It is not Pakistan’s fault. Neither is it Islamic State’s (IS’) fault. The recent shootings in San Bernardino are not related to the Paris attacks or the equally horrifying ones in Beirut. They were not coordinated by IS nor did the terrorist organisation intentionally motivate them. Both perpetrators, Tashfeen Malik and her husband, Syed Farook, are of Pakistani descent. They were practicing Muslims and, according to multiple media outlets, they were “self-radicalised”.
But to look at the ethnicity, beliefs and motives of the attackers is to look past the crime itself. Mass shootings are a distinctly American phenomenon. In the past year, there has been close to one shooting for every single day of the year — more in fact. In simpler terms, there are more guns in the US than there are humans.
Regardless of these facts literally being slammed in their faces every single day, Americans have refused to take knowledgeable, concrete action against the massive influx of guns in their country. They have refused to approve something as simple as background checks for mental health disabilities, giving all who desire an automatic weapon with unlimited ammunition to do as they please. It has been shown that the two California attackers purchased their guns from an online store and had them shipped to their house — literally as easy as clicking a button on a mouse to kill 14 people.
If background checks had been in place, maybe American authorities could have found traces of dangerous behaviour on either the husband or the wife, or the droves of other mass shooters that are mainly white males. If background checks had existed, maybe hundreds of lives could have been saved, maybe the lives of people with disabilities, such as those in California, or school children, like in Sandy Hook.
Yes, they were radicalised. But they were radicalised in isolation. There was no one supporting them and no one around them knew. They were not on any government checklists nor did government carry out any surveillance on them. Tashfeen Malik was an immigrant who married Farook and recently received her green card without any issues. They had built a bomb, but they did not know anything about bombs. If they had Googled “how to build a bomb,” they would be on the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) checklists and under surveillance. But because they bought automatic guns with unlimited ammo, no one blinked because guns in America are the norm, not the exception.
To argue about their religion, how they became radicalised or whom they supported politically overlooks the issue. The issue in this particular case is not IS or al Qaeda or Islam. When the Paris attacks occurred, it was a forum to discuss the institutional politicisation of Islam because that is what occurred. IS represents that. If these attacks had been coordinated by IS members who had been trained in Syria or Iraq and had been given logistical support by the terrorist organisation, a basis could be seen about slamming rhetoric against them. A reason could have been there for increasing air strikes or pressuring NATO to bomb Raqqa more.
This is not to deny that extremist beliefs are not an issue — they are. In this situation though, they are not the issue that should be in focus. I have a fear though that they will be. I fear that if the US does not implement background checks for guns, there will be more mass shootings by self-radicalised extremists. That is because the model in the form of San Bernardino is already there. There is also no doubt that there will be more suspicion, more checking and more hate crimes against Muslims after these attacks. ISIS is also starting to gain more clout daily, seemingly resistant to bombings and a PR campaign against it from all rational peoples of the world. Something will have to go, either freedom for Muslims or freedom for guns. These are scary times in the US.
The writer is an entrepreneur working on www.aceso.care, a healthcare startup in Lahore