[1] Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June.
[2] “A disponibilidade de armas de fogo e os padrões de homicídios relacionados com homicídios cometidos com armas de fogo levantam a questão natural da relação, ou não relação, entre a disponibilidade de armas de fogo e os níveis de homicídio, e se o aumento da disponibilidade de armas de fogo está associdado com o aumento geral dos níveis de homicídio, em particular.” Tradução do autor. Texto original: “Firearm availability and homicide Patterns related to homicides committed with firearms raise the natural question of the relationship, or non-relationship, between firearm availability and levels of homicide, and whether increased firearm availability is associated with increased overall levels of homicide, in particular.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 41.
[3] “From a theoretical perspective, no dominant theory exists that explains the relationship between gun ownership and homicide, or indeed crime in general, as guns can confer both power to a potential aggressor and to a potential victim seeking to resist aggression.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 41.
[4] “The provision of reliable quantitative support to either of these hypotheses is one of the most difficult areas of homicide research, with a number of methodological problems, including: identifying reliable measures of gun ownership, availability, accessibility and use; the need to differentiate between different owners of guns (households, individuals, affiliates to organized crime groups or gangs, etc.) and different type of guns (handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.); accounting for correlations that arise between firearm availability and homicide rates that may be caused by a third factor (such as a rise in homicides due to increased presence of organized crime); the difficulty in establishing causal relationships between changes in gun availability and corresponding changes in homicide levels (what comes first?); the difficulty of taking into account different legislative frameworks on firearms and state capacity to enforce them when conducting comparative studies.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 43.
[5] “These data do not prove a causal relationship between firearm availability and gun assaults (in theory, higher gun ownership could also be a consequence of higher assault rates, i.e. a defensive strategy of citizens to deter potential aggressors).” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 43.
[6] “In addition, from a global perspective, the significant order of magnitude difference between global estimates of civilian firearm ownership (hundreds of millions, according to estimates by Small Arms Survey, 2007) and annual firearm homicides (hundreds of thousands) indicates that the majority of civilian firearms are not misused and are owned for legitimate purposes.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 44.
[7] “In South Africa, homicide rates have shown a significant decrease in recent years (from over 60 per 100,000 population in 1994 to under 40 per 100,000 in 2007): a decrease related to a decline in both firearm and non-firearm homicides. During the same period, the proportion of homicides committed by firearm stayed within the range of 41 to 50 per cent of total homicides, stabilising at around 45 per cent in 2007. The homicide drop does not seem to be driven by any specific reduction in gun violence per se, rather, underlying social changes may have resulted in lower overall homicides, both by firearm and all other means.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 45.
[8] “The match between a high proportion of homicides by firearm in the Americas and a high proportion of gang/organized crime-related homicides suggests that in those countries where there is a higher homicide rate, the percentage of firearm homicides is also higher and is often associated with higher shares of homicides committed by organized crime/gangs, as reported by the police.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 49.
[9] Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Study on Firearms - A study on the transnational nature of and routes and modus operandi used in trafficking in firearms, Vienna, 2015.
[10] “Country responses on the offences associated with seized firearms suggest that illicit firearms are trafficked in large part for instrumental purposes. Firearms often were seized from people engaged in other forms of criminal activity, primarily the trafficking of drugs and other commodities, as well as involvement in organized and violent crime.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Study on Firearms - A study on the transnational nature of and routes and modus operandi used in trafficking in firearms, Vienna, 2015, p. 63.
[11] “The association of seized firearms with other forms of organized criminal activity (other than just firearms offences) also supports the conclusion that, in countries that responded to this Study, the illicit acquisition of firearms is largely linked to criminal groups, rather than being widespread in the general population.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Study on Firearms - A study on the transnational nature of and routes and modus operandi used in trafficking in firearms, Vienna, 2015, p. 63.
[12] “From a theoretical perspective, no dominant theory exists that explains the relationship between gun ownership and homicide, or indeed crime in general, as guns can confer both power to a potential aggressor and to a potential victim seeking to resist aggression.” Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Global Study on Homicide 2011: Trends, Context, Data; Statistical Annex (with online datasets). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 26 June, p. 41.
[13] Obs.: Os aumentos absolutos seriam, repectivamente, 9% e 16,4%, contudo, para que se identificque qual é o aumento real do índice de uso de arma de fogo em homicídios, há que se calcular este valor não em termos absolutos, representado pelo percentual total isolado de cada período, mas em termos relativos, ou seja, há que se identificar quanto o aumento no período indicado representa em relação ao índice encontrado no período anterior.
[14] “A Tabela 4.9 examina novamente minhas regressões anteriores, onde levei em conta que as leis sobre armas de fogo de uso discreto possuem efeitos diferentes ao longo dos distritos, dependendo de até que ponto os oficiais têm sido tolerantes na emissão de portes em conformidade com um sistema anteriormente arbitrário. A única modificação desde as tabelas anteriores é que um diferente coeficiente é utilizado para os distritos em cada um dos dez estados que modificaram suas leis durante o período de 1977 a 1992. Pelo menos para os crimes violentos, os resultados indicam um efeito bastante consistente das leis não-arbitrárias sobre armas de fogo de uso discreto ao longo dos estados. Nove dentre os dez experimentaram declínios nos índices de crimes violentos em consequência dessas leis, e oito deles apresentaram queda nos índices de assassinato; nos estados onde aumentam os crimes violentos, assassinatos ou roubos foram muito pequenos. De fato, os maiores aumentos foram inferiores dos onde esses índices de crime sofreram declínio.” LOTT JR., John R. Mais armas, menos crimes?: entendendo o crime e as leis de controle de armas de fogo. São Paulo: Makron Books do Brasil, 1999. Essas conclusões foram confirmadas posteriormente em estudos longitudinais ulteriores, conforme: LOTT JR, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws, 3 ed., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 81-84 e pp. 174-176.
[15] “Un manantial de errores y de injusticias son las falsas ideas de utilidad que se forman los legisladores. Falsa idea de utilidad es aquella que antepone los inconvenientes particulares al inconveniente general; aquella que manda a los dictámenes en vez de excitarlos; que hace servir los sofismas de la lógica en lugar de la razón. Falsa idea de utilidad es aquella que sacrifica mil ventajas reales por un inconveniente imaginario o de poca consecuencia que quitaría a los hombres el fuego porque quema, y el agua porque anega, que solo destruyendo repara los males. De esta naturaleza son las leyes que prohiben llevar armas.” BECCARIA, Cesare Bonesana, Marqués de. De los delitos y de las penas. Ed. Heliasta S.R.L., Buenos Aires, 1993, p. 157.
[16] “La prohibición del llamado armamento pasivo sólo tiene sentido, por el contrario, si se da por supuesto en el pasivamente armado un dolo de cometer infracciones. Pero quien castiga por hechos futuros no tiene ya ningún motivo para dejar impunes los pensamientos. Si se irrumpe en la organización interna que el autor todavía domina, es inconsecuente detenerse ante la más importante fuente de todos los peligros que proceden de seres humanos. O lo uno o lo otro; sólo una teoría insustancial concilia ambas posibilidades.” JAKOBS, Günther. “Criminalización en el estadio previo a la lesión de un bien jurídico” (1985), in: Estudios de Derecho Penal, UAM Ediciones, Editorial Civitas, Madrid, 1997, p. 311.
