Fewer guns, less crime: Evidence from Brazil
academic.oup.com
academic.oup.com
The banning in Brazil has definitely decreased the death rate. However, after the banishment (but NOT because of it), one of the largest brazilian crime organizations (PCC) began to expand its operations, that used to be mostly restricted to Sao Paulo, to the rest of the country. Then, a huge death rate increase followed, as they started an actual war against those smaller organizations used to control other drug routes/selling points. Such war is still ongoing.
All the debate is now being appropriated by industries, shooting ranges and other "stakeholders" which cynically affirm that the firearms banishment led to an increase of the death rates and now regular people are allegedly being hunted by criminals.
There are so many flaws to this argument that it's hard to know where to begin from. But the point is that the big picture, the context which Brazil is inserted in (income inequalities, geographic positioned between the biggest drug suppliers and consumers etc), makes a HUGE difference on what effect firearms-banishment will do.
My country, Mexico, has very strict gun laws, yet lots of guns are smuggled from USA, specially Texas. Civilians rarely have guns, but serious criminals have too many. Low life criminals still make do without guns, they will stab you with a Philips screwdriver if you resist being mugged.
Impunity is the real problem, guns are the second.
I suspect that historic criminality may play an important role too, since it influences more and more groups of people and make them to consider crime as a feasible or even natural alternative.
I have some really good-hearted, hard worker friends, who already had some involvement with crime when younger, just because they were influenced by friends on the slums they lived on. In their circumstances, that simply felt to them the natural choice to make.
Maybe I'm being too naïve, but I believe a big revolution would happen if the government started to make itself present not only with law enforcement, but also with quality public services and, very importantly, good schools. I think that that could break the endless cycle of bad influences the poorer youth are currently under.
Things like armed robbery and just plain mugging in the middle of the street in broad daylight is RAMPANT in every major city in the country except perhaps in some cases in the Midwest, Southeast and South (richer regions of the nation and often showing better local governments).
It hasn't actually been virtually impossible to legally own a gun. In fact, since the bill passed, the number of legal guns has increased substantially, especially along the last three or four years.
https://www.safehome.org/resources/crime-statistics-by-state...
All types of violent crime rates (including armed robbery and property crimes) are lower in the NorthEast than in the South.
I will add the caveat that 2020 might be an exception due to the extraordinary circumstances that year presented (but I actually dont think it is, because barring murders, all kinds of violent crime have actually fallen in the north east).
The only reason it might not appear that way is because there is because right wing media has basically built an identity out of painting democratic led areas as crime infested, and since democratic led areas tend to be highly populated, it's easy to build such a false picture by using absolute numbers.
The interesting question, given that many people want cars and nobody wants car accidents, is what alternatives exist that allow you to have fewer car accidents without having fewer cars?
Because the implementation of those solutions change the original conclusion. If you have a lot of robbery homicides as a result of poverty, and keeping guns away from the perpetrators would keep them from committing as many homicides, but so would effective anti-poverty programs, one of these solutions is clearly better and obviates the need for the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...
This is only partially true. The military allows them to keep the rifle but does not issue them ammo to take home. However, ammo is readily available most anywhere and perfectly legal to have.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
Lower firearm deaths as well (2.64 vs 1.94):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Similarly, guns are more complex to make than booze or crack, but they are still simple enough that the black market can make them. Or steal them and sell them.
The best solutions are ones that make it easy enough to do legally that the black market can't take hold, while hard enough to do legally that it's still somewhat regulated.
It's easier to have a non-smoking space than it is to operate a black-market hotel / bar / etc.
My point is that while many said by the time that smokers would simply not comply, especially considering how difficult it would be for the government to enforce such law.
However, people not only complied, but also quit smoking. The law had more positive impacts than anticipated by its most optimistic supporters.
I'm not aware of the other countries but, in Brazil, homicides are mainly caused by imbalances of power between different criminal organizations.
Regions under a consolidated faction have very low rates, comparable to some developed countries and lower than US' rates.
Also I have no idea if I'm making those numbers up. It's just what I've heard in passing.
It’s literally equivalent to Bill Gates telling us how critical the coming ecological crisis is going to be while his family lives in a mansion. It’s okay though because he paid your family to live in a cardboard box so he can claim he’s carbon neutral. When he moves his family into a 300 square foot home so will I and when you put your guns down, you can talk to me about mine.
I don't think your Bill Gates analogy makes any sense at all. His work in his foundation, and the expertise he has access to, seems pretty removed from the size of house he chooses to live in. Is your argument that he needs a certain moral justification for warning about climate change? Or that his immense wealth disqualifies him from discussing science?
BG has plenty of resources and is essentially virtue signalling a lifestyle of carbon neutrality while his actual life is one that would be extremely unsustainable if many other people did the same.
I haven't heard Bill Gates pushing certain lifestyle choices in regards to climate change, but rather trying to influence policy. Examples to the contrary are welcome.
Experience shows that, on such situations, firearms are good for attacking but terrible for defending. It all boils down to the element of surprise: the thief knows he's going to attack you, but you are not aware of it, giving you no adequate time to respond.
There are some cases of success, usually extensively mentioned by supporters, but the reaction is often conducted by a third party who arrived at the situation after the first approach, or when the criminal is distracted, which makes all the difference, since it transfers the element of surprise to the victim.
I would be more inclined to agree with lesser firearm restrictions if the government were talking more about training, prevention and awareness, with guns being used only as a last resort in a broader defense strategy. But, we know that's not what's happening. They just try to make us believe we should react if we will.
Also, most of the industrialized nations didn't adopt the same doctrine regarding drugs as the United States and Latin America -- another important factor.
Besides, I'm much more concerned about applications on the other way around, i.e., about those who imply that examples from other countries apply to Brazil.