Why the US Hasn't Laid Down Its Weapons and Rejected Reform

The impossibility of passing a law that would limit the use of firearms isn’t the result of Republican opposition. It is the desire of a country that claims its right to defend itself.

For Barack Obama, this reform meant more than a simple law or political agenda. It was one of his strong points, but also a moral priority, a commitment he made to America after the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which cost the lives of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. Now the priority has turned into one of his most stinging defeats. “All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” Obama said. “But this effort is not over … my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities.” In this comment, Obama bitterly denounced the failure of both Republican and Democratic senators to pass a bipartisan reform bill in favor of gun control. In order to finalize the agreement on a law that would introduce more stringent controls on the sale of arms, ban assault rifles and prohibit the use of high-capacity magazines, at least 60 votes were needed. Last Wednesday, the number of defenders of the bill only reached 54.

The rejection of Obama’s reform isn’t just the result of the traditional Republican allergy to any limitation to the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Many Democratic senators, including Max Baucus of Montana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, fought the reform and chose not to run for re-election in states where trust in pistols and rifles is the sole and authentic bipartisan belief. However, the Senate u-turn goes beyond the confines of politics. It amplifies the discrepancies between Washington and the rest of the country and shows how the heart of the president does not beat in unison with a good part of America. This imbalance is all the more evident as it coincides with the apparent breakthrough in investigating the slaughter in Boston. To give up on the reform while witnessing potential domestic terrorism resulting from right-wing extremism determined to defend the right to own a weapon by may seem paradoxical — but only to Europeans.

In America, the so-called “gun culture” is not a prerogative of the fanatical fringe of the right. The right to own guns for self-defense is considered an essential element of freedom. The Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775, the first act of the American Revolution – celebrated every year with the Boston Marathon – was caused by a British attempt to seize the cannons and gunpowder reserves of the settlers. The weapons, symbols of the revolt of the patriotic “militia,” then became the icon of the conquest of the West, where Colt .45s and Winchesters were the only defense against bandits and Indians.

But this “gun culture” is not just history. According to data updated in 2011 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 46 percent of adult men and 23 percent of women possess a weapon, while 47 percent of the total population lives with at least one gun or a rifle in their closet. Therefore, for a good half of America, the real paradox would be to give up a constitutional right just because one deranged person has transgressed the law. And this belief — undervalued by Obama, yet anchored in the minds of citizens and in the country’s history — had to be taken into account by the Senate.