No gun pictures or stories today, but this is still firearms related. It’s also related to civil rights.
Hugo Chavez: Fighting crime by disarming innocent people
March 6, 2012
Caracas, VenezuelaWith an annual murder rate estimated as high as 67 homicides per every 100,000 inhabitants in his country, Hugo Chavez is about to show the world that he’s tough on crime. At least, the non-governmental kind.
Chavez’s government claims that 98% of the homicides in Venezuela involve firearms. His solution? Restrict firearm ownership.
In recent remarks to the Latin American Herald Tribune, Venezuelan Interior and Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami announced that the government will begin suspending firearm importation, effective this month. Furthermore, local gunsmiths will no longer be able to market or sell firearms and ammunition.
That ought to fix the problem. Murderous criminals obviously have no means of acquiring firearms illegally. And hapless victims clearly prefer to defend themselves with soup spoons and Tae Bo lessons.
Don’t forget rape whistles and shunning. Highly effective tactics against violent criminals.
Historically, disarmed populations seldom make too much trouble. Regardless of where you personally stand on firearms, the idea that police and government agents should be the only folks toting weapons ought to sound the alarm bells for any reasonable individual.
I forgot, this isn’t about public safety, reducing crime, or even getting guns off the streets. Like all gun control, it’s about control. It’s about forcing your will on a disarmed populace and making them totally dependent on government for their safety and survival, while refusing to guarantee that the government will provide for their safety and survival.
Huge Chavez will soon likely be a dead dictator. The people he’s going to leave behind are not taking any chances that the populace will get any silly notions about democracy or control of the government by the people. Or at least if they DO get such silly notions they will be easy to control.
An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject. Clearly, Hugo et al want subjects not citizens.
There is a lesson in this for those of us living well north of Venezuela.
Hmmmm, let’s see.
The last civil war in the UK was in 1642. The last one in the USA was in 1861, so the UK has gone for over twice as long without a civil war as the USA. (in fact, when we had our last civil war, the USA didn’t exist!)
The murder rate in the UK is (last available data) 1.23 per 100,000. The rate for the USA (same year) was 4.8 per 100,000.
So, the USA, with much less control over firearms and many more people having guns “for their own protection”, has had a civil war in the last 150 years as against 370 for the UK, and has a four times higher murder rate.
Still think it’s OK to have poor gun control?
Yes. The British Empire has a long tradition of killing those who oppose it. That’s why it was an empire. They tried that in the US and lost. Then they tried it in 1812 and lost. The reason they lost both times was that the Americans were armed and could fight back.
While your murder rates might be lower, violent crime rates are higher in England than the US. That’s because in the US we are mostly allowed to defend ourselves, while in England you end up like Tony Martin.
Enjoy your country, but don’t go outside after dark lest the Yobs get you.
I’ll take the risk that comes with having freedom, you can feel free to be totally dependent on the government for your safety.
Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers. I live near Nottingham (“Most violent city in Britain” SHOCK! HORROR!) I regularly go outside after dark and can’t remember the last violence I saw.
Most reported violence in Britain is associated with drunken teens knocking cr1p out of each other on the way home. In many places it would be ignored but not in good ole’ Britain – we appear to need to prosecute every time, leading to higher figures.
“While your murder rates may be lower…” yes, just a quarter of those in the US. A quarter!!! Much good general access to firearms does in those cases. I’m not saying our gun laws are correct; in some cases we’re too lenient, in others much to strict. Overall though, we have a quarter of the US murder rate. Whoops! Sorry, keep repeating that – could be that I don’t like to see innocent people killed.
BTW, we also seem to have a lower rate of “aggravated theft” – that’s where the thief has a weapon of some description.
Keep in mind that the laws are not universal across the United States, but what is universal is that homicide rates are highest in areas that have strict gun control. Washington DC and New York City for example, have higher homicide rates that cities in Florida or Texas. I wonder why that is?
tooldtowork, I think you may be mixing cause and effect.
You appear to conclude that it’s because of strict(er) gun control in some areas that they have the higher murder rate. Could it not be the other way round? Perhaps they have stricter gun control BECAUSE of their higher rate. OK, it’s not eliminated gun crime, but has control cut it? We’ll never know.
Again, I point you to the UK. We share a similar culture in many things, but the murder rate in the US is so much higher than in the UK. From your proposition, we on the right side of the Atlantic should have a considerably higher murder rate than you on the left, considering how strict our laws are. In fact, our rate is much lower than yours.
No, the stricter gun control is followed by higher rates of violent crime, loosening restrictions results in lower rates of crime. The data is out there. I suggest you read “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. At every turn, when gun control imposed, crime rates jump. Even in England, maybe even especially in England. There are a lot of factors in crime rates, but gun control is one that consistently raises rates of violent crime. Not to mention the rate of burglaries and home invasion.
Again, I’ll take my chances with my freedom, I wish you good luck with your security.