There is one elephant in the room that is largely ignored in the discussion of crime in Latin America: the stringent gun-control laws present in these countries.
While the previously mentioned factors cannot simply be discounted, the lack of coverage on Latin American gun control policy is rather alarming.
Countries like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela feature some of the most draconian gun control policies in the region. With crime rates at already high levels, gun control simply makes matters worse for law-abiding citizens fearful of criminals.
August 23, 2017
Gun Control Laws Have Failed Latin America
[There is no justification for the infringement of the natural right to self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]
Criminals really dislike honest people shooting back. Whether those criminals are in the government, or simply have bought the government, doesn’t make any difference. That explains the Sullivan law, and it explains the situation described here.
Pingback: Quote of the day—José Niño | Gunpon
The most rampant form of crime of course is the socialism itself (coercive redistribution, with restrictions and controls against peaceable, voluntary exchange). We have the same problems here though, so there’s no need to look elsewhere or to point fingers.
Socialism (an entrenched, official criminal racket which assumes the superiority of some Central Planning Authority and further assumes that said superiority grants them the right to practice wholesale coercion) comes with a built-in mandate to disarm the citizenry, so government and criminals (being one in the same alliance) hold a monopoly on deadly force over an ever-shrinking population of honest people.
Thus, gun restrictions are a trend in any authoritarian system. Official recognition of any human right which is beyond the jurisdiction of government then, undercuts the very founding premise of an authoritarian system– The rights of the individual are in conflict with the falsely claimed “rights” of the Central Planners. Obama made that crystal clear when he described our constitution as a “charter of negative rights”, though one must corrupt the meaning of the word “rights” beyond recognition to make such a claim.
This describes what Ayn Rand called a “mixed system” (some central planning with some limited, and variable, recognition of the rights of the individual). Any such “mixed” society is always in conflict, always hypocritical, until one of the two ideologies eliminates the other.
Since we all have been programmed to eschew any kind of “absolutism” as unreasonable, backward-minded or extreme we are destined to be in perpetual conflict. Only when we throw off the yoke of authoritarianism from our own minds, in favor of human liberty and responsibility, with the faith and trust that it is the only proper way to go, can we hope to change things for the better. Anything else is just playing that game of perpetual conflict, which was foisted upon us, coming as it has down through the generations like a communicable disease.
I just stumbled into this, or rather it was open in another tab and I hadn’t read it. It’s over two thousand years old, and speaks directly and specifically to the subject of the “mixed economy” (having authoritarian [coercive, central planning] elements mixed with a limited acknowledgement of human rights).
“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself falleth: it shall not stand: and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
“And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
“But if I with the finger of God cast out devils by the Spirit of God, no doubt then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” — Jesus of Nazareth, the “absolutist” or “extremist” (yeah; the “authorities” killed him for it too)
To the armed citizen of the “mixed economy” mindset as Ayn Rand put it, he speaks directly also;
“Or else, how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
“When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor wherein he trusted, and divideth the spoils.
“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”
Sound familiar? It bloody well should. It describes our society exactly.
The full text and context is here;
To some, the above will read as gibberish. Others, in their own way, will find the meaning in it, and come to a better understanding of the situation.
This stuff is as old as the hills, and it doesn’t change with the seasons, “the times” or the culture. Those who founded thie U.S., whatever you may say about their “religiosity” understood it nonetheless, and drew from it directly.
Pingback: Trump at the UN | The View From North Central Idaho