Fig 1: Photo credit


Amidst rising pressure on the government to take action on the recent shooting at Sandy Hook, the following gestures were made by some of the political leaders in the north-east:

"We should be able to come together around measures law abiding gun owners would support such as banning high capacity ammunition clips, closing the gun show loophole and banning military style weapons which have no recreational sports use," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said in an email.

Reading such a carefully formatted diplomatic response almost makes me cringe. This is not the first tragedy of its kind in this country so given the context and historical trend, I also tend to read between the lines. And yes I am biased. So here’s how I read this:  Firstly - it says we SHOULD BE ABLE TO, not WE WILL. Meaning - our resolve is loose and only as temporary as the time dedicated to this national tragedy in the  local newspapers. Give it a coupla days, it’ll fade away and we’ll be back to business in the mighty US of A. Secondly, it confesses that the collective consent and blessing of “law-abiding gun owners” is more important than the need for us to do whatever it takes to immediately address and push the agenda to prevent any more such tragedies in the future. Thirdly, it suggests that the ability to use weapons for recreational purposes and backwoods hunting is still too important to let us reach any sort of actionable gun control law anytime soon.

Really? Is the second amendment law “right to bear arms” - a constitutional inclusion which makes absolutely no sense in this day and age so sacred that a political leader has to choose her words so equivocally so as not to irk righteous gun loyalists?

Another member of the US house of representatives Peter King said:

"I'm more than willing to work for meaningful legislation if we can find a way to go forward".  He said he would support further regulation as well. He expressed doubts about the political will to make that happen, though[0].

Note his words  - IF we can find a way forward. We WILL we send that Mars rover on its mission, we WILL change the world, but we’re so messed up in our collective conscience that this one nut is just too tough to crack. So, only IF we can find a way, if you please.

On the other hand, perhaps I should be giving these senators credit for at least making the effort to squeak up. Normally when these incidents happen, government tends to go on mute after dispatching its standard array of condolences to the families of the victims and attending their funerals.

The Statistics of gun debate actually run counter to expectation(or perhaps just my immigrant-colored expectation) but speak to the core of the problem of passing any kind of gun control legislation. It turns that repeated polling has shown that most Americans actually support the possession of guns. About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun and about half of the adult U.S. population lives in households with guns[1]. Support for gun control is at an all-time low, which is why gun control is extremely unpopular as a political agenda and was barely mentioned in the presidential campaign. Outside of the North-east, there is a solid majority of people who are against any changes to the amendment(South being the most pro-status quo, followed by the West, and Mid-west)[2].

The statistics also reveal that states that have stricter gun-laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.  I am tempted to quickly marry correlation with causation here but for logic’s sake I’ll leave this merely as an inference point.

Most interestingly, statistics have also repeatedly shown that shootings don’t tend to substantially affect people’s views on gun control[3]. According to the Pew Research Center, the Aurora cineplex shootings, among other similar incidents barely made any difference to public opinion on gun control. If you think about that, it could possibly mean one of three things: One, that Americans care more about their guns than their kids. Disturbing but unlikely. Two that they are too desensitized and removed from the incident to care. Sad. Three, they don’t associate the killings with gun possession and therefore don’t think gun control is going to reduce the killings. This is the one I am struggling to come to terms with.

Fig 2: Photo credit

The popular pro-gun rhetoric has always proposed that guns don’t kill, people do. Fix the people, they won’t pull the trigger. What if you can’t fix the people before they pull the trigger, or don’t even know who they are? Systemic fixes are good, but keep it simple, stupid. From a purely technical point of view, it is clearly the gun that kills. It is the grand bullet that enables and accomplishes this feat. There is no other way you can so effortlessly kill 30 innocent civilians in a matter of seconds or minutes by any other legitimate (non-warfare) means. And  replicate it on scale. Repeatedly. Every few months.

Only in this country.

Consider the Sandy Hook shooting. As reported: "Lanza shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at the home they shared, then drove to the school in her car with at least three of HER guns, forced his way inside and opened fire in two classrooms, authorities said. Within minutes, he killed 20 children, six adults and himself". Would he have been able to do this so effectively if he couldn’t get his hands on a gun? Probably not. Would he still have been a menace to his mother? Probably, but the kids would’ve been spared.

“Authorities said Adam Lanza had no criminal history, and it was not clear whether he had a job. Lanza was believed to have suffered from a personality disorder, said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity.[4]”  Another relative of Lanza said "I could never have foreseen him doing that[5]."

A Personality disorder, if it had anything to do with Lanza’s actions, or any kind of disorder for that matter, need not be allowed so easily to precipitate into a horrendous a format as gun violence. Social anxieties, angsts, depressions, unhealthy mental conditions are not a patented trademark solely of American society - the free possession of lethal weapons is. The social and psychological dimensions that constitute the work of building towards a non-violent society do need to be addressed, but that being a more complex, multi-faceted issue, as a first - we need a tactical fix that works, and implementing gun control is where the logical buck stops.

Taking a step back though, it is probably worth reviewing the debate with a socio-anthropological frame of reference. Guns in America have been a substantive part of its historical popular culture cultivated and deep-rooted in tradition, associations with heritage, masculinity, power, and have even been a central tenant of identity. Glorified gun exhibition and action films with guns stylized in phantasmagoric settings have long been an embraced part of the American expression. Proponents of the constitutional right deliberate that it signifies the same importance as voting and jury duty. Their positive registration that views the gun as a means of protection of the self and the home and endows it a quality of personal responsibility, even civic duty -  is fundamentally misaligned with the opposing viewpoint which sees it as a threat to public safety and automatically assigns it a morally delinquent and destructive role. Proponents of the two viewpoints are inherently antagonized in an irreconcilable fashion as the former justify a defense rooted in culture and identity and the latter in consequentialism and practical action.

Fig 3: Photo credit

We all know this, yet my eastern and immigrant mind still struggles to acculturate with the reality and pervasiveness of the gun culture in America. With the risk of pontificating and over-simplification, I assert that the benefit an actionable approach which addresses the practical considerations of the danger automatic weapons pose to society far outweighs the stupid kicks of holding on to old honor badges that weigh us down with their deep-rooted associations.  Limiting gun violence to the thriller movies , even more so if its serves a social cathartic function, is a way cooler idea. The fact is today Americans are no longer protecting themselves from hostile natives or foreign armies and the US is no longer an agrarian society using hunting as an alternative means of income and food.  That leaves the American fascination with guns and their stronghold on gun advocacy look like a frivolous fashion extravaganza, a costly nostalgia trip, a painful yore lore. More than anything, a drug for powerful gun manufacturers, sellers and lobbyists to feed off the American dystopia. The joy of gun kissing, nostalgia invoking and real-life fodder for art-imitating-life movies involves a price too costly to pay in the name of upholding this deadly - yes - deadly tradition.

And if Americans really feel that possessing firearms is the only way to “protect” themselves in their homes and on the streets, exactly what kind of society are we envisioning? One in which everyone would train themselves to tackle the endless permutations of possible forms of attacks perpetrated by burglars and godforsaken evil forces who should SURELY eventually find themselves staring nose in front of a rifle in an “aha-gotcha” moment? Braving mean streets abiding by a jungle-law where you sling out your smooth pistol the moment you sense danger? Keep nasty and physically (or  intellectually) threatening acquaintances at bay by letting them know you possess a gun? Arming your school-going children with guns so they can “defend” themselves? And when this much anticipated, many times rehearsed-over climax finally occurs and confrontation happens, what do you think you will do?

Pull the trigger?