|
about 30 ppl killed in YET ANOTHER shooting (pg. 25)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
OK, so let me ask you a question. Should the gun regulations in Brazil be even more restrictive then they are today? If so, what type of effect do you think it would have and why? |
I'm afraid many of these problematic Brazilian gun owners are currently in the process of shooting up those who are supposed to enforce these laws over drug trade and the likes. A better angle of approach is advised. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
My spider sense warned my both my name and my country were mentioned.
I'm short of time right now, but we're not a good example to this debate. Our gun-restricting laws are actually quite good (as out laws in general tend to be), but we don't have the means to enforce them. I'm sure that's not a problem in the US of A. |
Brazil is always worth mentioning. :D
If you feel as though the gun-restricting laws are good, you certainly have a lot of explaining to do. ;)
I'm looking forward to what you mean when you say that you don't have "the means to enforce them." |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
OK, so let me ask you a question. Should the gun regulations in Brazil be even more restrictive then they are today? If so, what type of effect do you think it would have and why? |
It's just not a relevant question, I'm sorry. Like Lira said, Brazil already has great *legal* gun regulation, they just cannot regulate illegal firearms, due to lack of means to enforce it. Not enough incorruptible police, and certainly not well-armed enough to approach the paramilitary criminal elements that likewise plague many South American countries.
The US does not have this problem, and it's the Achilles heel of every flag waving cold, dead hands NRA patriot's argument: Should the US elect Hitler II, we private citizens are NOT going to stop the military or even law enforcement from subjugating us. Not gonna happen. And it's by no means due to lack of high-powered weaponry in the hands of civilians, it's a very simple issue of logistics and organization. Red Dawn was bull. Brown Dawn is coming in the next 50 years, but it's not something you can thwart with firearms. :gsmile: |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
It's just not a relevant question, I'm sorry. Like Lira said, Brazil already has great *legal* gun regulation, they just cannot regulate illegal firearms, due to lack of means to enforce it. Not enough incorruptible police, and certainly not well-armed enough to approach the paramilitary criminal elements that likewise plague many South American countries.
The US does not have this problem, and it's the Achilles heel of every flag waving cold, dead hands NRA patriot's argument: Should the US elect Hitler II, we private citizens are NOT going to stop the military or even law enforcement from subjugating us. Not gonna happen. And it's by no means due to lack of high-powered weaponry in the hands of civilians, it's a very simple issue of logistics and organization. Red Dawn was bull. Brown Dawn is coming in the next 50 years, but it's not something you can thwart with firearms. :gsmile: |
Well, it's funny that you mention Hitler; because, didn't he disarm the citizens before going forward with the massacre that he was a part of? I believe Stalin and Mao did the same thing; did they not? Just an interesting thing to note. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Well, it's funny that you mention Hitler; because, didn't he disarm the citizens before going forward with the massacre that he was a part of? I believe Stalin and Mao did the same thing; did they not? Just an interesting thing to note. |
Read this:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...n-gun-ownership
And even so, there are plenty of examples these days of countries who do just fine with a government monopoly on guns. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Yes, I believe you are correct, and it's something endemic to dictatorships rising to power throughout all of history. It's precisely why the right for citizens to bear arms is encoded in the US constitution; you cannot strip away the ability for your citizens to defend themselves and their property from threats, internal and otherwise, and call your people liberated. But this does not mean we are entitled to .50 cal rifles; the spirit of this amendment is taken out of historical context so often, it nauseates me to even repeat it.
A baseball bat being construed as a weapon, and promptly confiscated by the government, would be a breach of rights, against the spirit of allowing people to be "armed". It's why when you look at martial weaponry from Asian feudal eras, most of it will be blunt farming equipment; emperors would decree ALL weaponry be taken away, and people adapted appropriately by teaching themselves to use tools as defense weapons. An AR-15 is a relatively simple and common variant of an assault rifle though, and with a 30 round magazine is not a tool for harvesting or even defending oneself, but specifically designed for maximum efficiency in killing other human beings, within its design limitations. You can have it back when you're older, maybe. |
|
|
| Sleightful |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
right.
 |
Actually if any country needs an armed population, it's that one, considering every single country in its vicinity wants to tear it a new one. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| I'm at work now and am limited to what I can view (Bierheld's link) and want to be able to reply without being limited to time. Glad we are able to do this though. Be back later! |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Comparing to Brazil is probably not a great comparison, as there are pretty large differences between the two countries other than just gun ownership. Maybe compare to a much more closely related country... Canada for instance has a very similar cultural background, socio-economic demographics, etc. Approximately 26% of Canadian households own a gun compared to 47% of American households. There are 30.8 guns per 100 people compared to 88.8 per 100 people in the US. Per capita homocides by firearm are 0.76 in Canada vs. 3.7 in the US. You can draw whatever you like from that data... personally, I would say that the difference is due to many factors including but not limited to distribution of wealth, ease of access to psychiatric care, social welfare services, etc; however, the ease of access to guns does play a role. |
Lolwut. we fought the brits while the loyalist phags went to canada and england. You are nothing like us. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
The gist of it is that these statements are predominantly false. And, looking at Germany's legislation at the time, only Jews and minors were disarmed and that happened years after he seized total control.
The main message here is that Hitler and pretty much every autocratic regime before and after him did not come to power by waving their guns around, but by means of propaganda and more effective forms of extortion and intimidation. A gun may protect your body but it won't protect your mind.
This whole goverment vs. the people showdown will likely never happen because the people will be fighting amongst themselves instead. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| That and even their semi-automatic AR-15s aren't going to protect them from strafing runs from A10s or AC130s raining death down on them from 20,000 feet. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
Lolwut. we fought the brits while the loyalist phags went to canada and england. You are nothing like us. |
Believe me, no one celebrates how we are different from the US more than Canadians do; however, we are a much better cross boarder comparison to the US than is Brasil... likely better than is any other country. |
|
|
|
|
