Talk:Gun control in Brazil

Update

"... and although it is legal to carry a gun outside a residence ..." - WHAT??? This is fake. It's not (usually) LEGAL to carry a gun outside a residence in Brazil! In Brazil, possession is different from carrying, you can buy and keep inside your home but you cannot carry it outside (in most cases).

In Brazil, most people can buy guns and keep them inside their residence (possession) after getting a license to buy and registering it, but very few people are allowed to carry guns outside their homes (usually policemen, military people, criminal witnesses and victims of life threat).

So basically, in Brazil anybody can buy a gun, after getting a license for that and registering the gun, but a small percentage of citizens can carry it outside their homes. In addition to that, there are the "allowed calibers" and the "restricted calibers", which are allowed only to military people and policemen.

Allowed calibers are those with muzzle energy up to 407 joules (for pistols and revolvers) or 1355 joules (for long barrels). Restricted calibers are those bigger than the allowed calibers.

To get a license to buy a gun, the civilian must show some papers (negative records from criminal, electoral and military justices, among others), pass a psychological exam, pass a practical shooting test and pay a fee.

Font: Brazilian legislation (federal law number 10.826 from year 2003, updated by posterior laws in 2004, 2007 and 2008 - http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2003/L10.826compilado.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.200.92 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No that's not fake. It is legal as long as you have a permit, as the article states, it is virtually impossible to obtain a permit, but legal nonetheless. 187.58.158.58 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You could compare Brazil's laws somewhat to the handful of restrictive "may issue" states here in the USA, or pretty much all of Canada. In many cases, if one were to attempt to obtain a permit (even in cases of "victims of life threats"), they will often have their application denied. In practice, permits to carry can usually only be obtained by those wealthy and patient enough to go through the long legal hassle, celebrities, politicians and those with political connections. 2601:8C:4106:2880:C94A:AD41:D51D:245A (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete?

This article, based entirely on original research, and with a neglected OR tag since 2006, should be AfD, deleted in my opinion. Open for discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Really nice recent additions -- There seems to be some bias, but I think it is within encyclopedic scope... Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

article move? merge?

The entire introduction has nothing to do with gun politics in Brazil, but instead with gun law, gun violence and gun ownership. Also, the section on the 2005 referendum only tangentially infers "gun politics". It seems that that section would be better moved to [[[2005 Brazilian gun ban referendum]] or some such. Is there sourcing about 'gun politics' in Brazil? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Blog Reference

I removed the recent blog entry about the recent referendum (blog of a journalist at the Folha de S. Paulo) for several reasons:

• 1) Blogs are un-scrutinized by editors (the fact that the blog is a journalist's blog is immaterial).
• 2) The Blog was not in English, and so, can not be properly scrutinized by English speakers. It may be acceptable and appropriate in the article of the page in its respective language (translation is a form of original research because it involves interpretation), see WP SPS.
• 3) The material referenced was heavily biased and conspiracy theory-esque, not promoting an unbiased point of view on the subject (verbiage included such words as "revealed" as opposed to a less biased "claimed").
• 4) The author is not an established expert on the field, and therefore does not fall into an exception for the purposes of WP:SPS.

Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS, Burden of Evidence, when adding this material back into this article. There are no reasons that this material 1) doesn't belong instead on a more appropriate article such as the article on the referendum, and 2) has a special relevancy to the topic, such that it overcomes the restrictions on the use of self-published sources placed by WP:SPS. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Brazil/USA Comparison in Introduction

In the introduction, Brazil's gun-related crime was being compared with that of the USA. I have removed the sentence for the following reasons:

• A comparison with a specific country rather than any other country is arbitrary and does not fit in with Wikipedia's worldwide view policy.
• As a high-income country, the USA is a particularly unsound comparison, as it has completely different economical and sociological preconditions.
• The section seemed to imply a bias towards loose gun politics, as it was pointing out that Brazil has a higher gun-related crime rate despite having more restrictive gun politics. This assertion is misleading at best, it not only fails to take into account the economical and sociological preconditions mentioned above, as well as Brazil's particular problems with drugs and drug-related crime, as well as Brazil's problems with poor police efficiency and police corruption, all of which would play a large role in explaining Brazil's high homicide rate, it also overemphasizes the discrepancy between Brazilian and U.S. Gun laws, which, on an international scale, is rather marginal. Moismyname (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Great attitude! I also thought it a bit biased when I first read. 177.40.162.124 (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading content

"The ban also had the backing of the federal government (which wanted a government monopoly on gun possession), sections of the Brazilian Roman Catholic Church, and Veja news magazine.[12]" The citation for this sentence does not have anything to say about the Brazilian federal government wanting a monopoly on gun possession - in fact says the opposite. Clearly this pro-gun propaganda and a lie. Hopefully someone better suited than me will make a change. 07:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.87.117 (talk)

Which is probably the reason why it was written in parentheses rather than stated outright, and it's not an untrue statement. The Brazilian federal government backed the ban when support for it was at 73% prior to opposing views being aired/heard (as stated in the article on AlterNet). If you ban civilian ownership on arms, law enforcement and the military will hold the monopoly on arms (as the 2005 nationwide referendum proposed banning the sale of arms and ammunition which would directly affect civilian ownership), and as they are functionaries of the government, one would logically conclude that such a scenario would be the outcome had most voted "Yes" on the 2005 referendum. As far as I know, law enforcement and especially the military were not subject to the proposed ban (unless you can point me to a source stating otherwise), and all English language articles relating to the referendum that I have read mentioned only civilian ownership.

You could argue that the phrase should be worded better, but misleading it is not. 68.46.9.6 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Hello. I went ahead and added the NPOV tag. This article carries a tone that certainly seems crafted to create a tone. As currently crafted, it states:

"In 2005, a majority of Brazil's population voted against banning the sale of guns and ammunition to civilians in a referendum. However, the Brazilian Department of Justice (Ministério da Justiça), which performs each individual's mandatory background check (which is made prior every gun acquisition, and every three years after it is acquired, which allows gun confiscation at the discretion of authorities), have been forbidding almost every citizen from buying guns,[8][9] based on the Executive Order # 5.123, of 07/01/2004 (Decreto n.º 5.123, de 1º de julho de 2004),[10] which allows the Federal Police to analyze the given reasons for owning a gun, under which "self defense" is not considered a valid reason because there are allegedly sufficient public police officers to maintain nationwide security.[11]"

There's a lot of very strong language here. I cannot read the source article in its native language for the assertion that "self defense is not a valid reason," but it appears to be derived from an opinion-editorial. Since I cannot read the executive order, does it actually say "self defense is an not considered a valid reason?" Is this order still in force?

"Thus, disarmament is effectively happening in Brazil,[12] as are massive gun confiscations,[13] notwithstanding its refusal by Brazilian people (at the referendum of 2005). Some argue that this will increase gun homicides. Other research shows that there is a decrease in firearm deaths correlating with disarmament.[14][15] However, 2012 marked the highest rate of gun deaths in 35 years for Brazil 8 years after a ban to carry handguns in public went in to effect.[16]"

This appears constructed to stoke fear, and the perspective of the author is pretty clear. It's an argumetative paragraph, meant to make the case that the Brazilian people are being disarmed and the direct causal consequence of this is an increase in firearms-related fatalities.

I did not make the changes directly because I sense there's a discussion here worth having. Squelch1 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. The decree in question is not in effect anymore, having been supplanted by the Decreto 9.847. The information about the Decreto 5.123 is incorrect (mostly). It did explicitly consider self defense as a valid reason, but only if the individual lived in a state with more than 10 homicides per 100 000 inhabitants per year. The current decree removes that requirement for gun acquisition for self defense. Individuals were and still are allowed to obtain specific gun licenses for sports shooting, hunting and collection. What the original editor said (despite the preachy text) has been and still is true for carry licenses. Indivuduals are required to prove 'effective necessity' and a federal police officer has to judge the validity of the claims. The law sets no criteria on which the validity of said claims should be judged and the federal police have (reportedly, I couldn't find proper data on the topic) been denying most carry licences required by civilians. 191.33.194.199 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)