top of page

Gun Control and Freedom: An Empirical and Philosophical Analysis

The issue of gun control is highly relevant in public debate, as it involves both security and individual freedom. In many countries, gun ownership is seen as a way to guarantee the right to self-defense, while stricter control is advocated as a means to reduce violent crime and prevent tragedies. In Brazil, the increase in gun ownership in recent years has sparked new discussions about its impact on crime, particularly given the reduction in homicide rates during this period. This study aims to review the empirical literature on the relationship between gun ownership and crime, questioning whether more guns lead to more deaths, and finally, discuss the role of individual freedom in this context.

A diverse group of smiling people outdoors, holding guns, looking joyful and confident.

Recent empirical studies suggest that the relationship between increased gun ownership and homicide or suicide rates is not as clear as some popular arguments suggest. Lott (1998), in "More Guns, Less Crime," presented evidence that gun ownership can act as a deterrent to criminals, resulting in a reduction in violent crime, particularly in U.S. states with more permissive gun laws.


In Brazil, an increase in gun ownership, particularly following legislative changes in 2019, coincided with a decrease in homicide rates, challenging the simplistic notion that more guns automatically lead to more deaths. While it may seem logical that fewer guns would result in fewer firearm deaths, the reduction in homicides in Brazil suggests that the phenomenon is more complex.

Intentional homicide rate in Brazil per 100000 time series showing a decrease in homicide rate

Data from the World Bank.


Increase in firegun registers in Brazil

In Chapman et al.’s (2006) study on the impact of gun control policies in Australia, they observed a drop in firearm deaths after a mandatory gun buyback program was implemented. However, this reduction did not lead to a significant decrease in overall homicide rates, suggesting that methods of violence might simply change. This phenomenon has also been observed in other countries with strict gun control policies, such as the UK, where the drop in firearm-related deaths was not matched by a corresponding decrease in homicide rates, reinforcing the idea that the correlation between guns and homicides is limited.

Minimalist black-and-white map of Australia, highlighting its borders and featuring a small crossed-out gun symbol, representing the country's gun buyback policies and their impact on firearm-related deaths.

Data suggest that, in some contexts, increased gun ownership may be associated with a reduction in crime rather than an increase. This does not mean that guns alone are the cause of the reduction, but rather that they are part of a broader context involving public security policies, border control, and effective policing. In Brazil, besides the increase in gun ownership, the investment in effective public security policies may also have contributed to the decline in homicides, complicating empirical analysis. This complexity, along with possible selection bias—where individuals who own guns are more security-conscious—makes it difficult to establish a direct causal relationship between guns and crime.

A handgun next to balanced scales, symbolizing justice and personal defense.

Empirical analysis, although valuable, has its limitations. The confusion between factors, such as the increase in gun ownership and the simultaneous implementation of effective public security policies, makes the results inconclusive. This is an example of simultaneity bias, where it’s difficult to separate the impact of gun ownership from other concurrent factors like security measures. Similarly, selection bias can influence the results, as those who choose to own guns are often more security-minded, which may skew the conclusions about the impact of guns on society.


Given these limitations, it is crucial to broaden the debate to a deeper philosophical analysis. The central question that emerges is whether we should sacrifice individual freedoms in the name of security. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, argued that self-preservation is a natural right, and access to guns can be seen as an extension of that right. Similarly, Mill argued that individual liberty should only be restricted if it directly interferes with the security of others, reinforcing the idea that citizens should have the right to decide how to protect themselves and their families.


The protection against state abuse is another fundamental argument in the debate over guns and freedom. Historically, totalitarian governments have restricted access to firearms to weaken citizens' ability to resist. In a democracy, gun ownership can be seen as a safeguard against state overreach. The philosophical dilemma, then, is: are we willing to give up our individual freedoms in exchange for a promised sense of security? Even if security is guaranteed, is that trade-off truly effective?


Even though empirical data may be inconclusive, what becomes clear is that the choice between gun control and individual freedom cannot be made solely based on statistics. The limitations of empirical analyses show that it is impossible to definitively establish a causal relationship between increased gun ownership and reduced crime. Therefore, the debate must be expanded beyond numbers and consider the value of freedom and individual autonomy in a democratic society. The question to be asked is: to what extent are we willing to give up our freedoms in exchange for a promise of security? If that choice becomes necessary, freedom should not be sacrificed without careful consideration of its consequences and risks.

Comments


bottom of page