How can we ignore the role of guns in the Charleston shooting?
MONTGOMERY VILLAGE, Md., June 25, 2015 — We are in the aftermath of another mass killing. Nine citizens of Charleston, S.C., lost their lives at the hands of a self-proclaimed white supremacist.
The killings, not incidentally, were committed in one of the most revered places of worship for African- Americans in the South, the Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston. The killer’s intent was not subtle. No one with an ounce of historical knowledge can ignore the message.
Dylann Roof intended to bring his message boldly to the American public. According to his own “manifesto,” he wanted to start a race war. He said as he began his slaughter that blacks were raping women and taking over his country.
The advent of the civil rights movement and the large immigration of Latinos and others have completely changed the racial configuration of our country. What past generations called a melting pot in mid-20th century America was not even a light broth. Today’s melting pot is more like a thick stew.
Sixty years ago, when Americans met in public places, they were greeted by people who looked very much like them. Separate but (not) equal was the law of the land. The Caucasian Western European—white American—majority felt comfortable going anywhere as the rules of the game were clear and there were no interlopers from another ethnic backgrounds to muddle the waters.
Today, white Americans have to mix with people they don’t know much about, who look very different from what they are used to seeing.
Some would have expected even a stronger reaction by the white majority as the country became darker, or at least many non-whites came out of the shadows. With some rather obvious aberrations, however, those who had previously been subjugated did not retaliate with violence when they started gaining social and political strength. Historians in the future may find this an amazing fact, mainly that the transition has been so peaceful.
The Charleston shootings may ironically pave the way for the betterment of race relations in the country. In his eulogy of Reverend Pinckney, one of the victims, President Obama talked about this fact. His speech has been classified as one of the best in his political career.
But let’s not start patting ourselves in the back just yet. While the majority has accepted the changes and tried to make the best of them, a significant minority has not and probably never will.
Immediately after the massacre, right-wing pundits tried to spin the facts to being the act of a mentally ill person, a lone wolf and a freak. Their condemnation of the killings were directed at the fact that they had happened in a place of worship, which in their eyes was the overwhelming crime. They also took the opportunity to proclaim that racism no longer exists in the United States, so Roof must have been acting completely alone.
After more facts were known, the emphasis shifted to a piece of cloth. When by any logical analysis the events could not be attributed to anything but racism, the right-wing apologists shifted. Some started stating that maybe it was the fault of the Army of Northern Virginia flag that segregationists have used as their symbol since 1962. After all, Roof had exhibited it in his manifesto.
All of a sudden even the governor of one of the most entrenched Southern conservative states in our land was joining the band wagon for the removal of the flag. Little by little, all the significant politicos from the right have joined her.
Too little, too late. We cannot let ourselves be distracted from the real goal, eliminating racism in our society. This requires much more than taking down a piece of cloth.
The other half of the knee-jerk reaction by the right after the massacre was that “gun control was a non-starter.” They and most of the corporate media started putting forward the idea that since Roof had purchased the gun and ammunition legally, any thought of a debate about gun control should be abandoned.
These fanatics want us to believe that wide availability of guns should not be a factor in condemning the actions of Roof.
In a Logic 101 discussion, this argument doesn’t hold any water. The problem is in the legal acquisition of fire arms by anyone. In other words, anyone can obtain a gun, even those who are mentally ill or violent, as long as they pass a very low threshold. That allows anyone with a grievance to use gun violence to “settle the score.” By keeping the threshold low for anyone wanting to acquire a gun, we are hiding behind what is legal, ignoring what would be logical and safer.
Why is it that this type of mass murders is not so prevalent in other developed countries? Maybe in the same ways booze and speed are killers for drivers, guns and the individualistic, vigilante mentality of many in our country are killers for Americans.
Mario Salazar, the 21st Century Pacifist, believes that a gun doesn’t belong in the hands of those who can’t justify a dire need for them. He is in Twitter (@chibcharus), Google+, LindedIn and Facebook (Mario Salazar).Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.