Brazil Gets Sweeping Gun-Control Law

[Judi Lynn]

Brazil Gets Sweeping Gun-Control Law
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva Signed a Sweeping Gun-Control Law

The Associated Press



BRASILIA, Brazil Dec. 22 — President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed a sweeping gun-control law Monday in an effort to rein in what he called "an epidemic of murder by firearms."

Under the so-called disarmament statute passed Dec. 9 by Congress, only the armed forces, police, prison guards and private security personnel can possess firearms in Brazil.

The law was "a landmark for Brazilian democracy," Silva said. "An important aim of the law is to choke off one of the sources of organized crime by denying them access to firearms."

According to World Health Organization data, a Brazilian is murdered every 12 minutes, with more than 90 percent of murders committed with firearms, the president said.

"This is a disgraceful record for us," Silva said.
(snip/...)

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031222_1354.html

[moondust]

1. But, but, but...

the bad guys will be the only ones left with guns.:scared:

The NRA must be really shackled with debt to let this go through.

[ParticipatoryDem]

6. I doubt the NRA does much in Brazil

Letting only the criminals have guns makes no sense. It will not reduce gun deaths.

[reprobate]

9. Don't mistake the "criminal element" with the majority of gun deaths.

There, as here, most gun deaths involve people who know each other, not involved in a criminal enterprise.

Taking guns out of the hands of civilians WILL decrease the number of murders with guns, simply because most gun deaths are crimes of passion, not crimes of profit.

As a former LEO and a gun owner, if I could snap my fingers and remove every gun from this country I'd do it in an instant. I can tell you that out of every ten gun deaths I was called to probably eight were either family or friends killing each other.

Don't believe the NRA. I sent them back my life memebership card in pieces years ago when they championed the body armor piercing ammunition. Seems like every organization gets lost when they grow big enough. Like the AARP.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. WTF!!!!!!!!!! - (Update: can you please gimme some links?)

I sent them back my life memebership card in pieces years ago when they championed the body armor piercing ammunition.

Thank you. Up to this very instant I didn't consider the NRA a completely, 100%, irrevocably fucked up institution. Now I do.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. :wtf:

[Superfly]

11. Another person sold the lie on AP bullets:

Link

<snip>

The NRA opposed the proposed law since it would have banned not only the controversial armor piercing handgun rounds, but nearly all conventional rifle ammunition as well. (Most rifle ammunition will easily penetrate the most commonly worn protective vests.)

Here are the facts:

- "Armor piercing" ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces.

- Rather than opposing the ban on "armor piercing" ammunition, the NRA was in fact instrumental in crafting the law that Congress ultimately passed.

- When properly wearing the appropriate body armor, not one law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their vest. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certifies three levels of body armor. The most commonly worn, Level IIA, offers realistic protection against all .22, .25, .32, .380, and .38, caliber handgun ammunition, against most 9mm, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .44 Magnum handgun ammunition and against 000 buck shotgun pellets. Level II and Level IIIA armor protects from even greater threats including 12 gauge shotgun slugs and the "hottest" .44 Magnum rounds.

"Cop-killer" bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby. An objective, rational look at the facts quickly separates the myth from the reality. Knowledge is power.

<snip>

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. I'll wait for reprobate's take on this

and mentally flag the issue as "undetermined".

[Superfly]

13. Yep...

that's the way the internet works. People can't do research for themselves anymore, but rely on people who post, anonymously to discussion forums.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Oh, come on. I gave both sides the benefit of doubt.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Thanks, mods, for removing the hotheaded version of this very response. By the way, will you PLEEEEZ move THAT Loungy post of mine in LBN to its proper place?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

35. Cop-Killer Bullets & Plastic Glocks that avoid detection

are myths.

[Dolomite]

21. Education, not confiscation, is what's needed.

”Taking guns out of the hands of civilians WILL decrease the number of murders with guns, simply because most gun deaths are crimes of passion, not crimes of profit.”

Yes, I can see how that would make sense to a non-gun owner – take away something that could be abused and hope that the abuse will go away – but in reality, it just doesn’t work that way. Just ask the U.K. When their ban went into effect in 1996, they went from having 54,000 (legal) handgun owners down to virtually 0. Four years later, crimes committed with guns had risen 40% - and there’s really no hope of it going down.

It’d be real neat if Brazil were to fare better with this attempt at gun control – in my heart I hope they have better luck at it than Australia did.

”As a former LEO and a gun owner, if I could snap my fingers and remove every gun from this country I'd do it in an instant.”

I’ve heard this before plenty of times. It’s a wonderful sentiment, but the only thing snapping fingers does is make noise. What this country needs is a massive sweep. How about we seize the NRA membership lists and send some LEO’s to each of those addresses and confiscate every gun they find? A Kristallnacht for guns if you will. Then we’ll be free of the gun terror fer sure.

What I’d like to do is snap my fingers and remove all crime from my community – fortunately I realize that it doesn’t work that way, I personally need to do more than snap my fingers to protect myself from crime – and I hope others realize that the job of staying safe doesn’t rest within the exclusive dominion of our elected decision makers.

[NickB79]

32. Armor-piercing, huh?

A hunting round from ANY deer rifle can penetrate most Kevlar vests: .30-30, .308, .243, .260, .30-06, .270, etc. The NRA voted against it because it was so poorly worded that it would have banned almost all ammunition used by hunters except shotgun and handgun ammunition. If the original writers of the bill had been more specific to military-grade AP rounds (such as ones using steel or tungsten cores), the bill probably would have passed. Of course, people don't seem to like to point out this little yet important fact, instead telling half-truths and such.

[TexasMexican]

41. would you snap your fingers and remove...

emotions and speech.

Since removing them could also solve the "crimes of passion" problem. :eyes:

[reprobate]

7. I will take your comment as sarcasm.

I can't believe that anyone posting on this board would think the NRA would have anything to do with Brazil. They are a particularly american disgrace.

[DBoon]

15. NRA has global aspirations

Didn't the NRA lobby hard against UN efforts to control global small arms trade (such an essential part of many bloody conflicts throughout the world?)

See:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/articles/2003/0710keyrole.htm

for example

[RikSquirelli]

2. Haven't people learned anything?

All they had to do was study our crime rates before and after gun control.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Did you read the article?

With no regulation, they are losing one person every 12 minutes.

They are looking to improve their situation.

[GRClarkesq]

4. With 20 million handguns already in circulation in Brazil

this law will have no effect on crime. Drug gangs need guns and they will a plentiful supply on the black market.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Private citizens can still own guns for self-defense at home

And carry them around, UNLOADED, for transport. Possesion of a loaded weapon in the street is now a felony (with no bail is the weapon is unregistered/illegal), and related penalties have been ramped up. Also, minimum age has been bumped from 21 to 25. And that's about it.

[DBoon]

16. So the point is

really that the police can now arrest anyone walking down the street with a loaded gun?

An if the gun was not properly obtained, they can be put away for a long time?

Seems reasonable to me.

[Superfly]

17. Is it also reasonable that

criminals who will not bother to relinquish their firearms now know they can prey on an unarmed populace?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Thou gettest it. (edited)

Imagine the following scenario: Hypothetic Idiot walks into a bar with a pistol visible under his belt. Concerned Citizen sees it, very discreetly calls 190 (our 911) on his cellphone. Hypothetic Idiot meets Bubba.

Edited to add scenario.

[Superfly]

8. And this is going to make the average

Brazilian safer, how?

[toopers]

19. also, there is another stat missing,

which I don't have either. How many crimes are stopped just by the threat of a gun (ie. the gun is drawn/shown by the victim, and the suspect stops his actions)?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. I'll flag that as "impossible to measure but looks reeeely dangerous" (nt)

[Aristus]

22. This will be good for another NRA documentary.

Like the one I saw on some weirdo TV station a couple of years ago. I guess Australia had implemented some tough gun control measures, and the film was a long, demented screed about 'personal liberty'.

"Yes, that's right. The evil, bad, nasty, freedom-hating Australian government has taken the precious firearms away from the good, decent, God-fearing, peace-loving citizens of the nation Down Under...."

*this with images of handguns, assault rifles, etc. being loaded onto trucks and carted away.*

"Yes, it's true. The good, upstanding white people of Australia will have no defense against the murderous, rapacious, nasty black Aborigines when they come crashing through the windows at night to murder the gunless homeowners, rape their daughters and burgle their possessions......yes, it finally happened, a citizenry was left defenseless by their gun-hating government oppressors......If we're not careful and vigilant, it could happen here, friends....yes, it could happen here."

Well, you get the idea. I'm sure the NRA is getting busy with a Brazilian version right now.

[Superfly]

23. Well, since you bring up Australia...

Task Force Cracks Down on Gun Gangsters in Gun Free Australia

Bandits again reach for guns - and the money in Gun Free Australia

Woman shot in bank raid in Gun Free Australia

Shall I continue?

Yep, gun confiscation has worked wonders down there.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

37. 27-30, not 70

The crime rate in the US has dropped dramatically in the past decade to the point that it's at the lowest since the late 60's/early 70's. Homicides involving guns are down to ~10,000-15,000 per year (hence the 27-30 statement above). It's funny that the drop actually began around 1992-1993, before any new gun control legislation was passed.

Other than that, you gave no comment on the fact that the info in the posted links points to no reduction in crime after the gun control measures took effect. Why enforce a law if it has measurable impact on the crime rate?

[Paladin]

38. Well Said, s33

n/t

[Romulus]

43. "civilized Australia"

You mean the country that sent its brave commandos to hijack a Norwegian cargo ship full of shipwrecked Afghan refugees on its way to Australia (the closest port), and steer it to some god-forsaken Pacific Island where the Aussie government is keeping those refugees in concentration camps so that they don't spoil "pristine" Oz?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031220/wl_asia_afp/australia_immigrants_un_031220051558

UN urges Australia to prevent "human tragedy" on Nauru
Sat Dec 20,12:15 AM ET


CANBERRA (AFP) - The United Nations (news - web sites) refugee agency called on the Australian government to find a dignified and humane solution to a hunger strike by detainees in an immigration detention centre on Nauru.

The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) also warned that the crisis on the South Pacific island was becoming a human tragedy, symptomatic of the despair among detainees on the South Pacific island holding camp.

The hunger strike by 35 asylum seekers, at least four of whom have sewn their lips together, began on December 10. At least 15 remained in hospital for rehydration on Saturday, the Immigration Department said.


Anyone claiming that Oz is "civilized" should just STFU.

So you can keep your third-world-like concept of freedom,death penalty,bad education system,lack of free health care,corporate culture,and circus politics...........we'll keep our place of being consistently in the top 3 countries on the UN's quality of life list(even with a conservative government in power).And you'll keep yours down the list alongside the third world countries(even when you have democrats in office).Hey at least you have your guns right?Whole lot of good they've done in saving you.Us poor serfs will continue to be oppressed by our tyrannical high standards of living.

[tom_paine]

25. I'm sorry and I know I'm likely to get flamed, but...

Man I couldn't agree less with this type of sweeping disarmament.

An armed populace is a deterrent against tyranny. Yes, I know that it would be difficult if not impossible for citizenry to take on the government with personal firearms, especially now that Imperial "anti-terror" weapons are mostly a collection of devices that would do NOTHING against actual terrorists, but be very effective against ordinary citizens protesting or revolting...

Having said that, it is the collective idea of an armed populace that is a deterrent to tyranny. The idea that perhaps the prize cannot be seized without undue damage, thus tarnishing the prize (Imperials like the Busheviks care nothing about the people, which they call "fodder units", but the infrastructure and having a semi-healthy economy to loot are important) can keep some Totalitarians in check.

I believe in my heart that Heinrich Asscroft and the OHS would be MUCH further along with "the program" if they had nothing to fear from an armed populace.

But that's just my opinion. Flame away...

[Superfly]

26. I agree with you 100%

but some countrys' citizens are more than happy with complete and utter government control.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Read post #5 -- NOT sweeping disarmament

Only new thing forbidden is carrying a loaded weapon in public places. People can keep firearms for defending their homes.

[NickB79]

33. Just look at Iraq

"Yes, I know that it would be difficult if not impossible for citizenry to take on the government with personal firearms"

It's scary, but Iraq is following the exact pattern that the NRA has advocated if a dictatorship ever came into power in the US. This is a stunning example, IMO, of just how right the NRA was on this point. I would say it is very possible to take on the government and win in the event of a US dictatorship. The government troops may have highly advanced military technology, but as we've seen, it is of little use in guerrilla combat. A widespread guerrilla war carried out in the US by even a small percentage of armed citizens would be impossible to put down, unless you wanted to nuke entire cities on your own territory. Even that may not work, as it would demonstrate the insanity of the dictatorship and incite more to work to overthrow it. You would also have to wonder how many US soldiers would be brainwashed enough to open fire on fellow Americans. When shooting people in other countries, the soldiers can lie to themselves, tell themselves these aren't really people they're killing, they're "gooks", "sand-n***er's", "Japs" or "Krauts". All these are designed to dehumanize your opponents to more easily kill them without losing your mind. But shooting fellow Americans? I'd expect a lot of soldiers would defect to the resistance side if the shit were ever to hit the fan.

[donsu]

28. three cheers for Silva

wish we were as progressive

[ThomC]

29. Banning guns from citizens is not progressive

It's regressive and the act of tyrants. America needs to start enforcing the 2nd amendment and prohibit states and cities from taking away a citizens right to bear arms. CA, NY, IL, DC, NYC etc would be forced to retract their draconian gun laws.

[Superfly]

30. Whereas I agree with the first part of your post

this thread is primarily talking about Brazil, and not the US.

But, yes, banning a people's means of self defense is an act that cannot be classified as "progressive"

[moondust]

31. Brazil as the new boogeyman.

They'll definitely have to be bombed to "liberate" them from the tyranny of self-preservation. Bwaahahahahahahaha!

Unless, of course, the NRA can find a convenient way to sabotage this democratically passed LAW OF A SOVEREIGN STATE. This is just too big a gun market to give up without a shootout!

[NickB79]

34. Between the guns already there, smuggled guns, and homemade guns

I don't think they'll see any drop in gun-related homicides anytime soon. Brazil is surrounded by mountainous and thickly-forested nations infested with drug warlords that buy enough weapons to equip their own personal armies. It would be nothing for them to start selling guns along with drugs to Brazilian criminals. Secondly, there are millions of guns already present that could last for decades if well-maintained. Finally, it is relatively simple to manufacture guns without expensive factories or equipment. During WWII, the French resistance build their own guns in bicycle machine shops, as did the British to a lesser degree. This practice is still common today in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia with limited equipment. Some of these self-taught gunsmiths are skilled enough to build working revolvers and AK's from mostly homemade parts! The only limiting factor would be ammunition, but this would be even easier to smuggle in than the guns themselves. If you were REALLY desperate, you could build a double-barrel blackpowder shotgun and load it with homemade black powder (recipes for this are available online) and steel BB's, small ball bearings, nuts, bolts, nails, etc and have a very lethal close-range weapon. Then you don't need to even worry about ammo smuggling.

This will work about as well as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

[Sandpiper]

39. This is one issue...

That I'm quite sure will bother pistol-packing Americans far more than it will Brazilians. I lived in Sao Paulo for two years, and have seen social conditions in the country with my own eyes. As such I feel somewhat qualified to comment on things Brazilian.

The standard of living for the average Brasileiro is well below the poverty line here in the good old US of A, and the bottom line is, most of them barely make enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Consequently, most of them don't own a handgun, because most of them don't have a several hundred Reais disposable income to blow on one.

I know it's a uniquely American position, to get full of bluster and self righteous indignation when any government places reasonable restrictions on instruments whose sole purpose is to cause death and injury. But, in a country like Brazil, the greatest concern of the people is improving their quality of life, not fretting over how free they are to pack a six shooter. :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. A correct assessment

The vast majority of Brazilians think owning a gun is stupid. The ones that don't tend to be more of the collector/historian mindset.

[TexasMexican]

40. somehow I doubt...

that the Brazillian police are going to be going into worst parts of thier nation and taking the guns away from the real criminals.

Cmon in our own nation, the USA, our police are probably slightly more capable and our gangs and poor are probably not as bad as in Brazil still our cops dont take guns away from the real criminals. They are content to hassle the people who are easiest to lock up, namely the generally more law abiding citizens.