Brazilians
Speak Out
by
John R. Lott, Jr. and Fern E.
Richardson
by John R. Lott, Jr. and Fern E.
Richardson
The solution to Brazil’s high murder rate seemed obvious
to the Brazilian government, the media, and United Nations: Ban
guns. They all went to great efforts to pass an initiative doing
just that last Sunday, but in the end almost
two thirds of Brazil’s voters rejected the proposal.
It is hard for most Americans to imagine what Brazilians
are facing. For the most recent detailed numbers, the
U.S. murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000 people in 2004. For
Brazil it was 28.3 in 2002. That’s just a little less than three
times the record U.S. murder rate at the height of prohibition in
1933.
Brazilians have a right to be skeptical that yet
more gun control is the solution. Strict licensing laws that have
been in effect in Brazil since 1940 have not solved the problem.
Since 1941 it has been illegal to bring a weapon outside one’s house
without authorization. Eighteen gun-control laws and regulations
were imposed during the period from 1992 to 2003. Many rules were
extremely restrictive: For example, a 1997 law required anyone applying
for a firearm license to have a psychological test and knowledge
of operation of firearms, and a 1999 law limited each person to
two handguns. Despite new restrictions on gun ownership being continually
imposed, murder rates rose every year from 1992 to 2002, a total
41 percent increase.
Indeed, given the huge differences in murder rates
between the U.S. and Brazil, it is not too surprising that gun ownership
in Brazil is just a fraction of that in the U.S. Almost half of
American adults live in households with guns, while just 3.5 percent
of Brazilians are legally licensed to use guns.
A gun ban might not matter if police were able
to protect people, but in poorer areas of Brazil's major cities,
police response times to even the most serious crimes are over an
hour. Even in the wealthiest areas of cities, the fastest response
times are not shorter than 15 minutes. Simply telling poor people
to wait an hour for the police to show up is not very good advice.
Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals.
The problem is that the law-abiding citizens, those who have followed
the licensing and registration rules, are disarmed, not the criminals.
This leaves potential victims more vulnerable and increases crime.
As one cab driver who voted against the ban said,
“I don't like people walking around armed on the street. But since
all the bandits have guns, you need to have a gun at home.”
Consider the case of Washington, D.C.. In the five
years before Washington's ban in 1976, the
murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after
the ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. In
fact, while murder rates have fluctuated after 1976, only once have
they fallen below what they were that year. Robberies and overall
violent-crime rates followed the same trend: Robberies fell from
1,514 to 1,003 per 100,000 leading up to 1976, and then rose by
over 63 percent, up to 1,635. These drops and subsequent increases
were much larger than any changes in neighboring Maryland
and Virginia.
For example, the District's murder rate fell 3.5 to 3 times further
than in the neighboring states and rose back 3.8 times greater.
Chicago, which has banned handguns since 1982,
also saw violence rise. Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22
per 100,000 in the five years before the law, and then rose slightly
to 23. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring
Illinois counties. While robbery data in Chicago isn't available
for the years immediately after the ban, since 1985 (the first year
for which the FBI has data) robbery rates soared.
The experience in the U.K., an island nation whose
borders are much easier to monitor, should also give gun controllers
pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently
reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly
doubled in the four years from 199899 to 200203.
Crime
was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet,
since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent;
robbery is up by 45 percent, and murders up by 54 percent. Before
the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997,
but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up,
almost to 1993 levels.
Yet,
hopefully Brazilians are not the only ones who have learned these
lessons. San Francisco has an initiative on its November ballot
to ban handgun ownership, and to ban the sale of all guns within
the city. It would be a welcome sight to see both these measures
struck down.
Brazilians
are desperate about their crime rates, but apparently not desperate
enough to wait passively for police the next time they are confronted
by a criminal. Brazilians have experienced firsthand how the very
gun-control regulations that they already have may in fact be the
problem.
November
11, 2005
John
Lott [send him mail], a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The
Bias Against Guns and More
Guns, Less Crime. Fern E. Richardson is a law student at
Chapman University.
Copyright
© 2005 John Lott
John
Lott Archives
|