Tuesday 17 April 2007
The killing spree at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute imposes a new face-off with itself on American society: a confrontation with its violence, the weapons fetishism among a segment of its population, the perturbations of youth subject to the double tyranny of abundance and competition. It would be unfair and, above all, incorrect, to reduce the United States to the image recurrently provided by the outbursts of murderous fury to which isolated individuals accede. But episodes of this order are exceptional elsewhere, although they frequently disfigure the "American dream."
All George Bush could find to say once his condolences had been expressed is that "schools should be secure places, a sanctuary devoted to learning." For this Republican president, former governor of Texas, champion of the Southern and Central states of America where "frontier" culture is preserved, the Blacksburg massacre amounts to nothing more than the tragic aberration of an individual. In Mr. Bush's eyes, the question of weapons commerce in the United States is not and should not be posed.
There's no reason to be surprised, because the American chief executive depends on a party that in 2004 went so far as to refuse to reapprove the ban on assault rifle sales first voted in in 1994 during Bill Clinton's presidency. The latter had the courage to confront the gun lobby, but he had to limit his ambitions to two certainly opportune, but modest, measures: gun sellers' obligation to verify that buyers have no criminal record and a ban on the sale of assault rifles.
Weapons belong to American ideology to such a point that the Democrats, although inclined to consider that the cult of personal freedom must be balanced by the public interest, never touch the subject other than cautiously. During the last presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, took care not to take a position in favor of more serious control. Pressure from the National Rifle Association, the most powerful lobby in the United States, capable of organizing local campaigns against a representative or senator hostile to its views, in large part explains this spinelessness.
Nevertheless, in a country where "the right to possess and bear arms" is inscribed in the Constitution and where it is estimated there are 192 million guns, the problem is not just one special-interest group. After the tragedy, voices have been raised to deplore the fact that professors and students were not authorized to arm themselves since, [in that event] one of them could have neutralized the killer. With such reasoning, America is not ready to master its violence.
The American Government Protects the Weapons Industry
Interview With Benoit Muraciolle
By Gregory Onillon
Liberation
Tuesday 17 April 2007
Onillon: Has the gun legislation situation in the United States changed since Columbine?
Muraciolle: Two important facts to consider with respect to the American administration's action covering guns since these events: in 2002, the Bush administration refused to sign a proposed law to mark munitions so as to allow firearms' usage to be traced. Then there was the voting-in of a law rejecting all weapons industry responsibility [for use of their product]. Since then, no suit may be filed against gunmakers. These two political initiatives took place after the events at Columbine. The American government protects the weapons industry and continues to show itself unable to recognize the causality between violence and firearms.
Is it easy to get a gun?
In Virginia, the state where the shooting took place, it is possible to buy a gun from age 12, and that without parental consent. In the United States, studies show that 70 percent of guns move into an illegal network within three years of their purchase. Legislation on gun acquisition varies from one state to another, and there are many loopholes in the application of these laws.
Is the gun lobby still powerful in the United States?
The NRA (National Rifle Association) claims 4 million members across the United States. It acts as a powerful lobby at the political level. In the framework of the Columbine shooting, the NRA reacted by saying that there "would have been fewer deaths if all the students had been armed...." In 2006, 153 governments supported a proposed international treaty aiming to prohibit transfers of the weapons that feed conflicts, poverty and serious attacks on human rights. Only the United States voted against it. The NRA pressured the American government not to ratify that treaty.
Do you think the situation could evolve?
To change the situation, the control and monitoring of gun owners would have to be improved. Look at the examples of Australia and Canada, which, following a tightening of legislation and public sensitization to weapons, saw a two-thirds drop in firearms homicides. During the Million Mom March, a great movement in favor of a change in firearms legislation, one mother said to me, "How many massacres do we have to have to change the situation?" The shooting at Virginia Tech shows that there's still a long way to go. Nonetheless, one may hope that the impact of this tragic event will create some momentum to modify the laws with respect to firearms. Moreover, the American political situation and the problems of the Bush administration may beget a situation favorable to change. American politicians such as John Kerry and Arnold Schwarzenegger have already declared themselves to be in favor of a modification in weapons legislation. The most urgent thing is to change the laws and effect a sensitization to the subject. There are still 30,000 deaths a year in the United States due to firearms.
--------
Benoit Muraciolle is a researcher for Amnesty International responsible for the "arms control" campaign.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment