US insensitive to gun violence

Tanushree Ghosh

May 2019 becomes another month in the US history where a school shooting has occurred (STEM, Highland Ranch Colorado). Ironically, that makes May 2019 less unique of a month than making it really stand out. 

Mass shooting (which refers to a gun used by a civilian in a public or private venue causing multiple injuries or causalities) is so common in the US that no matter who the victims are (from schoolchildren as young as first graders to senior and disabled citizens) the national conscience isn’t shocked. In other terms, it’s not really breaking news. Often, it’s no news at all. 

For the most part, it is reasonable for folks outside of the US to assume that this nation is OK with living with the risk of ending up in the middle of a public shooting at everyday places, including their children being exposed to this constant risk at where they spend most of their days — schools. 

The US, definitely, is de-sensitised to gun violence at this point. Most Americans do want what is termed ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Most Americans also have accepted that this can’t happen and, therefore, there is not much point getting bothered. The shooting at Parkland Florida High School in 2018 showed some promise of changing this. The population affected was of an age not too young (Sandy Hook) and not too old (Pittsburgh Synagogue). And the right age allowed for the momentum and perspective needed to trigger the rest of the jaded nation, which could be the key to force the Congress into action. But that expectation has come and gone. 

The common questions from people not living in the US are “how does one live with this constant risk?” and “why are the Americans not solving this by passing some laws/banning guns?” 

At one level, the answer to the first question can be tackled with analogies (aka risks that come with living at certain places: say bomb blasts or train derailments). But on another level, it can’t be. The knowhow of some ground reality can offer a clearer answer to both questions.

There are multiple preventive measures implemented at the entity level to prevent loss of life in case of a mass shooting here in the US. Most schools (starting from kindergartens and daycares) have drills and lockdown procedures for active shooter scenarios. My daughter’s pre-school for example doesn’t allow ‘walking drop off (can’t walk your child to school — have to be in a car line and no one except the child is allowed to get out of the car). Also, most of the campus is on lockdown (no outsider access, including parents) except for pre-announced special occasions. Same is true for corporations and government offices. What to do in an active shooter situation is taught with diligence these days to everyone.

However, restrictions on gun (including semi-automatic, high capacity magazines, and assault weapons) ownership and possession are extremely lax and mind-boggling. In Arizona (and in many other states), if one is able to legally own a gun (an easy threshold to reach) and is an adult, they can carry a gun hidden (and without needing to disclose) into most public places — no additional permission required (it’s called constitutional carry law). To buy a gun at gun shows (think of these as huge fairs with dealers and hobbyists displaying their merchandise — the merchandise being guns) no background check is needed. Individuals on terrorist watchlists, who are prevented from boarding flights, can also buy guns. 

As the Las Vegas 2017 shooting brought forward, devices of conversion of semi-automatic fire-arms into automatic can be bought and used easily (it is legal to buy bump stocks which convert legally available weapons into illegal automatic weapons — incredible but true). 

To understand why two things need to be comprehended.  First: legislative action happens through successful lobbying of interest in the US as much it happens in public interest. The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has more clout imaginable than most organisations, both in terms of financial power and political influence. So much so, that when Delta Airlines, in response to rising public sentiment against the NRA after the Parkland shooting decided to cut ties with the NRA, in a retaliatory measure, the Republican lawmakers in Georgia blocked a Bill intended to provide tax relief to Delta.

Second: the cultural significance of guns to Americans is high. Gun ownership is close to most American hearts (pop culture memes of gun love and car love defining Americans is not untrue, nor a matter of joke). Gun ownership is an integral part of the American lifestyle. It can be attributed to the continuation of self-reliant lifestyles that required defensive measures in relatively isolated (and often remote and wild surroundings) or to history. It is easy to associate guns to freedom here, and, therefore, symbolise gun control as just ‘control’, which is what most Americans want less of for most matters. The US, therefore, can never be New Zealand where prompt gun control measures are put in place following a tragedy. 

 And that is why, with a powerful interest group playing its cards right, gun violence might be here to stay.