« Epitaphs | Main | Blair's Brownshirts »

Brazil voted against a gun ban

I have been expecting to see more on the Blogosphere about the Brazilian referendum on whether to ban handguns, but I seem to have missed the articles. Before the vote the media seemed to just expect people to "see sense" and vote for a ban - this extract shows that some commentators can't get to grips with the fact that they didn't..

By voting not to ban the sales of guns and ammunition in the referendum held on October 23, Brazilians have condemned thousands of their fellow citizens to death in coming years. Angry husbands will shoot their wives during domestic rows, irate middle-aged men will shoot their teenage neighbors because they are fed up telling them to reduce the volume of their CD players, motorists will shoot other motorists for denting their cars, while physically or mentally handicapped people will kill themselves in moments of despair. The killers and thieves among us will see the vote as a declaration of war and become even more trigger happy. The flow of guns into private hands will continue, enriching arms manufacturers, gun dealers and feeding Brazil's parasitical private security industry. The pro-arms lobby was so effective in selling the message that guns are good that one can expect to see a surge in sales. Perhaps guns will become popular Christmas presents this year along with cellular phones and Ipods. Members of the family can then compete to see who will be the first to fire the weapon and kill a criminal.
The sheer size of the majority against the ban - 63% to 36% - was almost unbelievable considering that polls showed an overwhelming majority in favor at the start of the campaign. Not one of the 26 states and Federal District returned a majority in favor and even then only seven states had more than 40% voting "Yes". The "Yes" vote was highest in violent states like São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Alagoas and Bahia. On the other hand, voters in the equally violent "Wild West" states of Acre and Roraima voted against the ban by 83% and 85% respectively. Rio Grande do Sul had the dubious distinction of the highest "No" vote in the whole country (almost 87%) showing that the gauchos still revel in their historical martial image.

Funny thing asking the people want they want - sometimes the elites don't get the answers they want....


no wonder ...
if you've seen the movie "City of God" my comment will make better sense :)

Awww...you should stop by and visit now and then. here was my take. The Economist's writing on this was painful to read, but they have been wrong on the gun issue for, well, forever.

It surprises me that this website is still available now on 23 March 2009, approaching four years after it was posted, but I'm delighted that it is, and I was delighted to read, "The sheer size of the majority against the ban--63% to 36%--was almost unbelievable..."

Ithas long been evident that the Cousins have abrogated their ancient right of self defense, but as was illustrated in the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Heller vs. the District of Columbia we Americans have not surrendered that right.

Apparently what most puzzles most sqishy Europeans opposed to gun rights is why we Americans & now, plainly, the Brazilians, refuse despite the much msde of in the Leftist media carage wrought by civilians with guns to give up their guns.

For one thing, nearly never reported in the mainstream media is the plain fact that guns, at least in the USA, are used many times more per year in the self defense role than they are in the commission of crimes. Even the antigun Clinton administration admitted that guns are used by private citizens in the self-defense role upwards of 1 and quarter times each & every year (other sources clainm it is more than twice that number) as opposed to the use of firearms in crimes approximately 55,0000 times per year.

For another slavish Europeans are taught to turn to gov't to resolve every issue that surfaces in one's life. By contrast, many, if not most, Americans realize they are responsible for & to themselves. Many of us know it is up oneself to defend oneself & one's loved ones; it's not the mainly responsibility of gov't to do so.

Post a comment