Here is an article I wrote:
Lessons from Brazil
The não side with 64 percent of the votes won the Gun Ban Referendum in Brazil. This represented a dramatic shift from earlier polling which had the sim side of the debate holding an 80 percent advantage.
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.
The Brazil referendum was the first time that any government has ever put their national firearms control laws to a public vote.
There are lessons in this referendum that firearm advocates should take to heart.
Some may hope that this setback will hamper efforts of the international anti-gun movement. This is doubtful.
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) says, "We must remember that a ban is at the far end of the spectrum of gun control, and no other country has yet gone this far," said Anthea Lawson of IANSA. The fact a referendum was held at all, and that it was keenly followed by other governments, was a strong sign in favor of tighter controls."
Viva Rio says, "This closes the issue now, but maybe the next generation will be able to have this discussion again," said Rubens Cesar Fernandes, director of Viva Rio, a civic group that helped coordinate the anti-gun campaign. "I hope the whole world will be able to deal with this again."
In other words, IANSA is suggesting that the lessons learned are valuable and the expended effort was not wasted. The "battle" will shift from Brazil, quickly, as IANSA moves forward on other campaigns.
The anti-gun movement has occasionally overreached in the efforts to achieve their goals. The Canadian government's licencing and registration program may be cited as an example of an overreach. Alan Rock, then, Canada's Minister of Justice, put this complete program into effect in 1995. The full legislation is still not in effect, and the key pieces of the legislation were delayed repeatedly.
Each apparent stumble the anti-gun side of the debate makes is often a means to further unite their movement, bringing forward more allies and tools for future efforts.
The supporters of the sim campaign included the President of Brazil, the United Nations, and notable Catholic Church figures, among them Bishop Desmond Tutu from South Africa.
The não side's win focused on simple themes.
* To vote for the ban would be voting away rights and freedoms.
* Criminals will have guns in spite of the ban.
* The police cannot protect ordinary people and their families.
IANSA, in a press release issued after the loss said, "The No campaign exploited people's fears: that police cannot protect them; that the government was trying to take away their 'rights'."
A vast majority of Brazilians do not own firearms. Legal firearm ownership in Brazil is expensive and highly regulated. Brazil's current legislation calls for psychological examinations, shooting and gun-handling tests, and high gun registration fees. Under current laws, a civilian can only legally buy 50 rounds of ammunition annually.
These high prices and fees have taken gun ownership out of the range of most of the population. In Brazil, to legally purchase and own an inexpensive revolver that sells for about $350 (US) also requires registration, examinations and a shooting course, which cost about $300 (US). The average monthly wage in Brazil is about $400 (US).
The difficulties of legal ownership and the costs involved combine to diminish the idea that using a firearm to protect life and property would be accepted by a vast majority of Brazilians. In contrast, the theme arguing that governments should not have the power to take away rights and freedoms resonated well in a country where people observe the violence around them and see how the police are unable to protect them.
The theme that the police cannot protect ordinary folk and their families was one of the more powerful arguments raised. In Brazil, the wealthy have bodyguards, and many in the middle class live in buildings protected by guards. The poor people who constitute the majority are left to rely on the police. This group was most affected by this theme.
In Brazil Political Comment John Fitzpatrick writes,"In theory the law should protect those who respect it and punish those who break it but no-one who lives here seriously expects the law to play its role. The laws are broken by the elected politicians who create them, the police who should enforce them, the judges who should apply them and the general public which should obey them. Since people know the police will not protect them, they take measures to protect themselves."
In these very simple themes is a lesson for the pro-gun lobby.
The majority of people in society do not own firearms. They often do not understand firearm ownership. They are often frightened by guns, and do not understand the difference between Hollywood and reality.
These factors can turn people who are not fully informed into easy targets for anti-gun group efforts to reduce crime by attacking legal firearm owners. It is very easy to see reports in the media on gun deaths, and blame the gun rather than the criminal.
However, at least in Brazil, it appears that citizens today understand that freedoms should not be lightly handed over to a government. In the referendum they understood that a gun ban will not remove guns from the hands of criminals. Finally, they also understood that the police cannot protect them against criminal violence.
That is the real lesson from Brazil.
TIZ
http://www.theinfozone.net/salw1.html
