Weapons, Once Again
Published in El País
(Spain) on 20 June 2015
by (link to original)
(Spain) on 20 June 2015
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Foster Hodge.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
Among the atrocious justifications that the lawyers for Dylann Roof — the 21-year-old white male who killed nine African-Americans in a church in Charleston, South Carolina on Thursday — will wield for the assassinations may be racism, personal problems, mental problems, etc. Nearly everything will be disputable, except for one objective fact: The young man was armed.
Each time there is a tragedy like the one in Charleston, lobbying groups against the control of arms evoke the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which consecrates the right of its citizens to bear arms. The predominant interpretation of the amendment — as well as the social culture, with nuances — supports these groups. Yet the day will arrive when society will say enough, as it did with other situations that were no less deeply rooted in the customs and reflected by the laws of the country. It is unacceptable that in the United States 300 people die each day in diverse events involving weapons, from acts of violence to suicide and accidents. It is disturbing that each year there are 100,000 victims, especially because the crime rate has fallen in the last 20 years.
Hunting, culture, personal security — everything is compatible with certain controls. Half of the population believes that the laws ought to be stricter, and 65 percent, according to Gallup, are in favor of the laws that the Senate denied in 2013. Perhaps the decision to investigate what occurred as an act of terrorism will contribute to society having a serious conversation about weapons and will revive legislative efforts for stricter supervision. However, the resigned words of President Barack Obama do not invite optimism.
He ought to be particularly concerned: It is quite probable that his legacy, already marked by the resurgence of racial tensions, will end with failure in relation to the control of arms. He must strive until the last moment of his stay in the White House to avoid it.
Each time there is a tragedy like the one in Charleston, lobbying groups against the control of arms evoke the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which consecrates the right of its citizens to bear arms. The predominant interpretation of the amendment — as well as the social culture, with nuances — supports these groups. Yet the day will arrive when society will say enough, as it did with other situations that were no less deeply rooted in the customs and reflected by the laws of the country. It is unacceptable that in the United States 300 people die each day in diverse events involving weapons, from acts of violence to suicide and accidents. It is disturbing that each year there are 100,000 victims, especially because the crime rate has fallen in the last 20 years.
Hunting, culture, personal security — everything is compatible with certain controls. Half of the population believes that the laws ought to be stricter, and 65 percent, according to Gallup, are in favor of the laws that the Senate denied in 2013. Perhaps the decision to investigate what occurred as an act of terrorism will contribute to society having a serious conversation about weapons and will revive legislative efforts for stricter supervision. However, the resigned words of President Barack Obama do not invite optimism.
He ought to be particularly concerned: It is quite probable that his legacy, already marked by the resurgence of racial tensions, will end with failure in relation to the control of arms. He must strive until the last moment of his stay in the White House to avoid it.