Which kills more in US: Terrorism or gun violence?

Since 2014, there have been far fewer fatalities in terrorism while killings in gun violence have spiked exponentially

Deaths from firearms in the United States were 406,496 from 2001 to 2013, against 3,380 deaths in America and of Americans abroad in acts of terror. The State Department statistics suggest the number of US citizens killed abroad in terrorist attacks were 350 from 2001 to 2013. The Washington Post found 3,030 residents killed in domestic acts of terrorism during 2001 to 2013.

Since 2014, there have been far fewer American fatalities in acts of terror abroad while the killings in gun violence have spiked exponentially.



Even though sufficient evidence exist that Orlando club attacker Omar Mateen was suffering from bipolar disorder and erratic behaviour, the incident falls under gun violence. The FBI has also revealed Mateen was an isolated extremist finding refugee in outfits such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and eventually, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Prior expressing his association with Daesh, he joined the former two terrorist outfits. He was never in physical contact with ISIS but claimed his action was Daesh inspired. More alarming are the reports that he himself was a frequent visitor of the homosexuals’ club he attacked.

Moreover, investigation at his home gave little clues of his association with any of the terror organisations he occasionally expressed affiliation or sympathy with. Hence, it is clearly a case of gun violence, psychological disorder or at the most home-grown radicalism.

US’s failure in gun regulation

Ironically, US spearheaded the ban on airing videos and audio messages of terrorists and other radical propaganda to curb recruitment, funding or planning bids. But not a ban on the access of lethal guns, which can still be bought online as well as the open market.



The National Rifle Association (NRA), the country’s largest firearm lobby, has been opposing every move to restrict gun possession or limits on calibre, range or sophistication. Recently, the pressure group had Donald Trump fly to its convention in Louisville, Kentucky. Astonishingly, until three years ago prior to entering politics, the same man supported gun control. He endorsed Obama’s opposition to lenient gun purchase regulation, saying the president spoke for him.

Pandering or not, the Trump’s slip say little about his inner beliefs. He is no different than the NRA itself, which started off as a tame, apolitical organisation telling people how to keep, use and secure guns safely. The association supported Gun Control Act of 1968 as the nation’s prime firearm safety organisation and due to violence in the 60s and the 70s more gun control laws were passed in US.

In 1977, the NRA convention held in Cincinnati, Ohio, brought hunters, sportsmen and gun control activists face to face. At the annual convention, activists’ defined US constitution’s Second Amendment in the most puritan and literal terms, and prevailed over the organisation. Ever since, the tide has been in favour of guns irrespective of the cost people pay each year.

Lobbying obstruction

Weighing on the politicians, the gun lobby has been able to get whatever it wanted. Worth mentioning is the law passed by the Congress, forbidding the agency from using computers for gun holders’ record keeping. The agency maintains records in paper files, the old-fashioned way. The act obstructs the law enforcing agencies’ ability to conduct speedy inquiry into homicide cases, helping gun-toting perpetrators stay on the loose or unpunished even if in custody.



NRA has also successfully shot down a bill proposing a ban on handguns in Washington DC. In today’s America, one can carry guns in a park, a grocery store or transport it on Amtrak. Hence, the pressure on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is two-fold. She cannot out-rightly take a position identical to Obama at the risk of losing votes, thus her support for gun violence victims sounds hypocritical.

Since 2001, US have spent trillions in invading other countries to keep theirs safe and yet have not been able to do so. Currently, besides further legislating gun provision to people with clean backgrounds, it also needs to address the increasing degree of social stress and economic disparity. For instance, the Orlando attacker was a Muslim extremist and yet the fact remains he was born in Queens, New York, not Afghanistan. The radicalisation occurred on the US soil. Whether it resulted from racial discrimination or religious prejudice, the American society and its intrusive surveillance system both failed to identify and address his problems or hold him timely. It brings home the point Bernie Sanders has been making: US needs reforms and desperately so.

Naveed Ahmad is a Pakistani investigative journalist and academic with extensive reporting experience in the Middle East and North Africa. He is based in Doha and Istanbul. He tweets @naveed360