Hate and Arms
Published in La Razón
(Bolivia) on 17 June 2016
by Editorial (link to original)
(Bolivia) on 17 June 2016
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Camden Luxford.
Edited by Shelby Stillwell.
On Sunday, a United States citizen of Afghan origin caused the country’s worst shooting massacre, after murdering 49 people and wounding a further 53 in a gay bar in Orlando. This fact has put in fresh relief the fatal consequences of lax arms control combined with hate toward what is considered different, both widely present in the northern country.
There is no need to be an expert in the field of security to know that a massacre of such characteristics (similar to that which occurred in 2006 in the University of Virginia Tech in which 27 students and five professors died; or that which took place in December 2015, in San Bernardino, California, perpetrated by a fundamentalist married couple who killed 14 people and left about 20 wounded) could only occur in the United States. This is because it is the only country in the world in which an ordinary citizen can acquire, for barely $500, an assault rifle capable of firing 30 bullets in less than a minute, which was precisely the weapon used in the shootings previously mentioned.
Incredibly, despite this obvious fact, many Americans are ready to defend their “right” to carry weapons of war, a right that paradoxically goes against the right to life of the rest of the population. At the same time, these people do not hesitate to stoke fear and hate of those considered a threat, maybe because they don’t fit into the sexual mold considered normal, maybe because they practice different religious beliefs.
The case of Donald Trump is very illustrative. Only a few hours after this (yet another) massacre, after the identity – and above all the Afghan parentage – of the killer, Omar Siddique Mateen (29 years old) was known, the Republican candidate congratulated himself. According to him, the facts affirmed his warnings about Islam: months previously, as part of his electoral campaign, he proposed a prohibition on entry of Muslims to the U.S., as well as the need to make the sale of arms more convenient.
Further, he demanded Obama step down, reviving the idea of a supposed link between the U.S. president and Islam – a link suggested by Trump himself years earlier that still remains in the imagination of 43 percent of Republicans. He also asked Hillary Clinton to abandon her campaign for not using the phrase “radical Islam” when referring to the tragedy in Orlando.
This is certainly an interpretation of reality that is not only irresponsible, but also very dangerous. It seeks to increase fear of Islamic terrorism, together with a fierce and irrational defense of arms, instead of trying to understand the motives and conditions that make the repetition of these bloody shootouts, like the one that took place in the early hours of last Sunday, possible.
There is no need to be an expert in the field of security to know that a massacre of such characteristics (similar to that which occurred in 2006 in the University of Virginia Tech in which 27 students and five professors died; or that which took place in December 2015, in San Bernardino, California, perpetrated by a fundamentalist married couple who killed 14 people and left about 20 wounded) could only occur in the United States. This is because it is the only country in the world in which an ordinary citizen can acquire, for barely $500, an assault rifle capable of firing 30 bullets in less than a minute, which was precisely the weapon used in the shootings previously mentioned.
Incredibly, despite this obvious fact, many Americans are ready to defend their “right” to carry weapons of war, a right that paradoxically goes against the right to life of the rest of the population. At the same time, these people do not hesitate to stoke fear and hate of those considered a threat, maybe because they don’t fit into the sexual mold considered normal, maybe because they practice different religious beliefs.
The case of Donald Trump is very illustrative. Only a few hours after this (yet another) massacre, after the identity – and above all the Afghan parentage – of the killer, Omar Siddique Mateen (29 years old) was known, the Republican candidate congratulated himself. According to him, the facts affirmed his warnings about Islam: months previously, as part of his electoral campaign, he proposed a prohibition on entry of Muslims to the U.S., as well as the need to make the sale of arms more convenient.
Further, he demanded Obama step down, reviving the idea of a supposed link between the U.S. president and Islam – a link suggested by Trump himself years earlier that still remains in the imagination of 43 percent of Republicans. He also asked Hillary Clinton to abandon her campaign for not using the phrase “radical Islam” when referring to the tragedy in Orlando.
This is certainly an interpretation of reality that is not only irresponsible, but also very dangerous. It seeks to increase fear of Islamic terrorism, together with a fierce and irrational defense of arms, instead of trying to understand the motives and conditions that make the repetition of these bloody shootouts, like the one that took place in the early hours of last Sunday, possible.
Previous article![]( "Shooting in Orlando")
Next article![]( "Brexit from EU Leaves Donald Trump Triumphant")