Brazilians reject gun ban referendum.

[Ranb]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/10/23/brazil.gun.referendum.ap/index.html

From the above link, "The whole campaign (against the ban) was imported from the United States. They just translated a lot of material from the NRA," said Jessica Galeria, a Californian who researches gun violence with the Viva Rio think tank, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Now, a lot of Brazilians are insisting on their right to bear arms, they don't even have a pseudo right to bear arms. It's not in their Constitution."

Never mind about whether or not you think this referendum should have passed. It is strange that a Californian is so concerned about what rights Brazilians may or may not have. So just what rights do Brazilians have anyway? If it is not in the Constitution or granted by law, then they do that certain right? Or can they do anything not forbidden by law? Thanks.

Ranb

 

[Euromutt]

It is strange that a Californian is so concerned about what rights Brazilians may or may not have.

I don't think Galeria is particularly concerned with the contents of the Brazilian constitution; her point is that the "Não" campaign's references to a right which is not enumerated in the Brazilian constitution (but is enumerated in the American constitution) indicates that the campaign's material was lifted straight from the NRA. Given the quote from the NRA's spokesperson later in the article, one might suspect the NRA was only too happy to help out. Speaking of which:

"The aim of this gun ban movement was to use Brazil as the rallying point to enact gun bans in the United States."

Say what? The aim of this gun ban was to get the homicide rate down in Brazil. It's all very well going "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" but reality is not always that simple. As this article in The Economist points out, the most common type of murder by firearm in Brazil is committed by ordinary people who kill on impulse. Moreover, the article notes, 61% of guns seized from criminals in Rio de Janeiro proved to have belonged to ordinary citizens previously. So there is actually a valid argument to be made that clamping down on private ownership of firearms in Brazil would make a dent in the crime figures, both directly and indirectly.

 

[Leif Roar]

It is strange that a Californian is so concerned about what rights Brazilians may or may not have.

It is perhaps less strange that a "researcher on gun violence with the Viva Rio think tank" has knowledge about Brazilian gun legislation and what constitutional foundation this has.

 

[Kerberos]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/10/23/brazil.gun.referendum.ap/index.html

From the above link, "The whole campaign (against the ban) was imported from the United States. They just translated a lot of material from the NRA," said Jessica Galeria, a Californian who researches gun violence with the Viva Rio think tank, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Now, a lot of Brazilians are insisting on their right to bear arms, they don't even have a pseudo right to bear arms. It's not in their Constitution."

Never mind about whether or not you think this referendum should have passed. It is strange that a Californian is so concerned about what rights Brazilians may or may not have. So just what rights do Brazilians have anyway? If it is not in the Constitution or granted by law, then they do that certain right? Or can they do anything not forbidden by law? Thanks.

Ranb

I strongly suspect they can do anything that's not illegal. The word "right" is however frequently used somewhat stronger than just something you're allowed to, like for exampel something that's protected in the constitution, in some human rights proclamation or is otherwise regarded as especially basic and important. I suspect that this is what Galeria means, they're allowed to have guns since it's not illegal, but they do not have a "Right" to have guns.

 

[CFLarsen]

It seems that having a lot of guns around lowers the number of people shot dead from guns.

..........waaaaaaaaaait........

 

[Art Vandelay]

Would this logic apply to other parts of the US Constitution, too? If a country has no constitutional protection of speech, does that make censorship okay? Perhaps the rule is that rights espoused by liberals are universal, while those espoused by conservatives depend on the whim of the local government.

It seems that having a lot of guns around lowers the number of people shot dead from guns.

..........waaaaaaaaaait........

Worked for nukes.

 

[Zep]

In Australia, we have no "rights" to free speech OR to guns. Neither are mentioned in our constitution one way or another. And yet...we seem to have more than sufficient freedom to speak our minds (e.g. less censorship on TV), and our gun-kill/harm rate is way lower than the USA.

Something doesn't add up... Without these "rights", it appears we should be completely muffled by our evil oppressive gubmint, and fearful of being on our streets due to hordes of criminals with guns. But I have no idea why that just isn't so...!

 

[Leif Roar]

Would this logic apply to other parts of the US Constitution, too? If a country has no constitutional protection of speech, does that make censorship okay? Perhaps the rule is that rights espoused by liberals are universal, while those espoused by conservatives depend on the whim of the local government.

We distinguish between "rights" and "human rights." "Human rights" are considered to be universal and inalienable, whereas rights in general can be limited and pursuant to conditions. For instance, the Norwegian allmannaretten (the right to move freely on non-cultivated land) is limited to Norwegian citizens and Norwegian ground. It is not a universal human right, and as such as no relevance to, for instance, US citizens or to Norwegian citizens hiking in Canada.

As to your question, yes, this logic would apply to other parts of the US constitution as well, except those parts of it that deals with human rights. The "right to bear arms" is not normally considered to be a human right (and is not presented as such in the US constitution either.)

 

[Darat]

We distinguish between "rights" and "human rights." "Human rights" are considered to be universal and inalienable, whereas rights in general can be limited and pursuant to conditions. ...snip...

But even "human rights" are only what people claim them to be and all the reasoning for claiming certain rights to be "universal human rights" boils down to "because we want them to be rights".

 

[Ranb]

I was hoping to get comments from a few Brazil residents. Anyone? Thanks.

Ranb

 

[Leif Roar]

But even "human rights" are only what people claim them to be and all the reasoning for claiming certain rights to be "universal human rights" boils down to "because we want them to be rights".

Well, there are two different views on that. One is that there isn't really any qualitative difference between human rights and other rights, and that any right is only universal in so far as they're universally accepted.

The other is that there are "real" human rights, and that these are -- for some philosophical or religious reason -- qualitatively different from other rights. On this background it's not a matter of accepting these rights, but of recognising these right as fundamental human rights and of realising the difference between these rights and other, non-universal rights.

Personally I hold the second view; although more from aesthetic reasons than any deep philosophic thought.

 

[CFLarsen]

Worked for nukes.

Let's all get nukes, then.

 

[Euromutt]

In Australia, we have no "rights" to free speech OR to guns. Neither are mentioned in our constitution one way or another.

Actually, you do have the right to freedom of speech. The right to freedom of expression is enumerated in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international treaty to which Australia is party.

Regarding the presence of guns in private hands and the homicide rate, the evidence indicates that in the case of Brazil, more guns means more corpses. As I stated previously, a plurality of homicides by firearm in Brazil are committed by ordinary citizens killing on impulse, the majority of guns seized from criminals were acquired from ordinary citizens, and in addition, the number of firearm deaths in Brazil has started dropping (at long last) since the government started cracking down on gun ownership. I can see the "Não" campaign's point that you can't trust the Brazilian cops to protect you, but if you're negligent about securing your firearms and allow criminals to steal them, or use them to shoot a neighbor at whom you've gotten pissed off, you're helping to increase crime, not curb it.

 

[LuxFerum]

I was hoping to get comments from a few Brazil residents. Anyone? Thanks.

Ranb

Here I am.

Regarding the presence of guns in private hands and the homicide rate, the evidence indicates that in the case of Brazil, more guns means more corpses. As I stated previously, a plurality of homicides by firearm in Brazil are committed by ordinary citizens killing on impulse,

That is not true. That kind of crime is not our biggest problem. And insisting on that was one of the biggest mistakes in the pro ban campaing. We do have a big problem with violence here, and it is not because of ordinary citizens shotting each other.

the majority of guns seized from criminals were acquired from ordinary citizens, and in addition, the number of firearm deaths in Brazil has started dropping (at long last) since the government started cracking down on gun ownership.

That is questionable, after all, all guns were legal some day, but some criminals here have guns that are only allowed for the army, but somehow they still have it.
The number of firearms deaths is not clearly connect with the sell of guns. Since the new laws on gun ownership were declared, the gun sells rate droped 95% in 3 years, but the firearms deaths droped only a little bit.

There are some other things that would really help in reduce violence and firearms deaths. Things like a jails (most of ours are overcrowded), improving the quality of the police that today have a problem with corruption and it is unable to solve most homicides cases, improving the judiciary system ( here you can kill someone, be condemned (if you suck at killing, because most of the killers are never caught) and be back in the streets in 5 years or even less.

Those are things that are visible to all that would really help to improve the security situation here. And what do we get? Some people trying to convince us that the real problem is the citizen who have guns. That is why they have spend more money in this referendum that what they have spended on the police force this year.

Anothe problem is that this referendum was about only the commerce of guns, if you had one before, you would be able to keep it. Even if the yes had won, you would still be able to buy a gun if you could prove that you need it. Security companies would still be able to buy, and the criminals would still be able to get those guns.

As you can see, the approval of the referendum wouldn´t help to solve the situation. It would just give the impression that the government is doing something, but it really isn´t, we need some real solution here, not some expensive ilusion.

 

[CFLarsen]

The number of firearms deaths is not clearly connect with the sell of guns. Since the new laws on gun ownership were declared, the gun sells rate droped 95% in 3 years, but the firearms deaths droped only a little bit.

Got any stats on gun ownership?

 

[LuxFerum]

Got any stats on gun ownership?

I have to say that I posted that one based on my memory, I read that on a magazine, if I find it I will post the source.

But here is some stats that I found online, that will help in getting the big picture.

The statistics about gun ownership in the country are considered imcomplets and not reliable by experts in public safety. There is no official account of the number of guns in the country. There is only some extra-official estimation....


17 million guns in the country
3,5% of the houses have some kind of gun.
443.000 guns were delivered to the governement in a desarmament campaing
8,2% is the drop of deaths by guns in the first year of the campaing
72% of the guns used in crimes between 1999 and 2005 were once property of regular citizens and ended in the hands of criminals.
61% of those guns were bought in stores,33% were registered,39% not, and 28% came from the gun traffic.
29% of registered guns used in crimes were smuggled from the hands of the state (police and army), 65% of the smuggled guns belonged to regular citizens
21,72 deaths by gun for 100.000 people is the mortality rate.
416% is the rise in the number of young people killed by guns between 1979 and 2003.
40.000 die every year by the use of guns in the country.
63,0% of the murders in Brazil are commited with guns

http://veja.abril.com.br/idade/exclusivo/armas_fogo/contexto_armas.html

 

[Beerina]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/10/23/brazil.gun.referendum.ap/index.html

From the above link, "The whole campaign (against the ban) was imported from the United States. They just translated a lot of material from the NRA," said Jessica Galeria, a Californian who researches gun violence with the Viva Rio think tank, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Now, a lot of Brazilians are insisting on their right to bear arms, they don't even have a pseudo right to bear arms. It's not in their Constitution."

Never mind about whether or not you think this referendum should have passed. It is strange that a Californian is so concerned about what rights Brazilians may or may not have. So just what rights do Brazilians have anyway? If it is not in the Constitution or granted by law, then they do that certain right? Or can they do anything not forbidden by law? Thanks.

Ranb

1. She's no less a carpet bagger to Brazil than the other people are.

2. "A pseudo right" -- note the apparent contentedness with rights as derived from a Constitution, or as "granted" to the people by a government, rather than being inalienable. One wonders if she's happy that they have no similar right to, say, abortion.

 

[Beerina]

72% of the guns used in crimes between 1999 and 2005 were once property of regular citizens and ended in the hands of criminals.

I'll bet a similar number for knives.

And TVs. A large percentage of TVs owned by criminals were once the property of regular citizens.

What was the point again?

 

[LuxFerum]

On the right thing; it is not clear in the constitution the right to bear guns, but the right to self-defense is. If the government removes the right to bear guns, it is removing the only thing that make self defense possible, it is almost impossive to defende yourself from someone with a gun without a gun. If the state can not protect you, it should not remove the only thing that could protect you against all sorts of violence.
That is the reason why some people consider the ban on guns to be unconstitutional.

 

[Leif Roar]

it is almost impossive to defende yourself from someone with a gun without a gun.

It's also pretty difficult to defend yourself from someone with heavy artillery without heavy artillery of your own, ergo...