for china, the crisis in the property sector is weighing on china's economic growth, and experts expect to slow down to continue for months. possibly years. ever grand is doing all it can to keep its business and projects here afloat. it's paid more than $30000000.00 in fines to the local government and is appealing against the demolition of these $39.00 buildings. caching you out to 0, dan joe, china ah. his al jazeera and these are the top stories. a german court has sentenced a former syrian government official to life in prison for crimes against humanity on. while ross son was head of an intelligence officer, damascus detention center, prosecutor say that's where he oversaw the killing of 58 people and the torture of 4000 others. dominic cane has more from berlin. and the fact of this happened in germany. that's the thing that matters here. also this involved victims who will

not german, a perpetrator who was not german offences that did not take place in germany. and yet, the german authorities argued persuasively their view that universal jurisdiction allowed them chance to brings an with all the court and then and sham. and it's worth saying that the court said that although it's a life sentence against them, they don't want it to be released under any circumstances for at least 15 years. russian lead forces as dotted, withdrawing from kazakstan falling, the worse unrest and decades. the pull out is said to be complete within 10 days, cause i'm president cason jermarta kind of asked for their help to quell days of anti government protests. while the 160 people were killed and nearly 10000 attained during the demonstrations talks to defuse the crisis in easton ukraine or underway in vienna. the organization for security and cooperation in europe is meeting for the latest round of dialogue between russia and nato. a members,

bolan's foreign minister is sharing the meeting and warned that the region is closer to war than at any time the last 30 years. india has reported its highest number of coven 19 cases since may last year. almost 250000 just the last 24 hours. but hospital admissions and deaths are lower than previous waves. 380 people have died in the past day, compared to a peak of more than 4000 davy deaths last year. transport workers in lebanon are on strike with dr. is blocking roads across the country. they're angry about increasing fuel prices. the sharp devaluation of the currency, the lebanese pound has lost more than 15 percent of its value this year. the crisis has been caused by growing national debt and political deadlock. those airlines or news here on al jazeera right after inside story the like, ah,

smart guns, unique to a single user could soon become available in the united states. promoters 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,

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 were 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,

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 based 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 23 quarters of all homicides in the us. in that year, figures from the centers for disease control and prevention. so they will more 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 director, 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 you 1st personalized guns. what are the,

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. a 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 it 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. that works off

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,

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 being wire. the guns are going to be very expensive there. it's an old technology about 40 years old. that military has not decided to buy the guns because of reliability and expense, the law enforcement community. the same reason, reasons has rejected 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

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, if 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 a reliability. but we should see smart guns are personalized fire arms as a solution to the kinds of accidental shootings, the kinds of 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, 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 la force 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 small 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 gonna 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 what?

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? um, technologically advanced, difficult, expensive system. i haven't that 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 not? 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,

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 and 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 just say that i totally agree with mister seldman of the democratic expressions of our bill clinton and barack obama. both have studies conducted by the cdc,

from health perspective, are now firearm safety. i want to correct once one thing the number of suicide by firearm is very, very low compared to the all the methodology suicide. as an instructor, one of the things we cover very detail is the security of guns. the responsibility with them are many states are instituted laws that if guns are not secured properly and they are misuse, the owner of that guy is not the molly audience. so with good training, we can emphasize ah, the security of firearms, responsibility that goes with it. and demise. 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. 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 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

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 are 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

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 any more sacred feldman, is there a sense in which they're looking forward, smart guns, or the enforced deployment of 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

contracts when the united states stopped doing that kind of thing or stopped peace keeping the contract. so 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. this is and the guns, the militaries, primarily interested in aren't available on the commercial market for civilians. the 2 separate and distinct markets. um, 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, the perfect,

it shouldn't be, or rather the practical shouldn't 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 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 pause. without all the inconvenience and the debate, chance be some words like 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, 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. why 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 a firearm and you are convicted of such an a court of law mandatory sentencing say automatic 20 years. ah. i think that's something that gun marvey 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 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 gone 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 est, 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 the loosey goosey over and available use of 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 the 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 and a committee arguments around protect he and saving an ant and maintain security around guns. we must allow those arguments to carry 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 add more better technology in this whole sector . richard feldman just to nail down if i can't the next minute or so what your 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 gun by 25 percent. doesn't that therefore mean that every one 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're 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 one our own guns, dont like the 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 or to have it. therein lies the conundrum because it is the market ultimately that will decide. and the market is of gun owners, not of anti gun, non gun owners and shot 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 of free. will democrats think that everyone's guns should be controlled in a different way in a hardaway in 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 great and looking to defend themselves in several

studies that have been done. an assault weapon band, when on in this country for 10 years, and several help studies by the cdc. that em conclusively said, imposing more restriction will not decrease and have not decreased the illegal use of firearms. so why we're going through this whole grill of 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 are about mitigation or about reducing harm. we must continue to shy away from the kind of propaganda and or the lighting are here on fire about what will not work. it is not true that the kinds of of fear mongering that is happening real 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 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 might with bright and shopping as being. 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 space book dot com, forward slash ha. inside story. you can also follow the conversation on twitter handle at ha, inside story from me, pete, adobe, and the team here. and doha, thanks for watching. we will see you at the mutual times, tomorrow by ah,

a chilling the debates, 90 percent of the world's refugees have come from a common impacted country. the climate emergency is putting more pressure on cities across the world and amplify your voice. it's not really the future 8 now it's not a lock can get this completed. we cannot lose hope. we know what to do and we have the tools to do to get back with all the stream on al jazeera ah

ah, americans are increasingly st. authoritarianism might not be so bad. there were several steps along the way where the chain of command, it seemed like try to cover what's your 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, the health of humanity is at stake. a global pandemic requires a global response. w h o is the guardian of global health delivering life saving tools, supplies, and training to help the world's most vulnerable people, uniting across borders to speed up the development of tests, treatments,

and of vaccine keeping you up to date with what's happening on the ground. in the world and in the lab. now more than ever the world needs w h, are making a healthier world for you. everyone ah 1200 hours gmc here on al jazeera, come out santa maria with your headlines and a former syrian government official, has been handed a life sentence by a german court for crimes against humanity on what our son was head of an intelligence office. in ne, damascus detention center, prosecutors say that's where he oversaw the killing of 58 people and the torture of 5000 others. this was 20112012. ross on trial began 2 years ago after he defected

and sought asylum in germany. dominant came with the details now from bill in the list.