Skip to main content

tv   Inside Story  Al Jazeera  January 13, 2022 3:30am-4:00am AST

3:30 am
it's raise questions about the future of farming, how to balance sustainability and food production. this might be the arm stuff, not an agricultural revolution, but something that's been done for centuries. small local farms close to urban areas. agriculture is that a cross roads and the more land that's handed over to nature in return for government subsidies in the coming years means that we may come very soon to rely upon local but uses like this to feed our communities. we live in a world shape, buying food, and the land it's grown on. nature's future is our future need. balkan al, jazeera, southeast england. ah, scripts every with a solo. adrian finnegan here in doha with the headlines and al jazeera inflation in the united states has increased to levels not seen in 40 years,
3:31 am
with the price surge affecting almost everything purchased by consumers and businesses. the white house is blaming disruptions to the global supply chain. when it comes to something like the supply chain challenges on those manifest it more significantly than people are anticipating over the course of the summer in early fall. and both because of a coven factors, but also buying behavior of major retailers and major freight movers. and so we went into action over the course of the fall to try to help address those issues and the, the bottleneck. and we were seeing at ports made very significant progress on that . 40 percent decline in the amount of time that at a, a container sitting at the dock. the world health organization says that over 15000000 people contracted coven 19 in the past week. the highest ever figure in the pandemic, the w. a church, as the number of deaths is also rising. britain, this planet says, facing growing pressure to resign. after admitting that he attended
3:32 am
a garden party in downing street during the lockdown of 2020. or as johnston says, he thought it was a work related event. and apologized to the nation on wednesday. a high stakes meeting between russia and nato over ukraine has ended without a break. through the head of nato says that he will not allow moscow's a veto. ukraine's wishes to join the block a lawsuit against britons. prince andrew is moving forward in the united states after a judge rejected efforts to dismiss a sex abuse claim. virginia jeffrey says that she was 17 years old when she was traffic to have sex with the u. k. royal prince. andrew's lawyers tried to have the case thrown out sizing a 2009 deal she signed with the convicted sex offender jeffrey epstein. add those, the headlines that morning. his fiance's era, after inside story next ah
3:33 am
smart guns, unique to a single user could soon become available in the united states. promote that hope to avoid tragedies with what they say is gun control. but the implications don't chime with the wishes of the powerful pro, gun lobbies. so could this lead to the government having the power to regulate the gun markets? this is inside story. ah hello and welcome to the program. i'm pete adobe. over the past 20 years, the idea of smart guns, which can be fired, only by verified uses,
3:34 am
has been developed and debated around the world. but they haven't been reliable results until now. some american gun makers have started testing personalized smart guns. they say they could be soon available for consumers in the united states support to say the guns could reduce suicides render lost or stolen guns, useless, and protect security personnel. but attempts to develop smart guns in the past. have failed. one made by a german company was easily hacked and in the us, those who want the right to bear arms opposed the new technology. some critics said smart guns with too risky for people trying to protect their home during a crisis. the national shooting sports foundation in the u. s. says it doesn't to pose smart guns as long as the government doesn't enforce their sale. in most developed countries, government control of guns is strict and widely accepted. but in the united states, it is of course, a controversial political issue. gun control is a broad term,
3:35 am
mainly used to refer to restrictions on what kinds of weapons can be sold. who can possess or sell them, and where and how they can be stored or carried. proponents of gun control in the us say that limiting access to arms would save lives and reduce crime. opponents argue the opposite, saying it would prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves against armed criminals. the u. s. has by far the highest rates of homicides by firearms among the developed countries in a small arms survey back in 2018, a swiss space research project found that there were 120.5 firearms in the u. s. for every 100 residents in 2019, they were 14400 gun related homicides, killings involving a gun account to trinity 3 quarters of all homicides in the us. in that year, figures from the centers for disease control and prevention. so there were more
3:36 am
than 38300 deaths from guns and 2019 of which more than 23900 were suicides. and attacks had become deadlier than anywhere else. in las vegas in 2017, a man 5 more than 1000 bullets from his hotel window on a crowd at a music festival. he killed 60 people and the worst mash shooting in recent us history. ah, ok, let's get going. let's bring in august and keen new hampshire. we have richard feldman, the former regional political direct and national rifle association and author ricocheted confessions of a gun lobbyist in oakland. we have pastor mike mcbride, director of the free campaign and the co founder of the national black brown gun violence prevention consortium in arlington. we have chuck an as be he's a firearms instructor and formerly a naval officer. gentlemen, welcome to the program. richard feldman and new hampshire coming to 1st personalized guns. what's that?
3:37 am
what are the good points and what are the bad points? now i the person eyes gun being something that is only operational by the authorized user. one can see instances where that would be a very good thing. they were originally developed over 20 years ago, primarily for law enforcement, who from time to time in a scuffle, will have their gun taken from them by the perpetrator. and it's of course, in the interest a law enforcement to the gun not to operate if it's in the hands of the bad guy rather than the good guy. so i think, i think we're, we can all see where it would be valuable in certain circumstances. the problems and thus the downside is you can envision all the circumstances. and depending on the technology, it affects the outcome. and there was somewhere in operator, off a fingerprints. well, if you're in a fight and you get your hands in the dirt, the gun wouldn't operate because you can't read your fingerprints. the works off
3:38 am
a battery. what if the battery goes dead in the middle of your scuffle and your gun doesn't operate? so at the end of the day it's probably the market that's going to determine is it a valuable tool? is it worth the tool there always cost benefits and detriments to everything. and our system usually we're things out on a monetary basis. is it going to be worth the price and had, is the back? how do the equities balance in the use of the gun chuck last be in arlington? so the technology is not infallible. if we are getting to the point where the technology is a ok, absolutely trustworthy will gun owners be prepared in your mind to stump up the extra cash? because these weapons are more expensive than that. the traditional still quite simple. 100 years after it went into common usage,
3:39 am
still quite simple technology that represents a basic hangup. we're 1st i agree with everything that you're a previous speaker. just said. second, the technology is still a long way from b, y o. the guns are going to be very expensive there. it's an old technology about 40 years old. the military has not decided to buy the guns because of reliability and expense, the law enforcement community. the same reason, reason says reject of the gun at why would this leon market buy a gun that's extremely expensive and no question or more reliability if the domestic police won't use of why should the civilian community use? okay, pastor, mike mcbride in oakland 90 percent of teenage suicides in america. the people that kill themselves use a gun. it's a gun that they've got from
3:40 am
a relative or it's very easy in america with 300000000 guns and circulation to go into grandpa's arsenal. and get your weapon of choice and, and your own life. would they be a good thing? if we just talk about suicide, we were having a conversation about suicide. not about gun control. would we be saying this is a great idea? absolutely, i do believe we should shift the conversation beyond just conversation around the market or reliability, or we should see smart guns or personalized fire arms as a solution to the kinds of accidental shootings, the kinds of a shooting involving suicides. it's about ensuring that we have a viable alternative for families and individuals who would like to have a firearm legally. but also ensure that that firearm does not fall into the hands of curious children. or under age miners, who often are involved in accidental shootings,
3:41 am
suicides or even interpersonal conflicts. and so part of our conversation must expand to, i believe, a public health, a conversation or not just one that depends on what the military does or what law enforcement personnel may do. the vast majority of gone gun owners in this country are civilians that need to have public health viable solutions that provide both security and safety. at the same time, richard feldman at court wire smart guns not as commercialized as perhaps one would assume at this point in the life of people using hand guns, they're not as commercialized as one would assume they might be. is kind of country intuitive swears the dynamic going to come from. is it the gun lobby, the gun manufacturers, big business sponsors or government? i think it's going to be the market place. nanning encapsulates all of those you mentioned. but you know, i agree with what passed you just said i, you know,
3:42 am
it's in our, we are the responsibility to do a much better job of keeping guns out of the hands of people who every one of us on this call and every gun on or i know believes or not have guns, but why would we want to use the most technologically advanced, difficult, expensive system. i have enough. we can do it right now. they're called gun safes. ah, i'm the guy that with a president clinton back in 1997. ah, when i represented the firearms industry, announced we were gonna ship all guns with child safety locks. when you have a gun in the home, why don't we start? having people get saves, saves, are very expensive, small saves that can hold a couple of guns. we're talking about that $500.00 a $1000.00 and up. we're talking around a $100.00. if people,
3:43 am
the grandpa who's got his guns, if he left his guns in a safe, his grandkids are going to be able to access those guns. it's a simple solution that we can do now for a lot less cost. chuckner has been arlington coming back to you as richard feldman kind of nailed or pitch and hold the debate that i it's not a binary decision despite the fact that candidates, joe biden was in favor of smart guns when he was on the campaign trail. america bama was in favor of smart guns. it's not as simple as saying it, smart guns or traditional guns. it's got to be part of a, a portfolio of reducing the death toll and the inappropriate use of hand guns. yes, let me say that i totally agree with mister feldman of the democratic aspirations of ugh, bill clinton and barack obama. both studies conducted by the cdc from health
3:44 am
perspective on now firearm safety. i want to correct once one thing the number of suicide by firearm is very, very low compared to thee. all the methodology is gonna be suicide. as an instructor, one of the things we cover very detail is the security of guns. the responsibility with them are many stake sir, instituted laws that if guns are not secured properly and they arm is use, the honor of that guy is not the molly audience. so with good training, we can emphasize are the security of firearms responsibility that goes with it. and in my media, illegal use marks. pastor mike mcbride in oakland. i guess that's a fair point sir, isn't it? that suicide is suicide. if somebody wants to take their own life, they will do it,
3:45 am
they may do it, they may take a longer time to do it, they made to it and now in a slightly more messy way, a less surgical way if you will. but if somebody wants to talk themselves, they don't necessarily have to use a gun to do it. but do you get the sense where you are that the n r ray is resisting this despite what the the industry is saying, because the industry is now saying, look, we're getting a better reception from the gun lobby. well, i think it's important to, to just say a while many can use various methods to attempt suicide. the use of guns are the most successful of weapons or tools used when suicides do occur, meaning that you may be able to recover from a pill overdose or a, using a razor blades or other forms. but once you pull a trigger, it's very hard to come back from bad. and this is, i think, the point we can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good of the data says
3:46 am
that 37 percent of deaths could be prevented with these kind of personalized fire arms. which means to say that we are to be thinking about mitigation efforts, ways to ensure that we are reducing the harm. not figuring out 100 percent, a fail safe proof method, a whole listed response that includes i agree. safety locks in and, and, and other forms of ways to secure weapons ought not be seen as oppositional to personal firearms because all collectively together, we could indeed increase the number or the percentage of, of preventable debts. and that i think is the point in our communities. it is not just about suicide in the black community in urban communities, not just about suicide, but it's also about accidental shootings. it's also about stolen fire arms. it's also about the ways in which guns make it into the underground market and then come
3:47 am
into the hands of our community members who are often a seduced into using weapons to resolve personal conflicts. so that the conversation must be expanded, i think continuously beyond just a 100 percent fail safe proof conversation to a public health, a mitigation conversation that i think allow me, if not all of my solutions to work together to achieve the, the, the share outcomes that is more sacred feldman is there a sense in which they're looking forward, smart guns or the enforced deployment to smart guns might be good inasmuch as the manufacturing and the use and the availability of particularly hand guns is generally a function of boom or bust within the contractual financial side of the industry, i. e, looking at it globally, it depends where the united states is fighting and killing people. and then the
3:48 am
contracts when the united states stopped doing that kind of thing or stopped peace keeping the contracts are then wrapped up with the gun makers. and then there's a surplus of guns on the market in the us. now that, that, that may have been true around world war 2 and both before, but the civilians 520304050 times more guns in the united states than the military purchases and the guns, the militaries, primarily interested in aren't available on the commercial market for civilians the 2 separate and distinct markets. and so that, that's not true. and again, you know, i, i really agree with the pastor there, there is no one solution. and when he says, you know, the perfect, it shouldn't be, or rather the practical should be the enemy, the perfect. well, you know, in a perfect world, the smart gun would be the perfect solution. but it's got problems. it will always
3:49 am
have problems. and frankly, those gangs could still steal the personalized guns and figure out how to aah, get rid of the the, the personalization. if a gun is in a safe, it can't be stolen so easily without stealing the all safe or breaking the safe. i mean, sometimes we look for the most incredible solutions when a simple solution will suffice quite well at all, much lower cost without all the inconvenience and the debate. chance be quite right about it. pardon me for interrupting you. chuck. nice. be coming back to you. would incremental legislation, perhaps represent a middle path moving forwards, because then people who like the guns and the gun lobby, the very powerful political gun lobby,
3:50 am
wouldn't feel that they were being presented with this black or white choice of we're going to take away your traditional guns and you must, must use the smart guns. no, that wouldn't work. one, there's a constitutional amendment to our constitution caught the 2nd amendment that protects the rights of the buyer arms. second, i agree with the holistic approach. we think that if we make the penalties more difficult, that would cut down a lot of the misuse. for example, are you illegal use of firearm and you're convicted of such an a court of law mandatory sentencing say automatic 20 years. ah. i think that's something the gun lobby would support and it's the something that would cut down on the illegal use of guns because the bad guys would say the cost is too high. pass to like
3:51 am
mcbride in oakland? is it significant that johns hopkins is saying 60 percent on his website today? they're saying this 60 percent of 1st time gun buyers would buy smart technology over ordinary technology if it was readily available or is it just that they don't know what they're buying? so they just want to go for the latest glitzy asked, top of the line hand gun with all the technology built in. i definitely think it is significant because we have been begun to win the argument nationally in the go, guys, prevention space over and against the gun lobby and gun manufacturers who seem to love to re straw man arguments about why these things won't work, but are perfectly ok, with the carnage and the blood spilling that is happening all across the country. with a loosey goosey over and available, um, use, and
3:52 am
a firearms. i do believe that fire our consumers are wanting to do their part to ensure that we can literally reduce preventable dest, on, even in this conversation, the idea that one 3rd of preventable deaths could be impacted by these introduction of fire arms. smart fire arms, if, as if that is a small, insignificant number, we must, again allow of those with very sensible end committee arguments around protect he and saving an ant and maintaining security around guns. we must allow those are to mr. care the day. and perhaps the industry, the market, the manufacturing of these, these kinds of smart firearms will grow because the demand will grow in there and we will have more options. we will have more better technology in this whole sector . richard feldman just to nail down if i can't the next minute or so what your
3:53 am
stand seems to be. the pastor there is saying you can reduce deaths by one 3rd. the lowest state percentage that i found today says you can reduce death by gone by 25 percent. doesn't that therefore mean that everyone should embrace the technology and push for the technology to be readily available once it is a 100 percent guaranteed. as this functions, it works, it does what it says on the tin. you know what you leaving out of the equation is the people that don't own guns. thank this new technology is a great idea. that people who own guns and want to own guns don't like that technology, for the most part. and it's true, the market will decide. so the people that buy guns are in interested and don't want it. the people that don't own guns, think that the other people who do own them ought to have it. therein lies the conundrum because it is the market ultimately that will decide. and the market is
3:54 am
of gun owners, not of anti gun, non gun owners. and chuck lands me in arlington, going back to this idea of pro and anti gun lobbies. do we have to, does the united states have to disassemble this kind of a political metric where you've got this simplistic assumption republicans like their guns? it for them? it's an issue, a free will. democrats think that everyone's guns should be controlled in a different way. in a hardaway and a tough way or even taken away from them. as an instructor, i can tell you right now because of the increased crime rate and democrat dominated on but most of my students are liberal democrats right now that are afraid and looking to defend themselves in several studies that have been done. an assault weapon band that went on in this country
3:55 am
for 10 years, and several helps studied by the cdc. that had conclusively said, imposing more restriction will not decrease and have not decreased the illegal use of firearms. so while we're going through this whole real gen makes no sense. pastor mike with this dynamic be accelerated, perhaps if the equation between adoption and funding was shortened. and the key way to do that is on the one hand to get police forces across the united states to start using smart guns. but on the other hand, that's incredibly difficult because you guys in the u. s. you have so many, you have tens of thousands of individual police forces up and down the country. and there are 16000 of police departments in this country and slow any kind of universal adoption of any policy is quite hurt. you land. again, i will just stress that we must continue in this country to push conversations that
3:56 am
are about mitigation that are about reducing harm. we must continue to shy away from the kind of propaganda and or lining our here on fire about what will not work . it is not true that the kinds of of fear mongering that is happening well. crime is actually the, the reality as it relates to taking guns are only guns to protect yourself. again, the research says, if you own a gun, you are more likely to have someone in your family or yourself harmed by that good . then by using it in a self defense type situation, we must expand the consciousness of everyday citizens in this country around public safety, around personal security. and i believe continuing to adopt and introduce these kinds of technological advances can contribute to a conversation where we're not. so driven by fear to the point where we are not
3:57 am
embracing, what kinds of mitigation efforts that can't keep us safe. thank you so much gentlemen. we got to leave it there. so i guess they were richard feldman. mike mcbride and chapman has been thank you to for your company. you can see the show again any time via the website. amazon dot com and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha inside story. you can also follow the conversation on twitter handle at ha, inside story from me, peter toby and the team here. and doha, thanks for watching. we will see you at the mutual times tomorrow by ah,
3:58 am
my name is i'm always thought of yoga as part of my indian heritage. i understand it to be about transformation, but yoga itself seems to be transforming. i see mentality is a lot about this is a yoga. why is it yoga should belong to everyone, but i'm afraid that simple truth is getting lost in the world that so commercialized politicize a yoga on l. g, as in weighs more than 12000 migrants, mostly haitians in the canada that sprung up in that real texas over the last 2 weeks. they won't assign them. us authorities are overwhelmed. this is just the latest flash point in a months long serge of people illegally crossing the buddha. and there's little in the camp for them. you can see that kind of all the time if they don't pay and
3:59 am
getting back in for the coming up that they went across to make get through. they said because there was enough food for them to be there in the car. we met nicholas on the mexican bank to the river, searching for food, a medicine for his family. he hadn't realized until we asked him about it. the us authorities rules are now flying haitians back home. there is no president crime as high students can't go to school, there is no work. the economy is down, people can't put up with them. deportation is not good for us. americans are increasingly saying authoritarianism might not be so bad. there were several steps along the way, where does that chain of command? it seemed like kind of covered up what you're take on why they've gotten this so wrong. that to me is political malpractice, the bottom line on us politics and policies and the impact on the world on al jazeera, there is no channel that covers world views like we do. the scale of this camp is
4:00 am
like nothing you've ever seen access to health care. what we want to know is how do these things affect people. we revisit please state, even when they are no international headlines, are really invest in that. and that's a privilege as a journalist, ah, hello, i'm adrian finnegan, in doha, with a summary all to use on al jazeera inflation in the united states has increased to levels not seen in 40 years. with the price search affecting almost everything purchased by consumers and businesses, the white house is blaming disruptions to the global supply chain. but inflation is a growing political risk for the democrats, as republicans continue to blame stimulus measures for overheating the economy.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on