Controle do acesso às armas de fogo no Brasil: a influência sobre os índices da violência e da criminalidade, bem como sobre a garantia do direito à legítima defesa

Abstract

Analyze the influences of arms access control policies on violence and crime rates in Brazil. Current data available, as well as the current public security scenario, point to the Disarmament Statute failed. It does not reduce firearms offenses, which are little prevented from increasing, as shown by current data. In 16 years of astronomically increased surveillance or the number of illegal weapons in the country, the reduction or war power of criminals, promoting their expansion and the empire of drug trafficking. As a result, firearm-related crimes have steadily increased, while the civilian population has been disarmed, becoming hostage to criminals and the state. Don B. Kates, criminologist and constitutionalist lawyer, LL.B from Yales University, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D. from the University of California, criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC Canada, in one of his studies, Would “Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? The Review of International Evidence, published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, concluded from available international data that rates of suicide, murder and violent crime are determined by basic social, economic and / or cultural factors, with the availability of any of the countless deadly instruments in the world being irrelevant (KATES; MAUSER, 2006. p. 1) (emphasis added). This proves the low rate of firearm-related crime in places where gun possession or possession is permitted, while in places where there is restriction, rates of violent crime are much higher. This scenario is being replicated in Brazil following presidential decrees that made possession and possession of firearms more flexible, coupled with the election of rulers focused on the tough fight against violence. There was a 24% reduction in homicides in Brazil in less than 1 year of government, with the largest drop in states where there is a greater concentration of weapons. In the comparative analysis, it is deductively concluded that: 1 - The Disarmament Statute failed and did not reduce firearm crimes or prevent them from increasing; 2. Restricted the legitimate right of self-defense to legally protected property; 3 - The State violates the constitutional principle of the efficiency of its performance, since: 3.1 - It does not guarantee the fundamental rights to life and property; 3.2 - Does not guarantee the fundamental right to security, given the chaos of public security in Brazil; 4. Restriction on the possession and possession of weapons does not cover illegal weapons, which are used in crimes; 5 - It remains proven that where there are restrictions on weapons to civilians, there are high rates of crimes committed with firearms. And where civilian possession and possession of weapons are permitted, such indices fall dramatically, not only because of the power of reaction, but the deterrence imposed on criminals against the possibility of armed resistance