Why USA doesn’t have stringent laws to prevent gun violence incidents like Pittsburgh shooting?

One by “gunfighter” or “armed man” who usually have daddy issues and require psychiatric attention. And the other one by “terrorist” from a particular community.

(Courtesy: The New Yorker)

With history as evidence, the US authorities are more active to deal with the later one—to an extent of invading a country in the garb of “helping freedom movement”. As for dealing with the white supremacist, anti-Semite and youths with guns, there are lenient.

Given how closely the fatalities of both kinds of gun violence looks, the Americans have always found it hard to outline proper laws to deal with gun attacks.

The lawmakers want people to have guns to “protect themselves”. But they don’t wait for a second to attempt enhanced interrogation techniques (which is a sophisticated term for systematic torture) against people of a particular community who own a gun.

They want violence to stop—but as long as it’s the one from “terrorist”. For those “gunfighters”, they don’t care about their violence because they either were “protecting themselves” or have mental issues.

This dual stance (of lawmakers and media) has always been a holistic problem why incidents like Pittsburgh continue to happen and tens of people are killed cold blood. In 2017, it was in Nevada and Texas that killed 58 and 26 people respectively. In 2016, it was in Orlando, where 49 people died. In 2015, 14 people died in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.

Unsurprisingly, those attacks that came from “terrorists” got the most attention. The rest with daddy issues, they are likely getting a treatment.

The “attacker” Robert Bowers in the Pittsburgh mass shooting, he was an anti-Semite. Bursting into the Tree of Life synagogue, during the morning Sabbath services, he managed to kill 11 people and injure 8. While condemnation started pouring in from every corner, the hypocrisy was at high when he was/is labeled, as usual, as “attacker” and NOT terrorist. Indeed, it’s very likely that quick actions will be taken against him given the Republicans’ dominance in the country, it’s not difficult to assume just how differently the entire scenario would have been had this person belong to a particular community. The “condemnations” would have been “rage”.

(Courtesy: Daily Express)

But aside from these rhetorical, to answer your question factually, the gun situation in the USA is quite complex.

The gunmakers in the country are extremely powerful people who actually fund political endeavors. So, the politicians, who come to power, never dare to speak against these powerful people fearing losing votes and funding. Besides, Republicans are gun lobbyists. So, given Trump is in power, the number of guns in the country will only surge higher.

There are more guns in the USA than humans. In 2018, more people have been killed by guns in American schools than while deployed in Military.

Sadly, the lobbyists, in the embrace of the rich and corporate world of gun makers, will never see these numbers. Again, they care about gun mass shootings and mass killing only when it comes from “terrorists”. When it’s “gunfighter” or “armed men”, the issue goes only as far as discussing the gun laws—like we’re doing right now.

Here’s a powerful video of talk show host Jimmy Kimmel pleading for gun control following a mass killing in Parkland, Florida earlier this year that left 17 people dead: