 Hello everyone, welcome to another International Relations capsule for the Shankar Academy. Today we'll discuss the gun laws in the United States because of a recent incident which has shocked the world. Even the middle of a war in which the United States is invoked, a shooting incident in a school shocked not only the Americans but also all people around the world. And once again, as it happens, the focus is on why this keeps happening in the United States all the time. Of course, I'm not going to give you the statistics, but it's very clear for all of us that very often we wake up with the news that a young math man has got into a school and shocked a number of children and teachers. And then suddenly everybody is shocked and everybody starts asking questions as to how this happens. Why is it that there is no control over the gun laws? How is it that anybody can buy a gun when he cannot buy a medicine which is a prescription? So it is easier to buy a gun than buy a medicine is what people say about the United States. So there is a focus for some time and everybody discusses issues. Everybody says this should be changed. The gun laws should be changed. And then slowly everyone forgets it till another incident happens in another corner of the United States. So why is this happening? And the president of the United States, Joe Biden, spoke passionately, spoke almost desperately by asking when in God's name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby? So this is the president speaking in the most powerful man in the United States. He's saying that when in God's name will you be able to stand up to the gun lobby? So which means the president is admitting that the gun lobby is more powerful than him. But he's not the first one to say this. Successive presidents, whenever such incidents have happened, have wondered why this cannot be rectified. How come that the gun laws are not restricted? And every time this is forgotten, hoping that such a thing will not happen. But people merely carry guns around and the statistics show that virtually everyone has a gun in the United States. Of course, there are many, many laws relating to gun or possession and use of guns in the US. Not that there are no laws, but the fundamental position arises out of the second amendment to the constitution. There are several versions of the amendment for different ways with commas in different places, et cetera. But basically it says as follows, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. So this amendment has been read in various ways in different courts of law. Because as in the United States it's not a uniform law in every state. Different states have different legal frameworks, but of course there is a Supreme Court which determines the final interpretation of the law. So this particular amendment has two aspects to it. It speaks of a militia being necessary for a state or any state to protect the right of the people. So then immediately after that it says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. So this was interpreted by different states. But finally in 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use them for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. So if this second amendment is related to official agencies like militias or army, et cetera, then it makes sense. And that is why some people read it because as part of the militia or as part of the army which is necessary for a nation, people should have the right to lose arms. But then the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in 2008 gives it a different meaning that is regardless as to whether you are a member of a militia or not. Whether you are a part of the law and order structure or not, you have the right to keep and bare arms. And the purpose also the Supreme Court ruled that this is for the traditionally lawful purposes of arms such as self-defense within the home. So which means that the fundamental right to carry arms and to use them for self-defense has been guaranteed by the constitution. And any change you have to bring into this will mean another amendment to the constitution, a big debate, and nobody, no president has been able to manage that. And under this protection, the sale and possession of arms is perhaps the most liberal in the United States. And not only that, this has been used. So you can imagine having some kind of a law which is helpful to criminals, but it can all be dealt with in specific cases, that is true. But here what happens is that because of this general and nasty as it were, the general permission given to the people to indiscriminately possess arms without any restrictions. Of course, there are several restrictions imposed by the states, but all these restrictions cannot infringe the rights of the people to bear arms. This is very different from most countries of the world because in most cases, you need a license. You cannot just buy a gun off the shelf in most countries. And even if you buy a gun, then you're kept under watch as to what you need it for. And so there are so many restrictions, but that doesn't mean that people don't get killed in other countries. In India, also, we have so many crimes because since they don't have guns, sometimes use other methods like using even a python or a snake to kill someone. So the human tendency to take lives of others is something which is not possible to describe because no other species of animals kill their own species. They kill others, but they don't kill their own species. But it is only human beings who kill other human beings for whatever purpose. And therefore, it is necessary for them to be controlled and the possession of weapons should be strictly controlled in order to avoid this. Whether it'll prevent such actions by mad people who go into a school and kill innocent children, that's a different mantra to them. But generally, there is a feeling all around the world that these should be changed. Or does it happens? No president power powerful can make any change in the system. Here is a background to all this. The first of all, you know that the American Revolution was a armed revolution, the freedom struggle in the United States, unlike in India. It was a free war for freedom. So there is a basic aspect that it was by fighting a war that the United States became independent. So there is a certain affinity towards the use of force even in other circumstances. Secondly, the people who came from UK and other countries to the United States. The first went to very rural areas, basically literally places without people, without human beings. They were migrating and they had to find places where they could settle down. And they started with a struggle against wild animals in these areas to control them in order to settle down. So it became necessary, almost 100% of the people, migrants kept armed to fight the animals. And even today, there is this danger and that's why you find that the majority of the people in the rural areas possess weapons while those in the cities possess fewer weapons. But it is no great concession because the numbers are very, very, very large. And then another aspect to it is the laws of the UK where fundamental rights were very significant. And those were also brought into the United States constitution. So there are some historical reasons for this. And therefore, the second amendment was, this was written in a mild manner, linking it to a person being part of a militia. And afterwards, after several interpretations and several laws by the courts in different states, the Supreme Court finally ruled that this is not related only to the militias and the right to bear arms as they were used, keep and bear arms. And specifically in order to, for self-defense and maintaining the rule of law. So this is the real situation. But what happens in the United States, like for example, where the situation is such that the most powerful country in the world cannot discipline its own citizens against the uncontrolled spread of guns across the country. Parents in the US cannot send their children to school with the confidence that they will come back alive. And in the circumstances, even the president can only pray, as Mr. Biden did, God bless America. As his citizens are convinced that they are safe only if they are armed. So in a country where people feel that it is necessary to be armed to be safe, it is very difficult for any president or any Congress to take it. And as I mentioned, the second amendment of the US Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms and about a third of American adults say they personally own a gun. But there was a lack of clear federal court ruling, defining the right until the US Supreme Court ruled that the law protects any individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with surveys in the militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. So in the latest incident, as you may have heard with shock a few days ago, an 18-year-old boy, Salvador Ramos, this is his name, opened fire and killed at least 19 children, most of them under 10, and two teachers at a primary school in the world, Texas. A week prior to that, another 18-year-old killed 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. The scenes were familiar, as it had happened many times before in different parts of the United States. Every time, everyone is agitated and determined to legislate new gun laws, but give up their efforts even before the last dead body is buried and the last blood stains are washed away. The next reminder comes when another group in us and children for victims to another gun in another corner of the country. Of course, much has been written over the years about the matter of gun legislation with us. And it's huge volumes and volumes, even if you read the Wikipedia, you'll find tons of explanations and legislative history of how people try to deal with the Second Amendment. So, but each time any effort made is hit by gridlocks in the Congress, nothing much will come out of all anti-gun lobbying any time in the future. And here, it's important that the gun lobby is very powerful. The National Rifles Association is one of the most powerful organizations in the country, and they are very much alive to their danger to themselves of this law being changed. Therefore, they spend tons of money to protect us, any court of law, they protect them. And some of the most powerful people, the richest people, politicians and others are interested in this. Strangely, it is believed that the ordinary people in the United States, majority of them are in favor of changing these laws. But that is not how it works. Somebody has to move within the legislature in the Congress or the Senate, things have to move there before it comes to the ordinary people. And therefore, even the sentiment of the ordinary people may be strong, but since the legislators are often in the company of the arms lobby and some of them are actual members. And one example is that of President Trump himself. He has been a great champion of the National Rifles Association. He's not only a member, but also he participates, he gives some money even before he became president. And after he became president, he stood against any kind of rules of law, any kind of changes in the rule of law. But other presidents have not taken a frontal position like that, but they also are not able to change their plan. And what President, former President Trump said, after the Texas incident was most disturbing, because he said the answer to the incidents like what happened in Texas is not to remove the arms, but to give arms to everybody including children because they can defend themselves. Can anything be more stupid than that? Can we hand over guns to children in schools to defend themselves? So he has twisted the argument and said that this case justifies a more liberal law about guns. And so arming the people will be the answer to the situations like this. The ridiculous arguments such as these against gun control is based on a false sense of absolute freedom. We have come across this sense of absolute freedom and it is interpreted as the power even to commit suicide. This part of the American, I shouldn't say culture, American habits. And the recent incidents of gun control people not wanting to wear masks or to take vaccination, openly they defined it, they held demonstrations and even today a large number of people in the United States neither wear masks nor take vaccination. So this is a way of expressing what is called absolute individual right. And this is not helpful for any country. So the, against this risk of death, the greatest threat to human security, this absolute freedom, a concept that most Americans believe in enable or prompt them to take such very extreme situation, extreme positions like it happened in the case of the pandemic. The largest number of deaths occurred in the United States partly because of this idea of absolute freedom which cannot be restricted in any country. And of course the society makes rules and regulations but certain things like arms control laws do not cope with the situation. But the polarization in the society on this subject is unbelievably strong. We might think that these differences are small and people may be willing to do this but if you look at the statistics you will find that the polarization is strong and we do not have a situation where people might more want to a different gun laws system. There are differences in gun ownership rates by political party, affiliation, gender, geography and other factors. For instance, 44% of Republicans and Republican leading independent say they personally own a gun. So the Republicans that is the richer society and people in the society who are interested in hunting for example. And also interested in scared of other human beings because of the huge wealth they hold. So these are the two factors. They are afraid of attack by the ordinary people or by criminals and therefore they think they need to have it. And the others are very much interested in hunting and there are many competitions and there are many festivals where they want to participate. And therefore the Republicans who are the richer people in the United States, 44% of them they personally own a gun compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic supporters. Of course, men are more likely than women to own a gun. 39% of men owns gun while 22% of women. Only 22% of women own guns. And 41% of adults living in rural areas who go to owning a firearm compared with about 29% of those living in the suburbs and two in 10 living in cities. Still it is huge. Even in the cities, two out of 10 people have guns. And these fall into the hands of irresponsible people. It falls into the hands of children. Sometimes these things happen by accident. So the gun sales have risen in recent years, particularly during the pandemic. That's another strange thing. During the pandemic when people were actually should have been afraid of the virus, they were also afraid of military attacks. More than half of the US population favors strict gun control laws. So that is the peculiar thing about the United States that if you ask individuals, 53% favors strict control laws, but the population is divided as to gun control will reduce shootings as it is believed that those who shoot are mentally deranged people who respect no laws. So this is another argument put forward by people who oppose gun laws. Saying that by changing the laws, you cannot change the habits of mad people. So they will in any case get hold of guns from somewhere. And this happens all over the world. Even where there are gun controls in different countries, these things happen. So what we have to do is to control them mentally deranged people who do this. This is very true because most of these incidents finally when the culprit is spot and tried in the courts of law, it also always turns out more as an excuse rather than anything else that they were mad in that kind of some particular reason. And the psychologist or somebody will help them to prove that they were in a state of frenzy or a state of what shall we say, security insecurity and they do that. And therefore, no need to control the guns. What you need to do is to arm everybody so that everybody can protect themselves and also set up secure barriers. That is one thing President Trump also mentioned. He said, we need to protect our children by having barriers in the schools and gunmen deployed in order to save the children and also make sure that these bad people don't get in the schools. These are easier said than done because in no case has such a person been arrested or killed before he did the damage. So always the person concerned, the perpetrator is caught or shot only after he has committed the crime. So where is the question of making it secure by having more fences and more security guards? So like it happened in the United States after 9-11, we know how much internal security has been strengthened and it is true that the United States did not have a major terrorist attack after 9-11. So the new regulations that they brought in for security did have an effect. And so all of us who travel to the United States have to go through this extra security and sometimes very invasive security checks. And but they don't mind about that and they very strictly control it. So it's quite possible for the United States to do that if they were politically willing to do a thing like this. Now, as you know, the security, the health situation is also health restrictions have also been faced. So now traveling to the US or for that matter any other country is not a pleasure anymore because on the one hand you have the security considerations which might hold you at the airport for hours together and then this unseen enemy, which is the virus. We are fighting against it without knowing what it is, where it is, how it is behaving, what it's likely to be. So people say, how many more restrictions are you going to impose? Also, suppose you are imposing restrictions about holding guns which is guaranteed by the constitution. So as I said, President Trump was unmistakably on the side of the gun lobby and even President Obama could not push any legislation through. But both of them initiated legislative measures which were abandoned for no good reasons. After the latest shootings, Ronald Trump said that the response to the shooting should be arming the people, not disarming them. A very ridiculous proposal. Rejecting calls for stricter gun controls at the National Rifles Association, that is the NRA. Even Ronald Trump said that the existence of evil is one of the very best reasons to arm people. So he has actually justified. He said, whatever restrictions you may make, there will still be harmful people in the country and they cannot be controlled. And then what is the point of doing this? And then it will mean that the gun lobby, the gun manufacturers. And these are not just ordinary guns, these are assault weapons. One shot you can self-kill many people. And so in this particular case, this 18-year-old use an assault rifle, not an ordinary rifle or revolver. So he said that Americans should be allowed the firearms to defend themselves against people. And as for schools, he recommended a strict security system to prevent shooting incidents. Again, these are mere excuses to avoid changing the law. Of course, President Biden spoke movingly and blamed the gun lobbies for inhumanly preventing legislation. But don't forget that he is the president of the United States. He kept saying that the time had come for action but did not promise anything except rhetoric. He moved his audience to tears with his words about the children. But at the end, he had nothing to say except say, God save America. And this is what the president said. And the gun manufacturers have spent two decades aggressively marketing assault weapons which make them the most and largest profit-making companies. And this is very true. So he honestly said that the reason why gun control is not possible in the United States is because of the lobbying efforts of the gun manufacturers. And so he said, for God's sake, we have to have the courage to stand up to the industry. Here what else I know, he said, most Americans support commonsense laws, commonsense gun laws and left it at that. A mix of passionate attachment to personal liberty, I mentioned earlier, one reasons. Second, profit-making by gun makers. Third, fear of fellow human beings. Fourth, passion for hunting. And fifth, sheer lethargy and negligence till something serious like the shooting incident. So we would also join the president saying, for God's sake, how many more innocent children will be sacrificed before the laws are changed? Sadly, the only superpower stands bewildered without an answer, as the rest of the world watches helplessly. So this is the situation. It has many dimensions, it has a major political dimension, a constitutional dimension, a temperamental dimension, the right to absolute liberty and the constitution itself has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way. And in these circumstances, we cannot believe that this will end and we can only hope and pray that these things do not happen again. Because even if they happen, I do not think that the lawmakers in the United States will be able to enact laws which will prevent such bloodshed. Thank you. It was a series of amendments were proposed to the constitution and this was one of them. But at that time, it was seen as a kind of innocent amendment because it was linked to the militias becoming part of a legal possession of weapons to perform in particular state funds. But the 2008 interpretation of the Supreme Court is what changed the situation because they separated the law from the requirement of civil society.