LONDON - In the immediate aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre, a shocked world is looking once more at gun violence in the United States and wanting to know why Americans don't change their gun ownership laws. Some global supporters of gun control, in particular, say the Connecticut shootings underline the urgent need to implement a proposed treaty curbing the international trade in small arms, in part to prevent such tragedies.
The latest mass killing in the United States highlights the need for an Arms Trade Treaty, Renee Ponce Figueroa, a Venezuelan human rights lawyer, tweeted:
Camilo Louis in New York expressed the hope that United Nations member states would adopt robust measures when they gather in that city next March with the aim of finalizing the treaty:
And Alaphia Zoyab, a U.K.-based activist with the Avaaz social activism organization, regretted that:
However, linking the proposed A.T.T. to the issue of gun violence in the Uni ted States may be a case of wishful thinking on the part of gun-control advocates.
Even proponents of the treaty acknowledge it is not aimed at the domestic U.S. weapons trade.
The U.S. gun lobby, however, does not agree. The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) and other groups have campaigned vigorously against the proposed A.T.T. Some gun-rights advocates have claimed the treaty would allow a hostile U.S. administration to make an end-run round the Second Amendment.
Opposition to the U.N. treaty extended to the Senate last summer where 51 members warned the Obama administration they would block ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricted the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.
Proponents of arms control say pres sure from the gun lobby, and President Obama's reluctance to push gun control ahead of the November presidential election, scuppered plans to have the treaty adopted at U.N. negotiations last July.
“The primary responsibility for the failure to adopt a treaty at the end of the conference in July lay with the United States,†Martin Butcher of the Oxfam charity told a British parliamentary committee this month.
“It was undoubtedly difficult, given the politics of an election year - and in some ways particularly poisonous politics this year - for the Administration to agree to something that the N.R.A. was trumpeting was all about Hillary Clinton going to the United Nations to take away people's guns, when the treaty has nothing to do with that. â€
Mr. Butcher and others in the international arms control lobby are confident the situation will change in a second Obama term after the U.S. last month joined 156 other states in voting to finalize the A.T.T. next March.
The treaty's backers say it will stem the flow of arms to abusive regimes and warlords in conflict zones and reduce the level of violence in a world where one person dies every minute as a result of armed violence.
Whether it could protect U.S. citizens against random acts of violence is another matter, even if it were intended to. Any treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate and no treaty that is judged to violate the Constitution may be adopted.
Given these realities, why is the gun lobby making so much effort to resist the A.T.T.?
Some American commentators and gun-control advocates have asserted tha t gun lobbyists get much of their funding from gun manufacturers who could stand to lose from an international arms control deal.
The U.N. treaty might not dent U.S. manufacturers' domestic market, but it would potentially impact exports that by one estimate were worth $336.5 million last year, making the U.S. the world leader.
“Is the N.R.A. working for casual gun-owners, many of whom, according to polling, support tougher restrictions on gun ownership,†Lee Fang asked in The Nation this week. “Or is the NRA serving the gunmaker lobby, which is purely interested in policies that will promote greater gun sales and more profits? Any gun control policy debate should be gin with this question.â€
