Domestic Guns and Mass Murder
Guns in homes, carried in handbags and school rucksacks, briefcases, car glove compartments and jackets, accessories to kill and injure, to threaten and intimidate. Don’t leave home without one.
In 2010 over a third of American adults owned a gun and there were a staggering 310,000,000 non-military guns (known to the authorities) in the country. It is a number one can barely register. One thing is certain; it’s far too many firearms for any one country. A series of mass killings have recently shaken a gun complacent America into debating the issue of arms within society, gun controls, regulations and enforcement. A debate inhibited by political cowardice in a $billion election year, for nobody running for office wants to upset the high church of guns in America, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their 4.5 million members.
These latest killings follow in a stream of such tragedies and cause many around the world to shake their collective heads at a society that seems not to learn from these dreadful violent incidents. They illustrate once again the need for a new and sane approach to gun controls. Surprisingly though a current Gallup report found that “Americans have shifted to a more pro-gun view on gun laws… with record-low support for a ban on handguns, an assault rifle ban, and stricter gun laws in general.” In fact only 11% support tighter gun laws at all. What will it take one asks, for common sense to prevail and for this fear driven tryst with firearms to come to a timely end.
Mass figures. Presidential position
There are The Guardian (9/08/12) reports “an average of 32 people killed by guns in this country every day – the equivalent of five Wisconsin massacres per day.“ That equates to (an average) 11,680 domestic murders per year. To establish some perspective, in Afghanistan – a war zone, there have been, according to United Nations figures over 12,793 deaths in the past six years. A thousand fatalities more in total than takes place in an America at peace, every year.
What then does President Obama have to say about this social epidemic? After the hateful killing of seven people during Sunday worship at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on 5th August by ex-military man Wade Michael Page, President Obama said, “I think all of us recognize that these kinds of terrible, tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul-searching.” To many of us it is unclear what is meant by such a platitude, or why such a deep investigation is necessary, when the solution seems plain. The ‘soul-searching’ the President advocates however does no include discussing what to many seems imperative and obvious; tighter gun controls, or better still a complete ban on the sale of firearms coupled with the handing in of all weapons in private ownership, save those used solely for sport.
The Presidents position has, at least publicly, remained unchanged since he arrived at the White House in 2008, when he promised to the 80 million or so gun owners, that he was, “not going to take away your guns.” How reassuring. Writing in the Arizona Daily Star in March 2011, two months after US Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot dead during a public meeting in a supermarket parking lot in Casa Adobes near Tuscon Arizona, Obama encouragingly said, no doubt with all sincerity, “none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television,” he goes on to state what many millions know – “Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.” Indeed we do Mr.President, so what inspired measures are you proposing that will put an end to the killings in supermarket car parks, colleges, homes, in the parks and streets of your country? “My administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners – it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.” Add to this the latest addition to legal gun carrying, on Amtrak – the US train network and a measure of the man’s determination to ‘do everything we can’ becomes clear.
Major murders mass accidents
Since beginning this essay more major killings have captured the attention of the worlds media. Manhattan, a reasonably safe island in New York witnessed a shooting on 25th August near the Empire State Building. Where the BBC (25/08/2012) reports “A fired women’s clothes designer shot dead a former colleague. The “disgruntled” worker fatally shot a former colleague in the head. The police then fired 16 rounds and killed Johnson.” In addition to the two killings, nine bystanders were injured “by bullets, some possibly fired by police, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.” And in Texas near the A&M University in College Station, The Guardian 14/08/12 states “A police officer and a bystander were killed and others injured during a shoot-out with a gunman… at least three others – including two law enforcement officers – were injured. The gunman was shot and later died.”
The police carry guns of course, they are forced to some might say, in order to meet ‘fire with fire’, killing with killing. And sometimes accidents, or ‘collateral damage’ – a military term designed to normalise the inhumane, categorise individual suffering with a euphemism and trivialise personal loss, is inevitable. The price of security, the supporters of such policies, blinded by the trigger would no doubt stridently claim. The weight of fear and an attachment to a distorted ideal of freedom, forcing them to bear arms, to attack, not defend. Killing and injuring in the name of freedom, security and liberty, it’s our right, they cry. Is there a right that supports murder that justifies killing, intentional or indeed accidental, ‘sorry it was an accident,’ small comfort to the bereaved.
Friday 7th September saw two such incidents of ‘accidents’ in New York alone. A shopkeeper being robbed was shot and killed by an armed uniform policeman, as the Huffington Post report (8/09/2012) “the death appeared to be an accident…There was no sign that the shooter and other officers at the scene mishandled the situation, said police commissioner Raymond Kelly. “The tragedy here of course was that Mr Cuevas (the shopkeeper) was shot, but I see nothing wrong with the procedure.” One doubts the family of Mr.Cuevas would agree.
A second man threatening suicide with a knife, was shot by armed officers in the district of Queens, not disarmed, comforted and given needed support. Simply killed. The tension inherent in attending an armed incident must be great. Expecting violence, frightened yet ‘pumped up’ mistakes are to be expected, perhaps inevitable, triggered by such circumstances. The fault lies not with the officers, who are (we trust) following ‘procedure’ and we must assume them to be responsible, well trained and armed to protect themselves and those in danger.
Common sense says that no accidental deaths would occur without the guns being carried, drawn and inevitably fired. Common sense that President Obama demands, be applied to the laws controlling firearms, whilst reassuring gun owners in the Arizona article, not to be frightened by such collective wisdom, “the word “common-sense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation,” he says. Don’t worry; we won’t take away your guns, no matter how many ‘accidental’ or intentional killings occur, day after day, year after year.
The attack on the Sikh community in Wisconsin follows closely on from the slaughter that took place on 20th July in the suburb of Aurora in Denver Colorado at a screening of the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises. James Holmes a 24 -year old PhD neuroscience student masked and heavily armed, shot 14 innocent people, 12 dead, including an unborn child. The Mother was shot in the stomach and neck, but survived only to loose the baby she was carrying, her six -year old daughter was also killed, a further 50 people were injured.
The first question, impossible to answer, that erupts in the mind is why. Why did a young student, shoot 14 innocent people, or looking back a little, why did a biology professor in 2010 kill three colleagues during a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama. Would they have met Obama’s description of villainous law breakers, “I’m willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few – dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example – from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.” And I’m ‘willing to bet’ you’ve no idea that a college lecturer was dangerous, or that a postgraduate student of neuroscience was a ‘fugitive.’
Strengthening legal filters is unlikely to find the psychopath in the human haystack, the criminal shopping off line on the black market or the unstable ‘regular Joe’ who flips out when he is made redundant.
Why, with complicated separate answers no doubt is swiftly followed by, what were they doing with the guns? And the common-sense assertion, arrived at with no ‘soul searching’ at all Mr.President that without the firearms, the shootings would not have taken place. Common sense is it not sir.
The domestic firearm industry in America is a huge business, since 1999 it has been worth The Guardian (16/04/2012) reports “on average, about $3.5bn every year.” Guns are relatively inexpensive, an AK-47 pattern assault weapon e.g. is around $500 and a low-calibre handgun can be bought in a supermarket for as little as $75. Not only is it big business but also, “it is recession-proof, rising and falling less with the economic tide than the electoral one. When Democrats are elected the sales go up.” When Obama was elected (in 2008), sales of firearms increased by 50% compared with the same time the previous year. In nervous anticipation perhaps of expected reforms to gun laws. Stock up before the legal purge, the mentality. A purge that never came, and so the killing goes on.
In a country where capitalism is the national way coupled with a very American notion of freedom, business, profit and the right to carry guns are held together in an orthodox marriage, the vows performed by the extremely powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) and seen as sacrosanct. Add to this trinity the much trumpeted second amendment, which says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” And you have a poisonous cocktail, causing the deaths of, and let me repeat the figure, around 12,000 people a year.
There are various interpretations of the cherished second amendment. The first based on the absence of an 18th century civilian militia, (the US army of the time) a ‘well regulated militia, composed of the Body of the People trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state’, seems the most logical and appropriate and would appear to restrict gun ownership and the right to bear arms to the personnel of a militia. However as Civil Liberties state ‘justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the “well-regulated militia. Ambiguity is a convenient tool in continuing to justify the commodification of weapons, sold as a ‘must have’ in America, serving the firearms industry well, enabling the selling guns to a fearful populace, under some vague pretext of self defence against the State and or personal safety, to continue unhindered.
Fearful Right to attack
The notion that peace can be achieved, and maintained nationally or internationally through the constant threat and repeated exercise of force, as America seems to believe is a false one. Violence begets violence. Peace is realised through removing the causes of conflict and division, to make war in the name of peace as America has repeatedly done and continues to do, is to cloak ones actions in a fabricated nobility.
It is logical is it not, that where there is the greatest concentration of gun ownership there will be the highest number of gun related crimes and murders. A childlike logic borne out by statistics, a study by the Harvard Injury Research Center found unsurprisingly, that “a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide,“ and “we found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.” This last finding was calculated from studies in over 50 states.
Beyond the spurious argument for gun ownership based on the ‘right to bear arms’, there is the idea that guns ensure personal safety, that weapons are an aid to and are primarily used in self-defence, and that bearing arms generates psychological security. Views that are completely false as indeed the Harvard team discovered, “Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defence” and “Most purported self-defence gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal… firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defence.” They also found that almost half of all gun owners have a small arsenal of weapons, with four or more guns in their bedside cabinets, kitchen cupboards and office drawers.
Gun ownership creates physiological and more importantly, psychological fear. The self same paranoia that drives gun ownership, justifies drone attacks in Pakistan, and false imprisonment, torture and abuse in Guantanamo, and is a required factor in controlling any society, by any regime. The Harvard study on gun ownership revealed that, “By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans would feel less safe, not safer, as others in their community acquire guns.” Mostly guns are kept within the home, and are used more often to frighten and intimidate partners, family members, ‘friends’ and so on than to “thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders.” The same pattern applies to teenagers, 12 -17 year old gun-packing adolescents, who report being more likely to threaten and be threatened by a peer carrying a gun than to use a weapon in self-defence.
Trust is not built through actions based on paranoia and a fear of the ‘other,’ who may or may not be a ‘fugitive’ a ‘terrorist’ a ‘dangerous criminal’ and possess a weapon or be a threat to ‘national security.’ Actions rooted in fear do not alleviate unease but reinforce anxiety and tension, creating an environment in which violent incidents occur, tragic accidents take place and the pattern of vicious murders continues.
The ‘common-sense approach to reducing gun crime would seem to be to stop selling the weapons, call for all guns to be handed into designated offices and make holding firearms, unless for sport illegal. However the issue of gun ownership in America is a highly emotive one, socially complex and indeed big business, resistance to such an approach would no doubt be fierce, with numerous logistical obstacles being cited as reason enough to avoid such radical steps. What is beyond doubt, or statistical analysis however is the fact that any country with an average annual death toll of 12,000 of its citizens has a major social problem that urgently needs addressing.