The bodies of the victims could not be removed before yesterday’s tragedy began to be politicized; that is the standard these days. If one waits to comment until the proper time, his comments are doomed to irrelevancy. I hesitate to write upon this so soon, and it is with my apologies that I do so. However, I feel it is worth making these thoughts known.
Where does the blame fall? The answer to that question, if it is anything other than, the man is to blame, largely depends upon one’s place upon the political spectrum.
It’s the assault weapon! And thus is heard the same, tired cries for restricting automatic weapons. It’s the religion! And thus is heard the same, tired cries for restricting Islamic immigration to the United States.
Problem is, this man does not fit conveniently into any preconceived narrative.
It cannot be said that he was motivated by Trump’s “rhetoric of hate” because he was a registered democrat and, if I may conjecture, would not have supported Trump. Nor was he any sort of nut motivated by the NRA or tea party conservatism, as the left is so quick to guess in the immediate aftermath.
It cannot be said that gun laws would have prevented this, as he had all the proper permits to possess weapons, being that he was a security guard for a private firm.
It cannot be said that this is the consequence of the flood of refugees, as this man was a citizen born in the United States.
So, barring the mental imbalance which is the key factor, but obviously much more difficult to talk about, we are left with the two minor factors: the gun and the religion.
People call the banning or restriction of one or the other according to their preconceived agenda. But unlike past incidents, this tantalizingly serves as fodder for both arguments.
But really, guns and religion – are they not inanimate objects? Automatic weapons are a creation of man, but as an object it is inanimate and capable of no harm, until acted upon by a human being. This religion, too, is a creation of man but being nothing more than precepts written on paper, it too is an inanimate object. Consequently, it is incapable of no harm unless acted upon, or more properly speaking, interpreted by a human being.
Gun control advocates have once again made known their opinions on what gun owners do and do not need, and have wasted no time in doing so. It is not worth it to rehash the same defense of gun rights endlessly; what good would it do?
I end by noting that this is the beginning of a great battle of political correctness in the United States: when two ideologies contradict, who is to win out?
This is already seen in Europe, where women’s rights have been set back decades in order to ensure Islamic rights; it seems that in practice the two ideologies cannot coexist.
In the United States, we will find that Islamic ideology, in practice, is not compatible with Homosexual rights. Which one is more important to accommodate? But unlike the previous case, it does not depend on one’s place on the political spectrum. It is the left that has been the strongest advocates for both Homosexual and Islamic rights. Now they are contradicting – and the contradiction is bloody.
And how to deal with this?
You may do as you wish, whatever you wish, so long as it does not affect me.
When an action has been taken that does negatively affect another person, a crime has been committed. This is obvious.
Those of the Islamic faith should not have their right to practice religion interfered with so long as they do not interfere with anyone else while doing so. And indeed, word of a vast Islamic conspiracy to take over the world notwithstanding, the majority of Muslims in the United States practice in this way.
However the ideology, when interpreted a certain way, leads to incidents like these. How can we prevent these crimes!?
Unfortunately, we cannot know a crime has been committed, until a crime is committed.
It would not be just to go around punishing perceived causes, as it may not lead to a certain effect.
It would be unjust to punish the owners of guns in the United States simply for possessing an inanimate object, as only a few of the millions of such weapons in existence have been used in such a way. Why punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?
It would be unjust to punish all believers of a certain ideology for believing in such a way, as only a few of the millions of believers have instigated such incidents. Why punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?
The answer may simply be, to encourage law abiding citizens to conceal carry a firearm. But that is not a popular solution…