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."

59 of 828 comments (clear)

  1. So.... by Red+Storm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....
    1. Re:So.... by mr1911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two Predictions:
      1) As the parent stated, gun violence will go up. Bad guys love unarmed targets.
      2) Government violence against citizens will go up.

      Yes, I know this is like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. Just call me Captain Obvious.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    2. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Prove it. Cite a relevant study.
      Don't make baseless claims about statistics if you don't have hard evidence.
      One could make the claim that you don't need a gun to commit a violent crime or a homicide. A knife or a big piece of wood/metal or even just fists is more than sufficient.

    3. Re:So.... by sribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Actually, no they do not show any such thing. Just try to find a citation.

      Heck, I even know the underlying statistic, where it came from, and how it has been misrepresented by gun-control advocates. But it would be more educational for you to try to find a citation for the urban legend you're trying to help spread than for me to spell it out for you. So go ahead, try to find a citation or any actual numbers anywhere to back up your claim ;-)

      Unless of course "people near the victim" includes the attacker ;-)

    4. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Two Predictions:
      1) As the parent stated, gun violence will go up. Bad guys love unarmed targets.
      2) Government violence against citizens will go up.
      Yes, I know this is like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow. Just call me Captain Obvious.

      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.

      If you genuinely think that a gun protects you from the goverment you're deluding yourself.

    5. Re:So.... by Ksevio · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The victim having a gun doesn't help in most cases. Studies have shown that bystanders are more likely to get injured, and having a gun during a drive-by shooting is pretty much useless. Making guns harder to get isn't likely to make those go up.

    6. Re:So.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless of course "people near the victim" includes the attacker ;-)

      We're talking about sensationalized numbers dreamed up by anti-self-protection advocates.

      Why wouldn't they?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:So.... by vagabond_gr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) As the parent stated, gun violence will go up. Bad guys love unarmed targets.

      I can't predict what will happen in Venezuela, but here is my personal experience, for what it's worth. I've lived in three European countries, all of which forbid the sale of firearms. Although crime does exist, for example breaking into apartments is common, not a single person of my very extended circles has ever faced an armed bad guy.

      Believe me, small scale thieves here don't have guns. And even if you're a bad guy and you can find a gun, it's a really really stupid idea to take it with you when breaking into somebody's house, cause you don't need to protect yourself against other guns, and the last think you want is to commit murder in the heat of the moment. In "small" crimes, both the victim and the bad guy are better off without guns.

    8. Re:So.... by b0bby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is making the transition from a gun owing society to a non-gun owning society. If there are already a ton of guns out there in private hands (as I guess is the case in Venezuela) and you then just take the guns away from those people who follow the law & hand them in, you're going to be left with a lot of guns in the hands of people who don't follow the law. Would there be less homicides if all the guns disappeared magically? Almost certainly. Will there be less homicides if a substantial portion of the population (criminals) keeps their guns and feel that most law abiding citizens are now incapable of defending themselves? I'm not sure.

    9. Re:So.... by rezalas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually when you go to rob someone taking a gun (since they can't legally own one) is the best move to both passify the home owner and / or murder them if needed. In these instances there won't be anyone to see you do it. The only person who did see you is now dead on the floor (or people if you murder a whole family). Criminals don't think "what is the minimal amount of defense I can take into this robbery", no they think "What can I do to make sure I get away without being caught". A gun pretty much ensures that when you tell the home owner to bury his face in the pillow while you tie him up, he does it.

      This is why Americans don't want to give up weapons. We know the "kind criminal" is a myth, and we don't intend to be a victim while we hope that someone shows up to save us.

    10. Re:So.... by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sadly, every place else that has done this country wide has had gun violence decrease, and no correlation between the removal of guns and more government violence in modern society.

      But you keep spreading those lies so you can keep your penis extender.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:So.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And LaPierre's statistics about the millions upon millions of people claiming they deterred a criminal attack by brandishing a firearm can't POSSIBLY be inflated by the NRA.... because we know gun owners don't exaggerate. ever.

      A) No citation = I call bullshit.
      B) So, because one asshole makes up some BS "statistic," it's OK for everyone else to do so? Yea, good call, let's have everyone poison the well, there's no way that could turn out badly...
      C) Speaking on behalf of myself and many other responsible gun owners, the NRA is a necessary evil - necessary because, without their lying asses acting as advocates, the lying asses in the anti-self-protection lobby would have disarmed the populace years ago.

      Maybe if the anti-gun nuts (AKA 'pussies') wouldn't make shit up in an attempt to demonize gun owners, we wouldn't need the NRA morons to counter them.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:So.... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great . . . did these three European countries have pro-government gangs armed with firearms to enforce the dictator's will and crush disparate viewpoints? If so, I wonder if said jackbooted thugs were worried about getting shot when smashing down dissidents' doors at 3 AM to arrest, rape, beat, and otherwise terrorize anyone opposed to Dear Leader? I suppose Nazi-occupied Poland wasn't one of the countries you lived in, huh? But I guess that could never happen again, not in gun-free Europe, right?

    13. Re:So.... by oh2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, most criminals actually have some morals/smarts. Its a big step from robbing someones house to killing every potential witness. Comitting crimes does not automatically make you a homicidal maniac, guns or no guns.

      --

      Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

    14. Re:So.... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If true then Americans are fooling themselves. Criminals aren't idiots, and most will not commit a murder except by accident. The average burglar in non-gun obsessed countries runs away when confronted. Getting caught by the homeowner is a no brainer - run away and the burglary MIGHT get reported, MIGHT get investigated, and in the unlikely event you actually get arrested, attempted burglary doesn't carry a huge penalty. But if you kill the homeowner it will DEFINITELY get reported, DEFINITELY be investigated, and the solved rate on homicides in most western nations is pretty good, so you've got a good chance of doing hard time.

      Countries with reasonable gun control have much lower rates of violent crime. Since you seem to be American, you have only to look north.

    15. Re:So.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rifles and shotguns on the other hand are worthwhile investments for hunting, and fighting in the civil war against the Fascist Republicans.

      And even useful for protecting your guns, when the Socialist Democrats come to take them away from you...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:So.... by Ksevio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many accidental gun injuries/deaths are their in houses that own a gun?

      Now compare that to houses that don't own a gun.

    17. Re:So.... by Yosho-sama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Travyon Martin was 16. You can't get a concealed carry permit at 16.

      I'm guessing you're glossing over the fact that people with vigilante tendencies, low IQs or mental problems should not be allowed to carry a gun, but do because guns are too easy to get. But hey tell that to the Pastor's daughter in Florida who was shot in the head through a wall when a security guard at the church was playing with his gun. You're absolutely right, her having a gun would have made her immune to bullets.

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-daughter-accidentally-shot-in-the-head-in-church-dies/

      I don't think guns should be banned, I think they should be controlled and only licensed to people with extensive training or military experience. You know, like Switzerland where everyone is armed because everyone is in the military.

      --
      My kingdom for a donkey!
    18. Re:So.... by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      guns are not the only thing that kills people.

      If a rapist or killer has a physical advantage (or an advantage because he ignores the gun ban) he can strike with impunity against unarmed people. If the law abiding people had guns, every time he attacks he risks forfeiting his own life. That prevents deaths, either by preventing the crime or stopping the criminal.

    19. Re:So.... by mr1911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would there be less homicides if all the guns disappeared magically? Almost certainly.

      Your conclusion is presumptuous. Humans did a damn good job of killing one another before firearms were invented, and they continue to do so today at a significant rate even when a firearm is not involved.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    20. Re:So.... by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right that both sides will have their propaganda, but in fact even gun ban advocates believe that gun deterrence is extremely effective, since none of them propose even a symbolic disarmament of police like in the UK. If anything they're supportive of more heavily arming police and are not averse to having armed bodyguards for their personal protection.

    21. Re:So.... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      less guns will only lead to less deaths

      Better to have more deaths than to have the only deaths be at the hands of criminals and a criminal government.

    22. Re:So.... by Yosho-sama · · Score: 1, Insightful

      George Zimmerman left his car and confronted Trayvon Martin. It was in the evidence release. Self Defense goes out the window once you put yourself in a dangerous situation. Also, Let me know where you live so I can start a fight with you and when you fight back, I get to shoot you and have FOX News send me money.

      --
      My kingdom for a donkey!
    23. Re:So.... by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Personal stories are cute but have very little bearing on the topic. I live in the "gun happy" US and not a single person of my very extended circles has ever faced an armed bad guy either.

      And even if you're a bad guy and you can find a gun, it's a really really stupid idea to take it with you when breaking into somebody's house, cause you don't need to protect yourself against other guns, and the last think you want is to commit murder in the heat of the moment.

      Bad guys don't carry guns to protect themselves. They carry guns to tip the balance of power to their benefit. A bad guy rarely commits murder "in the heat of the moment".

      both the victim and the bad guy are better off without guns

      Bullshit. If you are facing a bad guy intent on doing you harm, you are far better off the the most efficient and effective means of self defense available to you.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    24. Re:So.... by zwei2stein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you were crinimal, your nickname would be "idiot rezalas".

      Police will not really work hard when investigating typical robbery. Even if homeowner saw someone, police will have rather casuall aproach because there are usually more important crimes to solve like...

      Murdered family? Well, enjoy your manhunt because now you are high-priority target which made some headlines. Expect police to to a lot more thorou, dedicate more men, public call for help of witneses, check security cameras, ask cell phone operators for co-location profile of cell phones, Snitches, Bounties, Maybe short spot at news etc etc...

      Just showing gun might make you improtant enough that your case will be actually investigated rather than filed. Killing someone? Con-fucking-gratulations, genius, you *really* made sure you are not getting caught, now didn't you?

      Thanks for illustrating shortsigtedness of gun-people.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    25. Re:So.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Irrelevant to this discussion.

      This is about dictatorships outlawing guns to make it harder for people to shuck off their oppressors, which is exactly why it was enshrined in the US constitution.

      It's not about home safety or hunting rights, or the statistical vagaries thereto.

      Mr. Dictator no want lose cush job.

      And, by the way, loss of a nation's freedom exceeds all prosaic gun violence over the decades as a major disaster by light years.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:So.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you genuinely think that a gun protects you from the goverment you're deluding yourself.

      You're the one who's seriously deluded. The people in Afghanistan have repelled attempts from several large powers to take over their country many times using guns. How do you think the Soviet Army was defeated there? Or how do you think the Viet Cong defeated the Americans? Guerrilla warfare tactics and small arms have always been a huge problem for powerful armies trying to take over other countries.

    27. Re:So.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we can look south. Mexico has very strong gun control laws. An American tourist who gets caught by police there with a round of ammunition accidentally dropped on the floor of his vehicle can expect to stay in jail for 5 years there. How are those gun control laws working out for them? Every time I turn on the news, there's a story about dozens of people being decapitated and hung from bridges there.

      The reason European countries don't have huge violent crime problems is because of culture, not gun control laws.

    28. Re:So.... by Gonoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Socialist Democrats

      If you call your Democrats that, it makes me wonder if you have ever seen a Socialist.

      Let me give you a clue here. Socialists are not the same as marxists are not the same as communists.
      If you had socialists in power, there is no way you would not have universal health care by now. Your health spending would be somewhere under half what it is now and you wouldn't have 50 million without any health care.

      Eastern Europe during that bad days of the Soviets may not really have been socialism but if you like to call it that, be aware that they allowed a lot more gun ownership than Western Europe does now. If people have guns but no tanks and armoured vehicles they can think they can defend themselves. What is happening in Syria shows how well that works...

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    29. Re:So.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Criminals don't think "what is the minimal amount of defense I can take into this robbery", no they think "What can I do to make sure I get away without being caught".

      No, criminals don't think that way. They target places they think are easy, where the occupier is out. They will probably just run away if disturbed. The chances of actually being seen and identified by an eye witness are pretty slim in the dark of night while running with their back to someone. Criminals who have been in fights quickly realize that it is a risky business, the other person will probably hurt them even if they win and the best thing to do is avoid a confrontation altogether.

      Below the level of white collar crime people don't tend to become criminals because they think they can get away with it, they do so because they are desperate or have no life chances. It doesn't make them murderers, Even in countries without guns they could carry knives, or get an illegal gun, but they tend not to.

      In case they do it is best for the victim not to carry their own gun. The second you pull a gun on someone else your own chance of dying massively increases. People robbing houses don't want to kill other human beings, if they did they could earn a lot more money as a hit man. If you don't resist you will probably live, if you start a fight or pull your own weapon you will probably get hurt or die. The stats are quite clear. In fact if you do confront a burglar the most likely outcome is that they will flee.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:So.... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please turn in your kitchen knives. While you're at it, have your gas and electricity cut off. Statistics show that in every single electrocution. electricity was near by.

    31. Re:So.... by s73v3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. If you are facing a bad guy intent on doing you harm, you are far better off the the most efficient and effective means of self defense available to you.

      Except now you've given the criminal a much better reason to try and kill you.

    32. Re:So.... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, those stats don't talk about suicide or accidents. But that's also beside the point.

      The key point is that if you own a gun which is in your house, then you are more likely to be harmed by that gun than by a gun brought in by someone else. That's true even if you exclude suicide and accidents.

      Hint: Think about domestic violence.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    33. Re:So.... by philip.paradis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is bullshit. Since we're speaking in terms of hypothetical scenarios, if George Zimmerman had not had access to a gun, he might have been killed by having his head pounded into the pavement. You weren't there, so you can't prove otherwise, right? On a personal note, my father is probably still alive today because he's carried a pistol for decades, and actually had to use it to stop an assault on his person by several random thugs in a parking garage.

      You do understand that making things illegal only stops law-abiding people from obtaining said items, right? I won't live in a country where I'm forced to put myself at a material disadvantage against a criminal assailant. So how about we agree to a compromise. You stay in your country of choice, and I'll stay in mine.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
  2. Hmm by taktoa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hmm by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it is a bad law in theory and I think your latter point is true.

      It also seems like it will end all of the shooting sports.

    2. Re:Hmm by raydobbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the only reason to disarm your populace - to make it lethal to fight back against tyrannical regimes.

    3. Re:Hmm by terraformer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your worry proves why this and all civilian disarmament efforts are BAD in theory.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    4. Re:Hmm by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, because it's easy to defeat a modern army using only cheap pistols.

      Yea, it's not like there's ever been a time in history when a smaller, poorly equipped group of volunteers fed a large military force their own asses, or anything...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not the GP to whom you addressed the question, but it's one that interests me. I'm an American citizen. I own a gun safe, which contains a collection of rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But I don't consider myself a gun nut. I don't shoot very often. I've only ever done target shooting for sport. I've never hunted. In short, the 2nd Amendment has some effect on my life, but I don't put food on my table using firearms.

      The right of the citizens of the USA to bear arms has been codified in the Constitution of the United States, which means that the US Supreme Court has the authority to uphold or strike down laws that interact with it. I would not suggest repealing the 2nd Amendment. I don't believe that it is a good use of our legislative time or money to try to craft laws that try to find sneaky ways around constitutional requirements. For example, the California 'assault weapons' ban is, in my opinion, a pointless and reactionary law that depends upon hysteria and ignorance in the people who support it. I happen to own an SKS rifle that would, I believe, be illegal there. But it's no more or less deadly than any other gun that I own. Apparently, they have banned this gun because it 'looks scary'.

      At the same time, I find it preposterous when people suggest that if everyone just walked around with a gun strapped to their belt all the time, that this would somehow reduce gun violence. It would be laughable, if it weren't so ominously crazy. People suggest that, say, at Virignia Tech, if all of the students had been armed, then the whole thing wouldn't have been so bloody. But what happens when everyone has a gun, nobody knows who the bad guy is, and some kind of mass gunfight erupts in the middle of campus? It's a battlefield situation where none of the players have learned any battlefield discipline. Or, this: right now, it's illegal in my state to bring a gun into a bar. What would happen to bar fights if everyone was armed? Drunken bros would be shooting people right and left. For me, the bottom line here is that people (and especially younger people) are demonstrably bad at considering the consequences of their actions before they act. In such a situation, it seems ludicrous to arm them all with deadly weapons.

      So my stance is that it's a complicated issue, and that I don't believe it's responsible to have a yes or no answer to whether I support the right to bear arms. In general, I do. But I think there are exceptions that are appropriate. Last year, a crazy man who lived in my town shot his ex-girlfriend to death. Now, if he hadn't had a gun, maybe he would have done it some other way. But I don't see why we should arm people who are mentally unstable and violent. If he'd only had a knife, he'd have needed to get a lot closer to stab her with it, and she might have had time to react. I don't want to play a long game of 'what if' about it. I'm just saying that while the right to bear arms is important, I believe it also should be moderated.

  3. Sure.... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disarming the citizenry in a dictatorship is SOP. Isn't Hugo running behind on that?

  4. Difference between stated intent and real intent. by hoppo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  5. huh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only time you'll need the second amendment is when they try to take it away.

    1. Re:huh, by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've never understood this. What kind of sucker thinks that he will ever be able to take up arms against the government of the United States? The US has, by far, the most powerful military in the world. Explain to me how you are going to fight a M1 tank or an F35 jet with your Desert Eagle.

      Lets say that a group of 10,000 armed citizens decides to take over the government. That is an extremely generous number. I would say that even local and state police could put down that kind of rebellion. And if it ever got out of hand, then a single bomb from above could easily take the fight out of the mob.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  6. The premise seems failed. by talldean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The United States has more guns than people. If the guns were causing the crime, we'd live in a post-apocalypse already.

    1. Re:The premise seems failed. by Red4man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on the ammo used, but overall, you're right. FMJ rounds will likely pass right through you, but a .40 or .45 the impact from the kinetic force is just as bad for you as the gunshot wound itself. If we're talking hollowpoints - or even better - Federal Hydrashoks or Hornady Critical Defense rounds - then even a 380 rounds is going to ruin your day.

      The most important thing in self-defense with a hand gun: shot placement. A little Ruger LCP 380, if you use a hollowpoint and hit center mass, will be effective.

      --
      Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
  7. Disarm the good guys by sideslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Disarm the good guys by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, this could be interesting, as long as we can get reliable statistics... if gun-related violent crime rates stay the same, that'll answer the question once and for all, and everyone trying to disarm citizens in other countries won't have a leg to stand on. If it DOES work, then maybe its time for people to think more creatively about weaponry, and possibly move away from firearms to weapons that are either more generic, or more specialized.

      I can see the next step after this being shoot-to-kill directives for enforcement witnessing a crime in progress with any non-regulated participants brandishing firearms.

    2. Re:Disarm the good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And here in Sweden every other shop lifter is running around shooting anyone trying to stop them, because we are stupid enough to regulate weapons.

    3. Re:Disarm the good guys by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, this could be interesting, as long as we can get reliable statistics...

      Snicker ;-)

  8. Crazed socialist wants to disarm the proles by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Breaking news. Full story at eleven...

  9. Statistics by jimmifett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Those who cannot remember the past... by Loopy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...are condemned to repeat it.

    Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.

    1. Re:Those who cannot remember the past... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.

      The necessary goal is to make current tyrants cheer from their graves.

      The reason for private citizens to own guns is so we can execute corrupt police, tyrannical senators and presidents, and (oh yeah, way way down on the list) muggers. This is why police, senators and muggers favor disarmament. It's time we treated disarmament advocates as active collaborators with these people, and punish them accordingly.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  11. Re:Difference between stated intent and real inten by aquabat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.
  12. Of course as a counter example by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Of course as a counter example by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Because it's extremely difficult to smuggle a gun in from one of the other 49 states, many of which will give a gun to just about anyone.

      Hell, with the new stand-your-ground laws, those WITHOUT guns tend to have fewer rights in practice.

    2. Re:Of course as a counter example by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's extremely difficult to smuggle a gun in from one of the other 49 states, many of which will give a gun to just about anyone.

      Note that it is illegal to buy a firearm of any kind anywhere but in your State of legal residence.

      Note further that a background check is required for firearms purchases from a dealer (private sales between individuals do not require background checks), and that having a criminal record prevents one from passing the background check.

      Net effect for DC - law-abiding citizens cannot own firearms, criminals can. Which is paradise for a criminal.

      Note also that if merely the presence of firearms causes problems, then the problems should be no worse in DC than elsewhere. And yet DC has one of the highest murder/violent crime rates in the nation.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  13. Welcome to the land of made up minds... by Genda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.