US leaders cowards for gun debate silence

Yet again the US has experienced the tragedy of a mass killing. According to the Aurora Colorado police, 24-year-old James Holmes, a one-time neuroscience graduate student, armed with an assault rifle and a Glock semi-automatic pistol, entered the midnight showing of the new Batman movie, and fired his weapons for two minutes until police arrived and he surrendered.

Twelve people were killed and 58 were wounded, some seriously, during those two minutes. So little time but so much human misery and damage created.

So weighty was this shooting on the national consciousness that both Mitt Romney and President Obama suspended their Colorado campaigns and their attacks upon each other to speak about the tragedy. Separately, they each spoke words of consolation to the families of the victims. They spoke of the senselessness of this event and of the need for the nation to come together in support of the families of the victims in their continuing grief.

This was not the first such occasion for President Obama. In January 2011, another lone gunman, Jared Loughner, attempted to assassinate Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She was severely brain damaged and six bystanders were killed in his attack with automatic weapons. Obama played the important role of consoler-in-chief then, just as he has done on this occasion.

While the President is known for his rhetoric, perhaps the sentiment conveyed is half-empty. In response to the bravery of one young woman who assisted a wounded friend despite the danger, Obama said such selflessness showed that "out of darkness a brighter day is going to come". That may be, but it remains undetermined whether the sun of that brighter day will shine on a country that is actually safer for its citizens.

That's because one topic that neither Romney nor Obama addressed was the need for debate on the question of gun control. Disappointingly, this failing surprises few Americans, as absence of such discussion is a reflection of the raw reality of politics. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is probably the most effective lobbying group in the US. Any person who seeks political office or, if elected, seeks to keep her seat, has learned to tread carefully on the issue of gun control. The Or Else implied is a well-financed campaign to defeat such a candidate.

Disasters such as this one have happened in other parts of the world. But without the influence of an NRA, the reaction of government can be decidedly different. In response to the Port Arthur massacre of 1996 the conservative-led Australian government tightened rules of gun possession, especially those guns that might be used to kill and kill quickly and efficiently.

The fact that another such shooting has not happened since is testimony to the effectiveness of laws which seek to curb gun violence, even among populations which are known for their aggressiveness. It may not stop all killing, but the relative absence of efficient weapons surely puts a crimp in the impulse toward mass killing.

Even more disappointing than the evident cowardice of US politicians in the face of the threat of the well-financed NRA, whose opposition can be career ending, is the silence of another estate - the church. Christian leaders, including Catholic clergy and Christian Evangelical protestants have had a strong influence on electoral politics, especially among conservatives.

As a result, Republicans often cite their own support of religious values and even declare that the separation of Church and State is a cause of the degradation of American values.

These professing Christians have, in the past exerted efforts to include religious symbols, such as The Ten Commandments, in the public space. Despite such profession, religious leaders are slow to seize the opportunity to emphasise the one that states Thou shalt not kill.

The silence of religious leaders is its own mute testimony. While I'm undecided about the place of religion in politics, I have no doubt about the need for moral courage in that space.