Slashdot Mirror
Venezuela Bans the Commercial Sale of Firearms and Ammunition
Bob the Super Hamste writes "The BBC is reporting on a new law in Venezuela that effectively bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition to private citizens. Previously anyone with a permit could purchase a firearm from any commercial vendor but now only the police, military, and security firms will be able to purchase firearms or ammunition from only state-owned manufactures or importers. Hugo Chavez's government states that the goal is to eventually disarm the citizenry. The law, which went into effect today, was passed on February 29th, and up to this point the government has been running an amnesty program allowing citizens to turn in their illegal firearms. Since the law was first passed, 805,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered from gun dealers. The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
Who will they blame when gun violence goes up?
---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
While I think this is a good law in theory, I'm worried that it's merely a way to prevent the populace from fighting back against an increasingly autocratic regime.
Disarming the citizenry in a dictatorship is SOP. Isn't Hugo running behind on that?
"The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
That's what Venezuela claims. In reality, the government prefers a citizenry armed with sticks and rocks when the inevitable revolt comes to pass.
The only time you'll need the second amendment is when they try to take it away.
Yeah, now the crime rate won't drop, and 78% of violant crimes will be committed with *illegal* firearms! gg!
I'm putting my money on being intended to curb the inevitable no matter which way the attempt to amend the Venezuelan constitution to keep Chavez from another term turns out. But I might just be cynical :)
The United States has more guns than people. If the guns were causing the crime, we'd live in a post-apocalypse already.
And forks make people fat.
The only people who will voluntarily give up firearms (or refrain from buying them on the black market) are by definition law abiding persons. It is amazingly stupid to disarm the good guys. We have some of the same stupidity legislated some places here in the USA.
Breaking news. Full story at eleven...
...badly! If you live in Venezuela, GTFO now! But then again, the election of Hugo Chavez should have been your first clue. Isn't that right comrade?
Life is not for the lazy.
LOL! I Lived in Venezuela for a year and I don't believe that this is to prevent street crime. When I lived there, it was dangerous to ride a nice bike in certain areas because street criminals would stab you and take your bike. They wouldn't ask, they would just take it before you had the chance to do anything. Was that common? No. But it happened. I think this has more to do with keeping Hugo in command, especially with his failing health. Most people there can't afford guns, or ammo. They have armed security guards at Wendy's. They give them a shotgun with a couple of shells, or an old beat-up revolver with just a couple of bullets. Why? Because they don't want the guards selling the guns/ammo for cash.
I was there for the infamous 11 de Abril, in 2002 when Hugo was temporarily replaced in a military coup. I don't think he has forgotten that day, and never will.
"The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms"
Also where 77% of homicides are linked to the government.
100% of Homicides are linked to humans killing each other, regardless of implement.
Seriously, this is all about cementing a communist regime and preventing armed rebellion by the people.
Only the army, military, mercs, and criminals will have guns. Average Jose/Josefina Citizen will be stuck in the middle unable to defend themselves from gangs or oppression.
...are condemned to repeat it.
Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.
The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms
Oddly enough 5 years after the controversial law went into affect, the headline reads
Firearms still liked to 78% of homicides and other violent crimes.
How many times do we have to tell you, the criminals don't care what the law is, they will still have them so they will still use them to inflict more crime on the now lawfull and unarmed.
Extrajudicial killings by security agents continue, and impunity for such human rights crimes remains the norm.
So, disarm the regular people, but not the security people... Yeah, that should solve everything.
Source
If the end goal is to reduce homicide, why don't they just make homicide illegal? This reminds me of the "ban large sodas" article form the other day... Politicians like to think they can influence human behavior by passing clever laws... (The collective brainpower of the masses will eventually outwit/underwit/circumvent any genius plan small groups of politicians create)
The government wants to avoid the messy resistance found in Syria. Much easier to keep your slaves under control when they don't have firearms.
For people on both sides of the US's Second Amendment, this is going to be something interesting to watch, as in "may you live in interesting times" interesting.
First, the legit citizens are the ones disarmed. The criminals are not going to be turning over their armaments anytime soon. Will this mean crime goes up, we will see, if we ever get any reliable, honest figures from the government there (doubtful.)
The one thing that not many people realize is that metal shops are plentiful. There will always be someone able to built a basic pistol frame and sell them on the black market. Ammo may be hard to get ahold of, but there are always ways around that -- there are some very modern black powder firearms that don't use ammo cartridges.
My feelings are that Chavez just wants to ensure he and his successors stay in power. No better way than ensuring that his military and police have the heaters and the citizens don't.
Great... and when the aliens attack on July 4th we'll club them to death?
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Imposing laws on law breakers always works.
Venezuela is quickly marching towards the same stifling regime of the likes of United Kingdom, and Japan.
This is very bad Hugo.
Where lefty ideas come to fail.
I can see the positives and negatives of both sides here.
Some things wouldn't happen without guns involved. Even if other weapons are involved, would the result be less severe? However, in a practical sense, it can be hard to make this work for crime prevention.
Maybe the authorities worry about an armed citizenry, but why? What can the average person do against police/military with professional training and equipment anyway?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It's a good day to be a stab wound forensic specialist in Venezuela. Your salary has just been doubled. You can take away the guns, but people will still find ways to defend themselves/kill people regardless.
You really think criminals give a SHIT about the Law?
Well done, Hugo, you might as well just put up a sign reading: "Welcome to Venezuela, our citizens are unarmed; please rob, rape and murder at leisure."
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Nah. We'll send a neurotic genius to upload a computer virus on the mothership.
The law, which went into effect today, was passed on February 29th, and up to this point the government has been running an amnesty program allowing citizens to turn in their illegal firearms. Since the law was first passed, 805,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered from gun dealers.
I dunno, but if I was a gun dealer, and there was a law passed banning my trade, I would use the time before it passed to sell it, and only hand whatever's left over for free at the last minute. Even if, after shipping, you only make pennies on the dollar, it's better than nothing.
Are there export laws or something that prevented this? I'm assuming the gun dealers aren't just that dumb...
even if you chop everyone off at the shoulders, they could still give a deadly head-butt or kick
That's what Venezuela claims. In reality, the government prefers a citizenry armed with sticks and rocks when the inevitable revolt comes to pass.
"Hugo Chavez's government states that the goal is to eventually disarm the citizenry."
Well, that was refreshingly honest of them. I was expecting something about having to protect the children from the capitalist dogs, or the dogs from the armed children, or something like that. Rock that iron fist, Hugo! (And to the Venezuelan People, Good Luck in your revolution, now that you know, unequivocally, where you stand).
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
...statistics show if the victim does not have a firearm, there is a greater chance of either he/she or the people near the victim being KILLED, by the criminal!!!
Don't worry macbooks will still be legal.
I guess when citizens have access to the same weaponry as the military, the citizens are a legit threat that could truly uprise vilolently.
That would never happen in the US because the weapons citizens have access to are peashooters compared to the the US military's armament.
But I can't wait to see data on gun crime, and how it changes, although I'm sure Ven. will lie about the statistics. [[Caveat: I'm a gun lover and have ARs, AKs, 308 and .338 sniper rifles, and 10k rounds of ammo, but I own them because it is _FUN_, not because I'm ready for the revolution. If I couldn't own my guns I'd probably just own more power tools. So: banning guns = meh IMHO.]]
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
And we saw how well that worked in Hot Fuzz:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Tools are not evil, but intentions can be.
You may be able to remove guns from peoples hands, but you cannot remove the want to do bad deeds.
Besides it's not like people haven't been known to kill others with their bare hands as well as use anything handy.
It's better to work on removing the reason people want to kill others rather than the methods.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
lol butthurt
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
fta:
Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians ...at which point the jack-booted thugs can feel much safer when ensuring that citizens do as they're told.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
This is just an electoral stunt for the government to make it seem as if it's interested in reducing crime and disarming the people... The current government in Venezuela has delivered weapons to criminal groups and any citizens they have wanted to...
An angry Venezuelan.
...in Hades. Just another "charismatic" blowhard psychopath and demagogue loose in So America with a trillion+ of barrels of oil going to waste.
"The only solution is to disarm everyone. I mean everyone. The planet. Yes, I'm a naive optimist."
No, you"re an imbecile. You have no way to enforce disarmament and have thought nothing through beyond expressing your wants.
Armament confers advantage. Armaments are fairly easy to make and it's impossible to effectively outlaw all possible precursors.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Chavez is toast(via cancer), the inner circle know it. There's going to be fracturing and infighting between them and the military. And they're trying to get rid of all the guns they can to keep control as hard as they can before the people are able to rise up and overthrow them.
Om, nomnomnom...
The first step of organization is disorganization...
1. Establish credibility to overcome suspicion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Bol%C3%ADvar_2000 and "The revolution will not be televised"...
2. Bait opponents into reacting http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/us-venezuela-gold-idUSTRE77G53L20110817 and Ban the opposition http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/world/americas/19venez.html?_r=1
3. the next logical step ???
4. Profit!!!
Remember, the ends justifies the means...
The first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
See Subject
I see a whole new trade spawning from this, Home-brew Gunsmithing... I wonder if it's illegal to give the greatest gift of all... firearms? Anyone who's ever been to prison knows, you can make a gun out of pretty much anything.
-------- -1 for SUCK IT!
"The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
That's what Venezuela claims. In reality, the government prefers a citizenry armed with sticks and rocks when the inevitable revolt comes to pass.
I might have a slightly different perspective (given that I come from Nicaragua, a country that used to be plagued by civil wars and tyrannical regimes.) There is a lot of truth that violent crime is up to levels never seen before in Venezuela's history (same in other countries, like Honduras and Mexico.)
Violent crimes are simply too much for the government (tyrannical or not) to handle. A general dissarmament (coupled with other social changes) can curb violent crime in poor countries with poorly developed (or unmaintained) social institutions. And by social changes I mean more pluralistic participation, increased professionalization of the police and armed forces, an opening of markets, however poor the country might be, and an atmosphere devoid of continuous civil strife.
I do not believe the Venezuelan government is simply trying to disarm the civilian population just to remain in power. I'm not a Chavez-sympathizer, au contrair, I loathe everything he stands for. However, this is just too simplistic an explanation, one well suited for playing arm-chair conspiracy theories. It also neglects to acknowledge that a substantial % of the population supports him (populism sells for the simple, destitute masses.)
They Venezuelan authorities have a substantial criminal violence problem in their hands, and this is one necessary (but not sufficient) step to curb it. It will fall short given that all the other necessary ingredients to make it work.
And that is the sad mark of incompetent regimes: to take uneducated, incomplete shortcuts to solve extremelly complex socio-economic problems.
Mexico has rather strict gun control laws. Citizens have to get a permit for each weapon purchased, ownership is limited to small caliber weapons, and there's only one authorized retailer (the Mexican army) which is located in Mexico City. Seems to work for them in making Mexico a peaceful place.
And how do you expect REAL change to happen? With guns? That virtually never produces the intended results, though tends to be the quickest.
Here are a few example,
1. India and Gandhi vs. Red Revolution and overthrow of Tsar
2. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. vs. LA riots
Which side had the intended result?? When did the results last and produce a peaceful resolution?
Violence is fast and quick, but violence just gets you more of it later on. If you want to overthrow a regime, just get most of the people on your side and you will NOT need guns for anything. For example, see collapse of the Soviet Union. An armed revolt would have been put down, but a peaceful changeover WITHOUT guns gave results.
Guns don't build societies. They destroy societies and impose tyrants on them. Real change is never happens at a point of a gun or at the end of a sword.
The only guns you may want is the army if your neighbours have more guns than brains.
NYT did an article on this back in 2010. Venezuela's murder rate shot up after Hugo Chavez took power in 1999. From that article, "But some crime specialists say another factor has to be considered: Mr. Chávez’s government itself. The judicial system has grown increasingly politicized, losing independent judges and aligning itself more closely with Mr. Chávez’s political movement....More than 90 percent of murders go unsolved, without a single arrest...."
...and highly misleading. Chavez is dying of cancer and I'd be willing to bet that they are trying to prevent a revolution following the death of their dictator.
Step 1. disarm the populace.
step 2. ????
step 3. kill those of hebrew lineage.
My guess is that numerous ppl wills scream that American gov. is sending guns into Venezuela causing citizens to attack, while others will claim that America is telling Chavez to pass this law so that we can invade them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hugo may think the citizenry is his biggest threat, but it's much more likely he will be snuffed by a power hungry go-getter in his own military who feels insufficiently compensated.
I've always thought that the best form of gun control was to require all gun owners to take marksmanship training so they wouldn't miss what they aim at. Also training on proper care of guns (cleaning, repair, and general safety issues). Gun owners should be licensed just as automobile owners are, and for similar reasons.
"Hugo Chavez's government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians"
On the plus side, he's direct and forthright enough to skip all that "to reduce homicides" and "to eliminate mass shootings" and "to protect the children" fildercarb.
There's Washington DC. They have some of the toughest gun laws in the US, yet also one of the highest violent crime and murder rates.
So you have to ask is it really the gun laws doing it, or do the places have lower crime for other reasons?
You have to realize that there are many different conditions in different countries that lead to different crime rates. One example is Canada, quite a low homicide rate. Now they aren't nearly as gun friendly as the US (but then pretty much nobody is) but civilians can get firearms up to things like AR-15s. Also guns could easily be illegally smuggled from the US, since the border security is very, very lax.
It isn't as easy as just saying "Oh well this European country doesn't allow guns and they have less crime." Ok sure, but maybe they just have less crime period. The guns don't make much difference.
I'm just wondering when they will have the foresight to finally ban spoons. For those people determined to kill someone, alternatives abound. It's only a matter of time before spoons, hammers, lawn mowers, violin strings, orbital sanders, tire irons, baseball bats, broken beer bottles, poison, explosives, and pet sharks are used to kill someone. Frankly, I don't know why they haven't moved sooner to ban all spoons. I can imagine there is no more excruciating death than being spooned to death. It must take ages. Ouch.
P.S. This law has nothing to do with protecting the people and everything to do with protecting the regime from the people.
Everyone knows that homemade ammo is much better.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Everybody knows to kill space aliens you have to use a virus.
If some crook waves a gun in your face, you are less likely to be shot if you wave another one back in his face???
Thanks anyways.
US President and/or Congres goes "we'd better not pass this law because our citizens have GUNS!".
Seriously?
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
People kill people. So why do we bother with nuclear weapon treaties? Maybe because it makes it a little too easy to kill people?
I like the people asking for citations about how guns often harm those who own them or their close relations, but then when given them wave their hands and say the numbers don't count because the people would have just killed in another way.
The simple fact is any tool that makes is easier to kill people will cause the death rate to rise, most violent deaths are not premeditated things. Anything that slows it down/makes it harder will reduce the non-premeditated killings.
We may choose specific gun laws becuase we are willing to make trade offs between freedoms and security, but to deny there is a trade off is incorrect.
Nah. We'll send a neurotic genius to upload a computer virus on the mothership.
And he will miraculously be able to figure out the network protocol and to interface with the mothership when computers on earth can barely communicate with each other beyond some simple predefined syntax.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Enjoy your subjugation Venezuela. You deserve it.
The shame is that it takes so long for people to discover that their choice to submit to statists leads inexorably to tragedy. Only decades later when all the wealth is gone, the schools are debased, the trenches are filled with bodies, everyone has inculcated fear deep into their souls and are finally left with nothing to lose will the possibility of change emerge. Generations pass while this nightmare plays out.
Fifty years from now the grand kids of the pathetic suckers that surrender their guns today may finally have a chance. Until then, darkness.
Alright, troll-- I'll bite.
In most protracted civil conflicts, the army as a whole doesn't take sides... or the conflict is already over. By the same token, a disciplined, professional army drawn from the population is unlikely to slaughter that population wholesale.
Most atrocities and civilian casualties in civil conflicts are committed by groups of lightly-armed and disorganized thugs. The .38 in Grandma's dresser won't stop an army, but it'll put holes in a jeep full of blackshirts looking for some quick rape and arson.
First they take your guns. Then they take whatever catches their fancy.
Sure, it's costly to have an armed populace. It's a lot more costly to have a disarmed populace.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Governments who attempt to overpower and enslave their citizens do.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Puts on the Devil's advocate mask...
Statistics show that if the victim has a firearm, there's a greater chance of either he/she or the people near the victim being wounded. Homicides should drop in this context.
Particularly if the person near the victim who gets wounded is the attacker.
-- Terry
Actually, Hugo is having trouble shaking his cancer. I'd put my money on that getting him first.
The problem is that tanks and jets are pretty good for larger scale destruction, they aren't so good for keeping a population in check. For that you need soldiers on the ground, and that is real hard to do if you are literally getting shot at from every windows (the US doesn't have 10,000 armed citizens, it has more like 100,000,000). I mean yes, ultimately the government could (in theory, if the soldiers would obey) simply turn its nuclear weapons on the citizens and level all the cities. Ok fine, but to what end? What do you get as ruler of a glass radioactive parking lot?
The US military is well equipped to unleash destruction, as we've seen. However they are not well equipped to do an occupation, as we've also seen. So it would be rather difficult for the government to suppress a massive rebellion with high tech weapons, and not also annihilate its cities at the same time.
Also you might ask how useful the planes would be if a massive armed force attacked the airfields and so on.
Large amounts of people with small arms are quite an effective guerrilla force.
There is no constitutional right to own firearms or any kind of weapon in Venezuela. But there are weapons everywhere. Convicts in our prisons have firearms, and in the last big mutiny in “La Planta” jail in the capital city Caracas, they confronted the military with pistols and automatic rifles for several days with several casualties among the civilian population living nearby. Our vice-president in a government meeting asked the commander in chief of the Venezuelan army, why the jail interns have ammunition belonging to the Venezuelan army. That ended in a quarrel, of course.
From the beginning of this year, at least seventeen policemen in Caracas have been killed by criminals to steal their weapons. So, in Venezuela we can not buy legally firearms, foreign currency, maize oil, etc. But we can acquire those good illegally from the government party members and officials through unemployed street sellers (buhoneros).
The reason for forbidding the legal purchase of firearms is just public relations in face of a presidential election. But the government uses mobs named “colectivos”, armed by the government itself, to harass the opposition parties and media.
I predict 1 of 2 outcomes:
1 - Revolution
2 - Conversion to an official dictatorship, then mass killings of 'dissidents' and severe repression of those that are still alive.
If i lived there as id be getting the hell out while i could. Bad times ahead for the citizens.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
>>The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms
That may be what they say, but I'm sure the reality is they don't want citizens to be able to have armed revolts against the Venezuelan government.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Venezuela was NOT in good shape. It is far better off now and has the luxury of going backwards now they've moved so far forwards.
I thought Venezuela let volunteers be armed and trained and I think they likely still do. I do not think he is taking away all the guns; just the "recreational" guns. I bet volunteers still have their assault rifles stored away in case of invasion or revolution.
Reality is that guns make it too easy for civilians to kill civilians. They don't have much benefit defending yourself from oppressive governments, unless it is serious stuff you can't get already.
Bearing (small) arms doesn't do Jack (but it can provide a fallguy for conspiracies to kill leaders...) They increase shooting deaths and let lazy drunk fat people (not all of them, just most) easily kill animals.
Seriously, you think the future killer robot "drones" are going to be deterred by small arms?? In my city, they can pin point you accurately by the SOUND of the gunshot and even detect the kind of gun you have. In 50 years everything about everybody you know will be online and you may be put in a camp preemptively when Facebook flags you. That is just a simple statement; brain implant tech will be around by then and I don't want to think about that stuff...
Flip side, this BAN will not lower crime; it'll lower gun crimes over time for obvious reasons. They may have less fatalities as a result... and probably more stabbings... might actually make sense to learn martial arts again... It will provide ANOTHER source of statistics on the topic, not end the world.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Or, perhaps, 1930's Germany?
Just curious.
On one side we have the "Pry my gun out of cold dead hand" coalition, on the other "let's arm everyone with daises and sing Kumbaya" brotherhood. Both believe they have the moral high ground and both are offended the other won't stop being ignorant and change their point of view. Jeeze, let's just agree to disagree. Guns are tools. They are tools specifically designed to kill. There are societies with lots of guns and societies with none at all. There are societies which have evolved in the presence of guns, and therefore have incorporated guns into their social fabric so making blanket statements pro or con is just being ignorant and ill informed and you can't compare societies with guns and ones without.
The folks who think we need guns to fight our government are deluded. I'm sorry but your gun in the face of air to ground laser guided missiles is fighting a samarai katana with a wet noodle... good luck with that. Get a reality check, if your government turns on you, you will be out gunned, out manned, and at the mercy of technology over which you have no hope of beating. WAKE UP. For those of you who think arming yourself against street crime is stupid, you clearly aren't paying attention to the state of street gangs and the violent mentally ill wandering our streets. That said, the best experts I've ever heard on the subject all say the best answer by far is to learn critical self defense techniques including basic knife fighting and defense with and against guns. Trained self defense is always with you (you'll never discover you left it at home when you need it) and any way the most effective defense technology available is "Run Fu" or don't be there when the schist and the fan collide.
So please enough of the Rambo thinking, its a fantasy, and my darlings on the other side, please man up, its a scary world and being prepared for bad news before its bad news about you is a very intelligent way to get to a ripe old age.
Think of guns as nukes and apply cold war game theory to the problem.
Therein lies the answer.
Important common factors include but are not limited to the inability to trust one side to unilaterally honor its end of the bargain. In an armistice situatiion there is more to gain by hiding a gun in your boot while everyone else lays down arms.
You don't like guns and don't want to own one...then don't. I enjoy target shooting would like to continue owning my guns so I will. You get what you want and I get what I want. So as long as you don't try to inflict your view on me we don't have a problem. When you start telling me what I can do and own that's when we have a big problem. Wasn't that easy!! /sarcasm..
100% of those firearms are linked to humans.
How many criminals will give up their guns and ammunition because of the law?
If they're worried about the high proportion of gun crime they shouldn't be taking away people's means to defend themselves, they should be teaching the populace more effective ways to murder people with their bare hands. This is political correctness gone mad.
I haven't look at your profile, but this is the sort of mentality I see in the US. Guns kill people no matter how you look at it, and less guns will only lead to less deaths.
You are easily proven false. Switzerland. A country where many homes have fully automatic assault rifles. Its the people, not that "scary" piece of metal.
If you genuinely think that a gun protects you from the goverment you're deluding yourself.
Really? A bunch of farmers and merchants could never defeat a world class military with superior weapons and training? That will come as a great shock to Americans as that is how their country came into being.
You also ignore pesky little details that if things degenerate to the point that civilians take up arms then the regular military may very well not follow the orders coming out of Washington DC. Much like many members of the US military resigned, deserted, etc and joined their state militias and military formations at the start of the civil war.
...and taken away their means of protecting themselves.
The crooks will still have their guns.
Of course, this will run up the crooks cost of obtaining guns and ammo, but they'll all kinds of unarmed victims to choose from. They shouldn't have to much trouble coming up with the necessary extra funds.
According to the CDC, a child dies every 3 days from an unintentional gun shot.
Gov't stats also show that more children die in swimming pools than by firearms. If one is truly motivated by the children rather than an irrational fear of a piece of metal(*) then folks should be calling to have all swimming pools filled in first, guns outlawed later.
(*) Those unintentional deaths can be largely prevented by training in the proper usage and storage of firearms. Regulations requiring firearms purchasers to have taken a safety class would be a rational response, like regulations requiring a fence around pools. To go to the extreme of outright bans, that is taking things to the irrational.
Instead of banning them, just put a tax on them large enough to keep normal citizens from buying them, say equal to a years wages for the median income in that country. That way you can claim to support freedom but still disarm everyone you want to oppress. As a propaganda move you simultaneously claim that the money will be used to pay for the care of the poor widows and orphans of gun violence.
...report on gun control issues. jeezus, ppl grow up. guns are a very emotive issue in the states. it's hard to get a sensible debate on this from what i've seen. however, there is stacks of research of the cause-effect of gun control. so if someone is really passionate on the subject, they can google it up. easy.
At what point do you decide that gun related violence and crime outweigh the cost of liberty? The gun related deaths are a necessary evil that come along with having the means to rise up and overthrow an oppressive government. You might say it'll never happen. If history is any indication I'm not willing to gamble.
"The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela, where 78% of homicides are linked to firearms."
I guess Venezuelans will start stabbing, bludgeoning, and strangling each other to death then.
Why is homicide by non-firearms less a concern than homicide by firearms?
The measure is intended to curb violent crime in Venezuela....
I call Red Herring: The true reason to confiscate the people's weaponry is to make it less likely for there to be a successful uprising against Hugo Chavez's increasingly despotic rule.
Regards;
... including Chavez supporters and ALL THE OPOSITION. In fact, this is the ONLY issue, after 13 years, where both sides agree completely.
It's very easy to have an opinion when you live in a first world country. But when you have experienced the level of violence on the streets (regardless of your support or not for the regime), this measure is like a (small) breath of air.
Our situation is very different than in other countries. In all my life I've seen, while walking on the street, 4 people get killed by gunshots. All of them robberies. How many people can claim to have witnessed that much crime while simply walking on the street? And the first one was when I was 10 years old ... long before Chavez.
Violence runs on the blood of the people here. It's a really sad state of affairs. You can be shot for not letting a car pass, or just looking at the wrong woman on the street.
I'm not saying that this is a perfect solution, or that this will solve all of our problems. This will not solve the deep problems that cause people to kill each other like nothing happened. But for once EVERYONE is at least trying, regardless of political views. And I really hope they succeed.
... including Chavez supporters and ALL THE OPOSITION. In fact, this is the ONLY issue, after 13 years, where both sides agree completely.
(sorry, posted as anonymous by mistake. this is not redundant)
It's very easy to have an opinion when you live in a first world country. But when you have experienced the level of violence on the streets (regardless of your support or not for the regime), this measure is like a (small) breath of air.
Our situation is very different than in other countries. In all my life I've seen, while walking on the street, 4 people get killed by gunshots. All of them robberies. How many people can claim to have witnessed that much crime while simply walking on the street? And the first one was when I was 10 years old ... long before Chavez.
Violence runs on the blood of the people here. It's a really sad state of affairs. You can be shot for not letting a car pass, or just looking at the wrong woman on the street.
I'm not saying that this is a perfect solution, or that this will solve all of our problems. This will not solve the deep problems that cause people to kill each other like nothing happened. But for once EVERYONE is at least trying, regardless of political views. And I really hope they succeed.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Sorry, I live in a small EU country. Thought only USA was so liberal that people could buy guns, like Schwartzenegger in Terminator, who instead of paying just shoots the poor guy.
"The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."
-- Alan Keyes
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell
"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'"
-- Mao Tse-Tung
"Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
-- Mao Tse-Tung
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC(RET)
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama
You made a mistake by not helping this guy. You needed to communicate with him. You needed to ask him a deep, existential question that would cause him to question and reassess his actions, attitudes, and core beliefs in light of the impact he is having on the world and of the impact the world can have on him. You needed to ask him a question that would help him onto the path of nonviolent enlightenment.
Sometimes you can even ask such a question without using any words at all. A question like - "You don't really want me to shoot you in the face with this .38, do you?"
-- Massad Ayoob
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm alive now because my family didn't own a gun, i would have killed myself( on purpose). from my perspective less guns is better, period.
I don't fully understand this American obsession whit guns, is MAD, I might be wrong thou.
ps. igrew up in a dangerous neighborhood en Venezuela, guns a very uncommon.
"While I think this is a good law in theory, I'm worried that it's merely a way to prevent the populace from fighting back against an increasingly autocratic regime."
The Founding Fathers put in the 2nd Amendment for people like Hugo Chavez, not because for hunting, etc.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"When a prince acquires a new state, (...) then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it. Matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers"
-The Prince. Chapter 20.
obama is Hugo's "mini-me."
LOL! I Lived in Venezuela for a year and I don't believe that this is to prevent street crime. When I lived there, it was dangerous to ride a nice bike in certain areas because street criminals would stab you and take your bike. They wouldn't ask, they would just take it before you had the chance to do anything. Was that common? No. But it happened. I think this has more to do with keeping Hugo in command, especially with his failing health. Most people there can't afford guns, or ammo. They have armed security guards at Wendy's. They give them a shotgun with a couple of shells, or an old beat-up revolver with just a couple of bullets. Why? Because they don't want the guards selling the guns/ammo for cash.
I was there for the infamous 11 de Abril, in 2002 when Hugo was temporarily replaced in a military coup. I don't think he has forgotten that day, and never will.
Ol Hugo has plans to do away with the shotguns. He built the first plant in South America in 2008 to produce the AK47 model 103.
The AK-103 is the most recent model of the original AK-47.
Unfortunately there was a horrible accident in 2011. Hugo's AK-47 Kalashnikov Assault Rifle factory in Venezuela mysteriously blew up and burned down, can you believe Hugo's bad luck?
He is a link to three minutes of a video of that fire and massive explosions,
http://youtu.be/tjg2uyWEfT8
Hugo's rebuilt Kalashnikov Assault Rifle AK 103 factory should be operational now or in the near future.
Then there will be plenty of the improved AK 103 to export for use in Mexico and the USA.
Naturally Hugo would not want these rugged high powered and efficient assault weapons in the hands of his own people unless they were military or police.
They will have the same legal framework about guns we have in "democratic" Mexico, but with the added benefit that Venezuela doesn't share the border with the USA. Most people here forget that in the underworld guns together with drugs are used as currency. As long gun ownership is made easy enough for law abiding citizens, regardless of their political leaning this law will not be a problem.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
See recent news about the black market for guns, shootings on the rise, and now guns being stolen from houses and farmers, possibly using the Gun Registry information.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-01/scores-of-guns-stolen-from-nsw-homes/4046140
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/fears-that-nsw-is-under-the-gun/story-fn7y9brv-1226377827009
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/cops-fear-gun-showdown/story-e6freoof-1226333751536
So, no, it doesn't work. All it means is that the only people walking around the streets armed are the criminals.
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
The Vietnam War was not the USA against Vietnam.
It was South Vietnam, backed by the USA and some other countries, against North Vietnam, backed by the PRC and the Soviet Union.
Both sides were _big_ dogs.
People also forget that some 56,000 Americans, versus some 1,000,000 Vietnamese, died in that war.
It also neglects to acknowledge that a substantial % of the population supports him (populism sells for the simple, destitute masses.)
Of course he is popular. His critics are demonised by the state-owned media,
and censored, so they can't defend themselves.
Stalin was popular too.
Or are you just posing like an arrogant know-everything asshole?
ironic captcha: pretends
Anyone who naively believes implementation of gun control to be good news should watch these two films produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership: "Innocents Betrayed - The True Story of Gun Control WorldWide " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg "No Guns for Negroes" http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/movieplay-ngn-swf.htm
First they take away the guns.
Then they come for the gays.
Then they come for the Jews.
Then they come for the Catholics.
Then they come for you.
Then they come for me.
This was tried in Australia and the homicide went through the roof.
On the other hand when Alaska allowed concealed weapons the homicide rate went down.
Go figure!
...tell us about how this is all stupid, crime will go up, guns don't kill people people do, those poor victims if only they had a gun, make half a dozen excuses for your gun-related crime rates being so stupidly high, how people will keep their guns anyway despite not addressing that just owning one will now be a risk.
Oh, darn, you've all beaten me to it. The funny part? You all seem to think that Team America is about *everyone else*.
It's interesting to me that there's a country in the western hemisphere leading the way to gun control sanity and it's not the good ol' US of A. Yes, guns do kill people and guns don't make anyone more secure. They just make the gun and ammunition producers rich. It's a national tragedy.
Venezuela has this backwards. Statistics show that governments are responsible for roughly 100x the number of deaths as private citizens. Yet there will be those who now say Hugo Chavez is such a humanitarian?
I firmly support the gun control folks! Lets start with disarming Cops and see how that works out. Then we'll go from there.
Your mentality is more dangerous!
You are the typical high and mighty idealist that thinks only at the surface of causality. I know your profile. But you couldn't guess mine. You'd assume I'm just like the first guy when in fact I grew up and have lived in countries where denying the citizens weapons is an outright attack against the citizenry. Cowardly governments, like Chavez's, remove all rights to free press, and defense, and control your life through measures that the outside world deems worthy causes, like you can't do xyz because it's bad for the environment or your health. BS. TAKE YOU BLINDERS OFF, turn off your TV and quit wasting time on porn and go live in one of these countries.
Most "3rd world" countries are so screwed up that direct confrontation is the only solution, as nasty as it may seem to you and your pedicured hands and feet.
Chavez does not want to cut down on violence! Nothing internally points to that. This is an attack against the opposition with a nice accompanying PR piece that so easily numbs the near-sided mentality that you and many others in the true 1% swallow everyday.
BTW, cops are the primary gun carriers. Most people can't spend 3 months salary to own a gun.
A friend of my family was murdered by cops in Venezuela for a traffic violation.
The others that were with him managed to escape. Most cops will just kill anyone around that may testify against them so they were very lucky. Of course, who do they go to afterwards? The whole system is jacked and rigged and they can't afford the high bribbery that would be necessary for judge to look at this.
You're opinion is so insignificant in the real world.
Government likes a monopoly.
All of the comments seem to revolve around violence and self-defense. Has anyone thought about the number of people that would be out of a job if guns were ban in the US? Not to mention the lost tax revenue when some of the oldest companies, whose primary market is civilians, are put out of business! Maybe those people that want guns to be banned can pay a little extra tax to make up for what will be lost when these multi-million dollar companies are forced to declare bankruptcy.
Only reason to have a gun is to shoot the cops who come after you.
Or maybe to kill politicians and bankers, il allow that too.
Guns may kill people but it takes a human to pull the trigger.