Venezuela bans civilians from private gun ownership

posted at 9:41 am on June 4, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Venezuela has major crime problems — we hear a lot about the systemic violence in Mexico, but by at least one count, Venezuela’s murder rate is four times higher than that of Mexico’s and the highest in all of South America. As such, violent crime is one of the most dominant political issues in the socialist nation, and will factor hugely in their upcoming October elections.

And so, in a typically misguided move to cut down on crime, the government has decided to ban the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition. How and why making it illegal for lawful citizens to own firearms is supposed to make anyone feel more “secure,” I’ll never comprehend.

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer. …

Besides the health of President Chavez, security is the main concern for voters ahead of presidential elections in October.

While voters don’t seem to hold Mr Chavez responsible for the insecurity, the situation has worsened throughout his 13 years in office. …

Hugo Chavez’s government says the ultimate aim is to disarm all civilians, but his opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.

Huh. A corruption-riddled dictatorial regime wants to deprive its citizens of the means of popular resistance. (Where, oh where in history have we seen this type of thing before?) I happen to believe that a government should always fear its people, but I can maybe understand why communist totalitarians might not be so into that idea.

And besides, you know — effectually cementing the indomitable power of the national government — this is just another classic case of thoughtless bureaucrats using cheap band-aids to attack the symptoms instead of the disease. More guns means less crime — when will they learn?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


woodNfish on June 4, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Your assertion does not jibe with my understanding. You seem to say because some asked for it, it is deserved to all. Of course my take on it is anecdotal and based on relationships of folks both here in the U.S. and on the ground there in Venezuela. There are many people in the world who do not deserve what life gives them. That does not make them morons. Many do not ask for it as you suggest. The same can been said about many in the U.S. Many of us did not ask for 0, some did, are we all morons because some did? Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

woodNfish on June 4, 2012 at 12:33 PM

English is my weak suit. Why is the use of the word wrong?

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I would still like to understand what the problem is. I am trying to learn.

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Style points.

novaculus on June 4, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Style points.

novaculus on June 4, 2012 at 1:02 PM

So it is correct, but bad form, from a writing style POV?

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I hope that the greater social interaction between our new editor and the comment class will effectuate greater understanding and harmony.

No issues here with Erika. Good work!

kirkill on June 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Could some please explain how our dear liar – Barack Hussein Downgrade – is different from his sole mate from Venezuela?

Example: They both want to deprive the citizenry of the right of self-defense.

How are they different?

Chip on June 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Well, I haven’t heard effectually used in that expression before, effectively being the common usage. But I don’t see any grammatical issues with it.

novaculus on June 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

novaculus on June 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Thanks novaculus, I don’t know where the fellow who complained about it went off to. Must not have bothered him too much. ; )

Bmore on June 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

His head exploded from Chip’s “sole mate” comment. :)

NapaConservative on June 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Guns are cheap.

Life is precious.

Luckily you can defend the latter with the former.

ajacksonian on June 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Many hundreds of thousands of dead German soldiers would attest to the accuracy and lethality of the M-N and the 7.62x54R…if they could.

Extrafishy on June 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM

who do they think they are down there, Chicago (or DC or New York City)?

krome on June 4, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Thank God for the NRA. They deserve our support for surely Obama is a Chavez wannabe.

Christian Conservative on June 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Obama and the left wing scumbag’s wet dream.

Resistance is futile. Report to work with your salary cut by 50% or DIE.

Talk back, and DIE.

Vote the opposition and DIE.

Yep, obungle’s wet dream.

Wolfmoon on June 4, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Chip on June 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Well, Obama and Hugo should fear an armed populace.

That’s the whole point, ain’t it?

BigAlSouth on June 4, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Hugo: “Dude, you got to have that civilian police force in place as soon as possible. I did and it really works to cut down on the dissent!”

Obama: “Well, the “Bitter Clingers” as I like to call the little White people have a lot of guns. I am not worried about MY kind of people or Your kind of people, they are on my side.”

Hugo: “Hey! Go the gun control route! Just make it a crime, like I did!”

Obama: “Hugo, you da man!”

Kadaffi: “Can I get in on that action too?”

Obama: Unhhh…umm..

Bulletchaser on June 4, 2012 at 8:26 PM

If I were to select a Jackbooted group of Fascist’s who are perhaps a large a danger to American Society as I could pick today I, would pick BATF. They are a shame and a disgrace to our Country. – Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) circa 1981

Remember, if tyranny comes to any Americans door, it must come in uniform.

One more thing to remember. When they come for your guns. Make sure they are nice and warm and you haven’t any ammunition left for them.

Missilengr on June 4, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Keeping law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves? What could go wrong?

Yakko77 on June 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

This guy has been in charge since 1999 and only now he starts banning guns? Sheesh! What a slowpoke.

JackOfClubs on June 5, 2012 at 9:38 PM