Brazil votes on Ban on sale of weapons.

[Chris R]

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13238

Interesting. Not a lot I can add to it at the moment, haven't read it all yet. But I figured ya'll would be intriged by it.

[Daywalker]

wow, adding in the ammo thing will keep people that currently have firearms from having a usuable weapon in the long run.

[Dave]

Taking firearms out of the hands of criminals :rolleyes:

Raise the standard of living and i bet they'll see fewer gun deaths and a smaller criminal presence. In my opinion, they have the wrong idea. But hey, what do i know? I don't live there.

[GoatChomper]

The connection between the criminal use of firearms and the legal sources of these firearms is strong enough to convince many Brazilians that by removing the number of legal arms in circulation, they will reduce the size of the principle source of weapons used by criminals to perpetuate their urban guerrilla war and other crimes against individuals.
Whereupon the criminal element will simply use other means of supply, the ensuing inflation of prices further enriching the suppliers.

Prohibitionists of all stripes never learn they're pissing in the wind and just putting more money in crooks' pockets.

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, unless they plan to strictly increase regulation and stop smuggling (or at least severely curtail it), which may or may not be possible.

-e- It'd also likely keep the weapons out of the hands of small-time criminals, since they'd lack the money to buy the weapons at inflated prices.

[GoatChomper]

Well, unless they plan to strictly increase regulation and stop smuggling (or at least severely curtail it), which may or may not be possible.
One look at a map to see how much coastline they have, coupled with notoriously corrupt enforcement, should give you an answer.
-e- It'd also likely keep the weapons out of the hands of small-time criminals, since they'd lack the money to buy the weapons at inflated prices.
Or they'll just steal them. They are, after all, criminals.

Or they'll simply feel comfortable in resorting to non-firearm weapons, now that the law-abiding will have no means by which to trump them.

[Lord Kelvin]

One look at a map to see how much coastline they have, coupled with notoriously corrupt enforcement, should give you an answer.
Point taken.

Or they'll just steal them. They are, after all, criminals.
I'd assume that if illegal weapons suppliers would value their merchandise, they'd protect them in one way or another. Kind of hard to steal a gun from a cache/dealer if there's an armed guard near the cache or if the dealer has a weapon, and you don't have a gun.

Or they'll simply feel comfortable in resorting to non-firearm weapons, now that the law-abiding will have no means by which to trump them.
But there's also the fact that the law-abiding citizens would also likely find way with which to defend themselves, such as mace or tazers, although I would question the effectiveness of these countermeasures.

[FaKToR]

Whereupon the criminal element will simply use other means of supply, the ensuing inflation of prices further enriching the suppliers.
So what is your proposed solution, because if that article is accurate they're not a shiny happy society as it is, or do you only know that taking guns will make things worse?

[[Political] Slayer]

and it's funny that everyone against guns here say our country is the worst with gun deaths and violent assault. Maybe if they made more than $300 a year, they wouldn't resort to the drug trade and criminal life. They are going to see a massive surge in violence if they ban guns.

[Stalin]

So what is your proposed solution, because if that article is accurate they're not a shiny happy society as it is, or do you only know that taking guns will make things worse?


The law abiding ones would give up their guns, but I don't think the police would be too hot about the idea of wading into the slums of Rio for confiscation. What does that leave you with?

[FaKToR]

You didn't read the article did you?

[Stalin]

I did now. If confiscation ensues, the gangs that run the bad-streets of Rio will still have their weapons, and the law-abiding won't. Correct?

[Feanaro]

But there's also the fact that the law-abiding citizens would also likely find way with which to defend themselves,

It is a little hard to defend one's self against five large thugs who do nothing but pump iron and fight. We law abiding types don't tend to have their sort of experience or numbers.

[FaKToR]

I think you guys are missing the idea here. What they seem to feel and I can't really say because I'm not an expert on Brazil is that the number of deaths without guns will be less than the number of deaths with guns. I'm sure you can come up with instances in which the "bad guys" win but they seem to be approaching it from a standpoint of saving lives rather than avoiding your proposed situations. I think the true test of this will be whether or not the murder rate declines.

[marty]

The numbers of deaths by firearms will lessen. The number of deaths by other implements will rise. If someone was going to kill, they'll kill. A weapon won't make them do it.

[FaKToR]

Not necessarily so marty. You assume substitute weapons have no significant differences to guns and that people will be willing to put forth the extra effort (if necessary) to kill. Unless you just mean they'll rise in general, you didn't say how much they will rise specifically if that will be enough to offset the ban.

[Stalin]

Personally, I don't think the rates will decline that much. The highest violent crime rates in this country happen to be in cities with lots of gun control legislation, and that's with many less cops that are willing to look the other way than Brazil has. What I think will happen is the gangs will be less afraid to commit crime because they will have no threat presented by the now-disarmed sheep. Human nature.

[Lord Kelvin]

Not necessarily so marty. You assume substitute weapons have no significant differences to guns and that people will be willing to put forth the extra effort (if necessary) to kill. Unless you just mean they'll rise in general, you didn't say how much they will rise specifically if that will be enough to offset the ban.
It depends on how many of the deaths previously were caused accidentally. Yes, if you want to kill someone, you'll find a way, it just takes longer with something other than a gun. However, if you have a gun and find yourself in a self-defense situation or if a robbery goes bad on you, etc., you're more likely to kill someone, since your first instinct in that situation would be to eliminate the danger in any way possible, and the fastest way to do that is to use the gun.

[GoatChomper]

The measure was rejected by nearly two-thirds of those who voted.
I'd assume that if illegal weapons suppliers would value their merchandise, they'd protect them in one way or another. Kind of hard to steal a gun from a cache/dealer if there's an armed guard near the cache or if the dealer has a weapon, and you don't have a gun.
Bribe him, or just take him out when he gets careless.
So what is your proposed solution.....
"Solution"? There's half the trouble right there.....an insistence on social engineering via legislation.

Frankly, I could give half a damn if crime rates go up or down. My primary concern is for me, mine, the neighbors, and chance encounters in a spirit of generous self-interest.....I'm not going to don the mantle of deciding what's best for an entire society and agitate to have that imposed by law. All others can choose to look out for themselves or not.....if they choose to eschew effective means to do so, then they'll have to live with their choice.

[FaKToR]

Are we discussing the conduct of government, or what's best for you?

[GoatChomper]

Let's not assume that what government wants to do is in my best interests.....government is, after all, my employee.

[FaKToR]

The government is presumably by the people, not just you. I find it odd that you wouldn't consider one of the concerns of government lowering crime.

[Seanobi]

The government is presumably by the people, not just you. I find it odd that you wouldn't consider one of the concerns of government lowering crime.

Sure it is. It's preferable, however, that they focus on crimes they can effectively reduce, and can go about doing so in a manner that does not infringe on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

[marty]

I find it odd that you wouldn't consider one of the concerns of government lowering crime.Banning guns would lower crime?

[FaKToR]

You two seem to miss my disagreement with GC. He doesn't care if crime is lowered or not, and I'm saying that part of the role of government is to lower crime. Whether or not removing guns lowers crime remains to be seen.

[Alex teh Great]

Crime control should remain a local affair. Making broad, sweeping decisions that everyone must abide by and hoping it works out as planned is foolish and a waste of gov't resources.

[GoatChomper]

You two seem to miss my disagreement with GC.
You miss my point. Whether or not government can lower crime levels poses zero interest to me (telling how you speak as though government action is the only operative factor, too.....). I merely require that my hired hands in government not try to impose restrictions that have been proven to be counter-productive.

[FaKToR]

Crime control should remain a local affair. Making broad, sweeping decisions that everyone must abide by and hoping it works out as planned is foolish and a waste of gov't resources.
I don't know about you, but I'm no expert on Brazil so I wouldn't venture in to arguing about how decisions should be made in their country.

I merely require that my hired hands in government not try to impose restrictions that have been proven to be counter-productive.
When did you prove this? Why haven't you shared it with the rest of the world? Am I to understand this as applying in all cases?

[Alex teh Great]

I don't know about you, but I'm no expert on Brazil so I wouldn't venture in to arguing about how decisions should be made in their country.

Much like how those with the power to make laws that spend their lives in cities or protected in their own households won't necessarily realise how their laws may have different effects in cities as opposed to poorer and/or rural areas of the country?

[Prowl]

One day we won't have to have these stupid threads, we could link to any random thread where the republicans among us have espoused their world view.

How can you apply the lessons learned in your country to those of brazil? What about all the countries that don't allow their populus to have their own personal armouries?

Better yet, how many of you are part of a well regulated militia? I thought as much.

[GoatChomper]

When did you prove this?
I haven't had to do so, it's been done quite handily for me.....maybe you're just another of those who labor under the delusion that Prohibition was a success, that The War On Some Drugs is a success, or that the District of Columbia is a haven from firearms-related crime.
One day we blah blah blah.....
Feel free to start a random thread to which we can link all liberal statements while you're at it.
How can you apply the lessons learned in your country to those of brazil?
Don't look at the comparative rates for our states if you'd rather not have your complacency disturbed, or don't like why precedent is such an important factor in legal matters.
What about all the countries that don't allow their populus to have their own personal armouries?
Oh, you must mean a fairly restrictive nation like Mexico.....where they're having themselves a merry little war in Nuevo Laredo complete with RPGs. My, what a rousing success for gun laws.
Better yet, how many of you are part of a well regulated militia? I thought as much.
No, you didn't.....

http://www.lneilsmith.com/militia.html

[Feanaro]

Better yet, how many of you are part of a well regulated militia?

Strange how "the people" means just that everywhere but the Second Amendment. Those pesky Founding Fathers fucked up the wording, "right of the people" doesn't really mean "the people" after all. :rolleyes:

If they had meant for only the well regulated("well armed" or "well trained", in the parlance of the day) militia to have firearms, why did they not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms etc"?

[Col.Kurtz]

what makes me laugh, is that guns are made to kill people, yet they still dont kill as many people as alcohol, cars, and cigarettes do by them selves, items which are ment to "better" a persons life. go figure, we waste our times over silly pointless issues like gun control when so many more important things are out there.

avoiding the real problems is just less hard i guess

[Col.Kurtz]

-also, private ownership of guns doesnt belong in some nations, for the same reason the pick up truck or SUV doesnt, they dont have a proper use (im not saying other do either "always/in some cases" but in general, what are you going to do with a big as v8 ford in france?

[Seanobi]

what makes me laugh, is that guns are made to kill people, yet they still dont kill as many people as alcohol, cars, and cigarettes do by them selves, items which are ment to "better" a persons life. go figure, we waste our times over silly pointless issues like gun control when so many more important things are out there.

avoiding the real problems is just less hard i guess

Since when are cigarettes and alcohol supposed to better peoples' lives?

-also, private ownership of guns doesnt belong in some nations, for the same reason the pick up truck or SUV doesnt, they dont have a proper use (im not saying other do either "always/in some cases" but in general, what are you going to do with a big as v8 ford in france?

Stupidest assumption ever. You know that France isn't just a huge suburb of Paris, right? There are plenty of areas in France that require the use of larger, more powerful vehicles such as trucks and SUVs. France has farms, France has mountainous regions. Winters in France can get pretty damn cold, so I would hate to see your ideal world where the people are forced to drive little Renaults around on icy, windy mountain roads.

Private ownership of guns belongs in any nation in which the people want to be safe from oppression by either criminals or tyrants. The only nation where private gun ownership should not exist is in a nation populated solely by bureaucrats and politicians.

[GoatChomper]

-also, private ownership of guns doesnt belong in some nations, for the same reason the pick up truck or SUV doesnt, they dont have a proper use.....
Which merely a legalistic outcome of how laws may be written. A firearm doesn't somehow become "less useful" when an imaginary line on a map is crossed.

[Mr. Fiend]

Since when are cigarettes and alcohol supposed to better peoples' lives?They are intended for pleasure, so they're not exactly going to better one's life, but nonetheless it an amusing observation.

[puke o'hara]

Which merely a legalistic outcome of how laws may be written. A firearm doesn't somehow become "less useful" when an imaginary line on a map is crossed.Unless the line also marks a significant difference in, say, the need for guns for self-defence. It's not like this would be always the case - but it's possible. Of course, the use is still there, but it isn't necessary in the same way it might be elsewhere, with guns and with SUVs, or with whatever you have. The original argument of guns not belonging to some nations is rather curious though ...

[Prowl]

from the site you linked to....

Article the fourth [Amendment II]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

also the legal definition linked to doesn't guarantee that you can keep an automatic weapon in your house.

But if your own government can't convince part of it's public of this then I'm not going to stand much chance.

Nice of you to pick Mexico, most of Europe thankfully doesn't have gunfights using RPGs :rolleyes:

[GoatChomper]

Unless the line also marks a significant difference in, say, the need for guns for self-defence.
If you're attacked by a knife-wielder, your need becomes immediate.
also the legal definition linked to doesn't guarantee that you can keep an automatic weapon in your house.
It doesn't need to do so, that's already covered by Amendment II to the Constitution. Ours is a different system, in which (with a few rare exceptions) only specifically noted behavior is proscribed.....the lack of any such codified prohibition equals permission.

And yes, in most of our states we can indeed keep an automatic weapon in our houses.
But if your own government can't convince part of it's public of this then I'm not going to stand much chance.
Perhaps you labor under the mistaken notion that government fiats are always correct (they're from the government, no?) and always made solely in an environment of impeccable honesty.....most people know better. In the Miller case, the government's attorney flat-out lied to the Supreme Court.
Nice of you to pick Mexico, most of Europe thankfully doesn't have gunfights using RPGs
Ahh, the smell of bigotry inevitably arises from the swamp.....reminds me of Usenet, where committing the unpardonable sin of pointing out how "gun-free" Jamaica regularly wins the prize in murder rates is inevitably rewarded with aspersions on their economic status and ethnic makeup. Before you go looking down the nose at Mexico from a European high-horse, let's count the number of attempted ethnic-cleansings within living memory in each of those.

Nor does most of Mexico, so what's your point.....that a ban in a European nation is somehow "different" from one in Mexico? Mine is obvious.....that prohibitions fail to keep those inclined to violate them anyway from doing so, while doing nothing more than inhibiting those who go along with them.