How the tragedy of El Paso and Dayton can change US laws

This became a familiar refrain after every mass shooting in the USA. Will it be different this time? Will certain political actions cause widespread discontent, as happened in the UK after Dunblane, in Australia after Port Arthur, and in New Zealand after Christchurch?

Фото: Depositphotos

Whenever a new incident hits the headlines, some skepticism pops up among firearm control activists. If public opinion did not force the authorities to act after the shooting in Connecticut in the 2012 year, when 26 people, including 20 young children, were killed in a school in Newtown, then obviously nothing will change.

On the subject: What weapons can be wielded in the USA

It is possible, however, that the double tragedy of El Paso and Dayton will turn out differently. And there are several possible explanations for this.

White nationalism

The recent massacres in the United States were due to various reasons. Dissatisfied youth (Parkland and Santa Fe), mental illness (Annapolis), workplace conflict (Virginia Beach) and family disorder (Sutherland Springs).

However, the motive for the worst incident in modern US history, the 2017 Las Vegas concert shooting that killed 58 people, remains unclear.

A photo; Facebook screenshot

In the case of El Paso, so far, everything indicates that it was a planned political act, rooted in the rhetoric of white nationalism, which has become so noticeable in modern American politics. In this sense, it looks like shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh last October, which led to a discussion about the rise of anti-Semitism in America, or to the riots in Charlottesville in 2017, which served as a clear illustration of the growing movement for the superiority of the white race.

Although the connection between shooting suspect Paul Crusius and a racist manifesto that appeared online shortly before the shooting has not yet been conclusively established, the facts point in that direction. He did not shoot in his hometown. He drove for at least eight hours, driving from north Texas almost to the Mexican border, and opened fire in a shopping center popular with Hispanic Americans. Authorities are treating the incident as an act of “domestic terrorism.”

All this puts the shooting in El Paso at the very center of the debate about immigration, border control and national identity. Americans used to be amazed at how young people slip into political violence against civilians in other parts of the world. Now they are convinced by their own example that this is also possible in their country.

On the subject: Passion for Arms: Why the US Can't Stop Frequent Mass Executions

The particularities of firing in El Paso may lead to a revision of the degree of internal threat posed by militant white nationalists and, possibly, to new methods of dealing with it, including tightening control over weapons. Democrats immediately expressed indignation, but the voices of those who heeded the warnings also sounded on the right flank.

George P. Bush, son of 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush and head of the Texas Natural Resources Agency, released a statement calling "white terrorists" a "real and present threat."

If consensus on the existence of a threat is reached, the question will arise about what to do with it.

Gasoline and presidential politics matches

On the left flank, Trump, as well as other high-ranking Republican officials, is habitually accused of using rhetoric that could inspire white nationalists to kill.

The president has repeatedly called illegal migration an “invasion” and said that immigration has changed the social fabric of Europe—and not in the best way.

At a rally in Florida in May, when the president asked rhetorically how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, someone in the crowd shouted, “Shoot!” Trump got off with a joke.

Just a month ago, Texas Senator John Cornyn tweeted that over the past year, Texas has seen "nearly nine new Latinos for every new white resident."

Photo: facebook / The White House / Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Of course, criticism of Republicans for their response—or lack thereof—to a mass shooting is nothing unusual. But this time the criticism is intensified as Democrats are busy choosing their presidential candidate. And although the first vote is at least six months away, debates and campaigns have already begun.

There are more than 20 candidates, and they have the opportunity to stand out from the crowd, taking the toughest possible position regarding arms control and criticizing, from their point of view, explosive racist rhetoric.

Beto O'Rourke, a native of El Paso, has already blamed the president for what happened. Pete Buttigieg blamed the incident on the ideology of white nationalist terrorism, which is “endorsed at the highest levels of our government.”

Almost all candidates came up with new proposals for arms control.

The New Jersey senator who proposed a national gun licensing program said there are ways to change the situation but they are being blocked by "spineless politicians and guys who do work for the gun lobby."

At the Democratic Party debate in Detroit last week, arms control issues barely touched. However, public opinion, aggravated by new skirmishes, as well as attempts to tie President Trump personally to the incident, undoubtedly guarantee that in the near future this topic will come to the fore.

Congress: one step closer

After shooting at a school in Newtown, Congress attempted to introduce mandatory identity checks when buying any weapon, including private transactions. Despite the support of both parties in the Senate, the project was blocked by a minority on procedural objections. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives did not consider it at all.

Today the situation has changed, at least in the lower house. When Democrats took the majority in January, they quickly approved a similar bill—the first time in a quarter century that Congress has passed a law regulating gun ownership.

On the subject: Teachers in Florida allowed to carry firearms

After double firing at El Paso and Dayton, the word now belongs to the Senate, where the majority are Republicans. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has so far refused to discuss it.

Perhaps he will be able to resist the pressure of the Democrats. And even if it comes to a vote, there remains a technical hitch, which makes it possible for the entire 41 republican to block the project. But some of the senators who supported a similar 2013 project of the year still hold office. And on the way to signing for the president, the bill, which has already passed the lower house of Congress, has only the Senate.

Weak NRA

In 2012, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was at the top of its power and influence in American politics. For decades, this organization, representing not only millions of owners of firearms, but also their manufacturers, has turned for many Americans the right to bear arms almost into a symbol of the United States.

Фото: Depositphotos

Democrats feared the debate on this subject as the plague and attributed to it, among other things, the defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election of the year. An unpopular NRA candidate would automatically receive an opponent well-funded and popular with the average voter.

Even after the Newtown shooting, the general trend in gun regulation in many parts of the country was toward more freedom, not less, such as the right to carry a concealed weapon. And in 2016, the association's active support for Donald Trump bore fruit, despite the fact that many considered it a risk to his presidential ambitions.

In recent years, however, difficult times have come for the shooting association. In 2017, NRA revenue fell $ 56 million.

The organization began an internal struggle for power, which quickly passed to the courts. Her activities have been the subject of corruption investigations in New York and Washington.

Even the electoral brilliance of NRA noticeably faded. During the 2018 by-election, arms control groups, with the support of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, were able to spend more money supporting their candidates. As a result, several prominent arms control advocates, such as Lucy Mac Bath in Georgia, managed to win in counties where they had little chance.

This is not the NRA that actively opposed bills on mandatory checks when buying weapons even after firing in Newtown. Of course, it still represents an impressive political force, but the cracks in its foundation are already noticeable.

Пhabitual obstacles

All of the above are circumstances that could turn the tide on gun control this time around. However, there are many reasons why this may not happen.

The opposition described above to any Senate arms control bills remains significant and very real. Moreover, the Senate is on vacation until September. Judging by past incidents, the intensity of the struggle for control over weapons decreases as the next shooting goes into the past, and the memory of it becomes dull.

The president’s support for such legislation and, all the more, his signature on the bill are also not guaranteed.

After shooting at Parkland in 2018, Trump showed some interest in supporting relevant legislation. Moreover, he expressed support for comprehensive checks on the purchase of weapons, despite protests by the NRA.

Фото: Depositphotos

However, after meeting with the leadership of the National Rifle Association, the president quickly made a 180-degree turn. At the NRA's annual convention, he said the Second Amendment right to bear arms was "under siege" and that as president he would always defend it.

Although Donald Trump has already responded to the events in El Paso with a tweet in which he called the incident a “hateful act,” he is expected to more decisively condemn nationalism. Charges from Democrats that he is helping to shape a rhetorical environment that encourages bloodshed could cause the president to shy away from more concrete action.

He may feel that doing so would be taken as a tacit admission of responsibility or guilt—something Trump has repeatedly refused to do.

If so, it could end up looking something like the president's response to the Charlottesville clashes between white nationalists and their opponents in 2017, when his first condemnation of Nazi sympathizers was followed by a contentious news conference in which he blamed "both sides."

The more Democratic candidates, such as O'Rourke, charge the president, the more likely he is to take a defensive position and further fuel the situation. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to count on the speedy resolution of the problem by Congress.

Read also on ForumDaily:

Study: How Ownership Affects Crime Level

How do they sell weapons in the US, and how did a Las Vegas gunner buy them?

Hello, weapons, or why Americans need 10 pistols per person

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.