Shooting in Orlando
Published in La Presse
(Canada) on 16 June 2016
by Alexandre Sirois (link to original)
(Canada) on 16 June 2016
by Alexandre Sirois (link to original)
Translated from
by William Hochstettler.
Edited by Danielle Tezcan.
If only the patrons of the gay bar in Orlando had been armed... “You wouldn't have had the tragedy that you did have,” claimed the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump yesterday.
Such a reaction was foreseeable: It is the rhetoric given almost automatically by leading figures of the powerful American gun lobby and their numerous allies after each mass shooting.
This absurd reasoning — the more guns in circulation, the fewer crimes will be committed with a gun — does not withstand the test of facts.
But those who maintain this rhetoric categorically reject every effort seen to limit the sale of firearms.
Driven to its extreme, this inept logic means that some American citizens can be banned from flying on an airplane, as they may commit an act of terror, but the same citizen cannot be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
What are American politicians waiting for to put an end to this aberration? For the time being, it is out of the question for them to change their strategy. In December, the American Senate rejected a bill that addressed this, 54 votes — of which 53 were Republicans — to 45.
“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” declared Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California and the bill's sponsor.
This specific legislation would not have prevented the perpetrator of the Orlando shooting from buying firearms, as his name was not listed on the suspected terrorist watch list, the FBI indicated yesterday, having interrogated him several times in 2013 and 2014 as part of a long investigation.
Many Americans rightly appreciate, in the wake of this tragedy, that such a law would probably prevent future carnage.
On the other hand, these last few years, members of Congress have also rejected measures controlling access to guns that might have been able to prevent Omar Seddique Mateen from committing his crime. Or, presumably, prevent him from injuring such a large number of victims.
They could notably have prohibited the sale of assault rifles (like the AR-15 used by the shooter) and high capacity magazines. This among other things was demanded by the American president in 2013, a request dismissed by Congress.
Attacks carried out by lone wolf shooters in the West are increasing, and predicting them presents a real challenge. It is of course necessary to advance effective initiatives to combat the seductive power of Islamist propaganda and those who broadcast it, but also to prevent radicalization.
In the United States, this combat also necessitates the adoption of a series of measures to avoid firearms easily ending up in the hands of potential criminals. By obstinately denying this, American politicians have made themselves into accomplices of these shooters.
Such a reaction was foreseeable: It is the rhetoric given almost automatically by leading figures of the powerful American gun lobby and their numerous allies after each mass shooting.
This absurd reasoning — the more guns in circulation, the fewer crimes will be committed with a gun — does not withstand the test of facts.
But those who maintain this rhetoric categorically reject every effort seen to limit the sale of firearms.
Driven to its extreme, this inept logic means that some American citizens can be banned from flying on an airplane, as they may commit an act of terror, but the same citizen cannot be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
What are American politicians waiting for to put an end to this aberration? For the time being, it is out of the question for them to change their strategy. In December, the American Senate rejected a bill that addressed this, 54 votes — of which 53 were Republicans — to 45.
“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” declared Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California and the bill's sponsor.
This specific legislation would not have prevented the perpetrator of the Orlando shooting from buying firearms, as his name was not listed on the suspected terrorist watch list, the FBI indicated yesterday, having interrogated him several times in 2013 and 2014 as part of a long investigation.
Many Americans rightly appreciate, in the wake of this tragedy, that such a law would probably prevent future carnage.
On the other hand, these last few years, members of Congress have also rejected measures controlling access to guns that might have been able to prevent Omar Seddique Mateen from committing his crime. Or, presumably, prevent him from injuring such a large number of victims.
They could notably have prohibited the sale of assault rifles (like the AR-15 used by the shooter) and high capacity magazines. This among other things was demanded by the American president in 2013, a request dismissed by Congress.
Attacks carried out by lone wolf shooters in the West are increasing, and predicting them presents a real challenge. It is of course necessary to advance effective initiatives to combat the seductive power of Islamist propaganda and those who broadcast it, but also to prevent radicalization.
In the United States, this combat also necessitates the adoption of a series of measures to avoid firearms easily ending up in the hands of potential criminals. By obstinately denying this, American politicians have made themselves into accomplices of these shooters.
Previous article![]( "Guns Are Out of Control in America, But There’s No Cure")
Next article![]( "Hate and Arms")
