By Mohammad Mazhari
“U.S. society looks very sick to foreigners”
TEHRAN - American political analyst Martin Love believes that the Texas shooting may spark meaningful changes in U.S. society.
“The Uvalde massacre, however, may well spark changes,” Love tells the Tehran Times. Love is of the opinion that there is no constitutional aspect to general weapon ownership.
“The intent of the amendment that exists was over 200 years ago to provide for a militia, but not random gun ownership,” he remarks.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: What are the implications of the Uvalde school massacre for America and the world at large?
A: It seems there are, in recent years; on average about two mass shootings a day in the US…if you define “mass” as four or more persons/victims. Obviously, some incidents are worse than others, especially if the victims happen to be children. The net results of the Uvalde shooting are further confirmation that something is wildly out of control in the U.S., in particular access to weapons.
“According to Professor Henry Giroux, probably the top U.S. expert on education in the U.S., ‘Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death’.” It’s almost become a cult owns firearms, and many who do no business owning any and the government has long refused to clamp down, especially with respect to military-style weapons. There is in fact no Constitutional aspect to general weapon ownership. The intent of the amendment that exists was over 200 years ago to provide for a militia, but not random gun ownership. The Uvalde massacre, however, may well spark changes. Welcome changes to gun laws. In any event, U.S. society looks very sick to foreigners, and rightly so. Because it is. The U.S. government, for one thing, basing its power on military violence, sets a horrible example for the citizenry, too.
Q: Criticisms have grown over late response by police. What is your comment?
A: There is no question the police acted improperly. They stood around outside the Uvalde School, apparently too cowardly to go inside for almost an hour and throttle the young gunman. One woman, it has been reported, drove 45 minutes to the school and apparently got inside and successfully extracted two of her children before the police moved inside.
Q: Republicans such as Ted Cruz (R-Texas) blame a lot of societal factors — but not guns — for the wave of mass shootings in the U.S. Are they on the right side?
A: Republican lawmakers have probably been more vehement about gun ownership and many Democrats, but neither political party has enacted the changes necessary to try to curtail the violence. Sure, as Ted Cruz says, there are “societal factors” but he among others fails to see the linkage between access to weapons and horrific events like the massacre in Uvalde. Why? Because politicians like Cruz derive political support from people who for one reason or another equate “freedom” with gun ownership. Military-style weapons were banned for a few years in the US, but the ban was lifted a few years ago and that in itself was criminal on the part of lawmakers eager for added political support and votes. IF many kinds of firearms were banned and ownership prosecuted, it stands to reason that mentally deranged individuals would be less likely to shoot others willy-nilly. In any event, the massacre in Uvalde may be the tipping point whereby politicians who don’t support strict gun laws may lose political support.
Q: Despite promises and mottos by Democrats, it seems that there is no real move to control gun bearing. What are the main causes of such a failure?
A: There have been instances where a citizen in the U.S., taking advantage of lax gun laws, has used a weapon to preclude a potential massacre. When such a thing occurs, it often underscores the “validity" of allowing gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, However, this is a false argument overall. No one should be allowed to own a weapon that has no practical use but to murder. Draconian prohibitions ought to be enacted now, and should have been enacted decades ago.
Q: How do American people see the decisions and policies adopted by the authorities? Do they seem rational to the public?
A: According to Professor Henry Giroux, probably the top U.S. expert on education in the U.S., “Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers, and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics.”
But again, WHY do these things happen so often in the U.S.?
When you begin to connect the dots, they lead right back to the American police state and the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military-industrial complex, both of which continue to dominate, dictate and shape almost every aspect of American life as well as American foreign policy. The net result of current postures at home and abroad will eventually spell the END of the U.S., or at least revulsion towards America and its policies by most of the world’s people.
There are of course rational people who do “connect the dots”, but until the government is reformed and decent lawmakers elected, the problems will persist.
No comments:
Post a Comment