Venezuela Bans Firearms

Venezuela has one of the highest murder-rates in the world and firearms are involved often enough. With an election looming the government has decided to ban all private ownership of firearms. That’s a convenient tool of dictators… In any event farmers are having problems with puma and jaguar killing cattle. What are they to do now? Raise more dogs?

Clearly, the government does not respect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As usual, this move will keep firearms out of the hands of decent people and give the criminals a monopoly on firearms just as the war on drugs did. The result will likely be an increase in crime, including murder as criminals gain power by decree.

see BBC News – Venezuela bans private gun ownership.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Venezuela Bans Firearms

  1. Scharah says:

    Did you decide on the human verification flash? I just had the nicest time practicing my co-ordination whilst proving I was human, hahaha

  2. Scharah says:

    Ubuntu is the only sort of “linux” that you ever hear about and even then it is not very clear just where it is sold or who sells it. I never see it myself.

    Clarence, Ubuntu is free. It doesn’t require retail for installation or use. Good product doesn’t require paid-for promotion, just user recommendation. Anyone interested can find it with a simple search.

  3. Clarence Moon says:

    That’s why people who have a choice often choose GNU/Linux.

    What is that, Mr. Pogson? Is it anything like Ubuntu? Ubuntu is the only sort of “linux” that you ever hear about and even then it is not very clear just where it is sold or who sells it. I never see it myself.

    I don’t think very many people would choose something like you suggest if they have never heard about it and there is nowhere to get it anyway. Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

  4. iLia wrote, “Microsoft does the same”.

    There’s a big difference. M$ charges money for the right to copy something. That’s hardly a service. After the first few million copies, it’s a racket. Using M$’s stuff results in huge costs for malware, re-re-reboots too. Typically, users of that other OS pay two or three times as much to maintain systems as people using GNU/Linux. That’s why people who have a choice often choose GNU/Linux.

  5. iLia says:

    Mr.Pogson:They (Google) have provided great services to users and customers.

    Microsoft does the same: Windows 7, Visual Studio, Microsoft Office and many other great stuff.

    It may be difficult to compete against Google but there’s nothing unfair about that.

    Russian Yandex.ru has no problem with competing with Google, Yandex now has %60 market share in Russia. And Google has only %25.

    Clearly, the government does not respect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

    It is maybe true that private ownership of arms can somewhat increase he number of crimes involving firearms, but it is quite tolerable, because when the government decides to start some kind of repressions it can end in tens of millions of innocent victims, don’t forget about USSR, Vietnam, China, North Korea and others.

    The English Crime Disaster and the Nature of the State

    Disarming Citizens and Multiple Murders:

    In 1985, just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws — laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 37 states. Bill Landes and I have examined all the multiple-victim public shootings with two or more victims in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

  6. Ivan says:

    The USA, which is supposed to be a democracy went to war on the web with Iran without a vote

    Jesus, Bob. The United States is not, nor has it ever been a Democracy. It is a Representative Republic. One would think that a former teacher would know the difference and differentiate between the two and realize that not everything requires a vote.

    What’s next, whining about the executive decision to send a special forces team into Pakistan to take out Asshole #1?

  7. Viktor says:

    Clearly, the government does not respect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As usual, this move will keep firearms out of the hands of decent people and give the criminals a monopoly on firearms just as the war on drugs did. The result will likely be an increase in crime, including murder as criminals gain power by decree.

    That’s quite a funny statement. Because this should be then universally true for other countries as well, especially for those where guns are banned. But in Germany, for example, owning guns privately is prohibited as well (except for sports shooters, hunters and the like), yet the number of crimes involving firearms is actually declining. On the other hand it’s very ironic that Germany’s recent cases of people running amok always involved guns which were legally stored at home, but not illegally acquired guns.

  8. Clarence Moon says:

    this move will keep firearms out of the hands of decent people and give the criminals a monopoly on firearms just as the war on drugs did

    One positive effect is that it polarizes the issues. Sure only criminals will have guns, but then that makes them easy to find. If they have a gun, shoot them down, eh? They are criminals.

    Did the war on drugs give criminals a monopoly on guns or a monopoly on drugs? It is not clear from your phrasing. It may be best to give the drug users as many drugs as it takes to put them out of their misery. I don’t know for sure. What do you think?

  9. kozmcrae says:

    Why would any government want to use an operating system that is, for all intents and purposes, a black box?

  10. iLia wrote, “there is no difference between illegal actions by Microsoft and Google!”

    Well, it is clear that M$ deliberately set out to harm/exclude competition. Google has not done anything like that. They have provided great services to users and customers. It may be difficult to compete against Google but there’s nothing unfair about that. Exclusive dealing by M$ definitely was unfair.

  11. iLia says:

    Is there any difference between illegal actions by USA and illegal actions by anyone else?

    No, as there is no difference between illegal actions by Microsoft and Google!

  12. iLia wrote, “It seams to me that the totalitarian states likes Linux!”

    These days, every state is totalitarian… The USA, which is supposed to be a democracy went to war on the web with Iran without a vote… Is there any difference between illegal actions by USA and illegal actions by anyone else?

  13. iLia says:

    It seams to me that the same government loves Linux, they even have their own distribution, called Canaima. You can find some information about it on DistroWatch.com or Wikipedia

    It seams to me that the totalitarian states likes Linux!

    In Russia we have a similar situation. It is very difficult to buy arms and the Russian government is planning to switch to Linux and Floss.

Leave a Reply