[pyro-manic]

Give more funding to the police and oversee and regulate it better to prevent corruption. The police here basically has its hands tied most of the time due to lack of funds for training, weapons and equipment. The police should be better armed and trained than the crimnals, not the other way around.

That is definitely part of the solution, and a major one at that. But you can't address only one side of the issue. Of course, the police need to be able to prevent and deal with crime, but unless you adress the root problems causing the crime, then you might as well not bother. Allowing people easy access to firearms is at best counterproductive, and at worst negligent.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Styxx


Baseball bats have only one other use: sport. My father has several guns - both shotguns and handguns. He uses all of them for sport: hunting and target shooting, whatever the name in english is. He never killed anyone, nor uses them for self defense, they're kept perfectly safe on locked boxes at home. So, both items have the same uses. Why should one be banned and the other not?

Because baseball bats aren't built, conceived and designed for the purpose of killing?

Originally posted by Goober5000
The American Revolution?

I considered that, but the US nationalist/seperatist (as oppossed to loyalist) forces were formed from - initially - pre-existing militia (i.e. governmental ownership rather than private citizenship) rather than just a group of private individuals.  Also the first shots of the war were fired in a raid to seize weapons (which somewhat implies they were not in easy public supply to me), and one of the first things Washington did was to raise a proper professional army in mid 1775.

Also the seeds of rebellion would have been down to social unrest in any case, and I doubt it's feasible for a nation to control another whose citizens flat out refuse to co-operate.  Particularly within a modern political context.

Also, Spain (as an ally of France but not the US), France and the Netherlands all provided varying degrees of financial or military assistances against the British; the most notable contribution coming from France IIRC.  I believe one of the key events in winning the war for the nascent US is considered to be the French fleet capturing Chesapeake Bay and fallowing the beseigement of Cornwallis' forces.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Because baseball bats aren't built, conceived and designed for the purpose of killing?

You asked if guns had any other purpose. They clearly have other purposes. Many people buy them for sports, not for killing. Also, many guns are manufactured with that in mind. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason someone would have a baseball bat here in Brazil is for use as a weapon, since you couldn't find a baseball field here if your life depended on it.

Still, the point remains that banning the sale of guns and ammunition for the general public would do nothing whatsoever to reduce the crime problem. Criminals will still have access to guns, as they have access to weapons that are already banned now. Enraged people will still be able to kill other people using other means, be it a knife, a bat, a club, a brick or a broken bottle. But citizens would feel less safe, knowing that the criminals now know that they don't have weapons to defend themselves while the criminals still have them for offensive purposes. The possibility of someone on the street, who is not a criminal, having a weapon is a very weak deterrent for criminal activity, but it still is a deterrent, and in my view that's better than nothing. Besides, it pleases me immensely when it hits the news that someone who was being robbed shot the robber dead on the spot.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
That is definitely part of the solution, and a major one at that. But you can't address only one side of the issue. Of course, the police need to be able to prevent and deal with crime, but unless you adress the root problems causing the crime, then you might as well not bother. Allowing people easy access to firearms is at best counterproductive, and at worst negligent.

First, access to firearms isn't easy, not by a longshot. You need to provide a reason for owning one, have a clean police record and undergo a course and certification exam to be able to own one. And you still can't carry it with you unless you have a permit, which is a lot harder to have, involving much more thorough checks. So, by all accounts, right now criminals or former criminals shouldn't have legal access to weapons.

Second, yeah, the government should work on improving the living conditions of the population in general, which could be of some use reducing the crime problem (though I, personally, think that the "unfair society makes criminals" line is bull****). That's a long term solution though, and would require a whole infrastructure of reforms to be allowed to happen, starting by finding a way to curb governmental corruption - which is, frankly, the ultimate root cause of most of Brazil's problems right now. I'm all for societal improvement, but it takes willing politicians, which is close to a pipe dream, and lots of time. Improving the odds of the police against criminals would be a lot faster and would give tangible - and permanent - results if properly done. There are a lot more aspects to the issue, of course. Both (and more) should be done, in my opinion, but one could be done right away and with relatively little political effort.

[pyro-manic]

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Styxx
Besides, it pleases me immensely when it hits the news that someone who was being robbed shot the robber dead on the spot.

Why? Would you rather kill someone than lose a bit of money?

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I considered that, but the US nationalist/seperatist (as oppossed to loyalist) forces were formed from - initially - pre-existing militia (i.e. governmental ownership rather than private citizenship) rather than just a group of private individuals.  Also the first shots of the war were fired in a raid to seize weapons (which somewhat implies they were not in easy public supply to me), and one of the first things Washington did was to raise a proper professional army in mid 1775.

Okay.  But of the people in the militia - who owned the weapons?  The people, not the "militia" as an organizational entity.  If the militia weapons were solely supplied by the government (Britain, of course), then Britain could have quelled the rebellion rather easily by simply reclaiming all the weapons from the militia.

You could argue that that's partly what they tried to do.  But they were unsuccessful in seizing all the weapons precisely because most of the colonists owned weapons themselves.

Also the seeds of rebellion would have been down to social unrest in any case, and I doubt it's feasible for a nation to control another whose citizens flat out refuse to co-operate.  Particularly within a modern political context.

Precisely.  Look at Iraq.  But do you really think the Iraqi resistance would be so successful if they were unarmed?

[Styxx]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Why? Would you rather kill someone than lose a bit of money?

Yes. First, the odds are that the robber won't rob only one person, and he may end up killing an innocent person on a following robbery. Second, I'd rather have thousands of criminals dead than one innocent injured, and if you're caught in the act of robbing someone, while armed, there isn't much in the way of doubt that you're a criminal. Third, I think that if you commit a violent crime (let me add "beyond any doubt" here before someone says that I might be condemning an innocent), you become a risk to society and forfeit your rights as citizen. Fourth, if more citizens fought back and killed or injured criminals, they would be thinking a lot harder before commiting a crime.

EDIT: I mean armed robbery here, or robbery with threat of violence. Just to make it clear. I'm not sure if the word "robbery" implies violence, but it's the same word in portuguese for robbery and theft, so...

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Styxx
EDIT: I mean armed robbery here, or robbery with threat of violence. Just to make it clear. I'm not sure if the word "robbery" implies violence, but it's the same word in portuguese for robbery and theft, so...

Mini-explanation:

In English, "robbery" means taking something from a person directly and personally, e.g. robbery at gunpoint or robbing a bank.  Since it's personal, there's usually violence involved.

Whereas "burglary" means taking something from a person secretly or when they're not around, e.g. burglarizing someone's house when they're on vacation.  But if the person suddenly comes home and catches you in the act then it turns into robbery.

"Theft" can be interpreted to mean either robbery or burglary, I think.  Though historically it's been associated with burglary rather than robbery.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Okay.  But of the people in the militia - who owned the weapons?  The people, not the "militia" as an organizational entity.  If the militia weapons were solely supplied by the government (Britain, of course), then Britain could have quelled the rebellion rather easily by simply reclaiming all the weapons from the militia.

You could argue that that's partly what they tried to do.  But they were unsuccessful in seizing all the weapons precisely because most of the colonists owned weapons themselves.Precisely.  Look at Iraq.  But do you really think the Iraqi resistance would be so successful if they were unarmed?

Well, wait a mo, here; we're not talking about whether people have guns, but how they can obtain them.  Anyone can refuse to return a weapon; this is more akin to the prospect of the, say, police refusing to submit to a coup.  I'm sure you'd recognise the concept of the British simply going round and saying 'sorry, chaps, but you're getting a bit rowdy so we'd like your guns' is a totally nonsensical one; the Brits did try to recover weapons and ammunition, but these things can be hidden and would be by a rebellious population (remembering that militia were irregular troops).

(the 'powder alarm' regarded as being one of the initial flashpoints was caused by British troops seizing gunpowder and arms from a military warehouse)

 And ultimately we have the other issues within that war; the early formation of a regulated army by Washington, foreign involvement, and the simple logsitics of a remote island occupying a gigantic continent which would make any sort of sustained rule (even if they won the war) more cost than it was worth.

It strikes me, though, that the Iraq reference is a self defeating one.  If gun ownership was common in Iraq, then how can the idea of rebellion co-exist with the repressive, minority Sunni-based regime of Saddam?  And if it wasn't common (re above), then where did the current insurgency get their weapons? (the obvious answer being the thousands of Iraqi army deserters left unemployed and perhaps wanting to sell their ak-47s.... or maybe even the simple likelihood the insurgency is comprised of many former army officers... and not to mention all that unguarded ordenance after the fall of Baghdad and 'end' of the war).

In any case, the conditions that led to the insurgency (i.e. the 'war') led to a massive availability of weapons.  I'm pretty sure that even if guns were widely owned by private citizens under Saddam, RPGs and artillery shells (used for IEDs) were not.

Originally posted by Styxx


First, access to firearms isn't easy, not by a longshot. You need to provide a reason for owning one, have a clean police record and undergo a course and certification exam to be able to own one. And you still can't carry it with you unless you have a permit, which is a lot harder to have, involving much more thorough checks. So, by all accounts, right now criminals or former criminals shouldn't have legal access to weapons.

Second, yeah, the government should work on improving the living conditions of the population in general, which could be of some use reducing the crime problem (though I, personally, think that the "unfair society makes criminals" line is bull****). That's a long term solution though, and would require a whole infrastructure of reforms to be allowed to happen, starting by finding a way to curb governmental corruption - which is, frankly, the ultimate root cause of most of Brazil's problems right now. I'm all for societal improvement, but it takes willing politicians, which is close to a pipe dream, and lots of time. Improving the odds of the police against criminals would be a lot faster and would give tangible - and permanent - results if properly done. There are a lot more aspects to the issue, of course. Both (and more) should be done, in my opinion, but one could be done right away and with relatively little political effort.

Well, I can't find stats on per-instance cases of gun crime in Brazil (in english, at least).  But can you dig up the number of times a legal weapon has been used to succesfully defend a person, versus the number of legally owned weapons stolen, and versus the number of legal weapons used in shootings/murder/robbery?

What I did (just) find;
Apparently, a report by the government of the state of Rio de Janiero found that 72% of guns used in crime were once legally owned; specifically that 78% of armed theft, 67% of rapes at gunpoint, 58% of gun homicides and 32% of kidnappings at gunpoint used legally registered (at one point) guns.

I've also read a disarmament (guns for money) campaign last year led to the first drop in shooting deaths (by 8%) for the first time in 13 years.

I also read that Nelson Mandela was put on posters saying he opposed the ban.  Apparently he's set to sue over that (he promotes gun control in S.Africa).

I always thought it was quite simple; the more physical guns you have in a country, the easier they are to get.  Even if that's through theft (individual or shipment) or dodgy dealers.  And that's assuming the legit owner will never misuse that gun, either; because criminals aren't born with a record, after all.

I've never - ever - said gun control/ban is a solution to crime; but I think it can be shown to help reduce it (well, specificall gun crime) and I believe most if not all statistics (on a national or large region basis) will be seen bear that out.  But, again, I never said it could exist alone and it of course requires social and police change to ensure law enforcement actually does its job (after all, the very feeling of 'need' to have a gun is a sign the police are either/both not effective or visible enough).

  I'm not one of those people who says 'it's not their fault, they grew up in a bad place' either, but I would say that deprivation and/or social inequality often makes crime seem a more appealing option - or perhaps a more realistic one.

[Rictor]

How do you explain Switzerland for example. which AFAIK requires that all military age males possess government issued assault rifles, and of course be trained in their proper use, yet has a very low crime rate. If the people of a given nation are peaceful and generally law-abiding, then gun crime isn't a big problem. But it does in fact depend on people.

Yes, guns are potentially dangerous, but they have potential benefits as well. I'm not talking specifically about overthrowing a government, I was reffering to power in general. If your neighbor down the street had more guns than the government, he would be the government. All forms of power: money, laws, media, are all just abstractions of physical power.  Power, regardless of the form it takes, should not be concentrated in one place, be that a government, corporation or chess club, because a monopoly on power by any given group is more or less a recipe for opression of some sort.

aldo, you live in a fairly free, fairly democratic country, as do I. Many people, however, do not. In fact, most of the world does not. And though it may seem absurd, there is really no guarantee that your country or any other will remain generally democratic. Pretty much every nation in the world has gone through a civil war, coup, insurgency or some such thing, where weapons were required to protect freedoms. I do not have enough trust in anyone to hand over a very basic and pretty effective means of ensuring my freedom and safety, with nothing but a promise that power will not be abused. And I never will. Not if world peace were to come tommorow. Even if every powerful organization were to behave perfectly for the rest of my life, I would still consider private gun ownership (or whatever they have at the moment...sword, laser cannons, whatever) to be a good idea.

[aldo_14]

But guns are not the sole defining factor of swiss society to which low crime rates can be attributed.  This is why I said 'most if not all'; clearly we can't cite one singular example as definitive, given the obvious demographic differences between nations.

I've seen it suggested, for example, that the key reason is the decentralisation of power and the sense of community duty instilled through national service and reservist status.

Of course, for all we know rates of crime could be even lower in Switzerland if there wasn't such widespread gun ownership.

I wouldn't say, incidentally, that owning a gun constitutes 'power', owing to the likely consequences of exercising that power.  It's not a usable power; whilst it's a nice concept that the people can overthrow the government, any well-organized despot will make sure to be very efficient and indiscriminate at killing those people.

EDIt;
[q]aldo, you live in a fairly free, fairly democratic country, as do I. Many people, however, do not. In fact, most of the world does not. And though it may seem absurd, there is really no guarantee that your country or any other will remain generally democratic. Pretty much every nation in the world has gone through a civil war, coup, insurgency or some such thing, where weapons were required to protect freedoms. I do not have enough trust in anyone to hand over a very basic and pretty effective means of ensuring my freedom and safety, with nothing but a promise that power will not be abused. And I never will. Not if world peace were to come tommorow. Even if every powerful organization were to behave perfectly for the rest of my life, I would still consider private gun ownership (or whatever they have at the moment...sword, laser cannons, whatever) to be a good idea.[/q]

But it doesn't ensure you can do anything beyond kill another human being.  It doesn't even promise security of an individual.  Maybe I'm just tainted because 16 schoolkids were killed at my parents old town, but that's the only conclusion I can come to; guns are only useful for killing other people, and bullets don't veer off when their fired at innocent targets.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, I can't find stats on per-instance cases of gun crime in Brazil (in english, at least).  But can you dig up the number of times a legal weapon has been used to succesfully defend a person, versus the number of legally owned weapons stolen, and versus the number of legal weapons used in shootings/murder/robbery?

What I did (just) find;
Apparently, a report by the government of the state of Rio de Janiero found that 72% of guns used in crime were once legally owned; specifically that 78% of armed theft, 67% of rapes at gunpoint, 58% of gun homicides and 32% of kidnappings at gunpoint used legally registered (at one point) guns.

I've also read a disarmament (guns for money) campaign last year led to the first drop in shooting deaths (by 8%) for the first time in 13 years.
I also read that Nelson Mandela was put on posters saying he opposed the ban.  Apparently he's set to sue over that (he promotes gun control in S.Africa).

I always thought it was quite simple; the more physical guns you have in a country, the easier they are to get.  Even if that's through theft (individual or shipment) or dodgy dealers.  And that's assuming the legit owner will never misuse that gun, either; because criminals aren't born with a record, after all.

I've never - ever - said gun control/ban is a solution to crime; but I think it can be shown to help reduce it (well, specificall gun crime) and I believe most if not all statistics (on a national or large region basis) will be seen bear that out.  But, again, I never said it could exist alone and it of course requires social and police change to ensure law enforcement actually does its job (after all, the very feeling of 'need' to have a gun is a sign the police are either/both not effective or visible enough).

  I'm not one of those people who says 'it's not their fault, they grew up in a bad place' either, but I would say that deprivation and/or social inequality often makes crime seem a more appealing option - or perhaps a more realistic one.

I couldn't find the numbers you asked, but here's an article on one of the largest circulation magazines here in Brazil:

http://veja.abril.com.br/idade/exclusivo/armas_fogo/contexto_armas.html

And since you probably don't know Portuguese, a brief translation:

There aren't any official, reliable numbers for weapons in Brazil. Only non-official estimates. These estimates point to around 17 million "civilian-owned" guns in the country, of which only 49% are legal, registered weapons [doesn't seem to be too hard to illegally acquire a weapon now, don't think anything would make it harder once all weapons were made illegal]. Only 3,5% of Brazilian homes have weapons in them, a percentage lower than many countries with lower crime rates.

The 72% figure for "once legally owned" guns used in crimes is only for Rio de Janeiro, not for the whole country. And 29% of the weapons used in crimes there were taken from the government: straight from the police or other law-enforcement agencies [this number is part of the 72% figure, by the way, so only 43% were taken from "civilians"].

Of the total murder count in Brazil, 63,9% are commited with firearms [apparently, people still kill other people when they don't have a gun]. In addition, from a different article, 76% of interviewed law enforcement officials said that owning a gun, and knowing how to use it, is a good defence against criminals. I found numbers stating that per year, 2000 to 3000 criminals are killed by their would-be victims, other 7000 to 10000 are wounded, and that only in 1% of the cases the criminal is able to take the gun from the victim. The article didn't post sources, though, so take those with a grain of salt.

[aldo_14]

So almost half of all gun crime was using weapons from legally owned civillian weapons, and almost 2 thirds of murders are by guns?

How many illegal weapons held in Brazil come from initial legal sources?  Do the Brazillian police engage in regular collection/amnesties/seizures of illegally held weapons?

What are the circumstances of the 2000-3000 killed (and injured) figures?  What sort of crimes; were the civillians in danger of their life?  How many civillians are killed as a result of accidents with legal firearms compared to this result? (ignoring suicide for the moment)

How many cases where there were a gun was used in/for self defense but taken (to evaluate the '1%' value)?  In how many of those cases did the armed civillian die?

[Styxx]

Originally posted by aldo_14
So almost half of all gun crime was using weapons from legally owned civillian weapons, and almost 2 thirds of murders are by guns?

No, that's for Rio de Janeiro, where the criminals regularly pose as the police and put up roadblocks and such. Hardly an indicator of the whole country. Couldn't find statistics for the rest of the country, though. And more than one third of crimes are by other means, when guns are legally available. People kill other people without guns all the time, close to one out of every three kills, actually. What could make anyone think that they wouldn't still kill them if they suddenly couldn't buy a gun legally?

Originally posted by aldo_14
How many illegal weapons held in Brazil come from initial legal sources?  Do the Brazillian police engage in regular collection/amnesties/seizures of illegally held weapons?

Less than 50%, as posted before. The 51% figure is for weapons that were never registered, and therefore illegally acquired in the first place. So whichever the number for guns used in crime which were originally legal, it's a lot smaller than the number of originally illegal weapons.

Originally posted by aldo_14
What are the circumstances of the 2000-3000 killed (and injured) figures?  What sort of crimes; were the civillians in danger of their life?  How many civillians are killed as a result of accidents with legal firearms compared to this result? (ignoring suicide for the moment)

How many cases where there were a gun was used in/for self defense but taken (to evaluate the '1%' value)?  In how many of those cases did the armed civillian die?

Don't have a breakdown of those numbers, unfortunately. Would love ot have them, though. Still, any criminal dead instead of an innocent killed/raped/robbed is a positive result. And the number of accidents with guns is irrelevant - as I said before, the solution to that is better education on firearms, not the prohibition of sales.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Styxx

No, that's for Rio de Janeiro, where the criminals regularly pose as the police and put up roadblocks and such. Hardly an indicator of the whole country. Couldn't find statistics for the rest of the country, though. And more than one third of crimes are by other means, when guns are legally available. People kill other people without guns all the time, close to one out of every three kills, actually. What could make anyone think that they wouldn't still kill them if they suddenly couldn't buy a gun legally?

As one of Brazils' worst cities for gun crime, are you saying that we should ignore lessons learnt in Rio?

I mentioned this already - guns are easier to kill with.  No physical contact, minimal physical input, maximum damage per attack 'event'.

  When Sao Paolo tightened up gun control (increasing seizures and massively reducing the grants of licenses), it was to target the people who were killing on impulse or emotion.  Combined with other measures (reduced opening hours for bars in trouble spots, extra police, etc), it's seen a rapid decrease in the murder rate compared to the rest of Brazil (*)

Originally posted by Styxx

Less than 50%, as posted before. The 51% figure is for weapons that were never registered, and therefore illegally acquired in the first place. So whichever the number for guns used in crime which were originally legal, it's a lot smaller than the number of originally illegal weapons.

That's still a significant number of legally held guns used for crime.   And how many illegal guns came from legal supplies which were stolen before registratation?  Or were smuggled back out of countries like Columbia where they were exported to? (Almost 80% of weapons manufactured in Brazil are for export *)

Here's another thought; can police legislate effectively against illegal weapons if they cannot tell which guns are legal and which are not?  At least with a ban on guns you are able to remove all these weapons; and the likes of gun amnesties have already been succesfull in reducing murder rates in Brazil (since last year).

Originally posted by Styxx
Don't have a breakdown of those numbers, unfortunately. Would love ot have them, though. Still, any criminal dead instead of an innocent killed/raped/robbed is a positive result. And the number of accidents with guns is irrelevant - as I said before, the solution to that is better education on firearms, not the prohibition of sales.

I'd say it's highly relevant.  You have guarentee any form of training is 100% effective; I think I cited a US report earlier that found irresponsible behaviour was actually more likely with those receiving some form of formal training, including those who had taken military or police training.

Ultimately if we're going to wager bodycounts, we have to have an honest picture of how many people are killed by legal firearms versus criminals being killed; and also know how many of those criminal killings were justified (within the sense of being actual criminals, and it being a genuine risk; i.e. roughly the parameters used for a legal police shooting, with leeway for emotional instability from an untrained civillian).

Brazil has something like the 2nd highest rate of gun deaths in the entire world. And when previous tightenings of regulations (reductions of legal guns) have shown a decrease in deaths not seen in a decade, to me that's a very interesting fact.

Tell me, did the pro gun lobby use any arguement beyond fear?  Does the prospect of armed civillians deter criminals from using weapons?  Or just encourages the stealing of bigger guns, and shooting to kill? Do you think a situation where every person has a uzi or mac-10 will act to eradicate crime?

(EDIT; that sounds a wee bit more confrontational than intended.  You can probably guess these are pretty much rhetorical questions from my perspective)

[Styxx]

No, I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm saying it shouldn't be used as a general example. My state is the most "heavily armed" in the country, and it's one of those with lowest gun crime rates.

Do you have a link to the statistics showing the decrease in gun crime? I found it mentioned on several articles, but none of them pointed the actual statistics... And I remember the whole ruckus when the whole "amnesty" campaign started, it was big news, lots of people handed over weapons (most of them not in usable conditions, as it happened). I also remember that there were several incidents of people killed in accidents while they were taking the weapons to the police (not relevant, just some trivia), and I remember that several times criminals raided the deposits where these weapons were being stored before being destroyed and stole thousands of guns right from under the police's noses. Despite all the news, no decrease in gun crime was ever mentioned, and the public's perception of it never changed for the better - more likely the contrary.

Edit: Maybe if the campaign for the ban had tried to increase this perception of decrease in crime instead of focusing on emotional appeals (parents with childs killed by accidents, people in wheelchairs, the likes) they would have fared better. As it was, very few people were convinced that it would help out.


And while I agree that the statistics show that a significant number of legally acquired guns are being used for crime, that cannot be taken as indication that less guns will be available should the sale be prohibited, unless severe measures are taken by the government and police - measures that could be taken right now against illegal guns and contraband and would have the exact same effect without the need to forbid the sale (You pointed out that when measures against illegal weapons were taken, crime rates were lowered. It works right now, no need to forbid sales. Besides, there's no guarantee that forbidding sales would help, it could just as well backfire because of an increased perception of vulnerability by the part of the general population.). Contraband is extremely easy right now. Also, do you consider the fact that 80% of the guns made here are for export a problem?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Styxx
No, I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm saying it shouldn't be used as a general example. My state is the most "heavily armed" in the country, and it's one of those with lowest gun crime rates.

Do you have a link to the statistics showing the decrease in gun crime? I found it mentioned on several articles, but none of them pointed the actual statistics... And I remember the whole ruckus when the whole "amnesty" campaign started, it was big news, lots of people handed over weapons (most of them not in usable conditions, as it happened). I also remember that there were several incidents of people killed in accidents while they were taking the weapons to the police (not relevant, just some trivia), and I remember that several times criminals raided the deposits where these weapons were being stored before being destroyed and stole thousands of guns right from under the police's noses. Despite all the news, no decrease in gun crime was ever mentioned, and the public's perception of it never changed for the better - more likely the contrary.

I think I linked the 8% national decrease earlier; if not it's referenced at http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/10/24/brazilian_gun_ban_vote_backfires.html and a large number of other sites, although I don't have the specific figures behind it.

The Sao Paolo regional drop compared to this is referenced in the first link of my previous post.

Originally posted by Styxx

Edit: Maybe if the campaign for the ban had tried to increase this perception of decrease in crime instead of focusing on emotional appeals (parents with childs killed by accidents, people in wheelchairs, the likes) they would have fared better. As it was, very few people were convinced that it would help out.


And while I agree that the statistics show that a significant number of legally acquired guns are being used for crime, that cannot be taken as indication that less guns will be available should the sale be prohibited, unless severe measures are taken by the government and police - measures that could be taken right now against illegal guns and contraband and would have the exact same effect without the need to forbid the sale (You pointed out that when measures against illegal weapons were taken, crime rates were lowered. It works right now, no need to forbid sales. Besides, there's no guarantee that forbidding sales would help, it could just as well backfire because of an increased perception of vulnerability by the part of the general population.). Contraband is extremely easy right now. Also, do you consider the fact that 80% of the guns made here are for export a problem?

Well, any perception of vulnerability by a population has to be assuaged by matching police investment; obviously if people feel the need to arm themselves to be 'safe', then you can't just ignore the reasons behind that, especially in a country awash with illegal arms.

But, I'd say removing the legitimate weapons would reduce the number of weapons available; as previous amnestys were, IIRC, succesfull at doing.  Also you'd be cutting at a stroke the amount of weapons in general available; plus (by admittedly simplistic logic) it'd make it easier for the police to identify an illegal weapon because it'd be, well, any weapon.  The issue of legit weapons being stolen from private individuals being an obvious one; I'd imagine that would be a very easy way for petty criminals to obtain guns without needing, say, connections to get a gun on the black market.

Also, if you constrict outlets to the black market, it's a lot easier to 'honey-trap' criminals; the more you can constrict the avenues of obtaining a weapon, the more you can focus resources.  Again, this'd be the expectation of spending money on policing as well as a ban.

Finally, the main issue of (addressed by) legit weapons is their use in crimes of passion / impulse.  I don't know the statistics, but AFAIK the most frequent type of gun murder in Brazil is 'casual', i.e. by private individuals without connection to organized crime or soforth, killing someone familiar to them in the heat of the moment without premeditation/planning.  I don't think there's any way to escape that guns are easy to kill people with, because that's their purpose; especially handguns.

That and death in accidents.  Oh, and suicides.

The 80% export figure is really just an indicator of the amount of arms that can re-enter the country illegally; it's kind of why I wouldn't shed any tears for the economic impact of a ban on Brazillian - or otherwise - manufacturers.   It is kind of irrelevant, though, I guess; it's not Brazils fault if their neighbours get ****ed up and decide to go gun-crazy.