'Civilian gun deaths outnumber casualties of war'

INTERVIEW / Antonio Rangel Bandeira 

Antônio Rangel Bandeira (photo) has owned three guns and was a shooting instructor in the army. But upon learning the statistics on deaths by firearms, the sociologist had a change of heart. Project Coordinator of Viva Rio's Arms Control project, Rangel has spent the last decade trying to change public opinion and disarm Brazilian society. It's no easy task. The movement comes up against the powerful arms industry and its lobbying power—Brazil is the fifth largest arms exporter in the world—and against police and Brazilian norms and traditions.

This month, Rangel had the opportunity to personally thank public health professionals for their important contribution to disarmament campaigns. Speaking at the Sergio Arouca National School of Public Health (ENSP / Fiocruz), he said that the field of public health has much to teach public security professionals on gun violence prevention and persuading the public to abandon "archaic habits".


Rangel is the coordinator of the Brazilian Disarmament Network, a network of civil society organizations from around the country fighting for the implementation of the Disarmament Statute and arms control in Brazil. The Brazilian Disarmament Network has partnered with the Ministry of Justice in the 2011 National Disarmament Campaign "Tire uma arma do futuro do país" (Take a weapon out of the country's future), which began on May 6.

How many guns are circulating in Brazil? And who possesses them?



Of the 16 million guns in circulation in Brazil, it is estimated that about 90%—14 million—are in civilian hands, with almost half of them in illegal possession. It's important to remember that a handgun is "legal" before it is diverted. Virtually every weapon is produced legally, very few are "homemade". But 93% of the guns produced here begin to be diverted upon leaving the factory. Therefore it is important to understand the "life cycle" of the weapon.

Where do weapons originate?

Most are manufactured in the states of Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo and Minas Gerais. At the request of the Ministry of Justice, we analyzed information on 300,000 illegal weapons seized in Brazil. Fewer than 10% were imports. There are myths that the most deadly weapons are imported rifles and machine guns. But it is a handgun, in particular the .38 revolver, produced right here in Brazil, that is the most lethal weapon in Brazil.

And who is in possession of these weapons?



It's a dark universe. Those who have this information don't want to hand it over. They are gun sellers and authorities who have been influenced by the gun lobby. Brazil is the fifth largest arms exporter in the world, and that gives the industry leverage. The result is a sector with no social conscience, which sells weapons to anyone, without concern for public safety.



We must also take into account that the private security industry is considered part of the civilian population in statistics. That industry is a major source of weapon misuse. Private security companies are autonomous, independent and poorly regulated. They use the gun in order to gain profits, which is something on which the state should have a monopoly. These companies should be subordinate to the government, but they are actual militias involved in crime.

There are also people who receive weapons as an inheritance, many of which are unregistered.

Why do "good men" want to have guns?

The gun has one single purpose: to kill. Charlton Heston once said that "a man without a gun is a naked man", and that attitude still persists in our society, which is dominated by an old model of masculinity: the male warrior who rules by force.
The weapon is a problem of archaic societies. Modern society needs men who are intelligent, competent and sensitive, but in our society, to be manly is to be strong and use force. Brazil is at the same time a developed and underdeveloped country.

We are 84.4% urban, but a rural mentality still pervades in many cities. In urban societies in Latin America and Africa, the weapon has become an instrument of attack, of crimes against women and self-defense against assault.

And do guns provide protection against burglary?

This is a serious myth. This idea of ​​having a weapon to defend one's home and family is a simplistic perception, taken from fantasy and film. The intentions may be honorable, but it's not realistic. An assailant plans ahead, deciding when and how to strike. The surprise factor works in his favor, if you are caught off guard and react, you could be killed. If you have a gun at home, the robber is more likely to use it than you are. Forty-thousand weapons have been reported stolen from homes in Brazil. Good men who buy weapons end up unwittingly supplying criminals.

A survey of homicides in São Paulo showed that most assailants entered the houses with the intention of just stealing, but faced with resistance, killed. The gun is an excellent tool for attack but it in order for it to serve for defense you would need to see the attacker in advance, which is unlikely.



Burglars tend to have accomplices. If the victim is not shot by the first [assailant], he might be shot by the second. The assailants are often nervous, and often use drugs and are agitated. He knows that if he goes soft, he will get caught. If a [car jacker] finds a gun in the car, he'll kill the driver. To successfully defend oneself with a weapon is luck of the draw. Even I, with a gun license, kept a .38 revolver in my car until I saw the statistics.

What are the major causes of deaths by firearms in the world?



Of the 638 million small arms circulating in 110 countries, only 23% belong to the armed forces and 3% belong to the police. A whopping 74% of weapons are in the hands of civilians, according to the Small Arms Survey.

These weapons cause 1,000 deaths and 3,000 injuries per day worldwide in personal conflicts, assaults, accidents and suicides. This is much more than the 250 deaths a day caused by armed conflicts.

Another problem with keeping a gun at home is teen suicides.  Or depressed elderly people. Uruguay has the highest rates of suicide among that population. For some, sadness that seems to be insurmountable at the time leads to suicide.

What leads someone to homicide?



Few countries have that data. The United States and Australian governments have researched and found that 85% of victims are killed by people they know. Most violence takes place in the middle class. And culture plays a strong role. In Olinda (in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco), one of the major causes are crimes of passion. Armed violence is complex: it involves psychoanalysis, public health, and a lack of trust in the authorities. A study from Stanford University, pointed to the influence of at least 38 factors.

Is poverty one of them? 


Poverty by itself it does not necessarily lead to violence. Violence often comes with development. Unequal development brings the perception of inequality. And uneven development brings more violence.



What countries lead the ranking of deaths by firearms?

The statistics in Latin America are scandalous. The region has only 13% of world's population, but accounts for 42% of the world's homicides by firearms. Of the 13 countries with the most deaths by firearms, 12 are on our continent. Caracas [Venezuela] is the most violent capital city.

What can be done to reduce gun violence?



We must convince people that possessing a weapon is very dangerous, in order to change people's mindsets, and have good gun control policies. Studies show the importance of arms control: in 2010, we had 34,000 homicides in Brazil. In 2003, before the Disarmament Statute, there were 39,000. We saved 5,000 lives! We collected half a million weapons and the tight market quadrupled the price, making life more difficult for petty criminals, which are the most common.

We're finding success with a number of measures. Public policy is made with scientific research by looking general trends and not isolated events. For the first time, homicides went down. Before they were increasing sharply. We've seen an 18% reduction of homicides in Brazil. Take into consideration where we would be now, without preventive measures, if we'd continued on that upward curve. It makes a difference. But it pales in comparison to Australia (which saw a 43% reduction in homicides after its disarmament campaign) or Canada (where homicides fell by 49% when restrictions were implemented), where the police works and people trust in the institution.



Is the Disarmament Statute a good law?



The law is great and came from society. The previous law was weak enough to satisfy the gun lobby. The Statute passed by a social mobilization. It is as advanced as it is because it came from society and not Congress, and serves as an inspiration to other countries because it came from the people. The problem is that many people do not comply with the law. Putting the law into practice is proving more difficult than approving it. The power of corruption is immense. Much of the Statute is not met because the conflicting interests are very strong.


A buyer must comply with 15 conditions in order to purchase weapons. But there are brokers who sell certificates of mental health and of capability to handle a firearm. The law is not enforced at gun shops. Criminals are able to purchase weapons in gun shop. In the state of Rio alone, eight stores diverted more than 60% of their weapons. Weapons have also been diverted from police stations, the army... the weapon is expensive, and is a valuable, coveted asset.

You give workshops to police. What is the prevailing view among the officers on gun control?


Cops love guns, but what's worse is that they want good men to use them, and they don't understand that disarmed society makes police work easier. They don't like to see guns destroyed. The police should destroy weapons that are brought in through the voluntary disarmament campaign to avoid their diversion. There is no reason not to destroy the firearm; otherwise they will be used again.

Cops are usually against disarmament. They think they know everything about a weapon, but they only know how to use it. Those who know best are statisticians, experts in tracking and control. Police are totally uninformed on that. And police training is the worst; the officer is just trained to kill. They need to be trained to use weapon with competence only as a worst-case scenario. It is best for their own protection, and for that of others.

How is the quality of police training in Brazil?


It is very poor, ineffectual, and incorrect. The models that guide the police in Brazil are Hollywood cop films. There is no counterpoint. The courses are terrible, abstract, and theoretical. Speaking of "human rights for criminals" does not work. A course aimed at changing mentalities has to be based in reality.

For example, weapon use. It has to be used correctly to avoid death or capture. We held a workshop with police on how human rights influence in their daily work, such as when they approach individuals on the street. I go into the technical part: how to avoid physical aggression without using firearms.



In Brazil, the first instinct is to shoot. It is wrong not to use batons, handcuffs, or physical restraint. Japanese police know to immobilize their attackers with two fingers and study Ikebana. They're expected to have the sensitivity to deliver a baby, or help an elderly woman cross the street. Courses in human rights as theory don't get us anywhere. They have to reflect the reality on the street.



Are there differences in police training within Brazil?

The Federal Police training is much better. Today they apprehend entire gangs without firing a shot. There has been a lot of investment in training. There are some very negative aspects to Military Police training; it can be absolutely repressive.



In Rio's municipal guard, a survey showed that older and more experienced officers do not want to use weapons. The younger officers do; they want the adrenaline rush. This latter group would feel demoralized without a weapon. An officer's training is so weak that without his weapon, he wouldn't be respected.

In São Paulo, the Military Police has invested heavily in training and technology and the results are telling. Rio's MP is improving. The Minas Gerais MP is also trying to reform and are encountering strong resistance, and Pernambuco is investing heavily in training. The others think they need more of the same: weapons and vehicles.

And does this work?

Lining the Brazilian border with police is a brutal mistake that will cost billions. Meanwhile the problem is here, under our noses: the weapons being leaked from stores and barracks. And there is a strong movement from the arms industry to arm municipal guards.

Increasingly, small towns are arming their police. But a brute, blind and authoritarian police force is a model of the past. Today, what we need is a regulated and controlled police force that is trained to investigate situations. Punishment should be only used as a last resort. We need to strengthen community policing, modern management and social control of the police.

How is the current disarmament campaign, launched one month after the Realengo school shooting, different from the first one?



What made both campaigns unique is anonymity, which resolved the issue people being afraid to turn in their arms. What we want is the gun, not the person who turns it in. The majority of weapons turned in are illegal. In addition to granting amnesty, which is a legal exception, there is also a reward. That's not ideal—it would be better to reward something other than money. It's not the only or the best model, but it's what we could do.

We mobilized the country in 2004; we marched and demonstrated throughout Brazil. We publicly destroyed weapons, and this fosters debate about the issue. In 2004/2005, we received 15,000 guns at Viva Rio, and only 21% of people said they turned in their weapon for the money. In this campaign, 700 weapons have been handed in at Viva Rio and only 6% said they did it for the money. Relatives of victims of the Realengo shooting joined, it was emotional.

Who collects the weapons in the current campaign?



Right now, only the police, Viva Rio, and Sou da Paz can collect weapons.  But the Brazilian Bar Association, the Freemasonry, the Rotary Club, and other charities want to be involved. The police are still seen in a negative light. Churches and NGOs provide a neutral space.

We are creating a national infrastructure for weapons collection, traveling the country to broaden the arms-collection network. Things we were unable to do in 2004 we are now able to achieve.

The Argentines launched their campaign after our [2004] campaign and were more successful because they offered immediate rewards for weapon turn-ins. In this current campaign, those turning in weapons can be paid in 24 hours. We're giving anonymous receipts that can be turned at any branch of Bank of Brazil.

What is the profile of those handing in weapons?


The profile is similar to the previous campaign. The young and poor do not hand in weapons. Women are important players in the campaign. In general, women don't like guns, because it's often the man who makes the mistake and the woman who bears the consequences. She is afraid and with reason. Behind one man handing in a weapon, there is always a smart and responsible woman.

Are you in favor of a new referendum?



No. The referendum was a big mistake. The majority of the population supported disarmament and the referendum campaign was so disastrous that it reversed public opinion. The other side has an absurd lack of scruples and a disproportionate amount of resources for propaganda. The result was a major setback. Pro-weapons groups were able to recruit young followers online.

What' happening now is large-scale manipulation. Brazil was a leader [in disarmament], we were pioneers in Latin America and Africa, and [were advanced] even compared to developed countries. We created arms control methods now used internationally. The statute provides for the voluntary disarmament, but the right to have gun is guaranteed.

Brazilians voted in the referendum to maintain this right. We are not in favor of another referendum.

Democracy has to be respected, even if it votes against us. But today we have space in the media to teach the public about scientific research on arms, and speak out against ignorant myths.

In your speech at the National School for Public Health/Fiocruz, you said that public security has much to learn from public health. Why?



Public security uses models of repression, something very strong in Latin America, reinforced by the dictatorships, to tackle effects and not confront the root causes. It is opposite to the public health model, which emphasizes prevention and influencing public opinion to transform archaic social habits. Health professionals know that the victims are the result of weapons proliferation. In the 2004/2005 campaign, their participation was very strong, because they are aware of the terrible potential of modern guns, which today kill more often than they wound.

Photo: Virginia Damas/Ensp/Fiocruz

Translated by Danielle Renwick