Imagine in the United States nearly the equivalent of the death toll of 9-11 occurring three times in ten months as a result of terrorism. Envision what would follow in the wake of such violence: civil unrest; new laws; political posturing; draconian security measures; scapegoating and backlashes; despair. Now witness the reality of the United States where since a horrendous atrocity at a school in Newtown, Connecticut last December in which 20 children were butchered, more than 8,100 Americans have died from gun violence including the 12 people shot dead by a mentally disturbed individual at a U.S. government office building in Washington, D.C. on 16 September 2013. To put this number in comparative terms, in the United Kingdom it would be roughly 1600 deaths during the same period or 5 people a day every day dead because of guns. I write these words in the UK's second largest city, Birmingham, where there has been a media discussion as to whether three deaths from knife attacks in three months constitutes an "epidemic" of knife crime. What has occurred then in the United States in the wake of this carnage? Candle light vigils; seeking motivations; finger pointing; scapegoating; failed legislating; downplaying; ignoring; moving on. The question, which those living outside of the United States find incomprehensible, is why has there not been anything in the way of a meaningful response? After all, other countries that have had gun massacres, like the United Kingdom at Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, and Australia at Port Arthur, Tasmania in the same year, subsequently passed various measures to curtail the use and ownership of firearms. But that has not been the American response. It is true in the aftermath of Newtown that a concerted effort was made to bring in new legislation tightening and, in some cases, requiring background checks but despite a poll showing this proposal having the support of 86 per cent of Americans, it failed to garner a sufficient number of votes within the U.S. Senate. The bedevilling question is why? The answer is multi fold and interconnected. There is the nature of the American political system whereby thanks to federalism states can determine gun rules and many have opted for very liberal ones. The problem for those entities with tougher laws is that they often have borders with neighbours who don't like to regulate gun ownership. Thus in the mass killing at the U.S. Navy Yards, Washington, D.C. has strong gun laws whereas next door Virginia, where the shooter with a history of mental illness legally bought one of the murder weapons, does not. Equally crucial is the cultural aspect surrounding Americans and guns. Although most Americans don't own guns, a substantial number do and many of those are strongly opposed to any restrictions on buying them. Their worship of the Second Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms") in the U.S. Bill of Rights shows no bounds. An opinion poll taken in June 2013 showed 11 per cent of Americans favouring more lenient gun restrictions. While an obvious minority, that figure still represents over 30 million people. And many of those allow the gun issue to determine their vote. A recent Washington Post-ABC News survey found that 40 per cent of "gun activists," defined as people who have given money to the cause or been in touch with a politician on the issue, would not cast a ballot for someone whose views on gun policy disagreed with their own. Conversely, 75 per cent of those seeking greater regulation of guns would be able to support a candidate even if they had a different perspective on the issue. In practical terms this skews the American political response to guns. Politicians are not stupid: why alienate a minority of voters who are driven to vote a certain way because of a particular issue compared to a majority who may be on the other side but have other more important concerns. This reality explains the predominance of the political status quo despite massacre after massacre. Thus shootings are blamed on, with the approval of the powerful National Rifle Association, a lack of attention to mental health issues or the availability of violent computer games and movies and not that there is nearly one gun for every man, woman, and child in the United States. So America in the 21st century is a nation fixated on terrorism that has killed but a handful of its citizens since 9-11 while ignoring gun violence that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. In a very real way then the only hope for meaningful reform of gun laws in the United States may be if more attacks are carried out by terrorists, particularly those from already demonized ethnic and religious groups, using legally obtained guns. Politically motivated violence aided by lax gun laws as opposed to killings by the mentally ill might undercut the ability of politicians and those who lobby them, specifically, the National Rifle Association, to block increased restrictions on guns. Ironically then, more.
