The definition of insanity

The definition of insanity

The Economist’s main purpose is to “take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress." 

This article, “the definition of insanity”, is the embodiment of these values.

In fact, the journalist draws the reader’s attention on the weapon issue, he tries to make sense of it in order to put an end to ignorance and irrationality.

According to a study on world’s gun violence led by Chip Grabow and Lisa Rose for CNN, the other wealthy countries are not subjected to as many slaughters as the USA is. The United States has the 28th-highest rate of firearm-related deaths in the world: 12.21-gun related deaths per 100,000 people in 2017 — far greater than what is seen in other wealthy countries, France for example is only at 1.83 deaths per 100,000 people.

The headline of his article is “The definition of insanity”, it’s a mental disorder which causes mindlessness and instable behaviour. The subtitle “America grapples with a lethal mix of terrorism and lax gun laws” gives more information about the author's target group.  Although it could be assumed that those suffering from dementia are the terrorists, the author seemingly blames the American government for this type of behaviour. According to the journalist, the US government is too lenient on his gun control. The right to purchase and bear a firearm granted by the 2nd Amendment is very disputed and the government struggles to adopt an appropriate policy on domestic and international terrorism.

In this analysis we will raise the following question:

According to the journalist, why is the U.S. government in a deadlock regarding gun policy in his country?

In the first paragraph the journalist mentions the mass shooting that occurred at a Walmart store in El Pas, in Texas. A gunman shot and killed 23 people and injured 23 others. in the text, it raises doubts on the identity of the « bearded tattooed Latinos wielding metal objects» massed outside blood bank, we could assume that they are terrorists. It turns out they are the members of a Flock came to donate their blood to the victims after the butchery. The pastor, leader of this flock, organized a massive donation in food and supplies to the local hospitals as they were “badly needed”. It looks like we are in times of war, the gun crisis is comparable to a civil war whose battlefield is the American soil and whose soldiers are the American people. The only weapon of volunteers is solidarity, as stated by the pastor Mr Torres “we felt we had to be there”.

The El Paso Massacre is a way for the journalist to support his argument. This mass shooting is “the deadliest of three in less than week and “America has grown accustomed to such events”. Here, he emphasizes on the ordinariness of such an event in America. The guns used in the perpetrated bloodbath were “legally purchased”, it’s a major critique of the us government and the 2nde Amendment. The journalist floods us with information on gun violence statistics witch it reinforces its “banality”, the adjective “everyday” in this context leaves the reader speechless. “On average” assumes that the study was conducted over a large sample size. The journalist gives us an important wake-up call to look at these issues more seriously.

In the third and the fourth paragraphs he sheds light on the heart of the article, the major issue of us gun laws and policy in the United States: domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism distinction. They aren’t set on an equal footing. Counter terrorism doesn’t treat white supremacists as they are managing with foreign organisations as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. The main reason why this imbalance is real is the legal distinction. The government clouds treating with domestic terrorism by considering them legally as unorganised individuals. In fact, domestic terrorism is not as investigated as jihadist terrorism by counterterrorism: “the government does not devote nearly as much intellectual energy to understanding the ideology of domestic white supremacists […] as it does to jihadist terrorism »

Paradoxically, the government does not consider white supremacists as a threat. However, according to the NGO (non-governmental organisation) of the Anti-Defamation League: “right wing terrorism were responsible for 70% of killings […] motivated by some extremist ideology […] between 2009 and 2018”. Domestic terrorism is a serious threat to America.

However, the priorities are “set at the top”, it means that this distinction in intentional and meditated. We can assume that Donald Trump, the US president at the time the article was written, rubs the white supremacist in the right way since they are members of its electoral body.

The only difference is in the organised or unorganised nature of terrorism. The government argues that foreign terrorism is led by organisations, and white supremacists aren’t. Although the path to radicalisation is different, they both use ideology to beget violence and “the two ideologies are structurally similar” as Clint Watts notes, a former FBI special agent. They are both restricted to the idea of racial mixing and use violence to fight against it.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that would prohibit the free exercise of religion or abridge the freedom of speech. The journalist condemns this amendment, he states how “murky” and unclear it is. Indeed, “to what extent can we express our opinions” is questionable since some hate speeches beget gun violence. As for the 2nde Amendment, the journalist emphasizes how foggy and manipulable the Constitution of America is.

White nationalists’ extremists’ movements are out the mainstream media but grow on smaller social media such as 8chan. They are hidden and discreet on the internet whereas foreign terrorism is leading ephemeral campaigns on massive social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) since they are getting kicked off as soon as they are spotted.

The white extreme nationalism and its ideology are growing through social media and use the 1st amendment to express themselves and broadcast their racist, antisemitic and homophobic ideas. They are praising the “white race” and their killing sprees are motivated by the purification of America from minorities other race groups such as Hispanics.

...