Relembrando a pesquisa postada:
Quanto a essas coisas de que "ah, é muito mais fácil o ladrão dominar a todos mesmo armado e sair lucrando ainda com a arma, isso se as pessoas que querem se defender não acabarem se matando ou provocando a ira do assaltante, o que é mais provável", pensei ser interessante ter dados mais objetivos em vez de especulação, dei uma googlada. Um site que encontrei:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
Em seguida eles colocam uma posição da crítica a esse estudo:
Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."
In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.?s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey ?obscene? and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers ? in fact he?s a liberal Democrat ? it appears that Kleck?s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.
So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.
Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."
Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.
The Defensive Gun Use figure shown under the heading "Could It Be...?" is not intended to replace the more-accepted estimate from the National Self Defense Survey, which is 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year -- one every 13 seconds. Instead, it is intended to show that the researchers who did the National Defense Survey were extremely careful in their methodology and conservative in their statements regarding its results.
Gun-control activists are always speculating, without any data, that increasing the availability of firearms will lead to gunfights at every traffic accident. The purpose of showing the higher figure of Defensive Gun Uses drawn from the Cook-Ludwig Survey is to show that even gun-control advocates produce research which show that Defensive Gun Uses are far more common than any tragedies correlated to easy gun availability.
O principal ponto fraco me parece ser:
A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition.
Source: National Safety Council
A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department
Imagino que seja possível que um aumento do número de pessoas/casas com armas de fogo pudesse levar o número de acidentes a ser maior ou igual ao de vítimas de homicídio propriamente dito. Se minha matemática pré-ginasial não está falha, acho que só se precisaria de um aumento dumas 8 vezes o número de pessoas terem arma em casa (6x8=48, o mesmo número de mortes por armas de fogo diárias) -- o que talvez ainda não fosse suficiente para ser "quase todo mundo" armado, imagino até que bem longe disso, mas não sei.
A ressalva aí de qualquer forma é o fato de dois terços das pessoas propositalmente mortas por armas ter também ficha criminal, serem possivelmente os agressores. E então o número de pessoas a mais com armas para ficar igual ao de mortes sem ser em defesa ou de guerra entre criminosos, seria em 2,6 vezes... (acho)
Por outro lado há a interação das coisas em vez de simplesmente aumento linear, se as armas tem o papel de proteção também.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
Nos endereços abaixo, vocês encontram a pesquisa completa:
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html ou http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
Agora vamos aos fatos encontrados, depois de ler o artigo completo e não apenas o resumo tendencioso do site:
4977 entrevistas foram feitas por telefone. Números escolhidos aleatoriamente. Quarenta e oito estados americanos.
Só 222 entrevistados relataram uso defensivo de armas de fogo contra humanos. Menos 9 entrevistados que cortaram a conversa logo no início. Então, apenas 213.
Duzentos e treze casos para estimar todos os casos de um país com milhões de habitantes... E nem é possível verificar a veracidade dos 213.
Os autores do estudo admitem que acham que receberam respostas falsas. Algumas relatando casos inexistentes de defesa com arma de fogo. Outras negando casos que realmente aconteceram. Mas não podem provar se os entrevistados mentiram ou não.
Então 15% dos entrevistados que usaram armas de fogo para se defender disseram que tinham "quase certeza" de que morreriam se não tivessem usado suas armas? Legal.
Mas 20% disseram que tinha "quase certeza" que não morreriam se mantivessem suas armas guardadas. Além disso, a percepção de uma pessoa envolvida em uma situação extrema fica alterada. Não tem valor algum. Aliás, o próprio estudo dedica um parágrafo para deixar claro que os entrevistados podem exagerar para justificar suas ações ou por falha de julgamento da situação.
Em mais da metade dos casos os defensores estavam enfrentando 2 ou mais atacantes? Legal novamente. Mas os casos em que o atacante era apenas 1 somam 47%. Os casos em que havia dois atacantes somam 26%. De três a quatro atacantes, 17%. E vai diminuindo conforme o número de atacantes simultaneos aumenta. O resuminho do site soma todas as subdivisões para obter um resultado de "mais da metade". Além disso, baseado em que eles dizem que não é possível usar artes marciais para enfrentar até 3 atacantes? Ou stun guns ou spray de pimenta? No estudo mesmo não diz nada disso. Os autores fazem algumas interpretações possíveis dos dados, mas sem afirmar qualquer coisa sobre isso.
73% dos usos foram contra estranhos? Correto. O que isso significa? Nada. Óbvio que o número de crimes comuns é maior que o de crimes passionais. Qual a novidade? Óbvio que é mais facil e mais provável que a pessoa use a arma contra estranhos. Algo incomum nisso?
Em 91% dos casos o criminoso não foi ferido? Lendo o estudo completo podemos ver que só 25% dos civis dispararam suas armas.
Sendo que só 15% queriam acertar o alvo (não era apenas para assustar, mas para ferir/matar mesmo) e só 8% conseguiram acertar. O que deixa claro que boa parte dos civis portadores de armas nem conseguem acertar seus alvos nessas situações. Quando eu falo isso dizem que estou fantasiando...
Em 51% dos casos os criminosos não tinham armas de nenhum tipo (nem de fogo, nem brancas). E dos que possuiam algum tipo de arma, só 17% possuiam armas de fogo. O resto usava facas, objetos cortantes, etc, etc... Agora está explicado porque na maioria dos casos os civis nem precisaram disparar e os bandidos fugiram só pelo fato dos civis mostrarem ou falarem que tinham armas. E se na maioria dos casos não foi necessário disparar armas porque os bandidos não estavam armados (ou usavam armas brancas), ÓBVIO que na maioria dos casos os bandidos não sairiam feridos...
O site distorce e omite informações do artigo original. E na cara de pau mesmo, porque eles tem o link para o original. Então fica fácil desmentir o que eles dizem. Provavelmente eles apostam no fato de que poucos vão querer ler um artigo enorme e chato, na tela do pc e ainda por cima com o fundo colorido bizonho que eles colocaram (tive que colar no Word para ler sem ficar tonto).
Alguem mais leu a pesquisa completa? Quem leu, se alguem leu, o que achou? Eu não achei ela "bem definitiva" sobre o assunto.
