Crime plummets in DC after supreme court strikes down anti second amendment laws.

This is nothing new, when law abiding citizens are able to protect their property,themselves and their families criminals take notice.

Whenever some nut goes out and shoots up some people, first thing the hippies want is to ban or add more gun laws. Why? those bans and/or laws only hurt law abiding citizens. It's common sense!

every month in Brazil we have a case of some children dying or killing because weapons of their parents in their home or that they go to the school with a gun. Last month a kid 10 years old, shooted her teacher then killed himself.

In urban areas, I think there is no reason to have a gun, rural and remote areas you would have the right to protect yourself.

I keep wondering, here in Brazil you have to take school and tests for about 1 month to get a driver licence..

but to buy a weapon just go to a shop and register the weapon, any retarded can do that and kill people.. so why not to require people to be tested and take a course and some psychic test to have the right to have a weapon at home.

Unfortunately some people are too stupid to live, or have kids. Your post highlights some of those people Mithus. It is very sad when a child dies, but the example you give is a product of that stupidity. Look at it this way. Its natural selection at work. Darwinism FTW! I hope you never have to depend on the police to be only minutes away when seconds count.

You know in Israel in some schools the older siblings carry a gun slung over their shoulder to go to school. Do you hear of any Israeli school massacres because some kid goes off? NO, you don't. Because they have to worry about getting shot or blown up by some extremist.

If you're a parent and have guns, you have to teach your kids the proper way to handle a weapon. My dad was strict as hell with me, I started shooting higher caliber weapons when I was 10. One time we were shooting and my dad was watching my cousin take his shot. I was holding the .22 caliber rifle and found a bullet in my pocket. So I pulled up and shot after my cousin took his shot. My dad came UN-GLUED on me, I didn't get to shoot a gun again for a year because I didn't wait for my dad to watch me shoot the gun.

Everyone should have a right to protect themselves... ever hear the term "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight?" I'm not sure what kind of gun laws Brazil has, but here we have a 2nd amendment right to be able to protect ourselves. We also have over FIFTEEN THOUSAND guns laws. We don't need to ban guns or add more laws. We need our legal system to use the laws on the books, rarely they do. Because if many of these laws were used to their full affect, it would take care of many of the shootings we have here. But in saying that, criminals are criminals. They will find a way to get a gun, whether the law says they can have one or not.

I believe you are right about to have the right, but my point is like you said you have your father to teach you the correct way, no everyone has that, so the best option would everyone to attend some type of course and test to have this right, the same way you have to be able to drive a car.

It's a valid point Mithus, but we have a right to have guns but we don't have a right to drive a car.

We have the privilege to get a license and drive a car which can be taken away.

A right can not be tested for, no matter how stupid you are.

be a right of be a privilegy, I is still think you should show that you deserve that right or that privilegy.... and show that to use your right you have enough responsability and skill.

I don't think you're understanding the difference between a right and a privilege. If something is truly and inalienable right NO ONE can take that from you. Denying you the ability to own a firearm without first passing some test is akin to preventing you from owning one.

I happen to think that gun safety courses are a very good way for a gun owner to spend some time. One of the benefits of having been raised in the southern United States is that I, like Wolfgang, was taught at an early age the proper care and use of a firearm. Even with that training, I have attended two different firearm safety courses over the years. Why? You might ask. Because I have enough sense to know that I don't know everything and I can almost always learn something new if I keep my eyes and ears open and my mouth shut. Some people never learn that lesson, and often times those they care about the most pay the price for their ignorance.

Perhaps my earlier post was a bit cavalier, but I'm certainly not advocating for the wanton deaths of innocents. I was simply trying to say, in a humorous way, what Wolfgang said. Rational, reasonable, moderately intelligent humans should have no trouble figuring out that they shouldn't leave a gun lying around for a child to find.

By that logic, if you can find for me one single instance, in all of the world, where a gun killed someone of its own accord, with no human interaction, I will immediately change my stance and get on the anti-gun bandwagon.

Its cliche but its true, guns don't kill people, people do.

I´m studying law , so some are unalienable like you said, and some others have some requirements.. not every right is inalianable. But if you are saying the right to have weapon is unalinable.. emend the constituition.

Combat is combat.

The only problem in our hippy dominated world is that combatants stop at a bloody nose and then bitch about it for the next thousand years.

Conquest and genocide are natural.

All of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) ARE unalienable.

Wait, I thought the brazilian government banned weapons like 10 or 12 years ago. Am I wrong?

the sale and possession of a weapon is allowed, a person must keep it at home, besides having to register it at the time of purchase. According to Article 5 of the Disarmament Statute, a person is entitled to keep the weapon only at his home, and it does not allow carry it, only with permission of federal policy if there is a case of necessity.

No dictatorial or oppresive government can sustain itself if the populace gains weapons.

And as with the U.S., no country can ever invade with hope of success, a country that can arm, feed and transport freely its entire populace in the face of invasion.

DUH Vuldan, if a dozen teenagers can hold off a Cuban/Russian advance, they definitely wouldn't be able to hold off 150 million (or more) populace with guns. Actually it would be more. I'm sure even SOME of the hardest hugging tree huggers would grab a gun and help defend.

I love movie references even more so when they are 80's movies

Nothing wrong with guns in general. Not a single gun in history has ever jumped up and shot someone by itself. I have a safe full of guns ( some of which give the anti-gun types nightmares ) and none of them are a danger to anyone as long as they play by the laws and rules.

Not being able to own a firearm is far more dangerous than owning several. A firearm is a means to level the playing field against a ( faster, more powerful, multiple ) opponent. It is a device that negates the aforementioned variables completely. A half dozen idiots armed with bats and clubs are no match for a single person who is carrying a firearm and knows how to use it correctly.

I don't leave the house without some sort of firearm. On me, in the car, whatever.

If you have kids, it's your responsibility as a PARENT to teach them what it is and how to use / handle it correctly, or keep it out of their reach. ( In a safe or the like ) Anything less reflects poor parenting skills. The fact that the majority of parents are as useless as they are lazy is evident in the number of them that want the Government to " do something " about guns. Maybe we should really have a license to have children instead. You know, attend some training on how to actually raise a kiddo and quit expecting the rest of the world to do it for you. :|

Bad guns don't kill people, bad people kill people.

See, even backwoods country rednecks can learn from TV. Dork. Give up legitimate conversation attemps and go back to hunching your Tas doll. LOL. I was pointing out what we take for granted to our less than fortunate friends who live in gun oppressed nations and think they are safe.

Some good read about guns :
- http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/ (the original)
- http://www.amazon.fr/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

And also : http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/killing-over-stuff/

Arkh you understand that tell to a american the gun is bad is like telling a blasphemy to the religious people, so you could even be killed by fire by the southern Guys. It´s an inalienable right, and we need to defend our homeland against possible invaders and if the government becomes oppressive.

Again I´m joking, so take easy.

Also why are the Southern guys the most members that have political opinions, why most of the time seems more interested in politics, why your counterpart from north do not show their opinions too, is all right to them? I´m wondering.

I hope in the next 50 years, we can stop people without making a rough hole in the subject, like the eletric and stun guns become more effective.

Any suggestion that guns are bad, that guns increase violence or that crime can directly be attributed to guns is not only ludicrous, it is a statistical, empirical and known fallacy.

The notion that reason is necessary to have a complete civilized society is perhaps noble, but unreasonable when considering human nature. Imperfect and emotional, the human being will use whatever means are available to achieve power, whatever they perceive that power to be.

As was stated far better than anyone else;
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion [that violence never settles anything] is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

Actually Mithus, contrary to popular opinion, there is far worse racism, violence and crime in the northern states than in the south.

Vuldan and Mithus: you may have to click on the links I posted before writing about it.
Really, you should.

My apologies Arkh, I did not read the whole thing, only the begining and made an error in judging what I thought was your stance.

And the "more guns less crime" book should be a must read for any non US citizen who want to speak about guns. Because when outside the US people don't realize how much the possibility to carry a gun differ from one county to the other (not even just between states) and how lot of statistics studies are done with like only 1 or 2 big cities to represent a whole state.

I may not agree with you about some wars, but (even if french) I'm for the right for the people to defend itself and its property. And it means the right to carry a weapon and the right to use it to defend yourself.

Where I may make you cringe is that I think that someone who just got out of prison should not be stripped of this right: he has paid his debt to society.

I tend to agree with you Arkh. The core "macro" issue involved, is degree of centralization of power. An individual who has in hands the means to mount a credible defense of himself and his property by definition has more individual power than a person who has none. The person without any credible means of defending himself and must rely solely on others by definition has less power, however the groups who administer protection in his region by definition have more.

On the micro level, it may not see like a big deal to society if one particular person has slightly more or slightly less power - however on a macro scale, the aggregate increase of relative power held by individuals as opposed to a centralized authority is quite great and has a large effect on the balance of power in a society.

If you were to quantify a value called "protection" that represented to total level of protection from criminal harm in a segment of society, a society where a substantial amount of that protection comes from the grassroots citizenry will have a far more stable amount of "protection" over time. Wheres in a society where all of the protection stems from a single centralized authority , the amount of protection provided will by nature have larger swings in the amount provided.

Swings in the quality of the centralized authority will have a much larger effect in the absence of grassroots protection. Corruption, funding, competence, politics and other factors can greatly effect the amount of protection provided by a centralized authority with grave consequences if grassroots protection is not available to fill in the gaps left by an incompetent or corrupt centralized authority.

One good example of this is Mexico. The Mexican situation can be compared to the Old West in the USA in many ways. One telling difference however, was that in the USA the citizens could and would arm themselves. It was even a common occurrence for the citizens to be pressed into temporary "posse" or militia duty by law enforcement when organized criminal elements needed dealt with.

Citizenry owning weapons did not "solve" the problem of organized crime and violent gangs, but it did attenuate their effect on society at large. Whereas in Mexico, in the absence of ever-present competent police forces, the citizenry is completely at the mercy of organized crime.

If the feds would stop being such pussies and let the border states do what the border states do best the border towns would be a much safer place.

Or they could legalize drugs destroying the profits from these activities.

Then they would have to legalize prostitution and extortion and every other racquet that organized crime runs.

These are people that want to fight Arkh. The best way to deal with them is to wipe them out.

http://setxhomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=155177

This from last night. Homeowner wins!

Nice !!

Someone answer this:

Why is Canada, that has limited (compared to US), gun ownership has FRACTION of gun-related crimes US does? Why is Canadians don't feel the urgent and pressing need to pack everywhere they go and keep one under the pillow just to fight off bad guys?

Substitute Australia or any EU nation for Canada if you feel like?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

The only way to answer that honestly is this that some will not agree with.

The US has a lot of trash and terrible law policies that allow said trash to remain trash and cause trashy situations. I have not owned or carried a gun since I left to go to California almost 3 years ago.

In the time that I have been back in southeast Texas I have had knives pulled on me multiple times, had a guy in a bar parking lot try to say that I was getting into his car and try to pull me out of my own car so I just ran over him. Last night I went to Lake Charles Louisiana to watch a friends amateur boxing match and as the event was over and we were walking back to our car there was a group of people that during the event that had been walking down the street in the middle of a large city jimmying peoples windows and breaking into their cars (luckily they didnt get into mine but it sucks for all the people that did get stolen from).

I hardly go out because I work so much and when I do go out I am always the DD because my friends know they can have a good time with me around to watch them.

I can't speak for other countries but I will say that like a landfill if you let trash buildup you will eventually be covered. People that do this dumb stuff constantly get away with it or just get a slap on the wrist and do it again eventually anyway.

If good people do not have the means to protect simple morality then immorality runs rampant. I have come to see in life and in the weird situations I always seem to find myself in that the long arm of the law is not so long after all.

For starters gun's aren't the problem. It's the laws and lack of using those laws to the full extent is where the problem is. If you knew you would lose your gun rights for an offense and you couldn't get out of it EVEN if you had a high dollar lawyer, would you chance making a mistake with a gun?

For the law abiding citizen the answer to that is simple. For a criminal laws don't exist, Or they wouldn't be breaking them. Also you have to look at societies, in Canada they have guns as well to protect themselves. They know as a society if they get caught with a gun other than shooting some bear shitting in the woods they will go to jail.

I'm not sure how harsh their gun laws are, a law abiding citizen will take heed, a criminal doesn't care if it legal or not. I live just outside Tulsa, Oklahoma. They have a big problem with gangs, and Indians drinking to much fire water (whiskey). Three years ago I was working the night shift at my job. I heard some popping sounds like fireworks and then our power went out. A few minutes later there were 20 cops just outside our gate. Someone was a victim of a drive-by, the victim was shot dead while driving and ran into a power pole, and that's what knocked out our power.

After that incident I started carrying a weapon in my vehicle. Because whether I'm able to defend myself with that gun, or get killed before I can defend myself the ease of mind is there that I have that choice and right to be able to use that. Tulsa isn't a big city, I think the city population is near 390,000 with the surrounding area's within 25 miles you could add another 100,000 to that. The area that I work is a high crime rate area (North side of Tulsa). It's one of the poorer area's.

Just to give another example, the Quick Trip I stop at to get my coffee and morning snack before I get to work, had a man stabbed to death about 2 years ago. Actually he was at the stop light coming off the 2-44 loop through north Tulsa to turn into the QT. Apparently some guy thought he had cut him off, so the other guy jumped out of his truck at the light one block away from the QT and stabbed him. The guy that stabbed him had his 6 year old boy and 7 year old niece with him. The other guy that died had a wife that was 8 months pregnant. Pretty sure he wished he had a gun with him at that time.

When it comes to my life or someone that intends to do harm to me, I can guarantee you their life means nothing to me. I will defend myself and my family to the BITTER end. I just want to thank the people AGAIN,that had enough balls to say we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves (Thank you 2nd amendment). Our societies are different from others, no question there. Part of the reason for that is the legal system, it's flawed and justice isn't served in many occasions. If you make the penalties to having a weapon stiffer and no plea bargaining bullshit, you will see people will take heed. Though some criminals won't care, others may and maybe just doing what they are doing to score easy money but don't intended to do harm.


To compare us with other countries and societies isn't going to get anywhere. There are many factors that go into stats. Even though it happens, how many times in the past year have you heard of a normal everyday citizen that carry's a concealed weapon just go off and start killing people? Compare that with the killings by criminals trying to score $20 bucks or trying to prove something to a gang. Again, I want my gun with me. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Numbers disagree with this statement. You can say its cultural, but gun ownership rate and number of gun related crimes per capital is the only statistic we have to measure it.

If it wasn't guns it would be bows and arrows. If you outlaw bows and arrows it would be knives. If you outlaw knives it would be sticks and rocks.

Fighting is just something people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

And then you should check the stats between counties with low percentage of people carrying and those with a lot in the US.

Excellent and very interesting information Arkh (And yes, I read it this time..LOL)

Sinij, once again your statements indicate someone who is media educated, which makes your opinion suspect at best and poorly informed for sure.

Since we have nearly 10x the population of Canada, you're probably 10x
more likely to run into some asshat who has decided to make a living by
taking from everyone else. Laws be damned.

Maybe Canada just has nicer folks in it

Example: Six were arrested TODAY for driving around my town and
shooting at folks, property and cars with pellet guns. :| Just
for laughs. . . This is the mentality of the folks we have to
deal with on a daily basis. They simply just DO NOT FUCKING
CARE about what the laws are.

Charges are Assault with a Deadly Weapon. . . . see how funny
they think it is now . . .

These are the kind of folks you just randomly run into. Without
some means to negate their stupidity, the best you can hope for
is that you survive it with minimal injuries. Some people are
just cruel.

Personally, I wish I didn't have to carry one. I wish I could
own a nice car without worrying that someone will destroy it
out of spite. I wish I didn't have to lock my doors, set the
alarm, lock the safe, and turn on the security lights and cameras.
I wish I could use my camera gear without fear of getting jacked
for it. I wish I didn't have to get up in the middle of the night to
investigate the odd noise from outside.

I really wish I just didn't have to worry about any of that shit.

Unfortunately, I do. Because there are some really shitty folks
on this planet who don't give two shits about you. They will
kill you just for the lulz. . . .

They are the reason I keep a firearm with me at all times.

So you think guns just go off for no reason, just because it's a gun? You do know a trigger has to be pulled right? So GUNS aren't the problem... the person BEHIND the gun is the problem. If someone wants a gun to do some kind of harm they will get it legally or not. Banning guns would do NOTHING except make a law abiding citizens completely helpless defending themselves. Criminals would love this!

I´m happy that in Brazil we cannot carry weapons on daily basis, if it was allowed every idiot would have the right to do it, forcing other idiots to carry it too. The level of education here is too low to allow that, here would end like old west USA.

That being the case, it shows what happens when the law abiding citizens cant protect themselves.

You didnt understand, they do not died from criminals. Most of the cases in Brazil both are law abiding citzens that lost their head with access to gun.

Mithus, can you give the links to the page you're quoting. It seems a lot of them are linked to some other papers which could be useful readings.

Arkh quotes are from several Brazilian websites in portugueses, in the end all resume to the thing.. guns do not kill, people do.

But Brazil reality is different from USA or Europe, so I can say Personaly, I feel safer with people not being able to carry weapons, I would be more safely if the trade of weapons were regulated and only people that have a special reason to protected theirself would be allowed to buy weapons, ATM anyone can buy an weapon and keep it at home.

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages, in time for the reality of Brazil would be better if you could not buy weapons, only with a special award by the government. If you have a weapon you would to avoid to be assaulted or killed at home? response is maybe...

For every legal self defense there are more cases of unjustified attacks by fireweapon in Brazil. I have to weight both cases, and I prefer to chose that one that offer less damage to society. It´s easier to be a "Macho" man with a gun in your the hand, than with your fist.

Brazil is the number ONE ..

number 1 in the world of deaths by fire weapons
number 1 in the world by death by automobile accidents
number 1 in politics corruption and get out without punishment.
number 1 in social inequality


Can we break this bad cycle?, only wih education of population, but seems our public education is not getting better, and people over and over again vote for the bad politicians.

Why is that? Promises or threats?

Educational level, it´s easier to manipulate people with less education level by a general rule, of course there are exceptions. Also there are politicans that using the legal system avoid arrest and are able to re-eletecd themselves.

Also the vote in Brazil is not only a right, but a duty, you cannot not to vote, so even people that do not care ending vote.

"Also there are politicans that using the legal system avoid arrest and are able to re-eletecd themselves."

Now see, when that gets a bit out of hand, firearms go a long way in putting a stop to that. At the extreme level, it's called a dictatorship.

You're saying a sane person without a gun, becomes Insane with a gun. Now how does that make any sense? I have a gun, the only difference I feel when it's not by my side, is vulnerability. Especially if I'm in an area of Tulsa that's known for criminal activity.

As I recall from news I do catch coming from Brazil, it seems there's a lot of drug cartel activity. Which explains a lot of gun related deaths. YES you're going to have an occasional idiot that can legally carry a gun, go off and shoot people. That's rare compared to the violence that has to do with drugs and other criminal activity.

It's a fact here in Brazil that almost 50% of deaths from firearms do not come from criminal activities or people being assaulted or trying to defend againt criminals.

Of course everyone should have the right to defend himself.
I said If I had to choose, I have to weight each side, and I would choose the side that cause less damage to my society, By the statistics seems that Brazilians are not ready to have this right.

This was someone's Facebook post today..

Thought it fitting..

why are you guys not allowed to have for example m14, what if 3 or more criminals point weapons to you? what if your government becames ditactor and with your pistol cant defend against them with automatic weapons and what about other governments coming invade USA, would not be better you all with automatic rifles and etc on your back? why not a granade with you Wolf?

those guns do not kill, its people that kill.

take it easy.

Technically, we -can- own automatic weapons. Due to the silly
ban currently in effect, only those manufactured prior to 1986 I
believe are considered available for civilian ownership. If you
don't mind spending the $$$ on the Transfer Tax for each device,
you can legally own a grenade as well. ( State Laws may further
limit what you can own and they vary from State to State )

Due to the limitation, however, they are quite expensive and not
really a viable option unless you have truckloads of cash you
don't know what to do with. ( ~$15k - $30k avg price ) Unless
you go ghetto gun that is. You can get Mac-10's and Uzi's for
anywhere from $3k - $6k legally.

Not to mention how much $$$ you'll spend in ammunition costs when
you empty a clip in seconds. I prefer accuracy vs quantity. I
also prefer long distance engagements vs in your face room
clearing ones.

To answer the 3+ criminals pointing guns at me ?

Dunno. Can't answer that until the day it happens. I can say
this: If I survived such an episode, I would hunt them down and
remove them from society.

I think I'm falling in love with Daye.

*edit
Its even cheaper than the transfer fee, since anyone, who isn't a felon, can get a class III Federal Firearms License and then you can own all the explosives and fully auto weapons you want, plus sell them to folks who have trucks of money to blow.

So I guess you guys cannot buy cheap US automatic rifles and cannot import AK(s) from USSR, what a shame!. What a intrusive government...

Meh. AK's accuracy are so bad the only reason they hit the
ground is due to Gravity. And again, full-auto is overrated.

I much prefer quiet and accurate.

Such as:

A very quiet Glock 19



Or a not so quiet .50bmg:




Now, I own both of these devices and a few others as well. Does
this make me a stone cold insane killer who will eventually gun
down an orphanage ? Or become the next Charles Whitman ? No.
Not at all. In fact, far less likely to hurt anyone than say
my drunken neighbor careening around the neighborhood in his
truck. . . . .

Understand that the folks who own firearms legally are not the
ones you need to be concerned about. The fools who are going to
use them to commit a crime don't CARE about the legalities of
firearm ownership. With any sort of gun ban in place, you simply
make the criminals job that much easier as he gets to enjoy a
' force monopoly ' so to speak. Since the majority follow the
laws, they know the likelihood of running into another firearm
is minimal. Unless they try to interact with another criminal
that is.

I've always questioned the intelligence of ' gun free ' zones.
Such as schools and businesses. Anyone willing to commit the
crime in the first place probably doesn't care they're breaking
a ' gun ' law by having a firearm on site. I equate it to
shooting fish in a barrel. There is no one on site that can
defend against it. You simply have to hope you live long enough
for the SWAT team to show up. :|

If you don't like guns and think they are the reason for the homicides in Brazil, why not push to have them completely banned? Then you wouldn't have to worry about people getting shot.

About the 3 dudes with guns. I'm not stupid, I'll go along with their little game. However if I feel like they are going to take my life no matter what I do, I'm fighting I'm not going to sit there and let someone take my life without a fight. Whatever happens, happens. But If I felt I could get out of that situation I would do what I can to do so.

I think you're missing the point. It's not like we want to have guns just so we can go shooting up people. I just want the opportunity to protect myself if something should occur. It's called being prepared. When shootings occur they are fast and violent, there's at least a 50% chance you will get hurt. Maybe even higher, I have every right to protect myself and my family.

I think this is the root of the issue. If the ability to live my life is indeed an inalienable right then how can anyone tell me that I don't have the right to defend it against someone who wants to take it away from me? Removing your ability to defend yourself against a foe who, while paying no heed to the law, would take your life, is tantamount to the theft of your right to life.

I respect and support my police force, however, they are crime solvers not stoppers. Knowing the police are there works as a deterrent much of the time, but when it doesn't and seconds count, they are at least minutes away. So, you cannot use the police force as an excuse to take away my ability to defend myself. Furthermore, even if the police were omnipresent and could stop every crime, how then would you protect yourself against an out of control government that has decided to use the police force to quell any resistance to their dictates? Do you depend on the goodness of the police and military to stand up to the government in your favor? I think history, past and present, would show the naivete of that line of reasoning.

There is a little country on your northern border Mithus called Venezuela where I'm sure they would love to be able to speak out against their leader, but every time anyone tries they end up "missing" or have everything taken from them.

As to the ability to own automatic firearms or explosives like grenades, there really is no need (although there is no need to ban them either except to make the government "more equal"). History is replete with instances of smaller less well armed, but determined forces claiming victory over larger, more well armed and armored foes. The U.S.A. is here today because of one such example. Can we as citizens mobilize and fight back immediately against our government or the U.N. if something unthinkable were to happen? No. But those of us who have given every eventuality a little thought will be damn good at guerrilla warfare and will eventually be able to organize and take back our country from the hands of whatever despot seizes control.

Though I hope with every fiber of my being to never be faced with that scenario, it is the height of folly to fail to prepare for every conceivable scenario. All of the success gurus like to say, "failure to plan is planning to fail." I happen to think that's pretty accurate, but I learned it from my parents and had it reinforced by the boy scouts long before I ever heard of Steven Covey or Zig Ziggler.

Criminals here use automatic rifles, law abiding citzens here just killthemselves on banal situations with discussion and fights that could be avoided if they do not have a weapon a close hand. I'm not going further because our reality is different from USA and Europe reality.

If you have a chance to watch elite squad it will show a bit how is violence on Brazil. The movie it's not fantasy.

You're saying, if only angry folks didn't have ready access to guns, surely they'd never think to pick up a knife, or a baseball bat, or a brick... Come on Mithus, that's just silly. If a person is angry enough to shoot someone then they are angry enough to beat them to death. You cannot seriously blame the gun for those deaths.

While the consequences of your society may be more severe in Brazil, I do not think that you can say your reality is different than ours. Reality is not subjective. That argument seems more like an excuse not to think about the issue.

Having been to São Paulo, watching people, and working with two people from that town, personally I would liken it to a cross of Eastern Spain and the Southern Japanese Island of Kyushu.

Great.. I'm heading there this spring I'm told..

Hawt Asian/Brazilian mixed women. OMFG. Bring sunglasses and some rubber bands to keep your jaw shut.

Kaotic, I know the issue is not the gun.

But when the statistic say for example that almost 50% of women death by firearms are from theirs husbands and partners, that makes us think if they with no access to guns would save theirs lifes, of course they would kill with another weapons that was not a gun, like a club, but gun are more lethal.

I know too that restricting access guns to citzens, do not save us because criminals do not buy guns by normal means here in Brazil, so that would not make us safer against criminals.

So question is problematic, like you guys said because government cannot protect you 24/day. So here in Brazil the question is what save more lifes.

According to what you've posted citizens in your country have had to have a "good reason" and be cleared by the police, to own a gun since at least 1997. If removing the guns were a viable solution then why do you still have so much gun violence 14 years later?

The solution is simple Mithus and it boils down to personal responsibility. If you aren't self aware enough to recognize a toxic relationship before it kills you, then you've failed to be responsible for yourself. If you can't have an argument without resorting to violence to make your point then your lack of self control shows a considerable lack of personal responsibility.

The problem with being a free people is that it comes with a certain amount of responsibility. If you want the government to protect you from every eventuality then you must be prepared to give up your freedom. Those of us who advocate for less gun regulation or at least no more than we have are not willing to give up that freedom and we believe that people must learn to live responsibly. People unwilling to take responsibility for their actions will always make life more difficult for the rest of us, but that is part of the price we must pay to retain our freedom. Removing freedom from the entire population is never, in my opinion, an equitable solution to solving the problems of a few irresponsible citizens.

Sorry, those quotes are from england, here in Brazil we like USA can buy guns, we just need authorization to carry it around.

England,Japan,Australia are examples that weapons were almost banned from the society with no colateral effects to freedom.

Also here in Brazil our society still yet to weight the advantages and disadvantes of guns, with the remote probability of the weapon be used in a legit defense act, and it be a cause of half of deaths(18.000 per year) by unjustified acts of violence by non criminals. What's better to our society, after thinking and analizing the facts I think england,japan,australian example is better to Brazil. Maybe to USA like you guys are saying it's not.

Oops, guess I didn't read it close enough.

Yet. What will the citizens do when the government decides it doesn't need their input any longer?

In America gun ownership is a Right, so in America it would be an effect to freedom. The effects of what happens with legally owning a gun is something that we deal with.

We have the Right to Free Speech, so in taking away Free Speech you would be affecting our freedom. The effects of what happens with Free Speech is something we deal with.

So goes with any right given by the Constitution.

BTW you have now make me cross off Brazil as a place to visit. I am sure you shouldn't work for the Department of Tourism.

ya do not come here if you dont like women.. just kidding.

I don't like women. I like Pussy. Just happens they seem to be stuck together.

Knife wounds are more lethal than gun ones. At least from some police report in France.

I think Brazilians are just more hot headed. I don't own a gun but I think if I finally snapped I would just steal a big truck and drive through a mall.

Better ban motor vehicles!

Farmers markets work better.

Good point. Fewer walls and more hippies. Just don't do it on Tuesday since that's when I go

;edit, my joke was not good.

You would be correct.

Donk get a airplane from boeing, do some hours of flight simulator, and we know how the history ends..


*joke.