Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The NRA Takes on Gun Control -- in Brazil

By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted October 25, 2005.


The defeat of a historic referendum to ban guns in South America's largest country has the American pro-gun group's fingerprints all over it.
The NRA Takes on Gun Control -- in Brazil
The NRA Takes on Gun Control -- in Brazil
Advertisement

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.

An estimated 122 million citizens took part in the referendum -- the first of its kind in the world -- and preliminary counts showed 64 percent went against the ban while 36 percent backed it. The referendum -- which asked the simple question "Should the commercial sale of guns and ammunition to civilians be prohibited?" -- divided the country, a world leader in gun deaths, into "não" and "sim" camps.

Two months ago, polls showed 60 to 80 percent of Brazilians favored the ban as a way to control the estimated 17 million small arms that are circulating in the country. But as the vote neared, and as both sides of the issue were given free television time, a slick media blitz by the gun lobby appears to have shifted enough voter opinion.

"The 'no' vote shows that the gun lobby successfully used its power and wealth to play on Brazilians' fear and lack of confidence in the state's ability to provide security," said Jessica Galeria of Viva Rio, a Brazilian gun control group. "But the results of the referendum don't mean that Brazil believes having more guns will bring peace. We will keep fighting for full implementation of the good gun laws introduced in 2003, which saved 3,234 lives the following year."

Some 39,000 Brazilians lost their lives to guns in 2003, according to the United Nations, which also says 500,000 Brazilians died from arms between 1979 and 2003. Like other Latin American nations where weak gun laws and sporadic enforcement are problems, Brazil also has porous borders, especially the Triple Border area, a widely recognized hub of contraband located at the border intersection of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. That helps explain how in Rio de Janeiro, for example, the gun death rate among young people is 239 per 100,000 residents, twenty times more than America and 2,000 times greater than Japan's, according to IANSA.

Brazil's gun control laws are already strict. In 2003, lawmakers passed a landmark law that, among other things, dramatically restricted gun sales and outlawed the carrying of guns by civilians. The Disarmament Statute of 2003, which also mandated yesterday's referendum, caused a 13 percent drop in gun deaths last year, according to Brazilian government statistics. For his part, President Lula da Silva supported the ban but his Vice President and Minister of Defense José Alentar did not. Speaking to local media in early October, Alentar said he opposed the ban "because he is in favor of liberty" and that a prohibition would only "encourage bandits" who "will always be armed."

Shady Campaigning

Activists groups such as the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a UK-based global network consisting of more than 700 gun control groups, were hoping for a "yes" vote in part for the momentum it would give movements in other countries. But in the end they could not match the gun industry's money and what some critics are calling shady campaign tactics.

During the last decade, Brazil's wealthy but then-disorganized gun lobby was outmaneuvered by grassroots groups such as Viva Rio in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo's Sou da Paz, and the Brasilia-based Convive. As Congress addressed the 2003 bill, which had evolved from an earlier bill in 1997, activists organized marches and lobbied lawmakers. One march in Rio de Janeiro drew 50,000 people in support of the Disarmament Statute in Rio de Janeiro, according to IANSA and a popular television show plugged the debate into one of its episodes.

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.

Some campaign materials also relied on other brands of fear mongering. One pamphlet, described by Reuters, featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute in an effort to link the dangers of disarmament with Nazism. One particularly controversial tactic was unveiled last week. In one opposition commercial that aired in early October, the gun lobby inappropriately linked the image of Nelson Mandela, a gun control supporter, with its cause. The commercial at one point showed a newspaper photograph of Mr. Mandela on an earlier trip to São Paulo, raising his hand in solidarity. A voiceover said, "Nelson Mandela came out of prison to fight against apartheid and free the blacks in South Africa."


Digg!

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who lives in Washington DC and Latin America. His work has appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, American Prospect, and other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Gordon T.
Posted by: GT007 on Oct 25, 2005 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Similar gun bans have been instituted in Australia and Britain. Law abiding citizens have been stripped of their ability to protect themselves, and crime has skyrocketed. Criminals will always be able to acquire guns--this is the unfortunate truth. We should focus on harsher punishments for criminals instead of punishing law abiding people with restrictive legislation. As an active member of the NRA, I dedicate my time and effort to helping preserve our freedom and safety.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gordon T. Posted by: Presh
» RE: Gordon T. Posted by: rwmoyers
» RE: Gordon T. - just FUD from the NRA Posted by: thebigchuckster
» RE: Gordon T. Posted by: Derren
South America
Posted by: Louisa on Oct 25, 2005 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My parents were tortured in a South American country (the country of their birth and which I shall refrain from naming). That's not a pretty thought. My mother lived in a small cramped cell in almost total darkness for two weeks, stewing in her own juices (if you take my meaning). My father was actually violently tortured on a split-rack and with electrodes hooked up to his genitals. If you know anything about these kinds of political moves, the point is to make an example of the person in question and let others know that it could happen to them. My parents do not seem to suffer any significant lasting effects from those times - but who can say truly if it is so?

So here I am, born and raised in the United States. A citizen by birthright. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, where might makes right - especially if you are a corporation with the right political connections. And the right amount of money has long meant the right kinds of connections, right?

And yes, I am a progressive. Formerly a liberal. And many of my votes go to democrats for a variety of reasons. All sad but true. I guess I like to throw my votes away on bleeding heart type causes...

200+ years ago the Founders of this potentially great nation thought that gun ownership was a pretty important right. Before them, the keeping and bearing of arms was considered both a right and a duty. And you know how it is - the more things change, the more they stay the same. It is in reading the works of Thom. Jefferson that I most regularly find striking parallels from his times to my own.

So really - don't talk to me about gun control when the U.S. can but barely think of itself as one of the forward thinking nations of what we call the "western world." Don't talk to me about gun control when ours is the single most aggressive nation on earth at this time. Don't talk to me about gun control while those in power are trying to subvert our fundamental liberties in a bid for empire.

Truly, just don't.

When they come for my family in the middle of the night with their death/rape/torture squads, I already know how I will answer them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Won't work Posted by: Allison
» RE: Won't work Posted by: Louisa
» RE: Won't work Posted by: Allison
» RE: Won't work Posted by: Louisa
» RE: Won't work Posted by: papibear
» RE: Won't work Posted by: Doug1956
» RE: Won't work Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Won't work Posted by: driver8
» RE: Won't work Posted by: maxpayne
» It takes one such as yourself Posted by: popsicle67
It was a mistake to put a ballot initiative on the ban of gun sales in the first place
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 25, 2005 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the politicians were truly willing to stand up for the politicians and not be using their positions for personal ambitions or political expediency, they wouldn't have allowed the gun lobby to rig the ballots. Brazil is still a third world country at large and the mess it is in serves as a strong warning to America that politicians in states like CA, VA, and others who misuse the power of ballot initiatives to shirk responsibility that voters trusted them with are no better than killers and terrorists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Statistics, Bias and "The Truth"
Posted by: dbatterman on Oct 25, 2005 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it is true that a lot of gun owners get their information from pro-gun sources, what makes anyone think that the anti-gun sources are any more accurate? When issues are divided into cut-and-dry, one-side-or-the-other lines, then propoganda comes out on both sides.
Personally, I grew up around guns and have no problem with their private ownership. I think that the laws we have on the books now are adequate if they are enforced. The statistics being thrown around on both sides of this arguement are arbitrary and usually suspect. Let's use common sense, instead of repeating whichever camp's information we happen to read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: retroactive law Posted by: Swatopluk
Well Armed Populace...
Posted by: JessicaJean on Oct 25, 2005 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the Brazilian people didn't want to make it illegal for themselves to own guns BECAUSE of the fact that there are so many gun crimes. I'd probably want a way to protect myself too when the government is apparently incapable of doing so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why gun bans are bad.
Posted by: esactun on Oct 25, 2005 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a lefty. I have no problem with sensible gun regulation. But bans are bad. Especially today, with an incipient fascism on the rise in America, an armed populace would act as another check and balance against the government when the real repression comes down the pike.

The Second Amendment is not just about defense against invaders and criminals. It's also about defense against authoritarians in government running amok.

That's where the Nazi part of NRA-type ads come in. It's well known that Hitler did indeed disarm the German populace prior to the Nazi Party's complete domination of German life. It would have been a bit more difficult to gain that sort of iron grip on the country if there were armed patriots around, instead of defenseless folks being harassed by Brown Shirts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The old Nazi lie Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: The old Nazi lie Posted by: marvin_jordan
» RE: The old Nazi lie Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: The old Nazi lie continued Posted by: Swatopluk
A complicated situation
Posted by: jstrong on Oct 25, 2005 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although an avid AlterNet reader, I don't usually join the conversation. This time I am going to.
I've spent a considerable amount of time in Brasil; I've lived there for 1.5 years since 2002. I spent one year in Rio and six months in Salvador. During those 18 months I occupied my time studying at a university and volunteering which led me to a full-time field study. My point in giving this background is to ensure you that I have had some interesting experiences there that run the full gammut, which is why I try to refrain from simplifying complex situations.
Brasil is not a third-world country, but a developing nation and the triumphs and tribulations of it's government can only be likened to the mood swings of a teenage girl. Last year, for example, in a moment of triumph they implemented a program to collect firearms and the response was overwhelming. The incentive for the public was cash--citizens were paid, if I remember correctly, anywhere from R$100 to R$300 per surrendered firearm. However, the same government capable of executing programs such as the one cited above, has recently been wrought in scandal and charges of corruption.
The solution to the violence the author refers to in the article is not as simple as banning firearms. The source of the violence is the ego-battering despair and struggle of an impoverished life which after time only serves to devalue life; death becomes routine--the corner store, a cup of coffee, the morning paper. Desperate times call for desperate measures which is why criminals will alwasy have access to weapons. It's as simple as finding a police officer who has one too many mouths to feed. I'm not knocking the government for trying, but I'm also not placing a lot of faith in banning the sale of guns to restrict violence. I think a better quality of life is the first step in rectifying the situation.
So, if the measure had passed would it make a difference? Yes, it would set an example for the rest of the world, improving Brasil's world public image as a peace negotiator: the anti-U.S.A. I love their historic defiance of "the superpower" (standing up against the FTAA). But the fact that the NRA may have influenced the campaign does not bother me, I honestly doubt that it would have passed--the gun-holding elite can be a pretty powerful force on their own. But keep your eye on Brasil, despite the incidences corruption, they really know what democracy is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People killed each other long before we had guns.
Posted by: stoney13 on Oct 25, 2005 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate what George Bush has done to this country! I used to be a Republican. The reason why, was the stand on guns.

I own four guns which I keep loaded, and close to my bed. I check and service them every day. I learned at a very young age what guns are for and what they do. I have no misconceptions on a bullet's effect on the human body. God help me I Know all to well!

My sixteen year old son wants nothing to do with guns. He won't go anywhere around me when I'm target-shooting. Why? It's just something he's not into. I respect his choice. He respects mine. That's what makes us family.

I've never been a member of the NRA. All they seem to do is sell the Repblicans. I'm not into that shit!!

I've never hunted in my life either. I have tame deer at my house that will come right up and let you pet them. I have raccoons who will climb right up into my lap to get their ears scratched. They know they are safe here. The hunters here respect my "No Hunting" signs. That means more to me than all the meat in the world!

I am not a vegatarian. I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat sprouts. If you did, I respect that. Free range beef tastes mighty good to me, though!

Point is, people were killing each other long befor we had guns! People are still killing each other. That's why I own guns. I pray I'll never have to use them, but if I do, I am well-skilled in their use.

I'ld rather be tried by twelve than caried by six! I can't make the world a place where everybody is safe. I tried that as a US Navy SEAL. It didn't work and the experience left me jaded and bitter for a long time. If my neighbor is being targeted by violence, I will go to his aid. My guns will go with me. I don't want to kill your children, rob your bank, or disturb the peace.

All this anti-gun business is doing is driving gun owners into the waiting arms of the Republicans. We need to drop it. There's not one of you out there who can say that if your family was being attacked that you wouldn't want my guns and I on your side.

The final reason I own guns is that flowers and fliers have no effect on tyrany and tanks. China taught us that! I hate it, but it's true. You say that sort of thing couldn't happen in America? I'm half Cherokee. It already has!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NRA Member- Jeffersonian Democrat
Posted by: driver8 on Oct 25, 2005 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the Declaration of Independence and that is Jeffersonian Democracy, many of the complaints Jefferson raises could be raised again today towards Corporate Tyranny. I applaud the NRA if in fact they had a role in derating this BAN on small arms. Banning something as we know from prohibition, the drug war and the like- increase value, decreases quality, creates illegal markets, and limits access to otherwise law-abiding citizens. Wake-up. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is our second amendment. notice in a "FREE" state. I intend to stay free and I don't have to go to Iraq to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And one more thing, it's not the money but framing and populism that determines the winner
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 25, 2005 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had the gun control advocates realized this, our country and even Brazil and others to come wouldn't be saturated with pro-terrorist NRAs already. Money alone didn't help the NRA. The gun control advocates allowed the NRA to frame them as villians against guns without specifics and defining purposes. Moreover, the wording of the question on the ballot itself sounded too extreme to begin with.

If we're going to help other countries battle gun crime, we need to fix ours first and some people on the left who keep complaining that we should just drop the gun issue should first drop their own cowardice and inject a strong dosage of courage to stand up for what's true and best for all.

Also, if any Democrat tells you that he or she will focus on economic issues after Roe v Wade is overturned or after all the gun laws are loosened, chances are they have no real intention of addressing the economic damages they allowed the GOP to inflict on this country in the first place. Time to tear down and repair our two corrupt parties vote after vote if our country is to recover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well regulated militia, anyone?
Posted by: mspark on Oct 25, 2005 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who's up for a "well regulated militia" to provide a counterbalance to an out of control executive at the national level, prison industrial complex in every state, and unaccountable cops in our cities?

The era of gun control in California was started by Ronald Reagan once armed negroes began to follow cops to be sure they were doing their job, not a job on their communities. The Black Panthers created a militia to protect their communities, and the right wing responded with gun control.

The power of the state is almost absolute, and we need to rebalance that power in our favor. Disarmament, which might have worked to end the cold war, is not the way to accomplish that, because we are already a nation occupied by and trapped in a web of corrupt political, military and economic structures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People have killed each other long before guns, guns just make it easier!
Posted by: texshelters on Oct 25, 2005 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Killing is good; we need to kill! Guns are the best way to do it! Only real men want guns, cause we know that 4 phalli are better than one! I love holding it and stroking it and rubbing it and polishing it!

What a bunch of cowards gun owners are. Life is too short to live in fear. Drop the gun (which will just as likely kill you in your home as protect you) and get off to therapy.

Yours,
Tex

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice framing Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Nice framing Posted by: Person
» RE: Nice framing Posted by: stoney13
» RE: Nice framing Posted by: stfuidiotliberal
Arrogance and elitist attitudes of anti-gun groups revealed again
Posted by: cjohnson on Oct 25, 2005 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anti-gun groups always seem to feel that citizens are 'tricked' by groups like the NRA. Maybe these social engineers would be more at home in a society where their elitist 'expert' friends ruled the country. Clearly they are not comfortable in a democracy where everybody gets a say and has a vote.

Are guns dangerous? They can be in the wrong hands. Are people like this dangerous? Always.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But you forgot one thing Posted by: maxpayne
Rational Logic
Posted by: thehousedog on Oct 25, 2005 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually agree with the logic expressed here in the original post. It sort of goes well with this logic here: dumb people will always vote republican - criminals will always find a way to get guns - both the same, right? thought so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rational Logic Posted by: cjohnson
» RE: ational Logic Posted by: maxpayne
Guns & Society
Posted by: decembrist on Oct 26, 2005 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gun control debate has devolved from essential points into meaningless drivel.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE -
Guns make it EASIER to kill people, make it EASIER to threaten people, make it EASIER to make people do what you want, and make it EASIER to keep people in a fearful state.

Controlling guns has to do with the point that it makes all these things EASIER. Controlling guns has not much to do with eradicating crime, but making it less easy to commit and less lethal when it is.
Criminals are emboldened with a gun in their hand.

PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS KILLED, WITH A CLUB OR A GUN IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE -
True, it makes no difference to the murdered whether killed with a gun or a club. BUT GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK - do our armies wield clubs or guns? Why do they wield guns? Because they are much more LETHAL - they kill with greater ease. Could Dylan Klebold slaughter as many students as he did with a club, or a knife, or even a sword? no...

Gun Control is about reigning in the ease that they afford the killer, or criminal.

GUN CONTROL LIMITS CITIZENS ABILITY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM OTHERS WITH GUNS -
How many times has an armed person protected themself from an armed attacker or criminal? Rarely... Two guns merely escalates what might have been a non-violent armed encounter into a gun battle. Have armed people thwarted more armed attackers than the number of children who've accidentally shot themself with a loaded gun? I doubt it.

ARMED CITIZENS ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT IN CHECK -
This proves that the NRA and gun owners who use this argument don't believe or have any faith in society. Without faith in a democratic society we have a crippled nation. To use this argument signifies an inherent distrust in our nation's ability to democratically solve differences... and hampers our ability to do so.

Lay down your weapons, stop voting like guns are all that matters, and become trusting citizens with a desire for true democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Guns & Society Posted by: maxpayne
Very Enlightning
Posted by: marvin_jordan on Oct 26, 2005 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading the comments so far is very enlightning. I have never seen so many misinformed people. I have seen everything from bashing the current President to spreading unverifiable myths.
The truth is that people in all political parties support both sides of the gun control argument. That is why everyone needs to be informed about what topics they are interested in and what thier politicians stand for. As for bringing up algore (lower case intentional), he is a twit. He supported guns on the state level and than turned anti-gun on the national level.

The truth about gun usage is very rarely told in the U.S. press or international press and when it is it is usually negative. Very rarely is an impartial report given. If you whant the truth you have to dig it out yourself.
The only truths I have seen here are the criminals that want guns will get them. That most liberals (or some so called progressives) are more predudiced than they realize. They are so blinded by thier views they refuse to even listen to any one else. That goes for the far right as well. The Brits are not getting the truth about what gun control is doing to thier country (note: widespread use of guns by their police was not nesseccary until they banned private guns).
Now I know I will be called a wacko by the far Left, but the truth is I have served my country to the best of my ability for over 25 years and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. Even after I retire from Government service in a few years.
Remember, keep it real amd look at ALL the facts, not just what people what people want you to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very Enlightning Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Very Enlightning Posted by: marvin_jordan
» RE: Very Enlightning Posted by: maxpayne
gun control is good - as long as not overdone
Posted by: nzdexter on Oct 27, 2005 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi,

although I own guns, you could hardly call me a gun nut. I come home from outdoor activities, I lock my guns away, end of the story. I certainly do not keep a loaded firearm in my house, since chance of a mishap is much more likely than an armed robber sneaking in at night (well, I live in a "civilized" country, where these events are indeed rare). If you are afraid of something like that to happen, buy yourself a cricket or baseball bat.

I have experienced gun control in two countries I have lived in, Germany and New Zealand. The results of gun control in both countries are comparable - you actually don't have to be afraid of dying from guns in both countries (though it certainly happens). Criminals are more likely to use fake guns or knives. The difference is in the harshness of the gun laws. In Germany, you have to register and deregister every of your firearms - involves a lot of costs and hassles. You're not allowed to leave your unloaded rifle in a locked car while stopping to buy groceries on the way to the rifle range etc - not even in a built in gunsafe (reasoning: the car might be stolen). Over the last couple of years, it has almost (and at some stages, in fact) been impossible to get official permission to buy yourself a new gun - even for registered and regularly background checked sportsmen! While I definitely see the good point of having a thorough background check on someone buying his first firearm, legislation in Germany is well beyond reason today.

The second, and in my opinion much better example, is in New Zealand, where I live right now. Getting a license here is quite easy, but police inspectors will come around and ask your partner if they would be afraid of a gun in the house, and they check for safe storage facilities, too. You have to listen to a safety lecture, pass a simple multiple choice test (very reasonable), that's it. Afterwards, you can go ahead and buy and use firearms (within the legal boundaries) with no hassle at all. You commit a crime with it, your license is revoked, that's it.

My point being: control firearms ownership, it prevents criminals and mentally fragile people from getting easy access to firearms (though we all know we can't control them 100%). Background checks, safety lectures and safe firearm storage should be mandatory. However, once a sportsman has proven he's sincere and law-abiding, the fuss has to stop.

Peter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns vs. courage
Posted by: NDnative on Oct 28, 2005 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Courage is when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what" Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. "Real courage" is when you fight for what is right regardless of whether you win or lose.

Staunch pro-gunners could learn from Atticus Finch once in a while

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]