High school students protest against gun violence on the Colorado State Capitol grounds on March 14, 2018 in Denver, Colorado. PHOTO | ROSS TAYLOR | AFP
A 17-year-old boy took a gun to school in Santa Fe, Texas, US, early in the morning last Friday.
He opened fire in the art class, shouting, “I’m going to kill you!” to one of his classmates. In the end, he killed 10 people and wounded 13.
It was the 22nd school shooting in America this year, which works out to a shooting every week, according to CNN.
It is becoming normal for a child who is angry, sad or just disturbed to resolve the issue with a powerful shotgun or a semi-automatic rifle. And it’s not just in schools.
GUN VIOLENCE
Last September, Stephen Paddock opened fire at a musical festival from 32 floors up in his hotel.
Last September, Stephen Paddock opened fire at a musical festival from 32 floors up in his hotel.
He pumped more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd from his rifle, which had been modified to make it fully automatic. He killed 58 people and injured 851.
Not only is the United States increasingly looking unsafe to people not used to that level of gun violence, it is also puzzling to non-Americans why the regular slaughter of so many children and the innocent is insufficient to drive leaders together to find a solution to it and save lives.
It would appear, from 12,000 kilometres away, that the question of gun violence has been reduced to just another issue that people can differ about, politicians can feed on and lobbyists and industry can buy influence over.
CONSTITUTION
As the children die, Americans are divided right down the middle.
As the children die, Americans are divided right down the middle.
Those on the gun-loving right will not hear any argument against guns.
They blame the violence on mental illness and the absence of guards — more guns — in the institutions.
Those on the left want ownership of guns regulated so that disturbed people do not have access to them.
At the centre of this argument is a constitutional provision, which the pro-gun people say, protects their right to own weapons.
That provision, the Second Amendment, is part of a constitution adopted on December 15, 1791, when America was rural, life was rough and there was a permissive fear of a federal government using its authority to maintain a standing army to oppress the states.
CIVILIANS
James Madison, an influential framer of the constitution, at the time made an impassioned argument about the necessity of a militia able to protect states from a federal army.
James Madison, an influential framer of the constitution, at the time made an impassioned argument about the necessity of a militia able to protect states from a federal army.
As a matter of fact, the Second Amendment puts the right to bear arms in that militia context:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Does this give every American the right to own guns as an individual and keep them in their homes?
The Supreme Court has found that it confers no such right; it has also ruled that “it’s not the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever reason”.
It is only 10 years ago that the Supreme Court, in a ruling authored by conservative judge Antonin Scalia, interpreted the constitution to mean that the individual’s right to own and carry weapons was protected, and, therefore, removing the militia context.
CAMPAIGNS
The National Rifle Association, the powerful and wealthy lobby for gun manufacturers and enthusiasts, introduces a corrupt and greedy perspective to the whole conundrum.
The National Rifle Association, the powerful and wealthy lobby for gun manufacturers and enthusiasts, introduces a corrupt and greedy perspective to the whole conundrum.
Using campaign contributions to a good chunk of politicians, from the Senate (maybe even presidential campaigns and groups that support them) downwards, the NRA controls the legislative process and, indirectly, the judicial one as well (judges are appointed and confirmed by politicians).
As a result of confusing, clever gun arguments, there are many Americans who today believe that gun rights are supreme and inviolable and that the only way to save the situation is through the introduction of more guns.
While those who support the unbridled ownership of and unfettered access to guns argue that overall gun violence is falling even as more guns are bought, what non-Americans find difficult to get is why the death of so many people does not galvanise more Americans to rise against this corrupt edifice in defence of their children.
LEGISLATION
Even after the Parkland school massacre in Florida, in which 17 people were killed and thousands of students took to the streets in protest, the hearts are as cold as ever.
Even after the Parkland school massacre in Florida, in which 17 people were killed and thousands of students took to the streets in protest, the hearts are as cold as ever.
Senator Marco Rubio, a young politician who ran for president against the incumbent, was hypocritically pledging to support laws to bar people younger than 18 from accessing guns while, in Washington, pushing a law that would end such bans already in existence.
He also argues confidently that gun laws would not have prevented the killings. (Senator Rubio has received $3.3 million from the NRA in the course of his political career.)
The question on many people’s minds is whether America can cut through the gun madness and the corruption and find a way for its people to own and treasure their weapons without putting their children at risk.
What right can be more important that the safety and the lives of American children?
This proves a saying from my people that to the fool, his foolishness looks like wisdom.
mmutuma@ke.nationmedia.com
No comments:
Post a Comment