As of now, no felon can legally have their rights fully restored unless they're pardoned or go through an very lengthy and unlikely process. As for proof, every time you fill out a 4473, they ask you if you are a felon.
The fact that they committed a voilent felony to begin with already gives enough proof that they are not to be trusted with a weapon. So, how is intrusting a law abiding citizen with the right to keep and bear arms is remotely similar?
I haven't suggested just bad people will get killed. At present, bad people are killing good people. Are you comfortable with that? Leadership in Brazil are not.
The problem is they could have been arrested for a violent crime, yet convicted for a lesser crime due to a plea bargain, as such simply restoring their right to possess a firearm should not be automatic, but instead a process where the entire picture is determined before allowing such a right to be restored.
But your objection is by allowing law abiding citizens to be armed, the problem increase. What makes you think that? Why are we comparing law abiding citizens to rapists?
That's true if you count suicides. Conversely, states with less gun control have slightly less gun homicides. Besides, Brazil doesn't have a suicide problem, they have a violent crime problem.
Yes, deterrents don't always work, after all they were designed with the rational actor in mind and by definition mass murderers and terrorists aren't rational in the sense that they'd work out the cost-benefit of committing a crime and factor in the likelihood of apprehension. Dysfunctional societies will have high crime rates for sure. But that was what I meant in my comment about crimogenic conditions. As for homicide clearance rates, yes, high numbers of homicides will overwhelm a police agency, no question about that. And of course the deterrent effect is lessened if someone thins they can kill with impunity.
This is why I take my families safety as my responsibility and carry a gun. Some people, you just can't reason with.
