marriage. This is about mental health not gun control. No; take away the assault rifle and someone with these issues cannot just go and massacre people this easily.
Why The Lack of Will?
I am left with a sense of incredible despondency in this. It is almost as though there is no will to change things, even on the liberal left. Is there some unspoken emotion we are not aware of? Is it because even these people actually believe that the occasional massacre is worth it so that people can have weapons to protect themselves from the "underclass"?
A staggering 100 people have died since Aurora in gun related deaths in the US: most will be poor, deprived. One American friend bluntly told me that many people see it as a form of "natural" population control. It's only when white middle class people get killed at schools, shopping malls or cinemas that it even makes the headlines. Is that the reason people don't seem to care?
The One Certainty
The only certainty about a difficult, complex situation is that if you do not even try to resolve it, and worse won't even talk about doing so, it will remain. Hope or blind faith will not "make a brighter day come" as the people of the Middle Ages believed. Bold, strong, political action just might. It is certainly worth a go. Without it we will be hearing the same speech President Obama did today in five years, in fifteen years, in fifty years time.
Rest in peace, victims of Aurora.
No comments:
Post a Comment