PhillyKev 0 #1 May 12, 2003 Here's an example of the effectiveness of strict gun control: QuoteIt is interesting that the CDC Study on firearms deaths in the world mentions Brazil as the second country in firearms death rate. Our country has one of the most rigid gun laws in the world. A true nightmare. Since 1936 all firearms must be registered. No handguns with ammunition more powerfull than .38 Special (9mm Short for pistols) are allowed for civilians. Rifles and carbines are only allowed if they fire handgun ammunition (the only center fire rifle cartridge allowed is the vintage .44-40 WCF). No center fire semi-automatic long gun (rifled or smooth bore) is permited. Black powder muzzle loading guns are considered firearms like any other and subject to the same rules. A Brazilian citizen must not have, at any given time, more than two handguns, two rifled long guns and two shotguns. Only shooters or collectors registered within the Brazilian Army may have more guns than this figures. Citizens are not allowed to buy more than one gun per year. Reloading is permited only for shooters belonging to a shooting club and reloadind supplies are strictly controlled by the Brazilian Army. Only trough the club is possible to buy reloading supplies. If one is caught with a gun without a permit, it doesn't matter if it was being carried or just transported (a registered gun unloaded and locked inside a box, for instance) - it is a crime and one can face two years in jail for that (four years if it was a forbidden gun). Permits for transportation must be obtained at the central police office downtown and it usually takes a week to be ready. Officialy carry permits do exist, but is very difficult to get one (there is a black market for concealed carry licences). Gun stores are not allowed to sell second hand firearms and taxes on guns sales are the highest in the world (81%). Waiting periods for registration average 30 days, but in Rio de Janeiro state it could reach 3 month. Obviously, all these controls have lead for a huge black market. Brazil is one of the few places in the world where one can buy an illegal handgun cheaper than in gun stores (about one third of the price for a Brazilian made revolver). In the neighboring countries there are gangs specialised in smuggling guns through Brazilian borders. Brazilian drug gang members carry AR15, M16, SIG 551, HKG3 and AK47 - they have no problems in gettings these weapons. It is quite common to see them using tracer bullets in their shootings (also forbidden for Brazilian citizens). If one still believes in gun control, Brazil's example is worth examining. Leonardo Arruda Director of the Brazilian Gun Collectors Assn. (ABCA) Yes, there are other countries with strict gun controls or bans that have low firearm related crimes. But I think what this demonstrates is that firearm crimes are a societal/cultural issue. That can't be addressed by controls or bans. Prohibition of alcohol - didn't work. Anyone who wanted alcohol got it. Criminals were suppliers and protected their territory violently. Prohibition of drugs - doesn't work. Anyone who wants drugs can get them. Criminals are suppliers and protect their territory violently. Gun controls, won't work and will create more of the same problems. The issues need to be addressed with the people, not with the inanimate object. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DYEVOUT 0 #2 May 12, 2003 . . . . . . . works for me. ----------------=8^)---------------------- "I think that was the wrong tennis court." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #3 May 12, 2003 If anyone really wants to see how gun control (or the lack thereof) works, look at Switzerland. Very liberal about guns (most men own at least one) and children are brought up around them and their crime rate is low as are accidental deaths of children etc... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #4 May 12, 2003 Kevin, As we've discussed, the actual laws are only a small portion of a "gun control" solution. If I were to list the various factors in order of importance, I'd say... 1) Strict enforcement of laws (general criminal, not just gun-related) 2) Equality of enforcement (not just against poor, no exemptions for rich, uniform by region) 3) Education about gun safety 4) Content of gun-related laws My guess about Brazil would be that despite strong gun laws, they are severely lacking in strict law enforcement and equality of enforcement. Without those, it doesn't really matter what their gun laws are. I would say that we are better about all four criteria, including freedoms relating to gun ownership. The "ban them all" camp may find Brazil's laws better, but I don't. A moderate view looks for the combination of attributes that reduce crime and accidental death as much as possible while maintaining as much ownership freedom as possible. If all four issues are adequately met, gun control WILL work, but not until then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 May 12, 2003 Ok...so out of curiousity. Which of those 4 criteria do you think are lacking in the "war on drugs" (which obviously doesn't work)? 1) Enforcement of drug laws is pretty darn strict 2) Ok, might be some disparity in equality but not completely one sided 3) Education about the dangers of drugs is everywhere (except possibly the home depending on parents). 4) Content...not exactly sure what you mean by that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KawiZX900 0 #6 May 12, 2003 What's gun control? A:) The Weaver stance........ Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #7 May 12, 2003 What's NOT gun control? The iscoceles stance... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KawiZX900 0 #8 May 12, 2003 i like to hold mine sideways for emphasis. Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #9 May 12, 2003 Just came across this: QuoteMOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER HITS CONGRESS: CLINTON BAN “RE-ENACTMENT” TARGETS MILLIONS MORE GUNS!!! As we predicted, the anti-gunners have begun the push to further expand the Clinton gun ban of 1994. Not content with merely re-authorizing the ban, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) have drafted legislation that bans millions more guns! It’s a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said on CBS’s 60 Minutes: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” Toward that goal, Conyers/McCarthy would: • Ban every gun made to lawfully comply with the Clinton ban. The Clinton ban arbitrarily dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments that new guns could have. Manufacturers complied. New guns were made to conform to the Clinton restrictions. Now prohibitionists want to ban the new guns, too. • Ban guns the Clinton legislation expressly exempted from prohibition. This includes Ruger Mini- 14s, Ranch Rifles, and .30 Caliber Carbines, and entire classes of guns, including fixed magazine rifles, as well as shotguns that hold under five rounds. • Ban guns widely used for target shooting. It bans the three center-fire rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A, and the M1 “Garand.” •Ban all semi-automatic shotguns: Remingtons, Winchesters, Benellis, Berettas, etc., widely used for hunting, trap, skeet, and sporting clays, by banning their receivers (main component). • Ban guns for defense. Bans any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun any U.S. Attorney General one day claims is not “sporting,” even though self-defense is a fundamental right and the federal constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense. • Ban 68 named guns (Clinton ban named 19 guns); Ban parts used to repair or refurbish guns, including frames or receivers; Ban importation of ammunition magazines exempt under Clinton ban; Ban private sales of millions of guns, their frames and receivers, and their parts; Ban semi-automatic rifles under 30" long (useful for home defense); Ban all semi- automatic rifles that can hold more than 10 rounds. • Ban guns rarely used in crime. State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that guns on the Clinton and Conyers/McCarthy ban lists have never been used in more than a small percentage of violent crime. The Congressionally-mandated study of the Clinton law concluded that guns it banned “were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders.” But even if they were, are the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of criminals? • Begin “backdoor” registration. Requires manufacturers of banned guns, frames, receivers, and parts to report the names of their dealers, and requires dealers to report any of those parts they have in stock. The next step is obvious—demanding the names of gun owners who buy those parts. Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 or by using the “Write Your Representatives” feature at www.NRAILA.org and urge them to oppose any attempt to keep alive the Clinton gun ban. So much for the theory that it's not really a gradual erosion of our gun rights. Only the law-abiding will pay any attention to the 20,000 gun laws in this country... mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #10 May 12, 2003 Yep...that bill was written to sunset after 10 years (2004). When they wrote it and approved it the thinking was that it was experimental to see if it had any effect on gun crimes, and if it didn't, they could just let it lapse. Well, it hasn't had any effect, but instead of letting it lapse Bush has already stated he'd renew it. And the antis are pushing for more useless restrictions that will have no effect on anyone except legal sportsman and people who have them for self defense. The one thing Bush campaigned on, that I agreed with was not renewing the ban. But he's gone back on that. I guess he finds that an armed population conflicts with the rest of his policies of restricting and removing civil rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #11 May 12, 2003 Quote What's gun control? A:) The Weaver stance........ That shit is WORTHLESS!!! Get someone to teach you a Modified Isocilies with a "Thumbs Forward" grip. It's the only way to shoot!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #12 May 12, 2003 whats the reasson that normal people has smimi and automatic weappons?I just dont get it.Here you can have weapons if 1 You have a hunt licence and should use them to hunt 2 you have been in an union were you have shoot pressision for atleast 2 years(they have all kind of weapons) 3 your a police or military guy I dont see any reasson to have weapons unless that.Why do you want all that shit?i mean go to Iraq or some place like that if you really want to see people get hurt by that.. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #13 May 12, 2003 PhillyKev, I'm also puzzled by Bush's stance on this bill. It makes no sense to me from either a crime control or from a political standpoint. Anyone who equates gun control laws with crime control is either ignorant of the facts or a coward hiding behind lies and rhetoric to get themselves re-elected due to the ignorance of the general populace. This bill would do NOTHING to reduce crime. From a political standpoint, one of Bush's strengths is that he has not strayed from his conservatism - as a general rule of thumb. His father lost his bid for re-election because he did just that. It amazes me that Bush is straying from his conservatism here. Like them or not (and I DO like them) the NRA is a powerful force politically - and not one to piss off. I guess Bush figures all of the democratic candidates are so anti-gun that the NRA would NEVER support them, but this bill is still a dumb move politically. Extremely puzzling to me. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #14 May 12, 2003 Quotewhats the reasson that normal people has smimi and automatic weappons?I just dont get it.Here you can have weapons if 1 You have a hunt licence and should use them to hunt 2 you have been in an union were you have shoot pressision for atleast 2 years(they have all kind of weapons) 3 your a police or military guy I dont see any reasson to have weapons unless that.Why do you want all that shit?i mean go to Iraq or some place like that if you really want to see people get hurt by that.. It's a bitch to own automatic weapons here because of the license required. As for semi-automatic, do you really think a gun you have to reload all the time is all that useful? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #15 May 12, 2003 If Bush passes that bill, I would vote for fucking Hillary or ralph nader based solely on principal. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #16 May 12, 2003 QuoteOk...so out of curiousity. Which of those 4 criteria do you think are lacking in the "war on drugs" (which obviously doesn't work)? 1) Enforcement of drug laws is pretty darn strict 2) Ok, might be some disparity in equality but not completely one sided 3) Education about the dangers of drugs is everywhere (except possibly the home depending on parents). 4) Content...not exactly sure what you mean by that. I would say its number one. Enforcement of laws is strict, but ineffective. That is: The strict enforcement is only relevant when they actually catch you. And we just can't reasonably search every single person or vehicle that enters this country. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KawiZX900 0 #17 May 12, 2003 care to share? Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #18 May 12, 2003 QuoteIf Bush passes that bill, I would vote for fucking Hillary or ralph nader based solely on principal. Politically, Bush can't let the old legislation lapse. Can you hear the liberals screaming Bush lets criminals have machine guns to kill children or some similar nonesense that would sway moderates? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #19 May 12, 2003 True. Then again, that bill must pass both the house and senate before it comes to his desk for approval or veto.. Could be just some political posturing since I haven't heard a thing about it since the original "statement" was made. Remember who controls the house and senate? Both parties remember what happened after the 94 bill passed. Ouch! mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #20 May 12, 2003 QuoteSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said on CBS?s 60 Minutes: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." Curious. I wonder if she'll turn her gun in.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #21 May 12, 2003 Kevin, What I meant by the content of the laws is what they say. In relation to guns, it is the body of law that applies. I actually think it matters less what the laws are than how they are enforced or applied. We have laws for all sorts of things that get ignored with a wink and nod. If we aren't going to enforce them, get them off the books. The laws should be clear, and clearly enforced. The less confusion there is, the more focused we can be on fixing problems. As those criteria would apply to "the war on drugs" you mentioned.... 1) Enforcement is a joke. Walk to any college campus or college-area bar and count the underage drinkers. Go to any major concert and walk the aisles, counting the times you smell pot. Check for ecstasy at a rave. We have all discussed the issue of drugs at dropzones, on a public forum even. Would you say we are all squeeky clean? People of authority (DZOs, jumpers that are cops, etc.) know, but as long as things are relatively under control, it is given the green light. Things are harder on dealers, but still not enough. They get back on the street too fast, once they do get caught. 2) Equality of enforcement is non-existent. How many times have celebrities gotten a slap on the wrist and a suggestion to go to rehab. How many times to they get off with nothing. Lots. If you were to get caught in the same circumstances, you'd be in jail in a heartbeat. Money and name recognition definitely buy leniency. 3) Education is getting better, but is still not up to par. It also takes a long time to kick in. Not months, or even a few years, but generations. I think people are finally beginning to get the clue that tobacco is dangerous, after decades of warnings and ever-increasing anti-tobacco advertising. I know that when I was growing up, there was damned little truthful, reliable information available on the dangers of different drugs. I didn't know, and my friends didn't know. Some did the drugs anyway, and some didn't. I also know some that ended up in the hospital. Others are now marginally productive burnouts. I'm 32, so high school wasn't that long ago. Young children today know a lot more and get warned a lot more. So 10 through 30 years from now, that will really start kicking in and we'll see the benefits. A lot of the change is through generational attrition, and gradual societal change. When my parents were young, drinking and driving wasn't a big deal. Almost everyone did it. Now, that is clearly bad, and most people know it. It is still a problem, but not nearly like it once was. 4) I really don't know a lot about how our anti-drug laws are written, because they aren't a concern for me. The only drugs I do are legal ones, namely alcohol, caffeine, etc. I'm not passing moral judgement on people that do some others in addition, but just noting that I haven't had reason to keep up to date on the relevant laws. From my personal experience, seeing how pervasive drugs are, and knowing where I could buy them, I don't believe we really have a "war on drugs". If we honestly did, a non-user like me wouldn't have a clue where to see people using drugs, or have an inkling where I could buy them. The fact that I do means that law enforcement isn't squashing down hard enough to even keep it underground. I'm not saying that the problem could be completely remedied by following a few guidelines, but great progress could be made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #22 May 12, 2003 Hell no. She is an elitist and a socialist. She believes herself to be at the top of the societal foodchain and rules only apply to the commoner. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 May 12, 2003 QuoteQuote What's gun control? A:) The Weaver stance........ That shit is WORTHLESS!!! Get someone to teach you a Modified Isocilies with a "Thumbs Forward" grip. It's the only way to shoot!!!! I'm going to a training class for that very thing tonight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #24 May 12, 2003 Quote That shit is WORTHLESS!!! Get someone to teach you a Modified Isocilies with a "Thumbs Forward" grip. It's the only way to shoot!!!! I prefer a one-handed grip, right hand, fingers under, thumb over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #25 May 12, 2003 QuoteShe is an elitist and a socialist. I always thought that was the epitome of duplicity...I can't carry a gun in her state, despite being a single female, working odd hours, and dealing with strange men...yet she, who's every move is protected, can, does, and will admit it if confronted...and there is no difference between her and I, really. None. Yet she would take my protection away, and keep hers. Of course, I haven't thought she was anything but belly button lint since the Night Stalker case she screwed up badly when she was Mayor of SF... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
