Armas de fogo e homicídios

[Haroun Al Poussah]

wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Incognitus]

a austrália é um caso tão demonstrativo que até merecia um tópico à parte:

AUSTRALIA

How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings

In the continuing debate over how to stop mass killings in the United States, Australia has become a familiar touchstone.

President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation “like ours.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has said the Australian approach is “worth considering.” The National Rifle Association has dismissed the policies, contending that they “robbed Australians of their right to self-defense and empowered criminals” without reducing violent crime.

The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

Mass shootings in Australia were rare anyway. But after a gunman massacred 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in 1996, a public outcry spurred a national consensus to severely restrict firearms. The tightened laws, which were standardized across Australia, are more stringent than those of any state in the United States, including California.

Pushed through by John Howard, the conservative prime minister at the time, the National Firearms Agreement prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shotguns in all but unusual cases. It tightened licensing rules, established a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, created a national gun registry and instituted a temporary buyback program that removed more than 20 percent of firearms from public circulation.

Several of the measures, including waiting periods and background checks, have been adopted piecemeal by different states in America. But the United States has never tried a national gun buyback program; in Australia, that required raising taxes. And the United States has never been able to do what Mr. Howard did: forge a broad agreement on a sweeping set of gun control measures that applies to the entire nation.

A test of those laws came in December 2014, when a gunman who had expressed sympathy for Islamic extremism took hostages in a cafe in Sydney. The assailant, Man Haron Monis, brandished a sawed-off pump action shotgun that he had obtained illegally.

An inquest said the gun may have been in circulation before pump action shotguns were essentially banned in 1996 and was never confiscated in the buyback. According to the inquest, his shells were 15 to 20 years old.

During the 17-hour siege of the cafe, Mr. Monis fired several times, once into a wall, before killing the cafe manager. At that point, the police stormed in, killing the gunman and another hostage in the crossfire.

It is impossible to say whether gun restrictions saved lives in the siege, but some politicians say they believe so.

“It is the ready availability of weapons, particularly those that are automatic or semiautomatic, that increases the likelihood that people in a moment of madness, or malice, or hatred, will kill a lot of people,” Mr. Howard said in October, after a man opened fire on a community college campus in Oregon, killing nine.

Measuring the broad effectiveness of Australia’s gun control laws is complicated. Australians themselves continue to debate their impact, and some have sought to loosen restrictions on gun ownership.

Critics have argued that gun violence was falling in Australia before 1996 and would have continued to fall even without the gun control measures. Others have suggested that even as gun-related deaths fell, people in Australia may have resorted to using other weapons to kill.

To assess these claims, scholars have examined not just mass shootings, but also all intentional deaths caused by firearms, adjusting for population growth.

Total intentional gun deaths fell by half in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were put in place, even as Australia’s population grew nearly 14 percent. The rate of gun suicides per 100,000 people dropped 65 percent from 1995 to 2006, and the rate of gun homicides fell 59 percent, according to a 2010 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University.

When the data in that study is updated to include the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as well as the numbers going back to 1968, several facts emerge.

First, the rates of intentional firearm deaths were substantially higher in the 28 years before the gun control measures were adopted in 1996 than in the 17 years after. How much of that decline can be attributed to the new policies can be debated, but the difference is clear.

Second, the initial drop in firearm deaths in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were enacted appears to have leveled off. In 2013, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were 200 gun-related homicides and suicides, for a rate of 0.87 deaths per 100,000 residents. That is up slightly from the low in 2005, when 0.82 deaths per 100,000 residents were recorded, but still far below the 2.71 deaths per 100,000 residents in 1996.

The data confirms that gun deaths were already falling before the National Firearms Agreement. The rate of intentional gun deaths fell about 33 percent from 1986 to 1996. The decline accelerated, however, under the new gun control measures, with the rate dropping about 60 percent from 1996 to 2006.

The rates of both gun-related and other homicides per 100,000 residents have fallen in Australia since 1996, when the country tightened its gun ownership restrictions.
(anexo 2)


The impact of the gun laws is difficult to assess partly because of the low rates of intentional firearms deaths in Australia. Gun-related homicide rates are even lower, because suicides make up about 80 percent of all gun deaths. Looking at gun-related suicides and homicides separately shows similar trends — higher rates of both before 1996 than after, declines in the decade before 1996 but sharper declines in the decade after, and a leveling off in recent years.

Mr. Leigh and Ms. Neill tried to measure the effect of the 1996 measures across Australian states and territories to see whether different levels of gun confiscation led to different results. They found that the places where the most guns were removed from public circulation also experienced the largest drops in intentional gun deaths.

The impact of the buyback appeared more pronounced on suicides.

“Firearm suicides fell more in states that had more guns bought back than in states with fewer guns bought back,” Ms. Neill said in an email. “Firearm homicides also fell more in states with more guns bought back, but the effect was smaller than for firearm suicides.”

The data also indicates that overall homicide and suicide rates fell in the decade after 1996, meaning Australians did not respond to the gun control measures by killing one another or themselves using other weapons at higher rates.

Over all, Mr. Leigh and Ms. Neill estimate that at least 200 lives are saved annually because of Australia’s gun buyback program.

The introduction to the Australian market this year of a shotgun that allows rapid fire using a lever action rekindled debate over the restrictions, with some enthusiasts arguing that they felt cheated out of owning a gun. The government banned a version of the shotgun that holds seven rounds but approved a five-round version. There are also efforts to lower the legal age of supervised shooters in Tasmania, to 15 from 16.

Senator David Leyonhjelm, who supports easing gun controls, said Australia resembled Britain, Canada and New Zealand, where mass shootings are infrequent. “America is an outlier,” he said. “We are not like America.”

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 12 mass shootings in Australia, according to a 2006 study in the journal Injury Prevention. The deadliest shooting since 1996 occurred last year, when a farmer in New South Wales fatally shot his wife and three children before killing himself.

Tasmania’s former premier, Tony Rundle, said reaching the 1996 agreement was difficult and warned against revising it. “I told people all over the country, in town hall meetings, we don’t want to go down the path that America has traveled,” said Mr. Rundle, who is now retired. “Eroding those laws now, chipping away at the edges, would be a folly.”

Mr. Howard, the prime minister who pushed through the measures, agreed. “There should be no relaxation, complacency or compromise,” he said in an interview. “That is the view of people all around Australia.”

nyt

Estás a ver o que queres ver. A quebra de homicídios já vinha de trás ... ou seja, não é conclusivo que os homicídios no total tenham caído devido à quebra dos feitos com armas, não obstante ser previsível que os feitos com armas caíriam. Basta ver que em absoluto, os feitos SEM armas caíram mais que os com armas.

Suicídios com armas é natural que caiam, mas aí seria necessário ver o total de suicídios. E aí pode existir correlação, como mostrei para os Estados, nos EUA.

[Reg]

morrer enforcado o que diz ser metodo da europa sem suiça  nao deve ser nada agradavel

quem escolhe isto e porque nao tem alternativa de uma arma de fogo..ou outro metodo

O problema que eu vejo sao crianças gostam brincar com armas dos pais....

[Incognitus]

wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Ainda não compreendeste a problemática ... as mortes devido a armas serão sempre superiores onde existam armas, mas a correlação tem que ser feita com o total.

Nem é preciso procurar muito para começar logo a achar pistas de que a correlação no Brasil pode sofrer do mesmo problema que sofre nos EUA:

This argument was strongly reinforced by the fact that the regions where gun ownership is widespread were the ones with the smallest number of gun-related deaths. In the South region where there is the highest number of legal guns per citizen only 59% of all murders were caused by firearms in contrast to 70% in the Northeast where there is the lowest number of legal firearms per citizen.

[Haroun Al Poussah]

a austrália é um caso tão demonstrativo que até merecia um tópico à parte:

AUSTRALIA

How a Conservative-Led Australia Ended Mass Killings

In the continuing debate over how to stop mass killings in the United States, Australia has become a familiar touchstone.

President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation “like ours.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has said the Australian approach is “worth considering.” The National Rifle Association has dismissed the policies, contending that they “robbed Australians of their right to self-defense and empowered criminals” without reducing violent crime.

The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

Mass shootings in Australia were rare anyway. But after a gunman massacred 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in 1996, a public outcry spurred a national consensus to severely restrict firearms. The tightened laws, which were standardized across Australia, are more stringent than those of any state in the United States, including California.

Pushed through by John Howard, the conservative prime minister at the time, the National Firearms Agreement prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shotguns in all but unusual cases. It tightened licensing rules, established a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, created a national gun registry and instituted a temporary buyback program that removed more than 20 percent of firearms from public circulation.

Several of the measures, including waiting periods and background checks, have been adopted piecemeal by different states in America. But the United States has never tried a national gun buyback program; in Australia, that required raising taxes. And the United States has never been able to do what Mr. Howard did: forge a broad agreement on a sweeping set of gun control measures that applies to the entire nation.

A test of those laws came in December 2014, when a gunman who had expressed sympathy for Islamic extremism took hostages in a cafe in Sydney. The assailant, Man Haron Monis, brandished a sawed-off pump action shotgun that he had obtained illegally.

An inquest said the gun may have been in circulation before pump action shotguns were essentially banned in 1996 and was never confiscated in the buyback. According to the inquest, his shells were 15 to 20 years old.

During the 17-hour siege of the cafe, Mr. Monis fired several times, once into a wall, before killing the cafe manager. At that point, the police stormed in, killing the gunman and another hostage in the crossfire.

It is impossible to say whether gun restrictions saved lives in the siege, but some politicians say they believe so.

“It is the ready availability of weapons, particularly those that are automatic or semiautomatic, that increases the likelihood that people in a moment of madness, or malice, or hatred, will kill a lot of people,” Mr. Howard said in October, after a man opened fire on a community college campus in Oregon, killing nine.

Measuring the broad effectiveness of Australia’s gun control laws is complicated. Australians themselves continue to debate their impact, and some have sought to loosen restrictions on gun ownership.

Critics have argued that gun violence was falling in Australia before 1996 and would have continued to fall even without the gun control measures. Others have suggested that even as gun-related deaths fell, people in Australia may have resorted to using other weapons to kill.

To assess these claims, scholars have examined not just mass shootings, but also all intentional deaths caused by firearms, adjusting for population growth.

Total intentional gun deaths fell by half in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were put in place, even as Australia’s population grew nearly 14 percent. The rate of gun suicides per 100,000 people dropped 65 percent from 1995 to 2006, and the rate of gun homicides fell 59 percent, according to a 2010 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University.

When the data in that study is updated to include the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as well as the numbers going back to 1968, several facts emerge.

First, the rates of intentional firearm deaths were substantially higher in the 28 years before the gun control measures were adopted in 1996 than in the 17 years after. How much of that decline can be attributed to the new policies can be debated, but the difference is clear.

Second, the initial drop in firearm deaths in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were enacted appears to have leveled off. In 2013, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were 200 gun-related homicides and suicides, for a rate of 0.87 deaths per 100,000 residents. That is up slightly from the low in 2005, when 0.82 deaths per 100,000 residents were recorded, but still far below the 2.71 deaths per 100,000 residents in 1996.

The data confirms that gun deaths were already falling before the National Firearms Agreement. The rate of intentional gun deaths fell about 33 percent from 1986 to 1996. The decline accelerated, however, under the new gun control measures, with the rate dropping about 60 percent from 1996 to 2006.

The rates of both gun-related and other homicides per 100,000 residents have fallen in Australia since 1996, when the country tightened its gun ownership restrictions.
(anexo 2)


The impact of the gun laws is difficult to assess partly because of the low rates of intentional firearms deaths in Australia. Gun-related homicide rates are even lower, because suicides make up about 80 percent of all gun deaths. Looking at gun-related suicides and homicides separately shows similar trends — higher rates of both before 1996 than after, declines in the decade before 1996 but sharper declines in the decade after, and a leveling off in recent years.

Mr. Leigh and Ms. Neill tried to measure the effect of the 1996 measures across Australian states and territories to see whether different levels of gun confiscation led to different results. They found that the places where the most guns were removed from public circulation also experienced the largest drops in intentional gun deaths.

The impact of the buyback appeared more pronounced on suicides.

“Firearm suicides fell more in states that had more guns bought back than in states with fewer guns bought back,” Ms. Neill said in an email. “Firearm homicides also fell more in states with more guns bought back, but the effect was smaller than for firearm suicides.”

The data also indicates that overall homicide and suicide rates fell in the decade after 1996, meaning Australians did not respond to the gun control measures by killing one another or themselves using other weapons at higher rates.

Over all, Mr. Leigh and Ms. Neill estimate that at least 200 lives are saved annually because of Australia’s gun buyback program.

The introduction to the Australian market this year of a shotgun that allows rapid fire using a lever action rekindled debate over the restrictions, with some enthusiasts arguing that they felt cheated out of owning a gun. The government banned a version of the shotgun that holds seven rounds but approved a five-round version. There are also efforts to lower the legal age of supervised shooters in Tasmania, to 15 from 16.

Senator David Leyonhjelm, who supports easing gun controls, said Australia resembled Britain, Canada and New Zealand, where mass shootings are infrequent. “America is an outlier,” he said. “We are not like America.”

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 12 mass shootings in Australia, according to a 2006 study in the journal Injury Prevention. The deadliest shooting since 1996 occurred last year, when a farmer in New South Wales fatally shot his wife and three children before killing himself.

Tasmania’s former premier, Tony Rundle, said reaching the 1996 agreement was difficult and warned against revising it. “I told people all over the country, in town hall meetings, we don’t want to go down the path that America has traveled,” said Mr. Rundle, who is now retired. “Eroding those laws now, chipping away at the edges, would be a folly.”

Mr. Howard, the prime minister who pushed through the measures, agreed. “There should be no relaxation, complacency or compromise,” he said in an interview. “That is the view of people all around Australia.”

nyt

Estás a ver o que queres ver. A quebra de homicídios já vinha de trás ... ou seja, não é conclusivo que os homicídios no total tenham caído devido à quebra dos feitos com armas, não obstante ser previsível que os feitos com armas caíriam. Basta ver que em absoluto, os feitos SEM armas caíram mais que os com armas.

Suicídios com armas é natural que caiam, mas aí seria necessário ver o total de suicídios. E aí pode existir correlação, como mostrei para os Estados, nos EUA.

estás a fazer um trabalho excelente e estragas tudo com a linguagem
eu não estou a ver nada.

estou a dar a ver a opinião do nyt.
é muito complicado perceber isso?

H

[Incognitus]

Estás a dar a opinião do NYT porque te parece que ela coincide com a tua, logo apresentas a mesma como uma espécie de prova, em vez de analisares criticamente a opinião do NYT e veres que aquilo que está no gráfico não suporta necessariamente o sentido do artigo.

Algo que a análise para trás te deveria ter tornado claro. Só uma análise similar na Austrália, noutros locais, pode chegar a essas conclusões. E não artigos motivados à priori para provar algo (ou a sua escolha).

-----------

Dito de outra forma, colocar o artigo do NYT não é um exemplo de análise. É sim um exemplo de confirmation bias.

[Haroun Al Poussah]

Estás a dar a opinião do NYT porque te parece que ela coincide com a tua, logo apresentas a mesma como uma espécie de prova, em vez de analisares criticamente a opinião do NYT e veres que aquilo que está no gráfico não suporta necessariamente o sentido do artigo.

Algo que a análise para trás te deveria ter tornado claro. Só uma análise similar na Austrália, noutros locais, pode chegar a essas conclusões. E não artigos motivados à priori para provar algo (ou a sua escolha).

-----------

Dito de outra forma, colocar o artigo do NYT não é um exemplo de análise. É sim um exemplo de confirmation bias.

nada disso: postei o artigo pelo facto de haver um antes e um depois no que toca às armas na austrália - a austrália é um bom case study sobre o tema.
deixa-te lá disso. aindas vou postar mais coisas que provavelmente contraditarão esta e outras que confirmarão.

H

[Incognitus]

Genericamente a Austrália é um país que mudou muito. Especialmente depois de 2002. Não surpreende uma quebra em tudo o que tem a ver com violência. É de reparar que a grande quebra de homicídio por outras causas dá-se após esse arranque (embora já viesse numa tendência favorável). O arranque foi devido ao boom Chinês e impacto sobre commodities vendidas pela Austrália. Depois o boom foi reforçado com uma bolha imobiliária.

https://www.google.pt/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AUS:CAN:USA&hl=en&dl=en

[Haroun Al Poussah]

Genericamente a Austrália é um país que mudou muito. Especialmente depois de 2002. Não surpreende uma quebra em tudo o que tem a ver com violência. É de reparar que a grande quebra de homicídio por outras causas dá-se após esse arranque (embora já viesse numa tendência favorável). O arranque foi devido ao boom Chinês e impacto sobre commodities vendidas pela Austrália. Depois o boom foi reforçado com uma bolha imobiliária.

https://www.google.pt/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AUS:CAN:USA&hl=en&dl=en

não entres por aí.
não estamos a discutir melhoria/pioria de condições económicas.
a economia da austrália terá mudado muito.
os australianos nem por isso.

é o melhor exemplo que se arranja de um antes/depois.
a ver se encontro outros (países) e mais coisas sobre a austrália.

H

[Reg]

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Índice_de_Desenvolvimento_Humano
avalia fatores como saúde, educação e renda
tambem esta logo atras Noruega em segundo lugar
1   Estável    Noruega   0,944   Aumento 0,001
2   Estável    Austrália   0,933   Aumento 0,002
3   Estável    Suíça   0,917   Aumento 0,001

em 2002 era sueçia a numero 2....
1   Noruega   
0,956
2   Suécia   
0,946
3   Austrália   
0,946
4   Canadá   
0,943

http://www.frigoletto.com.br/GeoEcon/idh2002.htm

A Sueçia caiu bue esta 12!!!

[Incognitus]

Genericamente a Austrália é um país que mudou muito. Especialmente depois de 2002. Não surpreende uma quebra em tudo o que tem a ver com violência. É de reparar que a grande quebra de homicídio por outras causas dá-se após esse arranque (embora já viesse numa tendência favorável). O arranque foi devido ao boom Chinês e impacto sobre commodities vendidas pela Austrália. Depois o boom foi reforçado com uma bolha imobiliária.

https://www.google.pt/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AUS:CAN:USA&hl=en&dl=en

não entres por aí.
não estamos a discutir melhoria/pioria de condições económicas.
a economia da austrália terá mudado muito.
os australianos nem por isso.

é o melhor exemplo que se arranja de um antes/depois.
a ver se encontro outros (países) e mais coisas sobre a austrália.

H

Não, há correlações previsíveis. Por exemplo, crime sobre a propriedade. Naturalmente algum crime sobre a propriedade termina em homicídios, etc.
´
É claro que podem existir surpresas. Como a de homicídios não aparecerem correlacionados com posse de arma ... 

Já agora a Austrália é outro local onde uma variante do X / X+Y iria funcionar ... 

[Zenith]

Não percebi bem o raciocínio do Inc.

Pelo que eu percebi pega numa varável Z (que é soma de outras 2), e coloca grafico H (homicidios) vs Z e calcula a recta de regressão.
Depois subtrai a H os valores H' obtidos pela curva de regressão, faz o plot H-H' vs F (armas de fogo) e calcula a respectiva recta de regressão.
Parece-me que seria de esperar sempre correlações proximas de zero.
Se o procedimento tivesse sido ao contrario, i.e pegar no grafico H-F obter recta de regressão e subtrair aos valores reais, depois disso chegava-se á conclusão que correlação H-Z era extremamente baixa.
Uma curva de regressão em função de uma variável admite implicitamente que os efeitos de todas as outras variáveis tem média nula creio eu.

A não ser que tenha percebido mal.

[Incognitus]

Não percebi bem o raciocínio do Inc.

Pelo que eu percebi pega numa varável Z (que é soma de outras 2), e coloca grafico H (homicidios) vs Z e calcula a recta de regressão.
Depois subtrai a H os valores H' obtidos pela curva de regressão, faz o plot H-H' vs F (armas de fogo) e calcula a respectiva recta de regressão.
Parece-me que seria de esperar sempre correlações proximas de zero.
Se o procedimento tivesse sido ao contrario, i.e pegar no grafico H-F obter recta de regressão e subtrair aos valores reais, depois disso chegava-se á conclusão que correlação H-Z era extremamente baixa.
Uma curva de regressão em função de uma variável admite implicitamente que os efeitos de todas as outras variáveis tem média nula creio eu.

A não ser que tenha percebido mal.

Admite que todas as outras variáveis têm média nula, mas uma só penso que exibiria correlação se a tivesse, embora fosse melhor começar logo por um modelo multi-factor.

Em todo o caso a correlação só com o factor em questão não existe (mesmo sem esse passo, que foi uma tentativa de achar a correlação que antes não se identificou), é esmagada por outros factores (X, ou X+Y -- já agora, são realidades que podem mesmo ser somadas). E a correlação só para x ou para X+Y é forte.

[Zenith]

Que a correlação fosse forte ou fraca, ao subtrair a recta de regressão, a correlação do que ficava ia sempre ser muito próxima de zero.
Se H depender unicamente de X, Y e F, subtrair a recta de regressão em função de qq par de variaveis está-se a assumir que a 3ª é uma perturbação de média nula e iria sempre dar uma correlação baixa.
Se se pegar em X+Y a a correlação da diferença com F dará valor baixo, se se pegar em X+F (se tiver significado) então a de Y será baixa etc, e em vez de considerar um par basta considerar uma.
Creio que a única maneira de analizar é mesmo com análise multivariável.

[D. Antunes]

outra coisa: podes fazê-lo tu ou eu.
este debate partiu de um gráfico (que não consigo encontrar; alguém me pode dar o link?) que coloquei relacionando número de armas de fogo / mortes por armas de fogo.

o que se tira do gráfico é que mais armas -> mais mortes por armas de fogo.

a questão que se põe é a seguinte: se houver menos armas, o número de mortes que seriam consumadas por armas de fogo manter-se-ia?

o suicida que usa uma pistola para se matar, matar-se-ia na mesma não tendo uma pistola à mão?
o homicida que usa uma pistola para matar, mataria na mesma se não tivesse uma pistola à mão?
o acidente mortal que acontece com uma pistola, aconteceria na mesma se não houvesse pistola? esta é evidente, Não!

foi daqui que partiu o debate.
podemos analisar um só factor como o homicídio. mas existem pelo menos mais dois factores.

H

Estás a ser demasiado simplista. Tens que ver se quem mata com armas de fogo mataria de outro modo (por exemplo, com navalhas) se não as tivesse, mas também  se existirem armas de fogo evita mortes. Por exemplo, será que o ladrão sacar da arma se tiver medo que o assaltado esteja armado? Será que os terroristas de Paris matariam tanta gente se muitos parisienses estivessem armados?
Eu sou mais a favor do controlo das armas, mas o gráfico do Inc surpreendeu-me.

[D. Antunes]

wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

A Suiça tem muitas armas.

[Haroun Al Poussah]

A Suiça tem muitas armas.

acho que já chegaste atrasado a esta festa...

H

[D. Antunes]

A Suiça tem muitas armas.

acho que já chegaste atrasado a esta festa...

H

Não sabia que era uma festa. Pensava que esta noite só a Marine estaria a festejar.

[D. Antunes]

Inc: quais são as variáveis X e Y?

[D. Antunes]

Um factor que se correlaciona com taxa de homicídios é o aborto. Liberaliza-se o aborto e passados alguns anos (quando os abortados seriam jovens) as taxas de homicídio baixam.
Filhso indesejados têm maior risco de se tornarem delinquentes violentos.