More guns, fewer crimes or less weapons, fewer crimes?

More guns, fewer crimes or less weapons, fewer crimes?

This controversial subject has been ferociously repercussions in all the media channels, besides being frequently object of discussion  

In fact, this confrontation of ideas does not present a quick and comforting response. However, we must foster this ideological clash in order to evolve as a society, providing a more pleasant coexistence among citizens.  

Currently, some statute allows citizens to have guns at home and states that to carry them on the streets  need to be a security professional or extremely skilled.

In some countries in which a significant part of the homicide happens for futile reason, in everyday quarrels, when the presence of the weapon makes the conflict lethal, there is no justification for repealing the current law

In just 2018, firearms killed more than 1800 people in the US, equivalent to 40 murders a day. If in some countries, where the gunshot homicide rate is five times higher than in the US, the arms debate gains support among politicians and popular appeal in Donald Trump's country, the issue is increasingly controversial in the face of barbarism .

In less than two months of 2018, armed violence killed more than 1,800 people - 40 deaths per day, according to data presented by the Gun Violence Archive. In 2017, the country recorded the highest number of attacks in history: 10 attacks, 112 deaths (58 in Las Vegas) and 531 injured. Despite this, the carrying of weapons in the United States is still assured.

In this scenario, the study estimates that in 2017 alone, 15,590 people died from firearms in the United States.

March for more control on arms sales brings crowd in US

Projects that limit weapons bump into lobby 

After an attack on the Sandy Cook School in Connecticut, resulting in the deaths of 20 children and six adults, 21 states passed new gun laws, including prohibitions on combat weapons and high lethality in Connecticut, Maryland and New York.

But on the basis of the Second Amendment, some local courts have overturned proposals that impose tougher demands on the purchase of weapons and veto their bearing in public.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the most influential lobby groups in American politics - not just because of the money spent lobbying, but also because of the engagement of its 5 million members.

The lobby opposes most of the proposals to strengthen firearms regulations and is behind efforts at the federal and state levels to reverse various restrictions on the carrying of firearms.

Student march with poster asking that NRA, the American pro-gun lobby, be abolished in Washington (USA) - Saul Loeb - 14.March.2018 / AFP  

The example of other countries 

The United States' stance on arms goes against measures taken by other developed countries that have gone through shooting.

In the United Kingdom - in Dunblane, a shooter killed 16 children and a teacher in a primary school in 1996. The country responded in 1997 with tougher laws for the sale of weapons 

In Australia - 12 days after a gunman killed 36 people in Port Arthur in 1996, the country sharply increased control over arms sales: banned the sale of automatic rifles and went on to require all individuals to register their weapons 

In Germany - a 17-year-old student killed 16 people at a school in 2009. Three months later, the German parliament introduced the following rules: fines for weapons not being kept in a safe and remote environment; police inspection at the home of those who carried weapons and a minimum age of 18 years for use of rifles.

In Norway - a right-wing extremist killed 69 people at a camp in Utoeya, and eight others with a car bomb blast in Oslo in 2011. Norway, at that time, had already passed strict gun control laws. It required, for example, the need for a "valid reason" for a person to acquire a license to carry a weapon. 

Weapons around the world 

Argentina

The citizen is empowered to carry a weapon through course, test and psycho-technical test. Every two years, the habilitation is renewed, with the performance of the psycho-technical examination. The law greatly restricts use. Despite this, there are some fraudulent ratings that increase the number of weapons in circulation. 

Australia 

Since 1996, the sale of semi-automatic weapons has been banned and the granting of a weapon

Brazil

In Brazil the possession of a firearm is restricted only to the time of its transportation. A Brazilian civilian has only access to possession of a firearm, according to the law. In order to carry a firearm, it is necessary to request a firearm transit certificate. Carrying or carrying a firearm in Brazil without authorization is considered a crime that can lead to a penalty of 1 to 3 years' imprisonment, plus a fine.

Brazil today has a rate of 20.7 deaths per firearm per 100,000 inhabitants, 200 times greater than that of countries like Germany, Austria, Spain and Denmark. And more than a hundred times that of nations like France, Sweden and Norway. Japan and the United Kingdom have zero rate.

Canada

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are prohibited. To buy a weapon, the citizen needs to do a training and present a document proving that the spouse agrees. At the same time, Canadian law allows liberal possession and possession of long arms, restricts short weapons, and prohibits arms weighing less than 105 mm.

U.S

The states are autonomous to legislate on the subject. In some of them, like Massachusetts, if someone is a resident, the state asks you to have a license to be able to own or carry a firearm 

the government does not need to authorize anyone to buy a weapon, but it is necessary to go through the "Criminal Background Check System" that is a control of who buys weapons by checking the criminal history and personal information of the buyer within 3 days, there are no limits on the quantities of weapons that a citizen can have, nor on ammunition, the weapons are not registered and the postage is released without the need for prior authorization for any unprecedented citizen aged 16 or over 

There are debates over the proposal to limit the sale of weapons to 20 units per person, if you want more than that, you will need a special license.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of 1791. In 36 American states - such as Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida and Georgia - there are no legal requirements for gun registration, no permit or license is necessary to purchase and possess firearms such as rifles, shotguns or revolvers. Due to the lack of regulation, as well as the ease of online shopping, at gun fairs and even grocery stores, most US guns are not registered. 

Finland

To buy a gun in Finland, the citizen needs a purchase license, plus a specific license for each weapon he has / buy. The citizen may claim that he needs the weapon for hunting, sport or collection, but self-defense is a motive that the government does not consider valid. All guns need to stay at home, if the owner has a collection with more than 5 guns, they need to stay in a safe that will be inspected and approved by local police. In addition, the postage is expressly forbidden and only possession is assured.

France

Applicants for a gun possession in the country must be at least 18 years old and are required to determine a genuine reason for owning a weapon, for example, sports such as hunting and shooting, or personal protection, safety or collector activity . The authorities verify the candidate's criminal background, as well as records regarding physical and mental health. The process lasts for six months. 

Jamaica

The purchase and possession of any type of firearm or ammunition by civilians was banned in 1974.

Japan

Carrying a gun is prohibited for civilians. There are, however, exceptions to ownership. To get a gun in Japan, one must first attend a one-day class and pass a written test, which is held only once a month. In addition, there should also be shooting classes, mental tests and drug testing, which will be presented to the police.

Mexico

In Mexico, Article 10 of the Constitution allows all citizens to have firearms in their homes for security and defense, however, possession (circulation with weapons) is not allowed, and only possession (weapons in residence) is legalized. , whoever wants to register their weapon should seek the National Defense Secretariat (SEDENA). 

UK

The sale and possession of weapons is prohibited. Only hunting weapons can be sold and used. Legislation on personal use weapons became more stringent as of 1996 when Thomas Hamilton invaded a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and murdered 15 children and a teacher. Even practice of shooting is prohibited, and the team representing the UK has to train in neighboring countries. 

Switzerland

There are no restrictions on the sale of weapons. Every reservist keeps the armaments received from the army at home. 

Does the carrying of weapons increase or decrease violence?  

Few issues are as politicized as the possession of armaments and their relation to violence. Both sides of this question - those who want to restrict access to arms and those who want to extend it - are endowed with reasonable arguments and provided with specific data to support their argument. Moreover, this is a struggle that transcends ideological barriers.

Promoter effect - As with drugs, prohibiting the arms trade reduces the total supply of arms and thereby increases the price of arms in the illegal market. This does not mean that it will be impossible for criminals to buy weapons - but it means it's going to be more expensive - and it's expected that because of this higher cost, criminals will have less access to weapons. In summary, the weapon-promoting effect of violence is: if weapons are legalized, the price of armaments will tend to fall, criminals' access to them will increase, and more violence will occur.

Deterrent effect - Criminals, like all other human beings, are risk averse. This does not mean that their risk aversion is the same as non-criminals, but simply that, more consistently, they would rather take a lower risk 

- for example, they would prefer that no one else had weapons - and greater risks should be offset by greater rewards. In sum, the deterrent effect of gun violence is: with legalized weapons, access to them by the civilian population will be greater and uncertainty about whether civilian crime victims are armed will increase. In doing so, the risk to the offender increases as well, and if he is risk-averse, he will tend to commit fewer crimes. 

Guns, in fact, provoke these two contradictory effects. On the one hand, they increase crime, on the other, they decrease. Given the existence of these two effects, what matters, for the purposes of public policy, is therefore the net effect of armaments 

More guns, fewer crimes or less weapons, fewer crimes? 

Another fear is that the armed civilian, when trying to resist an approach of a criminal, in a robbery, for example, will be injured or even killed, increasing the already enormous lethality in our country and still giving the offender the possibility of subtracting another firearm and ammunition. Moreover, it is argued that firearms are, above all, instruments of attack rather than defense, which, at least in theory, would bring more risks to the armed citizens. 

Another group, authors like John R. Lott Jr., show that statistically the fact of having an armed population inhibits the performance of criminals and reduces the number of clashes. LOTT JR. works with direct sources of numbers that prove his thesis, however they are numbers referring to Anglo-Saxon countries and Europeans, having nothing on the Brazilian reality, even because we do not go through the experience of the liberation of the arms. The same conclusion, based also on direct statistical sources, comes Joyce Lee Malcolm, regarding the "English experience".

draws attention to the fact that in countries such as Canada, where the population does not usually have firearms at home, the rates of residential burglary, even with the residents present, are "three times higher" than in countries like the United States, "where gun ownership is more common." 

The problem of the accessibility of weapons is that it is born legal for the protection of a person and, when lost or taken as criminal, becomes a dangerous instrument against society. Survey of the Sou da Paz Institute with the Public Prosecutor's Office found that 38% of them were bought legally and ended up in the hands of the bad guys in the weapons seized from the perpetrators of robberies and murders. 

Should we release the weapons? Yes 

The perversion is total. It should be noted that freedom of choice and the right to self-defense are pillars of a free and democratic society. It is not a question of any right to kill, but of the right to preserve one's life. Those who advocate for the disarmament of citizens want the citizen to be completely unguarded before criminals who invade their homes. 

Citizens do not choose their representatives to suppress their freedom of choice. "I can perfectly claim to have no weapons, but that does not mean that my right should be abolished." The situation is all the more dreary because nothing is done with regard to the real fight against crime. Bandits continue to have free access to firearms 

The black market supplies them very well. By an absurd reversal, the problem becomes the citizens, those who pay taxes and should be protected against any violence. The State can not curb violence, its duty first, and denies its members that they do, denying them any right to respect. The citizen is at the mercy of the criminals. Worse yet, criminals are still treated with utmost consideration by the so-called human rights representatives, while their victims are relegated to oblivion. 

Should we release the weapons? Not

It is very clear: weapons must be used by those who have the qualification for this, which are the police forces, and always in the strict fulfillment of duty. Civil society needs to understand that having a gun at home not only provides a false sense of security, but can often end up in the hands of someone who, unfit for use, ends up committing a crime. Even against the owner of that weapon.

we seek a culture of peace and a reduction in the homicide rate. This is not to say that other crime rates should not be reduced either. But crime against life is the most serious. 

Several regions of the world suffer from easy access to weapons and banalization of slaughter. In some places, not just territorial drug litigation, but football fights, love betrayals, banal  discussions are grounds to point a gun and shoot 

 key factor so that we do not have an increase in the homicide rate. Re-building civil society is a risk factor for increasing violent deaths in countries. Among other collaborations, the Disarmament Statute, by raising the minimum age for arms acquisition to 25, contributes to hampering the buying and selling of weapons in the segment that dies the most and kills across the country: young people.

 

In this dance of statistics, everyone believes whatever want. The total of legalized weapons does not seem to me a relevant factor to increase or decrease violence in a country. What determines crime is the empire of the law!  

Ana Paula Menezes