New Zealand Mosque Killings and Gun Law Reforms

"Guns don’t kill people, people do."

This is a common refrain from those who support gun-ownership.

But is it a valid statement?

No, it is not.  It is logically fallacious. Or that’s what ‘logic’ teacher David Kyle Johnson says in his article against this phrase (Psychology Today, 12 Feb 2013).

But I am writing today, not about logical fallacies. I am writing today about the need for gun law reforms.

Following the recent shooting tragedy, where 50 people were killed in two mosques, at Christchurch, New Zealand, it was somewhat relieving to hear the country’s leadership discussing gun-law changes.

Jacinda Arden, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, is proving to be an exemplary leader, not only by the way she quickly reached out to the Muslim community that lost its loved ones, but also by the way she quickly announced that her country’s parliament would soon – within days – change laws on gun ownership.

Sadly, until now many have failed to see common-sense logic that, pistols or revolvers aside, civilians simply should not be free to own lethal automatic or semi-automatic assault guns; which this hate-filled terrorist had used on innocent worshippers.

This New Zealand terror draws our attention to earlier two mass-shootings– one in Australia and one in Scotland – which have resulted in tighter gun-laws in their respective countries.

Of course, it also draws our attention to numerous mass-shooting instances in the USA. However, we know that no strong action is taken towards reforms. The powerful gun-lobby there keeps citing the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects their right ‘to keep and bear arms’.

But, take the case of the Australian mass-shooting of 1996. It had shocked the country, when in Tasmania, 35 people were brutally killed by a gunman Martin Bryant.  Intellectually disabled, with a history of erratic behaviour, he had later pleaded guilty, but never gave reason for his gruesome killing spree at Port Arthur.

And what was its outcome, in Australia?

Under the then Prime Minister John Howard, this massacre resulted in stricter gun controls, with a ban on almost all fully-automatic or semiautomatic firearms. The government had even instituted a gun-buyback program which made people surrender some 700,000 firearms. They were later destroyed by the government
(click here for the latest, on gun control following this Port Arthur massacre from NZ Herald).

Interestingly, I had read that the Christchurch shooter had once discussed the Port Arthur massacre, of Tasmania, with one of his associates in New Zealand.

And what is also interesting, is that even the Port Arthur massacre shooter had admitted drawing inspiration from an earlier mass-shooting incident in Scotland.

A month earlier, a gunman had invaded a primary school in the small Scottish town of Dunblane and shot to death 16 young children and their teacher, before turning the gun on himself.

And what was its outcome, in UK?

In February 1997, the UK Parliament passed a law banning private ownership of handguns above .22 calibre; and in November 1997 the ban got extended to all handguns.

Following mass shootings, both, Australia and UK had responded swiftly with tighter gun-laws. And New Zealand too, seems to be on the right path. What about USA’s?

Let’s look at some facts. In 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, 58 people were killed by just one man, with assault rifles, who shot into a concert crowd.  In 2016, 49 people were killed by just one man with an assault rifle, at a gay night-club in Orlando, Florida. In 2007, at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, just one man goes on a shooting spree, killing 32 people. (You can click here to check out "Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History -- Fast Facts" from CNN)

And what was its outcome, in USA?

Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Sadly, when it comes to USA’s gun-law reforms, any glimmer of hope is still too faint to be noticed.

Are filter bubbles isolating us intellectually?

Not many of us understood what ‘Filter Bubble’ meant, when Eli Pariser coined the phrase, in 2011.

The Internet activist had said, in his TED talk and also in his book, that the content we see online is now being customized – in fact, personalized, to our own likes and preferences - to such a high degree, that it could be highly detrimental to our collective future.

Picture courtesy: Sticky Digital

Today, what we see, in our searches online, in our social media news feed, and in our web-based interactions, is all based on algorithms written into the software of the companies whose services we use.

These algorithms give us the information we personally prefer, and also target us with advertising, supposedly, relevant to us.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Netflix are all among the many services which now try to read our minds and give us what we want. Or, at least, that’s what they say they do.

But, in the process, they are confining us to our own bubbles – filtering from us, other knowledge that could be useful and important to us.

I believe that in their attempts to make information relevant to us, these companies are ignoring our overall personality; and more importantly, they are snubbing our innate desire - to know more than that we are being deliberately exposed to.

Increasing my exposure to posts that reinforce my previous preferences, and decreasing my exposure to posts that conflict with my personal interests, can deliberately make me live in a make-believe world; a filter-bubble.

The 2018 Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal showed us that Cambridge Analytica had harvested the personal data of millions of people's Facebook profiles without their consent and had used it for political purposes. It swayed opinions.

It brings us to some serious ethical questions we need to answer - on whether we are responsible for creating the filter bubble ourselves, or whether the social media companies, and their partners are conniving to keep us in that bubble; in the way they want us to.

In the past, when newspapers were the only medium through which people got information, the editors had served as real gatekeepers. They screened news – okay, let’s say they filtered news – in order to give their readers what was relevant and useful.

Some newspapers which took pride in environments of a free press, and in the age of independent journalism, even published anti-establishment pieces and tried to become the ‘vox populi’.

Most newspapers adhered to journalistic codes of ethics and became responsible channels which sought out and promoted values such as truth, justice, liberty, and equality.

Today, sadly, fed by unverified social media posts and forwards – and fed-up by the political leanings of some newspapers and TV news channels – the public is losing trust in news platforms, including those on the Internet.

Responsible Internet companies should ensure that whatever information passes through their webpages and apps is trustworthy and reliable. They must allocate adequate resources to fight the spread of ‘fake news’ and ‘rumour’. They must allow governments to hold them accountable.

In these days of high security and privacy – especially, with end-to-end encryption between any two individuals communicating over the Internet – it could be difficult. But, at least regulating social media groups and public posts can make us empowered with balanced knowledge.

In his latest article titled “The Internet Can Make Us Feel Awful. It Doesn't Have to Be That Way” (TIME, 17 Jan 2019) Eli Pariser tells tech companies to “focus on user empowerment and a genuine respect for his or her desires rather than –manipulation”.

Some of us may choose to live in our own filter bubbles. 

But all of us must have the choice to break free.