Venezuela Introduces Gun Ban

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18288430

In an effort to curb the high homocide rate in Venezuela, the government has moved forward with plans to ban the purchase and sale of private weapons except to the police, military and some private security firms. It is reported that over 70% of homocides are committed with a gun versus ~20% percent in Western Europe.

Do you think a gun ban would help lower the murder rate?

That 70%/20% number's a little meaningless. I bet the ratio of violent crimes committed is even higher. I don't think gun proliferation is the problem, I think the problem is crime.

That said, a total gun ban would allow the police to shoot anyone with a gun, since they're obviously criminals. Maybe Venezuela needs to institute near-martial law for a little while.

Anyone with firsthand knowledge, how bad is it in Venezuela?

How delightful.

As to the gun ban itself, I doubt it will have an immediate effect. If the keep it up, however, I presume eventually they will be able to stamp out the various gangs and criminal organizations as they appear, since it will be relatively simple to delineate who is a criminal and who is not based on their possession or non-possession of a firearm.

EDIT: That said, martial law is generally an act of last resort, Ultrayellow, and I would not advocate it lightly. I would certainly not advocate blindly firing on anyone with a firearm, either; presumably Venezuela has rural areas where firearm ownership is relatively common. Or at least, I should think so. In any case, a blanket "shoot first, ask later" policy is almost always a terrible idea.

edited 1st Jun '12 4:29:58 PM by DerelictVessel

This will be an interesting case study. How effective or otherwise this proves could have a major impact on gun control theory for other nations.

^^ Not if you're one of those who consider the Venezuelan government a "criminal organization".

More seriously, historically speaking gun bans have had rather mixed results, at best. Of course, that's primarily in "enlightened" countries where there's rather less concern for the welfare of criminals.

Venezuelan here, dunno how effective this measure will be.

Insecurity is wildly rampart around here. Muggings at gun point are incredibly common from my point of view. Apparently criminals tend to raid armories, police stations, private security quarters and nearly other place where guns are stored in order to obtain them.

If armories are gone, they still have private security companies to raid for guns besides those they might get on the black market.

If anything, the typical civilian looking for protection, sport hunters and such are the ones that will be the most affected.

I'm no expert on the subject but that's my take on it.

I think that it'll be something of a red herring. The Ban v No Ban debate often is. What we'll find is that the ban probably won't change all that much, but that'll be offset by the fact public gun ownership obviously isn't keeping crime at bay either.

People don't commit crimes because there are guns, nor do they commit crimes because there aren't any guns. It's a lot more complicated than that and the legal status of gun ownership really doesn't have much to do with practical realities anywhere in the world.

Well it won't make crime happen less, they're hoping it'll make police more effective at dealing with criminals if there are less guns.

But the article does note, and I would like to know if someone has information on this, how effective the police can actually enforce the ban is important. If they're mostly not purchasing their guns legally in the first place, and are stealing them, then the gun ban is not likely to mean anything at all.

edited 1st Jun '12 5:38:17 PM by breadloaf

Well, in theory it would allow them to take drastic action against anyone with a gun. But I don't think the situation requires martial law. I don't know how bad it is, there, though.