(17e) Another shooting in the USA
Another shooting in the USA - indeed, another 'already more than one year later'. Now the shooting happened in a church in Charleston, South Carolina where mainly black people come together. Nine people died, all black as a white loser targeted people with another skin colour.
As a commentator mentions in his article, while the foundation stones of the USA are impressive, in the latest attack the two evil building blocks that are present in the Constitution and thus in American society joined:
- racism and more specifically white supremacists (who are in effect small people who are angry that others can be as good or better than them) against people with another colour and more specifically against black people, and
- the constitutional right to carry weapons, a Constitution 'written in the age of the musket' (to quote the article) so the new independent country could protect itself against the UK while today this article allows people to carry semi-automatic weapons (as if society is an action movie).
And thus President Obama, for the 14th time in his now 6 years as a president (thus in average 2.5 times each year to better understand how often this is while other murders are not mentioned), condemned another shooting of innocent people by a madman, this time a 21 year old man. And while it is sometimes understandable that someone who was bullied by other students while teachers didn't protect the victim turns against fellow students and teachers for revenge, here it seems there may be no connection between the murderer and his victims; still, the individual claims he wanted to start a race war - and he is not the only one. But, as the murderer (although young) is an out-of-date person with old ideas about other races (still, it seems he had black friends), he probably didn't have many male or female friends as they probably didn't like his ideas. This absence of friends can maybe explain his anger towards black people as he claims 'they rape our girls' as indeed many white girls like black muscular funny men so he could have gone to the gym and get some tan but mainly should have stopped speaking badly about other people and on the contrary have fun together.
Again President Obama spoke out against the absolute right to carry weapons and that laws concerning gun control should be changed. But, it also seems he accepted that, as a president, he is powerless to change laws as long as Congress lacks a majority to help him change these laws. Indeed, one person can do much to try to change direction but the majority determines whether they are open for such a change in direction or not. And it is good to show one is sometimes powerless so people can start to demand for change by electing other politicians, or they don't want change. Here a testimony how difficult it is to even talk about changing gun laws. And that little change is to be expected demonstrate following points:
- the comments by some Republican presidential candidates such as Rick Perry who do not blame the presence of weapons in society but that people are using drugs (many will include medicines) although the gunman already admitted he killed for racial motivations.
- Other mainly Republicans such as presidential candidate Jeb Bush claim stricter gun control are not the way to go although potential criminals should be constrained (and thus unknowingly he says gun laws should become stricter by restricting the freedom of certain individuals who may be dangerous). Indeed, stricter gun laws will not immediately make society less dangerous as it will take time to reduce the number of weapons and thus dangerous individuals will need to be controlled, sometimes with the help of certain medicines.
- Often the first two bullet points are used by those opposing stricter laws to come to the conclusion that more people should carry a weapon so they can protect themselves from killers (and if indeed society may become save because potential killers can be killed before they can kill than some parents may find their child with a bullet in its head after playing with the gun and then the parents may be charged for having a gun).
- And many of the above also pray that peace will descend upon a society while people can continue to play with their toys.
Of course, the NRA (National Rifle Association) keeps silent after the killing as they claim there shouldn't be any discussion after these tragedies but their point is known: people should be able to protect themselves with weapons against idiots (while its boosts sales and thus the economy and thus pockets). Still, the NRA also opposes stricter laws that will prevent that bad guys get a weapon as they know that good guys in general don't buy weapons unless the bad guys have them. In effect, it seems some in the NRA even blame the victims because they didn't carry weapons to defend themselves against the bad guys.
After a previous massacre at a school in Newtown in which 20 children died, many were convinced that laws would finally change so they would become stricter. And indeed, legislation was brought forward in the hope it would become more difficult to buy and carry weapons. But this was just before elections and thus the devil (NRA) told candidates that those who would bow for him and oppose stricter gun control, they would receive financial support for their campaign to get (re)elected. And thus, if even the death of 20 children and six adults is not sufficient to change laws, why should they change after less than 10 black people died?
It seems that the priest and state senator Mr Pinckney recently 'voted against a law allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons without permits', a terrible crime for members of the NRA because their logic is that churchgoers could have protected themselves from the madman by carrying weapons while those from the NRA forget to mention that than also madman can carry concealed weapons without permits as the young man did while no-one is quick enough to stop a murderer from shooting first. It seems Mr Pinckney also found a cause in April after Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, was fatally shot by a police officer in nearby North Charleston, something Mr Pinckney called murder. Therefore, one can be cynical and say it is somewhat convenient that the murderer chose the church of this politician to kill people so someone investigating the death of a black man by a white police officer while he opposed carrying (concealed) weapons is murdered in a state where the Confederate flag still waves in front of the state capitol building in Columbia as if to remind black people that they are less than white people. Further, it is not the first time a politician is shot. In 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot when she met with constituents; she survived but 8 others were killed. It seems before the shooting she introduced a bill (H.R. 1441) that forbids the sale of F-14 aircraft parts on the open market. It is almost as if to warn those in favour of stricter gun laws they should keep silent. Indeed, one can even wonder why the gunman received a gun as a gift from his father as recent as April, only two months before the shooting. In this state, one should even investigate the possibility the weapon used was another than he received from his father.
A final remark: some relatives from the victims told the madman they forgave him. This is acceptable if the person is clearly mad as in that case he didn't know what he did; however, it seems he knew what he was doing. Thus, unless the man really expresses regrets and accepts his punishment and as a result may be in prison for many years to come or even face the death penalty, they don't need to forgive him but express their anger to this creature. It is different from the Boston marathon killer who seems to have expressed regrets and thus now victims may or may not forgive the murderer although he still received the judgement of the death penalty. Indeed, it is not that because they are Christians that they should think that they have to follow Jesus example at the cross because it is different. Indeed, Jesus forgave the person who admitted he had done wrong and thus deserved his punishment while Jesus had done nothing but Jesus didn't forgive the person who didn't show any remorse for his own crimes while still mocked the innocent. Why should people who don't show remorse be forgiven for the bad things they did and defend their actions and thus may repeat them? Indeed, even God promised eternal doom for those who do evil and don't regret their errors. That doesn't mean people cannot be against this penalty or at least demand good treatment of the convicted until they die as we should always try not to act as murderers do.