Venezuela Bans the Commercial Sale of Firearms and Ammunition 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."
Yeah.... sure... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Those stats include suicides in the "people who are harmed by guns" numbers.
Disclaimer: I'm a non-gun-owning Canadian
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.... (Score:4, Informative)
I think one of the more egregious misleading statements is the one about harming a "friend or family member". They classified "friend" and anyone you had even passing knowledge of. Since real random crimes are rare, most of the gun violence crimes fall under their definition.
And you want a cite? I give you the collected works of John Lott.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Your first two links demonstrate that you apparently don't know what "modern" means. Your last link is the story of an invading force fighting a very unpopular war a long way from home. The outcome of the Vietnam war was determined in the US, not in Vietnam.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
7,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]
Disclaimer: I'd probably be labeled as a gun-control extremist and enemy of freedom by the NRA and plenty of slashdotters, but a massively flawed study is a massively flawed study.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
My experience is that handguns are a waste of time, and more dangerous to the owner and his/her family than useful.
Evidence that you don't know how to use one. Get some training; since you didn't grow up around guns I'm sure your dad didn't teach you. If everyone in the family has proper gun safety knowledge the risks are infinitesimal. On the other hand I do personally know people who have had to show a gun in self defense. Fortunately about 98% (IIRC) of the time a firearm is shown in self defense, that's enough to diffuse the situation without a shot having to be fired.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)
But if you take the gun away, the person is less likely to commit suicide - the same way if you put up a fence along a bridge, people are less likely to commit suicide by jumping off.
The statistic is right to include suicides as those are deaths that could have been prevented.
You are kidding, right? If you look at the suicide rate of states it's intimately linked with economic prosperity and not easy access to, or the lack thereof, guns. MA has just as many suicides per capita that other mid size prosperous states do, but less with guns and more with pills, etc.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
You, sir, are a moron. The per-capita intentional homicide rate in the United States is about 3 times the per-capita murder rate in Australia and the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
The numbers come from w32-w34 statistics which don't include suicide.
There is very specific and clearly spelled out metrics.
Example:
Firearm deaths:
99 00 01 02
Unintentional (W32–W34) 824 776 802 762
Suicide . . . . (X72–X74) 16,599 16,586 16,869 17,108
Clearly the are broken out.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_10.pdf [cdc.gov]
When I saw w23-w34 and you DON"T know what I am talking about, then you aren't qualified to have an opinion with any real weight behind it.
Also:
According to the CDC, a child dies every 3 days from an unintentional gun shot.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So.... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, lets us individual cases and build argument on biased emotions. That will solve everything. Idiot.
And your examples is fraught with the logical fallacy that she could have stopped them with a gun. That is a very broad assumption.
"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."
OMG. You are an idiot. Florida and Texas has some of the HIGHEST rates.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1203 [chartsbin.com]
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls [fbi.gov]
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html [fbi.gov]
You can not have serious discussion when you LIE.
Of course looking tat the numbers have shown, over and over again, more guns = more violent crime.
It's so well documented, you should be embarrassed to bring it up. IT makes it look like you are grasping at straws.
We have the right to firearms, not the right to lie about firearms.
Re:So.... (Score:2, Informative)
And you try to convince us that you know what you are talking about? If they weren't idiots, they'd be running a bank, or doing politics; they wouldn't be robbing homes.
Most criminals are addicted to something and can't think straight.
Re:So.... (Score:2, Informative)
The stat, which is a Brady creation...
Yeah, that crazy Brady...upset his head was partially blown off. I can't imagine why he'd want tougher gun laws.