May 24, 2018

In post-massacre Santa Fe, guns are excused from culpability

located:	USA
editor:	Yair Oded

Last Friday, 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis entered his high school in Santa Fe, Texas, and shot dead 8 of his classmates and 2 teachers, injuring about a dozen more. In the days ensuing the massacre, local community members, politicians, and media outlets all took part in a heated debate over what has prompted the teenager’s bloody carnage. In a vortex of varying opinions and assumptions, gun control was the only issue left out of the discussion.

In a news conference following Friday’s tragic events, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick claimed the shooting was primarily the result of poor planning of school buildings, with the latter having simply too many entrances and exits, which make it, according to Patrick, difficult for guards to guarantee the safety of students and staff. Patrick further blamed the devaluation of life through abortion, divorce, movies, and video games, claiming they make us desensitised to violence and render us more likely to commit murders.

Patrick was not alone in eliminating the role of lax gun laws in the country as a contributing factor to the recurring mass shootings. The National Rifle Association’s future president declared Ritalin is behind surging gun violence in schools. In a series of roundtable discussions, Texas Governor Greg Abbott claimed the solution to the problem would be to “enlarge school marshal programs” (by, among other measures, installing metal detectors at entrances and further arming teachers). Finally, the suspect’s father, echoed by several conservative media outlets, portrayed bullying as the ultimate cause of his actions, thus framing him as a victim rather than a criminal.

As fury is, justifiably, hurled at politicians and news channels for directing the conversation away from the core issue underlying the rising epidemic of U.S. gun violence- gun control, it is crucial to remember that their outrageous comments are targeted at a particular audience. Thus, instead of focusing the attention solely on elected officials, greater effort must be made to engage the communities with whom such stances resonate.

In Santa Fe, for instance, the local community generally opposes stricter gun control measures. In the student-led protest in March following the Parkland, FL high school shooting, only a handful of Santa Fe students were present. Even in the aftermath of Friday’s events, the majority of Santa Fe students, parents, and community members still maintain that a reform in gun laws is uncalled for, claiming such measures won’t prevent blood- hungry individuals from committing murders. Earlier this week, in a Santa Fe community potluck, it was decided that increased training and arming of local teachers must take place to ensure the safety of residents.

It is true that the debate over access to guns in the U.S. is a highly sensitive, multi-layered one, as the right to bear arms was ingrained in the nation’s DNA; among some segments of the population, gun ownership has formed a symbiotic connection to culture, history, and communal values. It is also true that, to a great extent, gun lobbying in the U.S. transcends public opinion, and is spearheaded by an arms industry whose domination of the American political sphere dates back to the 1960s. Thus any progress on reforming the 2nd Amendment has less to do with pro or anti reform rhetoric as much as it does with challenging what it means to be American.