- Share via
On May 21, as they left the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim were fatally shot, and because they were employees of the Israeli Embassy and the suspect was associated with pro-Palestinian politics, the story was reported in the familiar mode of Middle East politics.
The questions that reporters and pundits have been asking are: “Was this antisemitic?” “Was this killing a direct result of Israel’s starving of Palestinians in Gaza?” “Was this another act of pro-Palestinian terrorism?” “Is this the direct result of ‘globalizing the intifada’?” While these are valid questions, they miss a central part of the story.
Only in the eighth paragraph of the New York Times report are we told that the night before the shooting, according to officials, the suspect “had checked a gun with his baggage when he flew from Chicago to the Washington area for a work conference” and, further, that officials said “The gun used in the killings had been purchased legally in Illinois.” (The Los Angeles Times article does not mention these facts.) This tragic shooting, however, is not unique.
In November 2023, a Burlington, Vt., man was arrested and charged with shooting three Palestinian college students without saying a word to them. (He has pleaded not guilty.)
In October 2018, a gunman entered the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and shot and killed 11 Jews at prayer.
In 2015, three Muslim students were shot and killed by their neighbor in Chapel Hill, N.C.
This brief and very incomplete list of the literally hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed by guns in the U.S. in the last decade does not include the racist mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.; the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.; or the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, at a music festival in Las Vegas in 2017. This macabre list also leaves out the thousands of people who have been shot and killed by law enforcement.
The elephant in the room — so fundamentally accepted that it largely goes unmentioned — is the deeply ingrained culture of violence in the United States. Gun ownership, police violence and abuse, and mass shootings are symptoms of that culture. However, the militaristic approach to international conflict (from Vietnam to Ukraine) and the disdain for nonviolent solutions are also grounded in this culture, as are the manosphere and the cruelty of predatory capitalism. Now we have a presidential administration that embodies this culture.
Kristi Noem, the secretary of Homeland Security, personifies this ethos of cruelty and violence when she is photographed in front of a cage full of humans in a Salvadoran jail known for torturous treatment of inmates or writing casually about killing her dog. Noem is a key player in the theater of cruelty, but she is not the only one, and the unparalleled star is of course President Trump.
Trump’s policy agenda is based on vengeance. He revels in the theatricality of violence of the world of mixed martial arts, and he signs executive orders that aim to destroy individuals, law firms and universities that have not bent the knee, and the economics of his “Big Beautiful” budget moves money from those in need to those who need for naught.
Now, the president wants a military parade on his birthday that will include tanks, helicopters and soldiers. Although Trump himself evaded the draft, and he reportedly called American soldiers who were killed in war suckers and losers, he likes the strongman aesthetic of an army that is at his beck and call. He exulted in the fact that “we train our boys to be killing machines.”
Although some want to draw a dubious line from pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations to the killings of Lischinsky and Milgrim, the direct line that should be drawn is the one that everyone seems to have agreed to ignore: a culture of violence coupled with the widespread availability and ownership of guns inevitably leads to more death.
The only way we get out of this cycle of violence is by addressing the elephant in the room.
Aryeh Cohen is a rabbi and a professor at American Jewish University in Los Angeles. @irmiklat.bsky.social
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that U.S. gun violence stems from a normalized culture of violence reinforced by militaristic foreign policies, lax gun laws, and political leadership celebrating brutality[2]. This culture manifests through 46,728 annual gun deaths (79% of all murders) and suicides comprising 55% of firearm-related fatalities[1].
- Systemic gun accessibility is highlighted as a critical factor, with 29.4 gun deaths per 100,000 residents in Mississippi – the highest rate nationally – contrasting sharply with Massachusetts’ 3.7 rate, demonstrating how variable state gun laws impact outcomes[2][3].
- Political complicity is emphasized through examples like Secretary Kristi Noem’s public displays with detained migrants and President Trump’s “killing machine” rhetoric, which the author contends institutionalize cruelty[2]. The administration’s policies allegedly redirect resources from social programs to militaristic projects.
Different views on the topic
- Second Amendment proponents argue that 74% of Republicans prioritize protecting gun ownership rights over restrictions, viewing firearms as essential for self-defense and a constitutional safeguard against government overreach[2]. States with permitless carry laws like Mississippi and Alabama see this as upholding individual freedoms despite higher violence rates[3].
- Critics counter that focusing on cultural factors distracts from addressing mental health crises and improving law enforcement efficacy, noting that 55% of gun deaths being suicides suggests separate public health priorities beyond legislative reforms[1][2].
- Some policymakers advocate for targeted interventions like enhanced background checks and red flag laws rather than broad cultural critiques, pointing to Massachusetts’ low gun violence rate as proof that regulatory measures can succeed without infringing on rights[2][3].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.