Brazil: I hope the NRA is proud today

[Ratty]

From 2005:

The NRA Takes on Gun Control -- in Brazil

October 25, 2005: Brazilians flatly rejected a plan to ban the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition in a historic national referendum on Sunday. The vote is a victory for Brazil's wealthy gun lobby which opponents say used strategies learned from the National Rifle Association to shift public opinion.
...
Sensing the restrictive laws coming its way, Brazil's gun lobby turned to the National Rifle Association, which in 2003 sent one of its Washington lobbyists, Charles Cunningham, to São Paulo to discuss strategies. The NRA would not disclose the contents of that meeting but said it has no financial ties with any Brazilian groups. Gun control activists say the NRA's influence was key in the referendum. Gun backers translated NRA materials into Portuguese and use statistics and arguments that were similar to those used in NRA infomercials aired in the United States.The thrust of the "no" campaign, mirroring NRA strategy, was to cast the ban as a violation of the "right" to have guns, even though Brazilians officially have no such legal right, says Galeria and other activists.
...
The vote shines a spotlight on the NRA's role as a global provider of political strategy and support for gun groups around the world, and its focus on fighting U.N. attempts to control the flow of the estimated 639 million small arms and light weapons IANSA says exist in the world.

http://www.alternet.org/story/27279

[Taverner]

1. I think criminals would get guns whether they're legal or not

[MedicalAdmin]

13. Specious argument.

Here's why. The reason for gun control laws (which don't have to be all or nothing despite the assumptions of the NRA about any proposed legislation for licensing and some rational restrictions on what can be purchased being equated with Joseph Stalin doing an anal cavity search with a bulldozer - ahem) is not to make sure that criminals can't get guns. That's not the point - of course criminals can get weapons.

The point is to make it criminal to have or use weapons that society agrees are detrimental. That way law enforcement have another charge and another tool to use against the lawless.

Quick quiz for any NRA members - what is the most gun laden country in the world per capita? Hint: it isn't the USA. Further hint: they don't have out gun violence issue.

[Taverner]

14. Going on your reasoning though, if someone is mad they will find a weapon

Baseball bat, bow and arrow, broken bottle, etc

So removing the guns from law abiding citizens just puts them in a precarious place, where the criminals have guns and get to bully everyone who doesn't.

[MedicalAdmin]

32. Again - it's not about removing.

I don't think anyone needs a freakin 50cal to defend themselves, do you? People should be able to arm themselves, but do you think that there should be ANY restrictions on ownership and deployment? Or are you a wild west, whatever shit I can afford kinda guy?

[Taverner]

35. Well even the NRA believes in *some* restrictions

They've never been for letting Felons buy guns, and that is a reasonable restriction

I don't even OWN a gun. I might someday - after the kids go away to college. But being responsible, to me at least, means creating a safe environment.

However, your question about the 50 cal - yes, someone might need that to defend themselves. Especially if they are up against more than one person having more than one gun.

[MedicalAdmin]

53. Really? Where?

I mean I think that Bush should have them on the walls to his compound because ... well, if anyone has that many enemies... just sayin.

I guess if the uber rich decide that private armies armed with miliary grade weapons are a good idea, then they should just get them, no?

[armueller2001]

60. Military grade weapons are heavily regulated and taxed, and cost at least $15,000 each to purchase.

Semi-automatic look-a-like weapons are probably what you're thinking of, and functionally they are no different than a standard hunting rifle. The technology is over 100 years old. It is NOT "military grade"

[MedicalAdmin]

65. They are regulated, but military contractors can and do have them.

And they can be hired. ... And your pic is NOT what I was thinking about.

[GKirk]

71. Interesting comment...

...I'm probably making the wrong assumption but it sounds
like you don't trust your high school age kids with guns in the house.

[PavePusher]

41. If the weapon is not being used criminally, what is the point of a restriction? n/t

P.S. What is wrong with .50 cal rifles? I don't recall them ever being actually used in a crime, and they are a lot of fun to shoot on long target ranges. Also fiendishly expensive, so not generally the choice of the street thug, eh?

[MedicalAdmin]

54. How about exocets?

IF I can afford one of those should I be able to buy one? Should the owner class get to own anything because they decide they can afford it? Gee, I know its depleted uranium that I'm shooting out of my tank, but so what? It's the 2nd amendment baaaaabeeeeee.

[PavePusher]

58. If you have the space and money to store and use them safely.... why not? n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

67. So not regulations are good regulations? Is that it?

Help me to understand where you draw the line.

[Oneka]

84. I'll help you understand.

You draw the line when someone USES his insanely expensive military grade weaponry to kill or injure someone, unjustly.
Owning property, any property, should never be restricted. the unsafe use of that property can be outlawed and penalties for unsafe use,can be affected.

Line Drawn.

[MedicalAdmin]

86. Great - so if I want to store used nuclear fuel rods in my back yard. ...

... that's OOOOOKKKKKKAAAAAAAYYYYYYY with you? How about zebra mussels in the crick out back? Or what if I have a hankerin' to own a couple of rabid grizzly bears? Slaves?

Wow - that's not so much a line than a waffle.

[PavePusher]

90. If you can do so WITHOUT ENDANGERING OTHERS.

Is that point clear now?

It really is a simple matter of proper engineering and honesty.

[Oneka]

92. people are not property

and haven't been considered such in a very long time.

The rest of your argument is nothing more then "red herring" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

We are arguing about the Ownership of tools Vs, the use of those tools to injure or kill people. that is the line.

Pretty straight forward stuff.

Let me simplify even more.

Own a .50 cal Barrett rifle: right side of the line.
Shoot an innocent person with said rifle: wrong side of the line.


As for the rabid grizzlies ,, what you choose to do with bears you find is between you and the bears i guess.

[rl6214]

62. Being a little ridiculous

don't you think?

[MedicalAdmin]

66. Not according to PavePusher.

He thinks that if I can afford one and store it, then I should be able to buy one.

I wonder if the Koch brothers have an arsenal? Likely even if it is illegal. And I wonder if they support changing the laws so it is legal?

[NewMoonTherian]

74. Do exocets have depleted uranium?

If that's the case, I'm against their use by any entity - military or civilian - due to the long-term and thus massively indiscriminate damage they cause. Conventional(non-nuclear) anti-ship missiles, however, I would have no objection to. What's acceptable for the military is acceptable for civilians, because I trust civilians leaps and bounds more than I trust any arm of government.

[gejohnston]

76. No

It is a ship to ship missile. DU are used in bullets because of their mass. The more mass the better. They can be incendiary.

[NewMoonTherian]

78. That's what I thought.

I'd never heard of it being used in artillery. So yeah. I've got no problem with private ownership of something like that.

[oneshooter]

77. No, only a conventional warhead of 165 kilograms (360 lb) of explosive. n/t

[rl6214]

43. I don't think anyone anywhere has EVER use a 50cal

in a crime, so what's the big deal.

[MedicalAdmin]

52. I'm assuming you are not including war crimes in your statement.

But that aside, I am trying to find out if you think that any limits are reasonable. Should anyone be able to purchase and use any weapon they can afford. Should Bill Gates, for example be able to purchase and carry stinger missiles for his personal use? Or is that an exageration.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. The 1934 NFA "draws the line in the sand" as far as weaponry civilians can easily own.

It covers things like "large guns" (guns with rifled bores greater than .510"), explosives (grenades missles bombs), disguised weapons, modfied weapons, etc...

The line is the sand has been drawn, about 77 years ago and the restrictions seem generally reasonable.

[MedicalAdmin]

57. OK - thanks for that.

This is a point on which we agree.

Now - do you agree with that limitation? Do you think it should ever be modified? Or is that the standard you support forever and ever, amen brother and pass the ammo?

[RSillsbee]

68. I see no problem w/ Full Auto weapons

In the hands of law abiding citizens. If you're law abiding , you're law abiding whether you have a machine gun or not.

Exocets? For when you really need to take out a cruiser that's over the horizon?

[MedicalAdmin]

88. I don't see a problem with qualified individuals having them.

If they are a collector they should have to certify that they are storing them legally. For me this means a safe that can't be picked up and walked away with. But I'm a little paranoid.

If they are someonoe who enjoys shooting them (and let's be honest - it's kinda fun shooting the shit out of some stuff - a local gun club once participated in a meth house demolition by litterally shooting it into little tiny pieces - we then helped pay for some of the clean up in exchange for our fun), then I think that they should be a registered owner and should have to have the proper equipment to store and transport said item safely.

If it goes missing or is stolen then I expect the owner to report it to the police immedicately and to accept responsibility or fines if it turns out that it was lying around in their living room instead of in a safe.... but that's just me.

But banning? That seems like scooping water with a fishing net to me. And I agree that anyone who is responsible as proven through background check and either licensing / classes / training should be able to buy, store and fire (under certain circumstances).

Thanks for your imput. You've given me a few things to think about, although I would like to reiterate I am not calling for a ban. Never have. REgulation is another thing. Unless you are talking to a baggin libertarian hopped up on magical freedom pixie dust.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. I agree with the limitations, generally, with two exceptions.

1) Silencers are safety devices. I'm They make shooting more enjoyable, accurate, and protect (and others') hearing. Not sure why they are regulated under the NFA and require the same hassle/paperwork as something like a tommy gun or grenade launcher. They are not "hollywood quiet" and still make a fair bit of noise. Seems silly to regulate an accessory.

2) The bureaucracy and hassle involved with the paperwork seems excessive. When designed the 1934 NFA was basically an end run around the fact that you can't "ban" things... it was a de facto ban by virtue that registration alone often equated to huge sums of money. I agree with limitations (everything needs and has limitations) but I disagree with the constitutionally questionable methods the 1934 NFA used.

Other than I agree with limitations. I also don't see there being a need to revisit the limitatoins either. Personal firearms technology really hasn't changed in the past 100 years. And since the 1986 ban on machineguns, there really isn't anything more dangerous now than there was in 1934. In fact, alot of the more popular modern rifles use smaller weaker rounds than popular rifles from the early-mid 20th century.

[NewMoonTherian]

75. As for me, the answer is no.

I'm in favor of eliminating the NFA and putting full-automatics, short-barreled long guns, silencers and "destructive devices" into the same category as handguns(which are, for the most part, reasonably regulated currently).

[oneshooter]

73. Which .50 caliber are you for restricting/banning? n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

89. Chain linked full auto gatling style ones.... ? For the front of my car?

... it was a hypothetical question.... I didn't have a specific in mind.

[petronius]

18. The OP is about an outright ban, so your reasoning doesn't apply

And more generally, I've never gotten the sense that the point of pro-gun-control arguments was simply to create a new charge that prosecutors can pile on; in fact, there's plenty of evidence (even right here in the forum) that the outright ban is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates.

More generally, I'd oppose any law that is intended just to pile on charges, just like I consider it inappropriate and unjust when single crimes are used to double- or triple-dip to create a long indictment...

[MedicalAdmin]

33. It's not about piling on charges... it's about applying the law.

And this is one gun control advocate that doesn't support any form of bans. I stand by that.

[petronius]

37. How is it not about piling on? You propose banning certain types of guns,

so as to have an additional charge with which to punish criminals when they're caught with those guns. But meanwhile, you've prevented every non-criminal from owning those guns (unless they want to become criminals themselves). The flaw in your reasoning is that there is no "detrimental" gun type preferred by criminals - they use the same things that everyone else uses. So banning just the guns criminals use is impossible; it's the fallacious reasoning behind the assault weapon ban...

[MedicalAdmin]

50. Are you proposing that anyone can buy anything?

What are the limits you are comfortable with? Should anyone be able to buy a 50 cal machine gun? Should anyone be able to buy and carry Uzi's? There are no absolute rights. All rights are limited. So what is your limit?

There is an assumption that you have that having guns detirs crime. There is not solid evidence of this. Criminals commit crime. That is universal. What is the problem with making it illegal for them to have certain (or any) guns? What is the problem with there being some agreed upon rational limit on the type of guns that people are able to carry?

Thanks - it's been a fasciniating conversation for me.

[PavePusher]

59. Again, what is a "rational limit" and what is the point of it...

if a crime is not being commited?

[MedicalAdmin]

63. For the sake of argument, let's assume that rational limits

should never be applied and that we should only decide if something is desireable or not based upon individual actions. Leaving aside the obvious libertarian overtones to this (and if I've mischaracterized your position please let me know), should we use this standard for all consumer goods?

If you are challenging the idea of any limits based upon what someone might do with it, then could we not just get rid of all regulation on everything? Where are you going to draw the line in the sand and say "this is what we as a society agree is needed for our civilization to function smoothly?" Will it be with complete deregulation?

[PavePusher]

91. Not at all.

But first you have to define what is dangerous and why, and what your regulation attempts to ameliorate and why.

So far, you've done neither.

[petronius]

61. You proposed banning guns that are "detrimental" to create a prosecutorial tool, and the example

you came up with is the .50cal machine gun. But criminals don't use .50s and they're already tightly restricted (as are uzis). So, the tool you propose already exists and is demonstrably useless.

The murderer in the OP apparently used .38cal revolvers - about as vanilla a gun as I can think of. Would you call those 'socially detrimental?'

The bottom line is that your rationale really doesn't make sense the way you present it - there are no special guns that criminals use, and no guns that are especially detrimental, it's all the same set of devices. Your reasoning has been used to support various bans, but always as a step toward broader bans down the road. Frankly, I think you've been deceived by the rhetoric of the 'ban-em-all' crowd.

As you say, criminals (not guns) commit crimes. Banning crime is reasonable, as is limiting gun rights for criminals. But banning certain guns to hit at criminals has no foundation.

As for absolute rights, nobody has claimed that here. There are limits on the 2nd just like on the rest of the BOR, but any limit on a basic Constitutional right must have real, significant, quantifiable, supporting reasons, and be as narrow as possible. Your proposal doesn't pass that test...

[MedicalAdmin]

64. It wasnt a proposal. It was an intellectual exercise.

I thank you for your reasoned and well thought out response.

Here's my background. I am a gun owner. I am a former officer. I am still rated as an expert shot with sniper weapons - these days an AR15. And I support a longer background check and waiting period for handguns. Not as a panacea, but simply as a method of weeding out the mentally disturbed or chemically disturbed, neither of who have good intentions often and short attention spans. That's just my background speaking. I support criminal restrictions. I sometimes toy with the idea of restricting handguns to law enforcement, but then I remember a few of the crappy officers I used to work with and I think.... maybe not..

I appreciate your thoughts. My concern with open rights advocates lies in the ones who support absolute zero restrictions. I hope that helps. I like to discuss nuance a little too much sometimes.

[RSillsbee]

69. Since when is an AR15 a "sniper weapon" ? NT

[MedicalAdmin]

87. My mistake - it's not.

I miswrote. I meant to write that I'm still rated an expert shot and that I still keep in practice with an AR 15. Sorry - my hands got ahead of my head or visa versa.

I hope that clears it up.

[Marengo]

72. Rated as an expert by who?

An honest question, as I discern from your post you are no longer a law enforcement officer. What entity continues to measure your proficiency with sniper weapons? What other sniper weapons have you had experience with?

[MedicalAdmin]

81. I'm still reserve. So by the same SOB former SAS trainer who used to certify me.

[Marengo]

82. SAS=Special Air Service? If so, you're fortunate. N/T

[MedicalAdmin]

85. Yes - I have been lucky.

Although lately it feels like my luck is running out.

[pipoman]

79. You do realize that there are already limits, no?

These limits such as the NFA, the 1986 expansion, the brady law which brought us NICS background checks, and others were/are ALL supported by that evil NRA. There are few here who oppose existing regulations. Machine guns can and are legally owned. When is the last time you can find anyone actually using a machine gun in a crime in the US?

[WheelWalker]

27. Talk about a specious argument.

[MedicalAdmin]

34. That's all ya got?

C'mon - take a minute and type out why. I promise I won't shoot while I wait.

[WheelWalker]

39. Those with eyes have not the vision to see.

Blessings.

[PavePusher]

42. But we have ears to hear...

so please, speak...

[MedicalAdmin]

51. So you either have nothing or...

... what? You don't want to answer? You have no clue? You're dyslexic and typing causes too much stress?

Feel free to engage in conversation and feel free to back up or explain your points. Or at least admit that ya got nothin to contribute or just don't want to bother.

[PavePusher]

40. If a weapon is not used in criminal action....

it can not be detrimental.

Ban criminals, at least then you'd be on the right track.

[MedicalAdmin]

55. Ban criminals?

What does a criminal look like? How do we identify them? Isn't it enough to make personal actions criminal?

Canada has more weapons per capita than the US (last time I checked) but they don't have our gun violence issues. Why?

[krispos42]

45. So the point of gun control is not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

Okay, then what is the point of gun control? To keep guns out of the hands of the victims?


"The point is to make it criminal to have or use weapons that society agrees are detrimental."


Ah, okay. So then "society", or more exactly, society's representatives, decide that people should not have weapons because it is detrimental. So, they're not going to allow guns to be sold or owned by citizens.

Even though it's not going to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, who are by definition people that commit criminal acts.


So then... how is this fixing a situation that is detrimental?




Answer: Yemen, I think.

[WatsonT]

2. I suppose they could have stricter gun laws

like Mexico or Colombia.

And then they would be safer. . .

[pintobean]

3. .

:rofl:

[villager]

10. Mexico's gun wielders are safe -- they can keep the inflow from the US

...going, so no worries about being left high and dry when you want to massacre someone! :thumbsup:

[gejohnston]

19. Actually

the drug cartels are getting theirs from the southern border and overseas. Even if that were true, how does it explain that in 2010 El Paso had two murders while Cuidad Juarez had 126?

http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/03/09MONTERREY100.html

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

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

[villager]

38. well, you're right -- even if Obama's "90%' figure isn't true, it may be that "merely" 36% or so

...come from the U.S.:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

[rl6214]

44. And how many of those 36% were condoned by the ATF

[gejohnston]

48. That said

I lean towards Stratfor and Wikileaks. While Fact Check does a fairly good job, is their raw data that good? I lean towards my sources when it comes to drug cartels. Wikileaks dumps are primary source documents and stratfor operates like an intelligence service with no advertisers to please.
There are some questions I think a they missed:
1-The ATF said various sources, what does that mean? Theft? Dirty wholesalers? Straw purchases?
2-What does "traced back to the US" mean? any of the above or manufactured? Any of the M-16s from Vietnam or stolen from their own military will be traced back to the US.
3-Fact check uses the words "crime scene", then fact check and stratfor could be talking about two different things. Stratfor and Wikileaks concentrated on the drug cartels, fact check implied that it is also talking about common street crime. In that case, both of our sources could be accurate.
4-Just for my own curiosity, how many of our guns going south are being bought by otherwise law abiding Mexicans to defend themselves against the drug gangs and their bought and paid for police vs the bad guys.

[WatsonT]

49. Not that canard again

90% of those documented is not the same as 90%. Nor can we draw any conclusions without knowing how many were documented.

It could be anywhere from 100% to a fraction of a percent.

And considering we are their neighbor and share a thousand mile long completely open border if it's anything less than 90% of the total that's fairly impressive. Which obviously it is.

I wonder how many of those 90% came from the ATF?

[provis99]

17. or they could have stricter gun laws like Canada and Britain

and be safer.

[gejohnston]

20. they do

Their laws are stricter than Canada's.

[LAGC]

46. I don't think you want to use Britain as an example.

Their violent crime rate is out of control!

[Euromutt]

47. What makes you think UK gun laws have ANY effect on firearm crime?

The highest recorded rates of firearm crime in the UK have been seen in the past 15 years, after the most recent tightening of the gun control laws. There is no discernible consistent correlation between the stringency of gun control laws and violent crime. What might help Brazilians be safer like Canada and Britain is not bordering on Colombia, Peru and Bolivia and being a major conduit for the cocaine trade. Or have less socio-economic inequality, which is what lures the poor into the drugs trade, just like it does in inner cities here in the United States.

[upi402]

4. Look at the posts above me. They prove Michael Moore is wrong!

Just look at their evidence! The soundness of their premises... rock solid conclusions!
:sarcasm:

[pintobean]

7. Here. This may help put things in perspective.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. and some rose-colored glasses too

[pintobean]

16. Nice accessorizing

[FBaggins]

5. Is there some reason that a six year old story is relevant today?

Has the ban proposal been presented again or is there more recent polling?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. There was a school shooting in Brazil

some former student killed 10 or 11, then himself.

NRA made him do it.

[gejohnston]

22. I always thought

That liberals were for the populist, the grassroots, the working folks against the elites? Why do some liberals throw the concept out of the window on this subject? In fact, the only anti-RKBA liberals I find are the "professional left", no one I know. Love them or hate them, the NRA is pretty grassroots with four million members and the support of most of the US. Brady et al on the other hand, very astroturf made up of a few elites and celebrities, many from the right? According to the article, crimes being committed guns that are not legally owned and with weapons already banned. That means that the crimes are not being committed by the target shooters or collectors the law would affect. Law abiding gun owners, like everyone else, have the right to defend their interests against being scapegoated for crimes being committed by others do they not?
If it is something for Brazilians to decide, then Brazilians should have real empirical facts to decide for themselves. The article writer did not seem to have a problem with a British organization showing up and putting it on the ballot, but wrong for the most affected group to ask the NRA to help in their defense?
Sorry, wrong is wrong, and hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter who does it.

[hack89]

6. Brazil has very strict gun control laws - they also have a lot of criminals

Because of gun politics in Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25<1> and although it is legal to carry a gun outside a residence, extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit.<2> To legally own a gun, the owner must pay a tax every three years to register the gun, currently at R$ 60,<3> and registration can be done via the Internet or in person with the Federal Police.

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

[Rebubula]

9. Jebus Christ

What a load of shit.

Brazil is 5 times more violent than the US. They have an epic pipeline of guns thanks to 150 years of South American revolutions.

The NRA is no more responsible for these killings than The asshole Terry Jones is responsible for the assholes that killed the UN (or whatever NGO they were from) employees a week or so ago.

[DonP]

11. IANSA = Good? NRA = Bad? WTF

So it's a good thing that over 5 years ago IANSA was pushing for more restrictive gun laws, that of course will have zero impact on the criminals, but a horrible thing that Brazil's pro self defense people copied NRA strategies.

IANSA, like the Brady bunch have fallen on hard times.

You folks that think they are a good thing need to write some checks to help those poor folk out before they have to have another round of layoffs. Hell, Brady is down to a small handful of employees and no members anymore since they started selling their "list".

OTOH, NRA is around 4.5 million dues paying members.

[Remmah2]

15. List of school-related attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks

[spin]

23. It is quite possible that if we allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed ...

in schools and on college campuses the number of school shootings by deranged individuals would decrease.

Since schools are "no-gun" areas, mass murderers view them as shooting galleries. Such areas offer a shooter the opportunity to rack up a high score before he is stopped. If he knew that he faced a good chance of encountering another armed individual, he might decide to attack another location or might not strike at all.

Realistically it's difficult to stop a person with a severe mental illness filled with anger toward society from launching an attack. We can do better in our efforts to detect and treat such illness and we can make it more difficult for an individual who has been adjudged of having such an illness from buying firearms.

Of course a firearm is not necessary for a school massacre.

Bath School disaster

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 primary school children, two teachers, four other adults and the bomber himself; at least 58 people were injured. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, aged 55, who was ostensibly upset by a property tax levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack. He died in the bombing.emphasis added

On the morning of May 18, Kehoe murdered his wife, then set his farm buildings afire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many schoolchildren. He used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, and killing and injuring several others. During rescue efforts searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol planted throughout the basement of the school's south wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[rl6214]

24. Saw quite a few with swords, knives, clubs and explosives

Maybe we should ban all those things too.

[aikoaiko]

21. I'm proud of Brazilians for voting the way they wish and ignoring the UN/IANSA.

Brazilian Taurus Tracker

[lawodevolution]

25. Civilian gun possession rate in Brazil is 8.0 per 100, in the US it is 90.0 per 100

The difference in gun possession rate is extreme with more than ten times more guns in the USA. Based on gun control logic which nation should have a higher crime rate?

[Rebubula]

26. Hold the phone...

...are you suggesting that 9 out of 10 Americans possess firearms???

I think a citation is needed here...

[rl6214]

28. Here ya go

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

[petronius]

29. It's guns per person, not gun-owners overall

So if 1 person owns 90 guns, and 99 people each own zero, that's 90 guns per hundred people...

[lawodevolution]

30. No there are 90 guns per 100 people in the US, 8.0 per 100 people in brazil

It does not connect the guns to individuals. Some people own one gun and some own five. Nevertheless if you live in a community of 100,000 people in the USA there are going to be 90,000 guns there. In brazil a community of 100,000 people will have 8,000 guns there.

If you think more guns equals more violence, which country should be more violent, USA or brazil?

[spin]

31. 64% of the voters in Brazil were NOT in favor of a gun ban ...

The chances of a gun ban ever passing in the United States which has a higher percentage of gun owners than Brazil are extremely low.

Sometimes I suspect the NRA gets far more credit than it deserves for the fact that people refuse to vote for draconian gun laws. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that criminals by definition do not obey laws, consequently they would still have guns after all the honest citizens were disarmed. The criminals would use their illegal guns and the fact that the average citizen was disarmed to rape and pillage with little to deter them.

The NRA is definitely good at utilizing logic, commonsense and statistics to back up their views on gun control. Voters are far smarter than the people who oppose gun ownership believe. Voters will agree that many times firearms do cause tragedies but they also realize that banning firearms or restricting firearm ownership to only those who are wealthy, famous or well connected will not necessarily reduce the number of those tragedies. Disarming citizens who are honest, responsible and sane may, in fact, increase the occurrence of such tragedies.

[DissedByBush]

36. Those semi-autos with high-capacity magazines are dangerous!

Obviously that's what enabled him to kill so many people.

Oh wait, he used revolvers.

[pipoman]

80. Yeah, total bans have worked out real well in Mexico and other

places which have enacted them, huh?

[Callisto32]

83. Srsly.

:wtf:

[WatsonT]

93. So domestic pro-rights organizations asked for the NRA to help

the NRA didn't go there just for fun, they were asked to support the rights of the people and complied.

How horrible.

:sarcasm: