The new scheme makes it harder for people under the age of 21 to purchase weapons, and creates new criteria for confiscation of weapons from people with a history of abuse or assault.
- America US senators reach minimum agreement to increase gun control
In America No one knows how many people are shot and killed each year because, after winning control of Congress in November 1994, the Republican Party banned the production of official figures on those incidents. Not long ago, on August 25, Bill Clinton approved the Law on the Use and Fight Against Crime, which, among other things, prohibited the sale of semi-automatic weapons for a period of ten years. In his day, many attributed the election to Republicans’ victory—a victory that propelled the most conservative wing of that party to power, led by Newt Gingrich, one of Donald Trump’s biggest supporters in 2016. became one – legislation for approval of that, which proceeded with the vote of the Democrats.
The political fallout from the 1994 gun rights reform is not just anecdote. In a certain sense, it can be said that the movement that gave rise to ‘Trumpism’ 22 years later received an injection of popularity with the prohibition of the sale of arms, which makes more sense in the Donbes than in a country . peace. So it stands to reason that American politicians are reluctant to raise the issue of guns. Not so much because the machine gun has a lot of fans. In fact, only 32% of Americans own firearms, and less than 70% of the country’s population is not in favor of regulating these devices. The point is that staunch supporters of guns are very organized, and vote religiously in all elections.
So we don’t know how many Americans have been killed by guns since 1994. Maybe it’s better not to know. News website Insider estimates that In 2020, 19,739 people were shot dead. Apart from this, there were 24,090 others who committed suicide by shooting themselves. (The US has the highest suicide rate of any advanced economy, and the number of suicide deaths has increased by more than 30% so far this century.) Also, these figures do not include accidents, which Claims several thousand more deaths.
Nevertheless, it can be affirmed without fear of going too far – rather with the certainty that a shortcoming – that, since the 1994 reform has been approved, at least half a million Americans each year Killed shooting. The new plan significantly tightens the ability of people under the age of 21 to purchase weapons, and creates new criteria that allow authorities to confiscate firearms from people with a history of domestic abuse, suicidal ideation or third-party assault. allows. Similarly, it increases the budget allocation for psychiatric care.
These are not measures that are going to have a significant impact on the overall violence with firearms in the United States. It is true that many massacres – such as this year in Uvalde and Buffalo, and 2012 in Newtown – have been committed by people under the age of 21 and that juvenile delinquency is at the root of many shootings. But the regulations don’t close the doors for these people with access to firearms. In addition, America is armed. If the percentage of Americans with firearms is taken as a reference, they are only 1.4% of the world’s population; Even then, They have about 45% of the weapons on Earth.
Beyond that, another question remains: whether the reform proceeds. In theory, this is more likely to happen. Altogether there are 20 senators who support it. Ten are Democrats, and ten are Republicans. This means explicit consent, but only in principle. First, one in ten Republicans not facing re-election in November’s legislative elections makes it clear that this party knows its votes depend on its support for unrestricted access to firearms. Huh. What’s more, four of those ten Republicans are leaving politics this year, so they no longer have to succumb to the ballot box’s decision.
And it is that, in practice, the reform could collapse if the bill it depicts has too restrictive language. This would make it unacceptable to Republicans, which, in turn, raises a strange question: is this a reform that has to be written in a sufficiently vague way that it has no practical consequence?
according to the norms of