Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Venezuela Bans the Commercial Sale of Firearms and Ammunition

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the guns-don't-kill-people,-except-when-they-do dept.

Crime 828

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."

cancel ×

828 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So.... (5, Insightful)

Red Storm (4772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184851)

Who will they blame when gun violence goes up?

Re:So.... (3, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184991)

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.

Re:So.... (-1, Flamebait)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185175)

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.

As for number 2... nope, nothing on that, it's Venezuela after all...

Re:So.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185241)

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.

Re:So.... (4, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185271)

Those stats include suicides in the "people who are harmed by guns" numbers.

Disclaimer: I'm a non-gun-owning Canadian

Re:So.... (5, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185277)

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 ;-)

Re:So.... (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185477)

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?

Re:So.... (4, Informative)

terraformer (617565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185293)

No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.

This is a complete and utter manipulation of the numbers which you have bought into lock stock and barrel.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185551)

Also, that statistic only counted a "defensive use" of a firearm that ended up with a dead attacker. If the defender scared off an attacker, or even held the attacker for the police to arrest, that was not counted as a "defensive use".

So, surprise surprise, there were very few defensive uses of a firearm in the study.

And the sample size was very small, so a few suicides had a profound impact on the numbers.

Utterly dishonest. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'd say "damned statistics".

Re:So.... (-1, Troll)

Red Storm (4772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185303)

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.

As for number 2... nope, nothing on that, it's Venezuela after all...

Tell that to Susanna Hupp after the Luby's shooting. She watched a gunman shoot both of her parents, while her gun was lawfully elsewhere, it was illegal at the time to conceal carry in Texas.

Statistics show taking guns away causes an increase in violent crime... See Australia and England
Statistics show that allowing for more lawful firearm posession (concealed carry) tends to reduce violent crime... See Florida, Texas etc.

The bottom line really comes down to this... Do you want to have a 100% guarantee that a criminal can shoot you with impunity, or a chance to protect your life... Tell that to Susanna Hupp after the Luby's shooting.

conversely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185411)

...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!!!

Re:So.... (3, Funny)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185455)

I wonder if statistics show that people who feel they live in a dangerous area are more likely to live in a dangerous area?
I wonder if statistics show that people who feel they live in a dangerous area are more likely to obtain a firearm?
I wonder if those statistics could be related to the debate.

Re:So.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185365)

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.

Re:So.... (3, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185465)

That's why I'm building a supply of nuclear weapons!

Gotta fight fire with fire.

Re:So.... (4, Insightful)

b0bby (201198) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185609)

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.

Re:So.... (4, Insightful)

vagabond_gr (762469) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185597)

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.

Re:So.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185263)

like europe and asia gun violence always goes up for 6 months and goes down to nearly zero within 3 years...
watch and learn america....

Re:So.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185473)

So, if gun violence goes down, would you actually admit that banning the sale of firearms had an effect? Or will you write the decrease off as a coincidence, or deny that it is real?

Because in a lot of strongly ideological arguments like this, it seems like neither side is willing to admit that they were wrong. I find it hard to believe that gun violence will increase, but if we can devise some metrics for accounting for gun violence, then we should be able to answer the question factually. Of course, it will take a long time to collect enough data to identify a change in the gun violence trend line.

Too often, it seems like people are very quick to jump on the next number that comes out, so if gun violence is up in July, it must show that this law was a bad idea! It reminds me of people who say, 'Aha, it snowed in my town in June, and therefore global climate change is disproven!'

Re:So.... (1, Insightful)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185475)

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.

Hmm (2, Insightful)

taktoa (1995544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184855)

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.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184885)

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.

Re:Hmm (4, Insightful)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184891)

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

Re:Hmm (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185193)

Right, because it's easy to defeat a modern army using only cheap pistols. If people decide to take up arms they will, gun laws or not; take the revolutionaries from Colombia, for instance - they have been fighting the government for decades, and I don't think they care much about only using legal guns.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185279)

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

Strawman arguments are lies.

Re:Hmm (2, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185605)

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, [wikipedia.org] poorly equipped [wikipedia.org] group of volunteers fed a large military force their own asses, [wikipedia.org] or anything...

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185459)

So Japan is a tyrannical regime?

Re:Hmm (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185603)

So Japan is a tyrannical regime?

Apparently. I'm pro-gun, but the whole blanket statement that government takes away guns from citizens because they are tyrannical and thus want to prevent resistance, that's just hand waving.

Re:Hmm (2)

dolmant_php (461584) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184907)

If this is a good law in theory, then what is your stance on the citizens of the USA's right to bear arms?

Re:Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185393)

Well... I could agree that "In theory", it's a good thing to remove guns.

Less lead poisoning (Fast moving variety) would decrease if all guns were removed.

The problem? Theory never follows reality. You know... the reality where criminals don't obey the law and love "gun free" zones. As well as governments (like Syria) that don't care about killing a few (thousand) to keep it's rule.

Same can be said for Drug laws... great in theory... to bad drugs flow freely and the casualties are poor youth who get institutionalized in prison and the winners are cartels and the prison system.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185531)

I'd say the expose on Guatemalan death squads fits well in comparison here: Almost all of the people killed were unarmed farms and civilians. How long would they have been able to keep that activity up if the average citizen had a gun (barring their financial limitations) and if enough people knew there was the possibility of them or their children being rape and murdered? I bet you'd see a significant uptake in gun ownership and a significant DECREASE in trusting those with 'authority' be it coming out of their mouth or coming out of a barrel.

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

terraformer (617565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185321)

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

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185425)

DUH, really? I'm surprised on dumb lib on here see it for what it is.

Sure.... (5, Insightful)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184863)

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

Re:Sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185337)

it's easier to kill civilians when they can't shoot back, see: Syria

Difference between stated intent and real intent. (4, Insightful)

hoppo (254995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184865)

"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.

Re:Difference between stated intent and real inten (1, Insightful)

aquabat (724032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185397)

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).

huh, (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40184875)

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

Re:huh, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40184921)

That's funny, I didn't realize Venezuela was in the United States?

Re:huh, (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184955)

true, maybe that has a point about the principle represented by the 2nd amendment.

Re:huh, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185171)

Exactly! GP is wrong; the second amendment is at work every day, deterring them from trying to take it away.

No change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40184881)

Yeah, now the crime rate won't drop, and 78% of violant crimes will be committed with *illegal* firearms! gg!

Re:No change (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184939)

Nah, 90% of crimes will be committed with rocks and pointy sticks, because the law-abiding victims won't be able to shoot back any more.

Re:No change (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185467)

No, murders with firearms will go down, but that doesn't mean the number of murders will change.

violent crime, eh? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184883)

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 :)

Re:violent crime, eh? (3, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185041)

Is he planning on coming back as a zombie to rule? Their constitution will have nothing to do with him keeping him out of office, his death from cancer will though.

The premise seems failed. (5, Insightful)

talldean (1038514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184889)

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

Re:The premise seems failed. (5, Funny)

Red4man (1347635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185129)

I'll believe that guns kill people when the gun is convicted instead of the person.

Re:The premise seems failed. (4, Interesting)

talldean (1038514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185209)

I'd believe guns kill people if gun bans in other countries had successfully reduced crime, instead of just changing it. The majority (2/3rds) of gun deaths in the US are suicides. We'd be most successful reducing *deaths* by having better support for depressed people, for instance.

Re:The premise seems failed. (2)

Red4man (1347635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185315)

Take a look at our friends in the UK - everyone* turned in their guns, and the murder rate went up...

... there were just more stabbings.

If I'm about to buy it, I'd honestly rather get shot than stabbed. Over a lot quicker..

* not really everyone

Re:The premise seems failed. (4, Interesting)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185555)

Actually, if you make it to the hospital there's something like a 95% survival rate on gunshot wounds. They don't tend to do much internal damage if they miss the lungs and heart and even on a perforated lung you can survive quite a while. Individual stabbings tend to do more damage because a slashing motion on removal can tear up a lot of fleshy parts.

Re:The premise seems failed. (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185385)

I'd believe guns kill people if gun bans in other countries had successfully reduced crime, instead of just changing it.

The majority (2/3rds) of gun deaths in the US are suicides. We'd be most successful reducing *deaths* by having better support for depressed people, for instance.

Shhh.... You don't want the people to realize gun control is all about control and nothing about guns or safety now, do you? :-)

Re:The premise seems failed. (2, Funny)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185427)

Mod parent UP!

I am a gun owner. I have guns in cabinets. To date, none have jumped out and tried to throttle me. I feel pretty safe around them.

I have to say though, I'm watching my .22. It's got a nasty glint in its eye.

Re:The premise seems failed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185251)

No one's claiming the guns cause the violence, only that they enable it.

Re:The premise seems failed. (1)

Red4man (1347635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185429)

Yeah, but that's horseshit, too. That's like saying that a tire iron enables me to smash out your window...(when really, I'd have a lot less chance of getting cut by glass if I just threw a large brick or rock through it).

Re:The premise seems failed. (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185573)

No one's claiming the guns cause the violence, only that they enable it.

Well, they SAY that, but all their actual recommended actions treat guns as the cause...no, really. You, yourself, even. You say "enable" as if there would be no violence if all the guns disappeared, like we're in Operation Flashpoint or something.

Check out Australia's homicide rate before/after their gun ban. No noticeable reduction over two decades (alongside, incidentally, what may very well be a totally coincidental rise in assaults and rape). That doesn't sound like guns "enabled" violence, more like they "differently abled" it.

As we've seen from Portugal's drug decriminalization, laws that actually create social change don't take decades to pan out, they show effects right away.

Re:The premise seems failed. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185619)

"No one's claiming the guns cause the violence, only that they enable it."

Rwandans did quite nicely with their edged weapons. Some had (expensive) firearms too. See also "Khmer Rouge".

Their VICTIMS were essentially unarmed.

Re:The premise seems failed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185617)

you are ;)

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

Forks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40184903)

And forks make people fat.

Re:Forks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185147)

No, but they make it easier for people to get fat.

For the record, I'm a fork owner.

Re:Forks (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185367)

Pah! You wimpy fork owners, I use a shovel! But am not licensed to carry it concealed.

Re:Forks (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185525)

Half the fork, Half the fat!
Sporks for everyone!

Disarm the good guys (4, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184911)

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.

Re:Disarm the good guys (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185125)

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.

Re:Disarm the good guys (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185287)

it would also be interesting to see if the number of murders remains the same regardless of the % of those murders being commited by guns. This would still be interesting if nongun attempted murders are included. People are violent and having an efficient tool may not be the only reason to try to kill someone, but it is rare to have a large scale opportunity to measure the outcome.

Re:Disarm the good guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185301)

Violence is violence.

All this will slow down is the long range violence. Where as before you could pull it off by yourself now you get a couple of buddies a couple of machetes and well...

Take for example Chicago. Guns were quite well banned there. Yet there were many killings per year...

Re:Disarm the good guys (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185311)

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

Snicker ;-)

Re:Disarm the good guys (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185479)

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

Do you really expect to get reliable (accurate is what I think you are going for there) statistics from a nation whose leader and the referendums he supports has "received" close to 90%+ of the vote in each of the elections despite massive opposition? Good luck with that.

Re:Disarm the good guys (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185623)

I agree that this is a good data point, but hopefully both sides of the issue will carefully weigh such things as whether illegal guns from Colombia and Brazil continue to make it into the hands of the criminals.

For example, Australia's gun ban was extremely effective because it's very hard to get a gun into the country. A gun ban in the United States would have quite the problem with Mexico and Canada both being avenues for smuggling, Canada because the border is rather porous, so the risk of being caught is lower and Mexico because the poverty and crime would mean the value of the crime is higher.

Re:Disarm the good guys (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185143)

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.

Re:Disarm the good guys (1)

Red4man (1347635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185159)

Here in America, when it comes time to "give up our guns" - it means it's time to start shooting. Fuck that.

Crazed socialist wants to disarm the proles (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184923)

Breaking news. Full story at eleven...

This will end... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184929)

...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?

Yeah.... sure... (5, Informative)

jittles (1613415) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184941)

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.

I can believe that statistic, if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40184979)

"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.

Statistics (4, Insightful)

jimmifett (2434568) | more than 2 years ago | (#40184995)

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.

Those who cannot remember the past... (4, Insightful)

Loopy (41728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185005)

...are condemned to repeat it.

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

Re:Those who cannot remember the past... (4, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185153)

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.

what next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185023)

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.

Seems Relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185035)

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 [hrw.org]

Why not just ban homicide instead? (4, Funny)

exabrial (818005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185065)

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)

disarm the planet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185079)

The only solution is to disarm everyone. I mean everyone. The planet. Yes, I'm a naive optimist.

Re:disarm the planet (1)

MikeDataLink (536925) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185213)

Great... and when the aliens attack on July 4th we'll club them to death?

Re:disarm the planet (1)

illumastorm (172101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185327)

Nah. We'll send a neurotic genius to upload a computer virus on the mothership.

Re:disarm the planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185487)

Don't worry macbooks will still be legal.

Re:disarm the planet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185503)

Nah. We'll just send Sean Penn and his radioactive tongue stud to suck their dicks. Look how well it worked with Hugo.

Re:disarm the planet (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185353)

even if you chop everyone off at the shoulders, they could still give a deadly head-butt or kick

Re:disarm the planet (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185613)

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.

Syria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185109)

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.

Interesting times ahead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185139)

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.

Re:Interesting times ahead... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185463)

Ammo doesn't need to be difficult. Plenty of propellants and primers can be made from things that couldn't be well restricted. Cartridges don't need to be made of brass, bullets don't need to be made of lead. Steel and iron would do the job, there.

Lawbreakers (1)

colsandurz45 (1314477) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185231)

Imposing laws on law breakers always works.

slippery slope Hugo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185233)

Venezuela is quickly marching towards the same stifling regime of the likes of United Kingdom, and Japan.
This is very bad Hugo.

Reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185237)

Where lefty ideas come to fail.

both sides (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185269)

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?

For Hire (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185283)

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.

Welcome to Reality. Population: not you. (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185307)

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."

Why didn't they export?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40185333)

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...

when an uprising is possible (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185517)

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.]]

Doesn't the UK ban firearms? (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185589)

And we saw how well that worked in Hot Fuzz:

Andy: Everybody and their mums is packing 'round 'ere.
Nicholas: Like who?
Andy: Farmers.
Nicholas: Who else?
Andy: ...farmers' mums.

lol butthurt (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40185627)

lol butthurt

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?