Fewer guns, less crime: Evidence from Brazil(academic.oup.com)
academic.oup.com
Fewer guns, less crime: Evidence from Brazil
https://academic.oup.com/economicpolicy/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/epolic/eiab005/6128503
48 comments
Decreasing guns does little when impunity is high.
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.
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 would put poverty and income disparities on the first positions. Countries like USA have a huge prison population and they still face high crime rates on some regions.
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.
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.
Agreed, the solutions are complex and multigenerational, and require a significant change from our traditional governing to get started.
Being from the Northeast of the country, there certainly were lots of people (men mostly) committing homicide in things like bar fights and other petty personal quarrels, and my impression is that this certainly has decreased over the past 15 years, and I think the severe gun limitations contributed to it (really, at least until very recently it was virtually impossible to legally own a gun - the abstract says "carry" but that really (again, legally) is beyond imagination - as permission can only be given by the Federal Police and they will say no). Outside of homicide, it's hard for me to imagine decrease in other violent crimes that are committed with guns.
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).
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).
I disagree with you about a particular point.
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.
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.
The stats dont bear your claim out.
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.
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.
I believe the comment you're replying to is about Brazil, not the US.
[deleted]
Studies like this are structured from the outset to lead to trivial politically-motivated false dichotomies. It's like commissioning a study on whether reducing the number of cars would reduce the number of car accidents.
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.
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.
I would be interested in seeing a comparative study with Switzerland (legally encouraged gun ownership), as well as Mexico (legally restricted gun ownership).
There might be some comparable points, but I believe that the overall social situation and the extensive activity of violent criminal organizations in the latter make those two countries hardly comparable in general.
Do you have a source for gun ownership being _encouraged_ in CH? Also, it's going to be a tall order to control for other factors when comparing these specific countries. They seem quite far from each-other culturally, geographically, historically and economically.
Switzerland's national defense strategy is designed around an armed civilian militia. They have some of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, as well as some of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...
The guns stored in homes as part of military service, are stored without ammunition. While CH does have a relatively high amount of guns per capita (~27), it pales in comparison to the United States (~120). Is the US 4X safer than Switzerland, or might there be other factors that account more for the low crime rates in Switzerland?
>The guns stored in homes as part of military service, are stored without ammunition
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.
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.
Canada (34.7) has more guns per capita than CH:
* 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...
* 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...
The comparisons show that the amount of firearms alone doesn't explain the number of deaths.
The Swiss government gives you a gun during mandatory military service. A government directly providing weapons seems to be a pretty strong encouragement. You're correct in noting it comes with a fair amount of training in a country that has strong social programs, which makes direct correlation between gun ownership and violence complicated.
It's strange how poorly the lessons from prohibition took. Making alcohol illegal didn't get rid of it, it just moved it to the black market. Same with every other drug, and prostitution. None of them are better off for it.
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.
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.
On the other hand, forbidding smoking in indoor spaces in Brazil significantly reduced the number of smokers. It's complicated.
I think this fits within the band of "easy enough legal to not create a black market."
It's easier to have a non-smoking space than it is to operate a black-market hotel / bar / etc.
It's easier to have a non-smoking space than it is to operate a black-market hotel / bar / etc.
Indeed, but you are thinking on the business/supplier side.
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.
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.
My impression is that most or all of the countries with the highest homicide rates (Brazil, Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaica, South Africa, and so on) have very strict gun laws, making civilian gun ownership very difficult or impossible. I've always thought this was an obvious counterpoint to 'if the US had Britain's gun laws it would have Britain's homicide rate' style argument that's very popular. Globally, I just don't see a huge correlation between how liberal the gun laws are, and the actual gun homicide rate. Happy to be proven wrong, but this was my impression from a) listing countries by homicide rate globally, and then b) researching each of their gun laws. But it's also possible that these laws are weak/unenforced in a lot of these countries, so always open to getting contrary info
In my opinion, those homicide rates shouldn't be compared directly and quantitatively.
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.
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.
If the evidence is clear then I recommend that president be protected with disarmed secret service people.
Perhaps a more direct way of saying this is: If individuals are not able to use tools to defend themselves, then the police should take the role of specifically defending all people (like they do with government officials) and be culpable if they fail to protect those people. And if they're not willing to sign up for that (i.e. you can sue the police if they fail to protect you) then the police should not disarm you.
I would agree with you if and only if firearms were a good defense mechanism when it comes to citizens dealing with day-to-day crime.
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.
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.
Guns aren't supposed to be a response to day-to-day crime, legally speaking. They're only supposed to be used as a last resort when death or serious injury is likely to be imminent.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? It seems tenuous at best to assume reducing illegal firearms among a population, has the same effect as reducing firearms among law enforcement.
Not the OP but it’s not hard to get a charitable interpretation of his point. You know why gun ownership is important because you surround yourself with men holding guns. But while you do that you want to take away my gun? I don’t have a ring of men standing around me, it’s just me between my family and the world.
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.
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.
Ok, fair enough. By surrounding myself with men holding guns - do you mean law enforcement and military? In that case I don't see a disconnect between supporting issuing firearms in a highly regulated way to law enforcement, and not supporting widespread use among a population.
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?
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?
Secret service is personal protection not law enforcement or military.
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.
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.
From secretservice.gov (emphasis mine):
"The United States Secret Service is a _federal law enforcement agency_ under the Department of Homeland Security charged with conducting criminal investigations and protecting U.S. political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government."
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.
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.
[deleted]
Police gun related killings of 1K per year are rolled into yearly firearm deaths. That would at least be 1K less on that chart. A definite win for removing firearms from law enforcement, the charts never lie.
Also I have no idea if I'm making those numbers up. It's just what I've heard in passing.
Also I have no idea if I'm making those numbers up. It's just what I've heard in passing.
Can we please not do this here? I'm here for hacker news, not political articles posted for the purpose of instigating pissing contests.
I don't want to sound harsh, seriously, but the participation in the topic is voluntary, and many commenters here are backing their opinions with data and reasoning. I think the debate here is going pretty sane and technical.
I'm just not a fan of watching the interesting sites I visit turn into cesspools. I've seen the pattern many times and this kind of thing is one of is early symptoms.
[deleted]
Fewer guns on whom?
Less crime by whom?
Tell it to Switzerland. Also, I bet the dominant crime in industrialized nations, wage theft, was uneffected by there being fewer guns.
There are some other important variables that differ between Brazil and Switzerland. Poverty, income inequalities, just to name a few. So it's hard to apply the same logic.
Also, most of the industrialized nations didn't adopt the same doctrine regarding drugs as the United States and Latin America -- another important factor.
Also, most of the industrialized nations didn't adopt the same doctrine regarding drugs as the United States and Latin America -- another important factor.
The title and the article both imply that "Evidence from Brazil" can be applied to other countries. I'm glad you agree that this isn't true.
Actually, I don't agree that this isn't true. I just say this isn't _necessarily_ true, since other factors beyond the firearm policy must be taken in account. Then, brazilian data could be applied to other countries, provided the other relevant factors be similar.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.