California shooting

America is mourning once again after yet another mass shooting, an example of the lax gun control in the country or of terrorism – based on which side of the political spectrum one stands on. In the tragic incident, 14 people were left dead after the attack on a Christmas party at a social services centre in San Bernardino, California. The attack was carried out by Pakistani-American, Syed Rizwan Farook, and Tashfeen Malik – reported to be of Pakistani origin – with legally purchased assault rifles. Both were killed after a gun-battle with the police. The terrorism connection is being made on the basis of a Facebook post on Malik’s account around the time of the attack in which she is reported to have pledged allegiance to Isis. Malik’s involvement as a women from Pakistan who arrived in the US in 2014 to marry Farook will no doubt lead to new questions about migration and marriage in the US, especially for women from developing countries looking to marry in the US.
While the motives for the attack range from a workplace dispute to direct terrorism, US President Barack Obama’s first response was to speak about the lax gun control policies in the US as the primary culprit. The New York Times ran a front-page editorial, a first since 1920, connecting the San Bernardino massacre and the attack on the Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic last week to call for greater gun control. Three people were shot dead at the Colarado clinic last week. The NYT also categorised all such attacks under the label of terrorism. The FBI has admitted that they could find no direct connection between the couple and a known terrorist organisation. If that is true, then why is it that white shooters, such as those who target black churches, or Planned Parenthood clinics or Black Lives Matters activists, are considered to be lone wolves while a similar attack by Muslim perpetrators is immediately categorised as terrorism? There is nothing to condone in this latest horrific attack but hard questions need to be asked about confused priorities in the US, where access to legal guns remains fairly easy despite the country apparently fighting a global war on terrorism. How were the assault rifles used by the couple available on the open market? Obama correctly noted that mass shootings like these do not happen in other countries. The FBI’s terrorism connection seems to now be taking the lead, though. And the debate in the US has – as always – begun to shift from gun control to terrorism, immigration and radical Islam. This will mean the return of right-wing, hawkish points of view on US domestic and foreign policy. The clampdown on migrants and refugees will get worse as the need for stricter gun control laws in the US will be ignored once again, leaving the country open to such attacks in the future. The US must keep its balance on these highly complex issues in these turbulent times.