...
Despite countless school shootings in the United States: Six Reasons Why the Firearms Act Is Hard to Change | Abroad | DR Tuesday's school shooting was the 27th of its kind this year in the USA alone. 19 children and two teachers were killed. Of It happens again and again that American children and young people go to school never to come home again. Again and again there are calls for tightening of the gun law to avoid school shootings, As in this week, where the 27th school shooting this year in The United States took place and cemented itself as the most deadly in ten years. Among other things, it prompted US President Joe Biden to call for a tightening of the gun law. , which makes it so difficult for those who want it to change in the US gun law? The answer is that it is reasonably complicated, and a lot comes into play. But here are some of the most important reasons you should know.1 The first fundamental reason why it is difficult to change the gun law is about the culture and history that lies in the arms of Americans.- The United States is a young country , which is largely created by violence, and where the use of weapons and defense is something that has been praised, assesses Steffen Gram, who is international in and has previously reported from the USA.- The American ideal has been that was able to defend himself, his and his. That is, himself, his family and his property. And that is exactly what has been the case for the way in which low laws on weapons have been made in the United States along the way. because in the United States there is simply a lack of political debate about guns. The Conservatives and Fox News watch while the Democratic camp sticks to CNN or the like. assesses Steffen Gram.- And this is largely reflected in the debate - or lack thereof - about new restrictions on the right to bear arms.32008 was a fateful year for where we stand today. This is how it sounds from Niels Bjerre-Poulsen, who is an associate professor in American studies at the University of Southern Denmark (). He points specifically to the case District of Columbia vs. Heller.- The verdict stated that it was a personal right to have. In the US, the description is looser and thus up for interpretation, but in 2008 a small majority of judges ruled that it was a personal right to be able to carry weapons, he says. This has led to some states' more weapons legislation Within a few weeks, the US will, among other things, decide whether New York's ban on carrying weapons on the streets is in violation of the US.- It will be very interesting to see because we have a predominance of Republican-appointed judges in . For that reason, New York may have to change the state's legislation, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen. It's also seen in the number of weapons in the United States that have exploded.- Never in such a short time have so many weapons been purchased, says's international, Steffen Gram. feel that the social between them and is collapsed. They no longer feel that they are able to protect them, he assesses. And then you have to take up arms again. - If you are in a situation and even with someone who can not, what do you do then? You go back, as tradition and culture tell you, and buy weapons, explains the former US-.5Although a large majority of Americans are in favor of greater control, the US Congress is screwed together in a way that makes more politicians hesitates to implement national austerity measures, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen, associate professor of American studies at the University of Southern Denmark (). It requires not just a majority, but a qualified majority, which in this case means 60 out of 100 votes, he says.- When you have enough millions who are passionate about not restricting their right to bear arms, then you as a politician will not get confused with them. This is partly due to the American political electoral system, where the winner takes it all in each individual constituency, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen. Each constituency sends one congress member. If a Republican candidate in a secure Republican district is considering voting for stricter gun laws, then he may threaten to support a more right-wing challenger. That is why the candidate typically pulls ashore, and this locks in the situation, he says. He explains that there have also been some Democrats who have voted against proposals for background checks of those who buy weapons. - The fear is in both parties, depending on which states politicians come from, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen.6 Perhaps you think that the National Rifle Federation's views on the right to bear arms have existed largely since the United States was founded. But this is not the case, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen. The organization, which was formed at the end of the 19th century, was before an organization for hunting enthusiasts and sport shooters. But in the 1970s were taken over by conservative politicians, he says.- They wanted to make a political instrument that fought for the right to. Any attempt to make that right was seen by them as a slippery slope, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen. - There is a growing group of absolutists who will not give in to anything, even if it makes sense to make restrictions.- The absolutists' argument is self-defense and the concern that they will be at war with their own. One that they believe monitors the country. That type of argument fills in more, and it is part of the ordinary cultural struggle that the United States is in right now, says Niels Bjerre-Poulsen.