Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)


Illinois about to do stupid
 
I'm thrilled that my tax dollars will end up being wasted paying the salaries of the goodness knows how many people the state AG office will use in thier doomed attempt to stop the courts from shooting this down.
 
Not US gun control related, but fucking hilarious none the less:
Article:
The gun owners of Brazil are proclaiming victory these days. Private gun ownership, once tightly restricted in Latin America’s largest country, has grown at least sixfold in the four years since President Jair Bolsonaro began relaxing the rules.

What’s more, gun enthusiasts say, it’s working: The homicide rate in Brazil — one of the world’s most violent countries — has fallen more than 27 percent since 2017.

“Everyone said there would be more homicides when Bolsonaro loosened the restrictions,” said Paulo da Silva, 25, attending the gun show with friends. “But it turned out to be the opposite!”

...

And in a country where police cannot always be trusted to respond effectively, Santa Catarina is also a place where people say they believe they should be able to take personal safety into their own hands. Gun rights advocates, including Bolsonaro himself, say reducing controls on guns has turned Brazil into a far safer place for its 215 million citizens. Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo made the argument this year in a speech at a gun show in California, evidence of growing ties between right-wing movements in the two countries.

“What’s happened with firearms is the same as what happened with the microwave oven,” said Juliana Lopes, a military police major and shooting instructor. “It entered people’s homes … and has become a survival tool.”

Since Bolsonaro took office, the number of shooting clubs here has doubled to more than 2,000. A new lobbying group modeled on the National Rifle Association just got its president elected to Congress. Online, an emerging generation of gun rights influencers has garnered hundreds of thousands of followers. The stock price of Taurus, Brazil’s largest gun manufacturer, went up 200 percent.

...

Bolsonaro’s changes, delivered in nearly three dozen presidential decrees, included reducing taxes on imported weapons, allowing civilians to purchase assault rifles and increasing the number of firearms registered sport shooters could own from 16 to 60.

He also dropped a rule requiring would-be purchasers to justify their need for a firearm to their local police department. Previously, a civilian who wanted to buy a gun needed to submit an application that substantiated their personal level of risk — describing in detail whether they lived in a condominium complex with a doorman or a secure gate, for example. Police had wide discretion on whether to grant or deny the license.

“You could go through this exhausting and expensive process, only to hear a ‘no’ at the end of it,” Bonoso said. “Because some sheriff decided your home was too safe.”

...

Several expo attendees said they needed a gun because they live in a rural area where the police presence is minimal. Others said they just like them. In a region populated by many people of German descent, they said, guns have long been part of the local culture. Lula, they said, suppressed the will of the people when he tried to prohibit civilians from owning guns entirely in 2005. He didn’t get the full ban, but lawmakers ended up passing some of the most stringent gun regulations in the world.

Many said they admire the gun culture of the United States — the expo even included a talk on guns in Texas delivered by a member of the Houston-based Brazil-Texas Chamber of Commerce.

Still, a dozen people interviewed at the gun show by The Washington Post said they appreciated that Brazil continues to place far more restrictions on would-be buyers than the United States does. Brazilians must show proof of income and a residence where the firearms must be located. They must undergo a basic psychological evaluation and register with the police and a shooting club.

Brazilians still have more restrictions on carrying guns outside the home. Gun owners are allowed to carry a gun only if they are on their way to a shooting club. Webster said gun homicides and accidental deaths in the United States are tied more closely to carrying than to possession.

Another key difference: Guns are roughly three times as expensive in Brazil as in the United States, which makes private ownership primarily an enthusiasm of people with higher incomes.

U.S. citizens owned more than 393 million firearms in 2018, or 1.2 per person, according to the Small Arms Survey, a Geneva-based research organization. Brazilians owned 4.4 million in 2021, or 0.02 per person, according to the Security Forum.

The United States has a much more “developed” gun culture than Brazil, Venera said. Brazilians aren’t ready to drop the restrictions altogether, he said, but he hopes they will be soon: “You just can’t give a car to someone who can’t drive.”

Venera is not concerned that legal gun sales will help arm the cartels. Criminals have always had guns, he said, and they prefer automatic weapons. “Only civilians couldn’t defend themselves,” he said.


Since this a Washington Post article, there's tons of "REEE GUN AVAILABILITY INCREASES DEATHS/DOESN'T NECESSARILY IMPROVE SAFETY" BS, but it's great to see the Brazilians get in on having lively gun culture.
 
Unfortunately, the incoming government is deeply committed to disarmament and is expected to use the full power of the government(note that I didn't say 'the law') to turn back the clock to the pre-Bolsonaro days on this matter.
 
Unfortunately, the incoming government is deeply committed to disarmament and is expected to use the full power of the government(note that I didn't say 'the law') to turn back the clock to the pre-Bolsonaro days on this matter.
From what I understand Lula is severely diminished from his hey day and is having to compromise with a lot of right wing anti-Bolsonaro parties to make the government work. He may not have the bandwidth or political capital to comprehensively crack down on gun ownership.
 
From what I understand Lula is severely diminished from his hey day and is having to compromise with a lot of right wing anti-Bolsonaro parties to make the government work. He may not have the bandwidth or political capital to comprehensively crack down on gun ownership.
Big thing is, even if you assume the above(I'm not convinced of it), those parties don't care about gun ownership(the members of those parties can get guns for themselves or their thugs if they want to, no matter how hard it would be for the common citizen, and that's all that matters). They wouldn't really oppose reversing the gun ownership measures passed by Bolsonaro, unless it serves another political purpose.
 


* ‘guns cause more deaths among children and young adulation then all other causes’: so the first is a case of ‘lies and damned statistics’ as the graph groups in every kind of gun violence from murder to suicide to self defense as ‘gun violence’ while breaking up other causes of death into broad categories. Also the vast majority of those come from Black homicides, like a result of inner city ghetto culture and a lack of a strong father figure growing up.

* ‘red flag laws would protect us from mass shootings’: this is a result of a misunderstanding of what red flag laws actually entail. In reality they are used to prevent people from getting guns at all. Additionally, such a law is unconstitutional as it deprives people of their rights for a crime they haven’t committed yet.

* ‘no one needs an AR-15’: history shows that a disarmed population is easy to be crushed by their government. Having something approaching equal firepower is this necessary to only protect against criminals, who have a good chance of owning illegal or illegally modified weapons, but also governments.

* ‘civilians should not have”‘military” firearms’; the Founders would absolutely disagree with this as they were more then happy to let civilians own weapons such as cannons. The second amendment protects ‘bearable’ arms and not dangerous or unusual weapons like nukes.

* ‘there was a huge increase in gun sales during the pandemic and then there was a huge increase in the murder rate. If we outlaw guns, there will be fewer deaths’: for a start that won’t prevent criminals from getting their hands on or making weapons and selling them on the black market. It will however put any civilian they go up against at a massive disadvantage. Also, crime is not tied to gun ownership as this claim tries to say. Additionally, one needs to examine what else was going on in 2020: the Antifa riots, easy on crime catch and release policies and so on, which more then likely causes said spike. Furthermore, this is another case of ‘lies and statistics’ as the chart used in this claim it uses 2020 data for the USA and 2019 data for other countries.
 
Last edited:
They need to pay attention that murder has been on a downward trend as more guns have been bought
 


I am trying to explain to some people in the comment section you just can't shoot people you see on your property without assessing if they are actually a threat. But some people want to just shoot first and ask questions later Which can and does lead to stuff like this.......

A lot of people and you might find it shocking don't know the full extent of their property line. And where a state or interstate Hiking trail is. And also


And from personal experience I have been in areas where I had practically no cell service and had to walk to someone's house to seek assistance in getting a tow truck. I would not want to be shot dead when I just am trying to get help. People need to use critical thinking and not be trigger happy.
 


I am trying to explain to some people in the comment section you just can't shoot people you see on your property without assessing if they are actually a threat. But some people want to just shoot first and ask questions later Which can and does lead to stuff like this.......

A lot of people and you might find it shocking don't know the full extent of their property line. And where a state or interstate Hiking trail is. And also


And from personal experience I have been in areas where I had practically no cell service and had to walk to someone's house to seek assistance in getting a tow truck. I would not want to be shot dead when I just am trying to get help. People need to use critical thinking and not be trigger happy.

The issue is you never know who is there because they need help or because they want to do you harm
Especially in Arizona
 
Assessing a threat is not really that hard. I have had to do it from time to time when people came on to my property and properties I was guarding.
But are you in a border state where coyotes (not the animal) may pose a bigger danger then a robber?
 
The issue is you never know who is there because they need help or because they want to do you harm
Especially in Arizona
The issue is a dude shot someone who wasn't a threat to him. That's murder.

The person posed no immediate threat. He shot anyway.
 
Assessing a threat is not really that hard. I have had to do it from time to time when people came on to my property and properties I was guarding.
Uh, you do realize in this context the guys this rancher are likely to face are drug smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal immigrants.

Only 1 of 3 these groups is likely to let the rancher live if they are discovered; the cartels will absolutely shoot a random American on their property to protect the cartels border crossing routes.
 
Uh, you do realize in this context the guys this rancher are likely to face are drug smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal immigrants.

Only 1 of 3 these groups is likely to let the rancher live if they are discovered; the cartels will absolutely shoot a random American on their property to protect the cartels border crossing routes.
No, they absolutely won't. Generally, you are told just to ignore it, and they ignore you. They absolutely cannot have the heat of killing an American on them, especially in America, but also no reason to get them to want to risk it.

And again, you don't seem to get what an imminent threat is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top