A history of violence

The average law-abiding American citizen is almost 100 times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than their British counterpart. The murder rate per 100,000 people in the States stands at 5.2. For Australia the figure is 0.07, for Japan, 0.05, and for the UK 0.06. During 2009 alone, in six incidents spanning 23 days, US gunmen killed 43 people. Prior to that, the mentally disturbed student Seung-Hui-Cho murdered 32 at Virginia Tech in 2007.

There is a marked difference, however, between these incidents and the events of the Tucson massacre early this month. While previously each incident was followed by long and rancorous examinations of what should be done to control gun violence, there is now only silence.

In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, the Republican spokesman said: “This is a time for the House and all Americans to come together to mourn our losses and pray for those who are recovering, not a time for politics.”

Beneath this statement lies the true issue – scaremongering amongst America’s 80 million gun owners has resulted in organisations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) wielding extensive influence over 25 percent of the electorate. How do they manage it? By convincing a large proportion of these people that any alteration in the laws will inevitably lead to an erosion – or the abolition – of the 2nd amendment: the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

American politics were seeking any diversion away from this tricky business of murder by gunfire, and one came along handily in remarks made by the Pima County Sheriff Clarence W Dupnik, placed in charge of the investigation into the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. His suggestion that “vitriol” in America’s national political discourse contributed to the shooting moved the issue away from firearm ownership and focused it upon a frankly ridiculous cause.

A round of finger-pointing from both left and right ensued. From the right, Bill O’Reilly assured viewers that Dupnik was secretly a leftist, while the left vilified Sarah Palin by accusing her of incitement for having previously placed cross-hair targets over the Democrats she wanted defeated – including the wounded Giffords.

It is time, individually and collectively, that politicians should separate themselves from these sordid affairs and settle down to focus upon the inherent issue.

No individual can be held responsible for Loughner’s unstable actions, but a society can if it continues to insist upon upholding a system which legalises and desensitises the nation to a pervasive and all-consuming gun culture.