Great News for Criminals: Socialist Brazil Bans Handguns

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,530
Tokens
Great News for Criminals: Socialist Brazil Bans Handguns

Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com

Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004
In an effort to trim its high murder rate, Brazil's government has virtually outlawed possession of handguns in public by almost everyone, with the exception of police, soldiers, prison guards and security officers.
The law, which took effect shortly before Christmas, is being hailed by opponents of gun rights as a bold new social experiment they hope will reduce murder rates.

However, other countries that have tried this not-so-new type of "bold social experiment" have had unhappy results.

Nations that have severely restricted and banned firearms have seen their crime rates increase. The United Kingdom, after banning ownership and possession of most guns in 1997, saw its crime and murder rates skyrocket, according to government figures. The same phenomenon occurred in Australia.

Socialist Sweden, despite its peacenick reputation and attacks on gun rights, has a higher murder rate than the United States, Interpol has revealed.

In the U.S., a sweeping federal review of anti-gun laws has found no evidence they reduce violence.

An Aug. 5, 2000 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found the Brady law had not affected the number of gun homicides, though supporters promised it would when it was passed during the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s.

In Canada, a disastrous attempt at requiring registration of guns has been a boondoggle costing $1 billion and rising.

In Brazil, authorities have also implemented tough new measures against anyone engaging in illegal sales of weapons. Such offenders now face lengthy prison terms with no bail.

The law also raises the minimum age of gun ownership from 21 to 25, and requires every gun buyer to be subjected to a background check.

Meanwhile, a report in the New York Times said, all other gun owners are being informed they will likely have to turn in their weapons within six months. And socialist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who signed what officials are calling the disarmament act Dec. 23, is also planning a national referendum in 2005, in which voters will decide on a ban on all handgun sales in Brazil.

"This is an expression of the unanimous will of society to cut the spiral of violence that unsettles us and embarrasses us before humanity," Lula da Silva said when signing the bill.

A homicide occurs in his country about once every 12 minutes, said the president, and "this statute is certainly not the solution to everything, but it is an exceptional step forward."

Brazil, a country of about 182 million people, has more murders by firearm annually – roughly 40,000, the Washington Post reports – than the United States, with a population of 292 million (the U.S. firearms murder rate in 2003 was about 29,000, the paper said).

And, despite opposition to the new rules by Brazilian gun rights groups and National Rifle Association, polls there indicate most people – 80 percent – support both new rules. Sixty-seven percent said they supported a ban on the ownership of all guns. Gun rights groups lobbied lawmakers hard to reject the bill.

Officials in Brazil say that about 2 million guns are legally registered but that the number of unregistered guns in a country larger than the contiguous 48 United States is as high as 20 million.

'Mercy of the Criminals'

Gun makers in Brazil and elsewhere say criminals will continue to buy firearms on the black market or will smuggle them in, meaning the new rules will leave the law-abiding public unarmed and vulnerable.

"Brazil, which is struggling for equality, has just passed a law that leaves the poor at the mercy of the criminals," said Renato Conil, a vice president at Forjas Taurus, Brazil's largest gun-maker. "Now it's only the victim that will be disarmed."

But gun control supporters said claims by opponents that the law will have no effect on the black market industry argue a third of the 77,000 weapons seized by police since 1951 were purchased legally.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
"handgun murders in the UK have SKYROCKETED"

.....Complete and utter bollox.....

Here are the totals for 6-7 YEARS in England/Wales to 1999/2000.
417 gun homocides, using ALL types of guns, mainly shotguns, cos thats the easiest gun to get.

Gun control works

In the same amount of time,
over 500 National Lottery millionaires were created....

Its a fuxxing bloodbath over here man....
I have more chance of being a Lottery millionaire, than being killed by a gun.

Gun control works, you just don't WANT to believe it, thats all.
(A bit less poverty would help improve the crime situation too.)

[This message was edited by eek on January 23, 2004 at 07:34 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Interesting chart eek. I notice that it only contains data from 1992 to 1998, and only applies to homicides committed with guns, which means that it takes the most narrow view possible of firearm-related crime (if I rob you at gunpoint, but do not kill you, is this not a gun-related crime?)

Fortunately, this very interesting site you have linked has lots more recent and relevant information available ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In 1999/00, there were 6,843 offences recorded in which firearms other than air weapons were reported to have been used. This was 31 per cent higher than in 1998/99, and the highest number since 1993. The rise in recorded firearm offences in Scotland from 1998 to 1999 was 32 per cent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The proportion of homicides involving firearms in 1999/00 was 8.1 per cent. The proportion of robberies involving firearms (including air weapons) has remained in the 4 to 5 per cent range for the last three years. The number of firearm robberies increased by 32 per cent between 1998/99 and 1999/00, close to the general increase in recorded robberies of 26 per cent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is relevant because despite the relatively low number of homicides which involved firearms, what such statistics fail to consider is how many homicides and other serious crimes are prevented by the potential victim's possession of a firearm.

Gun control does not work, any more than any law of prohibition works. Only a fvcking fool thinks otherwise, and I assign this characterisation to you if you sincerely believe what you're saying.

How can you get around the simple, basic logic: a person likely to commit a given crime is not likely to follow the law regarding firearm possesion; ergo only law-abiding potential victims are effected by laws prohibiting firearm ownership. Why is that so hard to understand? More interesting, what conceivable end-run around logic can possibly be offered in refutation or rebuttal?


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
As we already covered this, anyone with the money to buy a gun won't do it...they will hire an armed security guard. They are still allowed to carry guns. Majority of people there that are law abiding aren't stupid enough to think that buying some handgun is going to protect them when the criminals are heavily armed and come in large numbers. I do agree though, it is not going to make a major change to the crime really. As in the US, at least half the crime there is driven in some way by drugs.

I still don't get the socialist tag people put on this country. They elected a supposedly socialist government that has proceeded to do a lot of talking, but look at their actions. They have a former New York investment banker running the Central Bank, they have put a pitiful amount of money into their program to eliminate hunger, and the income disparity there lays the US class warfare arguments totally moot. Minimum wage there is about $200 a month, yet a nice safe place to live can cost you over $200,000. Does that sound like a socialist paradise? Don't pay attention to what people say, pay attention to what they do. And you will find that most of these so-called socialist countries of Latin America are more pure capitalistic economies than the US.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Just for the record I didn't call it a Socialist country ... and you are very right that many Latin American countries are far more nearly capitalist than the U.S. The U.S. is trapped in the welfare-warfare state mentality and will likely never recover from it.

I understood your point about people electing for armed security guards over personal firearms before; however what I am saying is simply that making it illegal to own a firearm as an attempt to reduce firearm violence is silly, because the only people who will follow such a law were most likely not planning on committing an act of firearm violence in the first place.

Regarding the Brazilian provisions allowing "private bodyguards" to carry weapons, there is a strong criminal element in Brazil, some of whom have armed contingents that would dwarf a small police force. Trying to convince these parties to just lay down their arms would be a disaster; it is not difficult to guess why the loophole exists.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
......I didn't think that the arguement that you have more chance of being a LOTTERY MILLIONAIRE than being killed by a gun over here would be good enough for you.....

Nothing ever would, you're not remotely interested in making your society safer, I know that.

The other thing you need to do is reduce the massive disparity in wealth the US has in its society. with your huge ghettos and millions living without any healthcare.(40+ million) decent jobs etc etc.

You're not remotely interested in changing that situation either.

Thats why the best comparisons for the US are with places like Brazil and S.Africa, lotsa guns and loadsa poverty places.
You might be bottom of that league for gun murders, so its not all bad.


I almost forgot.
A relatively high percentage of UK 'gun crime' will involve REPLICA guns because of the difficulty in obtaining the real thing.
Another reason why ACTUAL DEATHS are so low, and you have more chance of being a lottery millionaire.

Meanwhile, you guys have about 15,000 gun homocides each year, which makes about 100,000 deaths in 6 years,(man, you guys are still in the Wild West out there) to the UK's 417.

And you sill say that gun control doesn't work....duh

[This message was edited by eek on January 24, 2004 at 05:22 AM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
eek,

Why 417? If gun control supposedly works there would be no murders by firearms. If I looked up the #'s, Montana would have a higher gun per capita ownership than Michigan but a lower murder rate per capita than Michigan. Just having a higher amount of guns doesn't necessarily = murder. I think you are right on about not owning a gun for yourself because the most dangerous group is not the criminals but the poor souls that can't touch a firearm without hyperventilating. I've taken stock of myself and have decided that I can handle the responsibilities of firearm ownership, but not everyone can.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
eek,

To address one of your other points, what business is it for me to ensure someone else's financial solvency? I worked for everything I have. I pay my premiums every 2 weeks. It's aggravating that while I get no help, there are people out there that think they should be given everything on a silver platter just because they exist.

I see this laziness even where I live. Kids that glom off mommy and daddy so they can party while attending school.

Apartment $1085
Car payment $200
Car Insurance $200
Utilities $130
Food $200
Part-time job -$320

Total amount mommy and daddy pay per month:$1495

I wish I had that kind of support when I was that age.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Its your society.
You, and your people, decide every few years on the path forwards you will take.

The larger the number of people who live in poverty, no matter how rich your society is in total, the more dangerous your society will be.
Add a gun culture to that and you throw a match onto the fuel of desperation.
No prospects financially or otherwise, illiteracy, no healthcare, crap housing, nothing to lose.

Its not rocket science, its a choice you make.

You can have a society where you have more chance of a million on the lottery than being shot and killed, like the UK.
Or you can arm yourself to the teeth and live in a luxury bunker when it gets dark, wondering if the gun toting poor people are gonna get ya.

-----------------------------------

Phaedrus is always quoting Switzerland as a good comparison with the USA for gun ownership...

He omits the rather important stats that separate Switzerland from most of the world.

Over 99% literacy and 0% Poverty, ie a seriously civilised country that few, if any, will ever match.
(0% poverty ?? There must be a few poor Swiss tho?)

[This message was edited by eek on January 24, 2004 at 07:13 AM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I didn't think that the arguement that you have more chance of being a LOTTERY MILLIONAIRE than being killed by a gun over here would be good enough for you.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a specious argument. A greater number of Americans are killed each year by automobiles than by firearms; doesn't mean I'm in favour of banning the automobile. More than 60% of firearm deaths in America, according to CDC data, are accidental; doesn't mean I'm in favour of a ban on stupidity or lack of caution.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Nothing ever would, you're not remotely interested in making your society safer, I know that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must admit, I'm really not. The exorbitant sums of money, time and other resources that I, personally, donate to charities which benefit the homeless, support free rehab programs, "big brother" programs (not the Orwell kind so much as the Baden-Powell kind) etc. are all a clever smoke-screen designed to conceal my true nature as an americidal maniac.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The other thing you need to do is reduce the massive disparity in wealth the US has in its society. with your huge ghettos and millions living without any healthcare.(40+ million) decent jobs etc etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting statistic, also from the CDC: the demograph of black males aged 15-19 suffered death by firearms at a rate nearly 600% that of the overall population. Sounds like the ghetto problems are working themselves out.

Lack of health insurance (to be differentiated from health care, which is available to all Americans despite spin to the contrary) among barely 10% of the U.S. population, including those who simply choose to not have any, is hardly a problem meriting consideration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You're not remotely interested in changing that situation either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in the least, unless you count the exorbitant sums of money, time and other resources that I, personally, donate to charities which benefit the homeless, support free rehab programs, "big brother" programs (not the Orwell kind so much as the Baden-Powell kind) etc. I'm just a big heartless gun-toting American buckeroo.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Thats why the best comparisons for the US are with places like Brazil and S.Africa, lotsa guns and loadsa poverty places.
You might be bottom of that league for gun murders, so its not all bad.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are overall a lot more violent than the citizens of the UK, this is true. 8% of UK homicides are at the end of a gun; fully 65% of them in America. 1.26 homicides per 100k population in Britain; 6.1 per 100k in the U.S.

The point here is that Britain is a statistically much less-violent place than the U.S. regardless of whether or not guns are taken into consideration. Eliminate all of the gun homicides in the States and our per-capita murder rate still more than double that of the U.K. Apples and oranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I almost forgot.
A relatively high percentage of UK 'gun crime' will involve REPLICA guns because of the difficulty in obtaining the real thing.
Another reason why ACTUAL DEATHS are so low, and you have more chance of being a lottery millionaire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The statistics given at the "official documents" site which you yourself linked (but pparently did not read aside from that which supported your point) differentiates between firearm violence, air-gun violence, etc. The statistic for actual firearms, as I quoted above, is 6,483 in 1999/2000, up 31% from 1998/1999. While you're here chirping about how safe you are, firearm crime is rising in double-digit percentages annually in the UK, because after the initial lull in the early 90's it has occured to criminals that Brits are too fvcking stupid to fight back. You're all out of Churchills.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Meanwhile, you guys have about 15,000 gun homocides each year, which makes about 100,000 deaths in 6 years
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10,000 and 60,000 respectively. Still an awful lot, but the extra 40,000 I'm sure would appreciate being left alive if possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And you sill say that gun control doesn't work....duh
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say that the specific means of attempting to control firearm violence by simply outlawing gun ownership does not work, because it doesn't. I have asked you again and again to explain to me how this mentality works, and you never have, but here it goes again: how do you get around the obvious fact that the only people who will obey ownership prohibitions are those who had no intention to commit a violent crime in the first place?

As I stated here, laws pertaining specifically to gun crime, versus idiotic pacifier legislation which aims to disarm a populace, are a much better idea for controlling gun crime. In the state of Florida it is an automatic minimum 10 years in prison for so much as brandishing a firearm in the course of committing a crime; 20 if you actually shoot someone; life if you kill them. This is in addition to any jail time you might get for the crime itself, cannot run concurrently and is not as far as I know negotiable under plea bargains etc. Laws centered around gun crime, rather than idiotic laws aimed at controlling the consumption of non-consumers, actually help the problem of gun crime by narrowing the scope of those who would commit such crimes to that small percentage of people who are just going to do stupid, violent things with guns no matter what.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Gun control is proven P.
The numbers prove it.

If we equalise the difference in society size, the US would have had 417 x 5 gun murders.

So:
With Gun control

US gun murders = 2100 in 5 years

without gun control
ie the USA wild west free-for-all.

60 to 100,000 gun murders in 5 years.

Your problem is, you don't WANT gun control,
No matter what proof you get.
Which is your right to an opinion.

You can squirm and fluster as much as you want.
The numbers prove it, gun control works.

--------------------------------
Extrapolate for the US being three times more violent than the UK = 6500 gun murders in 5 years.
Compared to 60 to 100,000 in reality.

A 90% drop in gun murders.

[This message was edited by eek on January 24, 2004 at 08:40 AM.]
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
"It's a specious argument. A greater number of Americans are killed each year by automobiles than by firearms; doesn't mean I'm in favour of banning the automobile. More than 60% of firearm deaths in America, according to CDC data, are accidental; doesn't mean I'm in favour of a ban on stupidity or lack of caution."

This argument disturbs me. There is no correlation between guns and automobiles, so there is little use in comparing the dangers of the two. They are seperate issues with seperate motivations and thus need to be addressed seperately.

[This message was edited by lander on January 24, 2004 at 09:31 AM.]
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Although, I see little need and few positives involoving the ownership guns, unlike John Asscroft, I am not in favor of selectively upturning amendments that were designed to uphold our liberties. It would set an extremely dangerous precendence - as I believe the PATRIOT ACT does with certain amendments.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
649
Tokens
If a country can't trust it's law abiding citizens to not carry firearms then is it truly free?
pow.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This argument disturbs me. There is no correlation between guns and automobiles, so there is little use in comparing the dangers of the two.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the correlation between gun deaths and lottery winnings?


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Perspective.

A UK resident has more chance of being a millionaire lottery winner,
than a gun death.

Conclusive proof, that gun control works.
icon_smile.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
335
Tokens
The more I think about the gun issue the less clear it becomes. Bowling for Columbine (for all its faults) seemed to suggest that this doesn't just boil down to a question of gun availability - although I'm sure that's a factor too. In Canada apparently there are 7 million guns (roughly one gun for every four people) and yet far fewer gun deaths than the States. By rights the number of gun deaths in Canada should be higher, so cultural or socio-economic factors must play a role. You don't really hear about this from either side in the debate though . . .
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Perspective.

A UK resident has more chance of being a millionaire lottery winner,
than a gun death.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; my question is an attempt to understand the logic of:

eek says more chance of winning lottery than being murdered by a gun=good perspective

Phaedrus says more chance of being killed in an automobile accident than murdered by a gun=disturbing argument with no correlation

In an aside, are you ever going answer any of the basic questions I've asked you, or are we just going to do this sleepwalking thing in a thousand thousand gun control threads until one or the other of us kills over from the ennui?


Phaedrus
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This argument disturbs me. There is no correlation between guns and automobiles, so there is little use in comparing the dangers of the two.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the correlation between gun deaths and lottery winnings?


Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm certain that there is no correlation, unless lottery winner(s) were robbed at gunpoint, but that's a bit of a stretch.

I think the problem with this topic is that the data is hand picked to support one's argument only. I don't see many objective posts when we discuss gun control.

Maybe all the topics are this way, but I'm blinded by my stronger positions on the others? I'm not certain.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,875
Messages
13,574,501
Members
100,879
Latest member
am_sports
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com