Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 72
Enero
Junio
2022
Recibido el 14/09/2021 Aceptado el 21/12/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 72 (2022), 264-278
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Correlation of the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life
and its Protection
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4072.14
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska *
Oleksandr I. Kotiuk **
Yurii M. Sereda ***
Abstract
The right to keep and bear arms can be considered a means
of self-defence and can become a major threat to public safety
if the purpose of the use of weapons is not to protect the right
to life. The aim of the article is to establish the relationship
between the number of weapons in civilian possession and the
right to life and protection. The objective involved the following
methods: statistical analysis, correlation analysis, generalization
and analogy, hypothetical-deductive model. Countries in which
the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined at the constitutional level are
identied. They also identied the countries with the highest number of
weapons stored and born by the population, their indicators were taken as
a basis in the study. As a conclusion, it has been found that the correlation
between the number of legal and illegal weapons in civilian possession,
including per 100,000 inhabitants, the number of weapons kept by law
enforcement ocers and the number of people killed with weapons has a
low level of negative correlation. It was found that the right to keep and
bear arms is eective in guaranteeing the right to life and its protection, but
not exclusive.
Keywords: weapons; homicide; self-defense; violence; right to life.
* PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Procedure and Criminology,
Educational and Scientic Institute of Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3357-7722
** PhD in Law, Assistant of Department of Civil Procedure, Educational and Scientic Institute of Law,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6464-2315
*** PhD in Law, Associate Professor of Department of Constitutional and Criminal Law, Educational and
Scientic Institute “Law Institute of the State Higher Educational Institution Kyiv National Economic
University named after Vadym Hetman. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5244-3573
265
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
Correlación del Derecho a Poseer y Portar Armas con
la Garantía del Derecho a la Vida y su Protección
Resumen
El derecho a poseer y portar armas puede considerarse un medio de
autodefensa y puede convertirse en una gran amenaza para la seguridad
pública si el propósito del uso de armas no es proteger el derecho a la vida.
El objetivo del artículo es establecer la relación entre el número de armas
en posesión civil y el derecho a la vida y la protección. El objetivo involucró
los siguientes métodos: análisis estadístico, análisis de correlación,
generalización y analogía, modelo hipotético-deductivo. Se identican
los países en los que el derecho a poseer y portar armas está consagrado
a nivel constitucional. Tambien se identicaron los países con mayor
número de armas guardadas y nacidas por la población, sus indicadores se
tomaron como base en el estudio. Como conclusion se ha descubierto que
la correlación entre el número de armas legales e ilegales en posesión civil,
incluido por cada 100.000 habitantes, el número de armas guardadas por
agentes del orden y el número de personas muertas con armas tiene un bajo
nivel de correlación negativa. Se comprobó que el derecho a poseer y portar
armas es efectivo para garantizar el derecho a la vida y su protección, pero
no excluyente.
Palabras clave: armas; homicidio; autodefensa; violencia; derecho a la vida.
Introduction
All democracies in the world are guided by the rule of law, which
recognizes the most important value of human life and health. Therefore, the
state must ensure the right to life and its protection. Violence with the use
of arms is a current global human rights problem (Amnesty International,
n. d.). All over the world, the issue of illicit tracking in arms is acute as a
threat to life on the one hand, and a means of protection and self-defence at
the time of encroachment on life on the other.
In a developed democratic society, every citizen has the maximum
opportunity to protect and defend their own violated rights and freedoms
and those of family members, relatives, and others. The state shall create an
appropriate legislative mechanism that would properly enshrine, ensure,
and protect it. Sometimes the inability of public authorities to take real
measures to protect life or health creates favourable conditions for illegal
encroachments on the life, health of citizens and their property.
Arms are used far more often around the world to violate than to protect
the human right to life. The right to keep and bear arms is not a human right,
266
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
but a kind of privilege. International regulations enshrine the human right
to life. However, arms are rarely used to protect this right, as evidenced by
statistics. In 2017, about 2,000 rearms were used for self-defence in the
United States. This should be compared to 60,000 cases of the use of arms
for other purposes than defence. This means that there are 30 people who
are abused for every person who defends himself/herself with arms (Dancy,
2018).
Therefore, the correlation between the right to keep and bear arms and
the guarantee of the right to life and its protection are closely interrelated
institutions that require detailed study.
The aim of the research paper is to establish the correlation between the
number of arms in civilian possession and guaranteeing the right to life and
its protection. Research objectives of the article:
1. Identify the countries with the largest number of arms in civilian
possession.
2. Analyse statistical indicators of the number of arms in legal or illegal
civilian possession, the number of arms kept by law enforcement
agencies, the number of homicides with arms.
3. Establish a correlation between the number of arms in civilian
possession and the guarantee of the right to life and its protection.
4. Prove or disprove assumptions about the eectiveness of the use of
arms in self-defence.
1. Literature Review
Research is characterized by two approaches to the correlation of the
right to keep and bear arms with the right to life and its protection. The
rst is the right to keep and bear arms as a necessary means of self-defence.
The state shall control the processes of legalization of keeping and bearing
arms. The second is that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence is
unjustied and therefore poses a greater threat to the life and health of the
population.
The state shall ensure the right to life, which provides a set of substantive
and procedural obligations of the state: 1) negative — refrain from
intentional and illegal taking life; 2) positive — take measures to ensure
the safety of persons under its jurisdiction: a) the obligation to ensure the
availability of regulations; b) the obligation to take preventive measures;
3) procedural — ensure eective investigation of violations of substantive
aspects of the right to life (European Court of Human Rights, 2021).
267
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
Romanov O. positions that the right to keep and bear arms (as an integral
part of the human right to protection) is at the same time a guarantee of
other human rights (primarily the right to life and health). This conclusion
is conrmed by the position that the right of a citizen to acquire, possess,
carry, and use arms is one of the main ways to protect their own lives
(Romanov, 2005).
Straight (2021) holds a similar position, justied the right to self-defence
as the main one, which provides for the right to bear arms. The right to bear
arms is a means of ensuring a person’s fundamental right to self-defence.
A person has the right to self-defence against all others. Therefore, persons
have the right to self-defence against other individuals; civil servants who
have the right to keep and bear arms are no dierent from individuals;
individuals have the right to self-defence against the government.
The issue of rearms as a means of self-protection of citizens from
criminal encroachment is reduced to two opposing views: the rst one —
to legalize short-barrelled rearms, the second — to prevent keeping and
bearing such arms by civilians (Chystokletov and Pastryulina, 2011).
In general, enshrinement of the right to keep and bear arms for self-
defence at the constitutional level is quite rare. Only 15 constitutions have
ever included the right to bear rearms (Butkevych and Hembach, 2016).
No international human rights law protects the right to keep and bear arms.
This is justied by two reasons: rst, self-defence is the only exception to
the use of force; second, representative democracy is an integral part of
every international human rights treaty, which provides that people have
the right to rise and overthrow an undemocratic form of government
(Schmidt, 2007).
There is no common European experience in legalizing keeping and
bearing arms by the civilian population. Legislation governing the possession
of arms by civilians for the purpose of protection varies considerably from
country to country, but the common denominator is that the constitutions
of the European Union do not enshrine citizens’ rights to keep and bear
arms. The vast majority of countries have a fairly liberal legislation that
enshrines the right to use arms to protect one’s own lives and other people’s
lives (Hudz and Maltsev, 2018).
Baldwin (n. d.) is a supporter of the second approach and notes that
traditional self-defence does not justify any violent action simply because
the other person has struck the rst blow or threatened to commit acts
dangerous to life and health. Traditional self-defence laws require a person
who is attacked or threatened with imminent attack to: act wisely; retreat,
if possible, without any physical action; use only reasonably necessary force
to repel the attacker.
268
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
The regulation of the right to keep and bear arms should include the
following aspects: determining the subjects to whom the right to hold and
bear arms is granted for the purpose of self-defence; conditions for the use
of arms for self-defence and protection of other rights; arms legislation
should provide for a trial in case of homicide from arms at the time of self-
defence; control over the storage of arms for self-defence as a matter of
public safety; legislatures must ensure that no person who keeps arms has
power over others in society (Samraj, 2020).
2. Materials and Methods of Research
The main approach in the study of the correlation between the right to
keep and bear arms and the right to life and its protection was to establish
the countries with the largest number of arms being legally and illegally in
civilian possession. We believe that the analysis of the indicators studied in
these countries best reects the correlation between the right to keep and
bear arms and the right to life and its protection.
The correlation between the right to keep and bear arms and the right to
life and its protection was studied using the method of statistical analysis
of the number of arms being legally and illegally in civilian possession, the
number of arms kept by law enforcement agencies, the number of homicides
with arms.
The correlation analysis was used to establish the correlation between
the estimate of rearms in civilian possession, estimate of civilian rearms
per 100 persons, registered rearms, unregistered rearms for 2017 in
the US, India, China, Pakistan, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Colombia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Egypt, the
Philippines and homicide rate from rearms, measured as the number
of deaths per 100,000 in 2017 in these countries; between the estimate
of rearms in civilian possession and the Global Firearms Holdings Law
enforcement rearms in 2017 in the countries under study; homicide rate
from rearms, measured as the number of deaths per 100,000 in 2017 in
these countries and Global Firearms Holdings Law enforcement rearms.
The study used the formula of correlation analysis (Equation 1):
(1)
where x1 — estimate of rearms in civilian possession and x2 – homicide
rate from rearms, measured as the number of deaths per 100 000, r –
linear correlation coecient.
269
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
The hypothetico-deductive method, the method of generalization and
analogy helped to prove the assumptions about the eectiveness of the use
of arms in self-defence. The study used the most signicant scientic works
that reect the development of scientic thought in the eld of the right to
keep and bear arms and its eectiveness in self-defence for the period of
2005 to 2021. The paper analyses the following indicators:
• Global Firearms Holdings Civilian-held rearms in the 25 top
ranked countries and territories у 2017 year reected in Small Arms
Survey.
• Homicide rate from rearms, measured as the number of deaths per
100 000 in 2017 reected in Our World in Data (2018).
• Global Firearms Holdings Law enforcement rearms in 2017
reected in Small Arms Survey.
3. Research Results
If we consider the right to keep and bear arms through the prism of
ensuring the right to life and its protection, the right to keep and bear
arms is a derivative right. Ensuring the right to life covers the right to self-
defence, which may or may not (depending on the legislative regulation) be
exercised with the use of arms.
In the world, civilian population hold the largest number of arms, while
law enforcement agencies — the smallest (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Global rearms holding estimates, 2017.
Source: Small Arms Survey, 2018.
270
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined at the constitutional level
in only three countries: the United States, Guatemala, and Mexico. There is
no such practice in Europe.
Accordingly, the United States is the country with the largest number of
arms in the world in civilian possession in 2017 (Table 1). However, despite
the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution, most weapons are
held illegally. Other countries that were in the top 25 countries with the
largest number of arms in civilian possession in 2017 are: India, China,
Pakistan, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Colombia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Egypt, Philippines.
Table 1. Global Firearms Holdings Civilian-held rearms in the
25 top ranked countries and territories, 2017.
State
Estimate
of rearms
in civilian
possession
Estimate
of civilian
rearms per
100 persons
Registered
rearms Unregistered
rearms
United States 393,347,000 120.48 1,073,743 392,273,257
India 71,101,000 5.30 9,700,000 61,401,000
China 49,735,000 3.58 680,000 49,055,000
Pakistan 43,917,000 22.32 6,000,000 37,917,000
Russian
Federation 17,620,000 12.29 6,600,000 11,020,000
Brazil 17,510,000 8.29 8,080,295 9,429,705
Mexico 16,809,000 12.91 3,118,592 13,690,408
Germany 15,822,000 19.62 5,830,000 9,992,000
Iran 5,890,000 7.28 - -
Saudi Arabia 5,468,000 16.70 - -
South Africa 5,351,000 9.65 3,000,000 2,351,000
Colombia 4,971,000 10.13 706,210 4,264,790
Ukraine 4,396,000 9.90 800,000 3,596,000
Afghanistan 4,270,000 12.50 - -
Egypt 3,931,000 4.13 250,000 3,681,000
Philippines 3,776,000 3.64 1,739,000 2,037,000
Source: Small Arms Survey (2018).
271
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
At the same time, in 2017, the leader among the studied countries in
the number of people killed with weapons is Colombia, followed by Brazil,
Mexico, the Philippines, the United States, Afghanistan, South Africa and
others with less than 1 per 100,000 population (Table 2).
Table 2. Homicide rates from rearms (Homicide rate from
rearms, measured as the number of deaths per 100 000), 2017.
United States 4.63 Iran 0.59
India 0,74 Saudi Arabia 0.15
China 0.04 South Africa 4.30
Pakistan 0,58 Colombia 21.70
Russian Federation 0.84 Ukraine 0.65
Brazil 20.41 Afghanistan 4.55
Mexico 11.49 Egypt 0.25
Germany 0.10 Philippines 9.54
Source: Our World in Data (2018).
To establish the correlation between the number of weapons and those
killed with the use of weapons, it is necessary to correlate between the data
in Table 1 and Table 2.
Thus, the linear correlation index between the number of arms in civilian
possession in 2017 and those killed with weapons in 2017 is -0.064, which
indicates a negative correlation between these data.
The linear correlation index between the number of arms in civilian
possession in 2017 per 100,000 population and those killed with arms in
2017 is -0.042, which indicates a negative correlation between these data.
The linear correlation index between the number of legalized arms in
civilian possession in 2017 and those killed with arms in 2017 is -0.019,
which indicates a negative correlation between these data.
The linear correlation index between the number of illegal arms in
civilian possession in 2017 and those killed with arms in 2017 is -0.111,
indicating a negative correlation between these data.
It has been established that the number of arms that are legally or
illegally in civilian possession has a negative correlation with the number
of homicides with arms. That is, the more arms, the fewer homicides with
arms.
272
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
The right to keep and bear arms in each country is legally enshrined by
law enforcement ocials. They are authorized to prevent and ght crime,
as well as to protect the rights and interests of people. Law enforcement
agencies, among other things, ensure the right to life and its protection.
In 2017, the leader among the surveyed countries in the number of law
enforcement ocers holding arms is the Russian Federation, followed by
China, India, Egypt, the United States and others with the number of arms
less than 1,000,000 (Table 3).
Table 3. Global Firearms Holdings Law enforcement rearms, 2017
United States 1,016,000 Iran 98,000
India 1,700,000 Saudi Arabia 214,000
China 1,971,000 South Africa 250,481
Pakistan 944,000 Colombia 283,000
Russian Federation 2,432,000 Ukraine 289,000
Brazil 803,000 Afghanistan 239,000
Mexico 591,000 Egypt 1,530,000
Germany 466,000 Philippines 139,043
Source: Small Arms Survey (2018).
The linear correlation index between the number of arms held by law
enforcement ocials in 2017 and those killed with arms in 2017 is -0.295,
which indicates a negative correlation between these data.
This gure suggests that more law enforcement arms do little to prevent
homicide from arms. Thus, it can be argued that the armed law enforcement
agencies are more eective in ensuring the protection of the right to life and
its protection.
The linear correlation index between the number of arms in civilian
possession in 2017 and the number of arms held by law enforcement
agencies in 2017 in the studied countries is 0.199, indicating a low level of
positive correlation between these data.
So, the number of arms held by law enforcement agencies depends on
the number of arms in civilians’ possession. Such correlation is due to the
greater threat to the life of the population and the need to protect it.
273
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
4. Discussion
Many arms in the world, including illegal ones, have created a ground
for the study of the purpose of their use, the reasonability of enshrining the
right to possess it at the constitutional level, as well as the eectiveness of
its use in self-defence. Thus, the positions of scholars divided into two. The
rst group of scholars argues that one of the main ways to protect one’s
life is the right of a person to acquire, keep, bear, and use arms (Romanov,
2005). That is, the main purpose for the acquisition, keeping, bearing, and
using arms by individuals is the direct realisation of the individual’s right to
self-defence (Didenko, 2016).
Possession of arms creates equal conditions between the weakest and
the strongest, therefore it is an additional guarantee of protection of life.
There are no alternative means of eective self-defence other than arms
possession (Gingrich, 2012).
The use of gun control measures violates the right to self-defence or
to prevent an attack. If a particular arms control measure has generally
positive results, it primarily violates the rights of those who are killed or
severely harmed by their inability to defend themselves (Crummett and
Swenson, 2020).
Gun control (Boothby, 2021) can make people safer on average, but it
does not make everyone safer, and those who violate their rights are less
secure (Huemer, 2016). McMahan (2012) holds the opposite position, who
proved that gun control makes everyone safer and therefore contributes to
everyone’s ability to prevent physical injury. Accordingly, no one’s right to
physical security is violated. Wright et al. (2017) argue that the more arms
a population possesses, the more homicides.
Proponents of legalization of arms for self-defence provide the following
arguments: rst, criminals can still carry illegal arms, second, law
enforcement ocers are not always eective and timely to protect citizens
from criminals, and third, possession of arms is rather a preventive measure
to prevent criminal acts, because in this case the attacker may be wary of
protective actions of the victim of the attack.
The study found that the relationship between the number of legal
and illegal arms in civilian possession, the number of arms in civilian
possession per 100,000 population, and the number of people killed using
arms was low. This suggests that in countries with more arms there are
fewer homicides using arms. Such correlation is low, so it is impractical to
state unequivocally its exclusive role. However, this justies the position of
scholars who argue for the need to enshrine the right to possess arms as a
means of self-defence and a guarantee of the right to life.
274
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
In addition to the civilian population, law enforcement agencies have
the right to keep and bear arms, however, given the fact that the police may
not always be present in all places to ensure public safety, citizens may
use arms for self-defence (Simpson, 2019). The eectiveness of violence
prevention and self-defence depends on the form of arms possession, so
open bearing of arms is more eective than covert one (Roberts, 2018).
The right of the population to keep and bear arms has two main
reasons: the rst is to provide citizens with the means to resist a tyrannical
government; the second is to provide citizens with the means to protect
themselves, their loved ones from violence and their property from criminal
encroachment (Bernstein, 2020).
This position is not accidental, as any changes in legislation, including
the enshrinement of additional rights, are due to the emergence of new
social relations or changes in existing ones. Protective factors, such as
victimization and personal security concerns, are important in enshrinement
of the right to keep and bear arms, but they outweigh criminogenic factors
such as violence, disorder, and lack of trust in the police (Brennan, 2018).
The police violence against citizens has led to mass protests and an
increased number of applications for rearms (McGinnis, 2020), as has
been the case in the United States, leading to the adoption of the Second
Amendment to the US Constitution as a guarantee of the right to keep and
bear arms for self-defence (Blocher, 2012). The study proved that the linear
correlation index between the number of weapons held by law enforcement
agencies in 2017 and those killed with arms in 2017 is -0.295.
This suggests that in countries where law enforcement agencies
have more arms, there are fewer cases of gun homicides. Therefore, it is
no coincidence that the interdependence between the number of arms
possessed by law enforcement agencies in 2017 and the number of arms
in civilian possession in 2017 is positive at a low level. That is, more arms
in civilian possession correspond to more arms held by law enforcement
agencies.
Proponents of the second approach argue that although the right to
self-defence is a human right, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be a
human right — it should be understood as a derivative legal option, right
and privilege (Samraj, 2020).
The position on the need to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms
manipulates the ideals of human rights, in particular the inalienable right
to life, in order to establish an unimpeded right to armed self-defence. This
statement is based on the need to protect oneself and the loved ones from
violence without regard to the rights of others. The claim that the most
eective means of self-preservation is the use of rearms is false. This
undermines the role of a democratic society in preserving the rights and
lives of its citizens.
275
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
The right to keep and bear arms undermines the fundamental right
to life of countless people by an armed civilian whose subjective fear may
cause harm. Fundamental rights and freedoms are not unlimited but are
part of a social contract in which all persons must also respect the rights
and dignity of others. The right to personal security is often misinterpreted
as a broad right to self-defence against any perceived threat.
To fairly protect one’s personal right to security, a person may use force
only to the extent required by the situation and when there are no other
means of protection against attack. The use of force falls under the law of
security only when the force is proportional to the threat (Bhatia, 2020).
We deny this position, given that the right to keep and bear arms is
not always accompanied by its use, therefore it can be used for preventive
purposes. At the same time, the right to keep and bear arms is not exclusive
and must meet the need to provide it to the relevant subjects.
Conclusions
The legislative denition of the right to keep and bear arms has a ne
line between guaranteeing of the right to life, protecting the person being
encroached upon and ensuring public order and security in general. It is
established that only three countries have enshrined the right to keep and
bear arms at the constitutional level: the United States, Guatemala, and
Mexico.
The countries with the highest number of arms in civilian possession are
the United States, India, China, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Brazil,
Mexico, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Colombia, Ukraine,
Afghanistan, Egypt, and the Philippines. The indicators of these countries
were taken as a basis in the study.
The interdependence between the number of legal and illegal arms in civil
possession, the number of arms in civil possession per 100,000 population,
and the number of people killed using arms has been found to have a low
level of negative correlation. This suggests that there are fewer homicides
using arms in countries with more arms. The level of this correlation is low,
so it is impractical to state unequivocally about its exclusive role.
The subjects who have the right to hold arms are law enforcement
agencies to ensure law and order in society, while guaranteeing the right
to life and protection of people. It was found that the correlation between
the number of arms held by law enforcement agencies in 2017 and those
killed with arms in 2017 is reected in the linear correlation index, which
is -0.295. Thus, in those countries where law enforcement agencies have
more arms, there are fewer cases of homicides with the use of arms.
276
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
The indicator of the interdependence between the number of arms held
by law enforcement ocers in 2017 and the number of arms in civilian
possession in 2017 is positive at a low level. That is, more arms in civilian
possession correspond to more arms held by law enforcement ocers.
Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms by civilians and law
enforcement agencies is eective in guaranteeing the right to life and
protection, but it is impractical to regard the right to keep and bear arms
as the only eective right to self-defence, as the interdependence between
these categories is low.
The prospect of further research is to study the conditions of legal use of
arms by individuals at the time of encroachment on their right to life and
health.
Biblliographic References
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. n. d. Gun violence – key facts. Available online.
In: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-
violence/. Consultation date: 10/06+/2021.
BALDWIN, Lauren. n. d. Using a gun for self-defense: laws and consequences.
Criminal Defence Lawyer. Available online. In: https://www.
criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/using-a-gun-self-defense-laws-
and-consequences.htm. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
BERNSTEIN, David E. 2020. “The right to armed self-defense in light of law
enforcement abdication” In: Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Vol. 19, pp. 177-209.
BHATIA, Rukmani. 2020. Untangling the gun lobby’s web of self-defense
and human rights. American Progress. Available online. In:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/
2020/08/12/489284/untangling-gun-lobbys-web-self-defense-
human-rights/. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
BLOCHER, Joseph. 2012. “The right not to keep or bear arms” In: Stanford Law
Review. Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 1-54.
BOOTHBY, William. 2021. Control in weapons law. In: Rogier Bartels, Jeroen
C. van den Boogaard, Paul A. L. Ducheine, Eric Pouw and Joop Voetelink
(Eds.), Military Operations and the Notion of Control Under International
Law (pp. 369-392). T.M.C. Asser Press. The Hague.
BRENNAN, Iain R. 2018. “Weapon-carrying and the reduction of violent harm”
In: The British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 571–593.
277
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 264-278
BUTKEVYCH, Olga; HEMBACH, Holger. 2016. Ukraine’s legal debate on the
right to armed self-defence. Vox Ukraine. Available online. In: https://
voxukraine.org/en/the-right-to-armed-self-defence-en/. Consultation
date: 06/10/2021.
CHYSTOKLETOV, Leontiy Hryhorovych; PASTRYULINA, Tetiana Valeriyivna
2011. “On weapons and legal grounds for its use by private security
companies in Ukraine” In: Scientic Notes of Lviv University of Business
and Law. Vol. 6, pp. 139-142.
CRUMMETT, Dustin; SWENSON, Phillip. 2020. “Gun control, the right to
self-defense, and reasonable benecence to all” In: Ergo Journal of
Philosophy. Vol. 6, No. 36.
DANCY, Geo. 2018. “America, gun violence and human rights – Connecting
the dots.” Open Global Rights. Available online. In: https://www.
openglobalrights.org/America-gun-violence-and-human-rights-
Connecting-the-dot/. Consultation date: 10/06/2021.
DIDENKO, Serhiy Volodymyrovych. 2016. Administrative and Legal Support
for the Circulation and Use of Weapons in Ukraine. Doctoral Dissertation.
Open International University of Human Development. Kyiv, Ukraine.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. 2021. Guide on Article 2 of the
European Convention on Human Rights – Right to life. Available online.
In: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_2_ENG.pdf.
Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
GINGRICH, Newton Leroy. 2012. The right to bear arms is a human right.
The American Presidency Project. Available online. In: https://www.
presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-newt-nra-right-bear-
arms-human-right. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
HUDZ, Tetiana Ivanivna; MALTSEV, Vadym Vitaliyovych. 2018. “The right to
bear arms: the experience of the European Union” In: Scientic Bulletin
of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Aairs. Vol. 3, pp. 185-
190.
HUEMER, Michael. 2016. Gun rights & noncompliance. The Critique.
Available online. In: http://www.thecritique.com/articles/gun-rights-
noncompliance/. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
MCGINNIS, John O. 2020. Gun rights delayed can be gun rights denied.
Liberty & law center research paper. SSRN. Available online. In: https://
poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=25208507312002609912700
307701012708611604206408202002802900009612107108111107202
5028034036040047022047027073069016118066091082050076003
278
Nataliia M. Akhtyrska, Oleksandr I. Kotiuk y Yurii M. Sereda
Correlation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Ensuring the Right to Life and its Protection
08001202409900112310207103106904500806710708311202007100
510809502912710300309508909107110907908409707511912112208
5&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
MCMAHAN, Je. 2012. Why gun “control” is not enough. The New York Times.
Available online. In: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/
why-gun-control-is-not-enough/. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
OUR WORLD IN DATA. 2018. Homicide rates from rearms, 2017. Available
online. In: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/homicide-rates-from-
rearms. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
ROBERTS, Rodney C. 2018. “Openly carrying handguns for self-defense” In:
Philosophia. Vol. 47, pp. 499–503.
ROMANOV, Oleksiy. 2005. “Weapons: the legislative aspect” In: Legal Journal.
Vol. 2, No. 32, pp. 32–38.
SAMRAJ, Tennyson. 2020. “The right to self-defense and the right to bear arms:
self-defense is a human right; the right to bear arms is a legal option/
right” In: International Journal of Social Sciences and Management
Review. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 220-225.
SCHMIDT, Christopher J. 2007. “An international human right to keep and
bear arms” In: William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
983-1020.
SIMPSON, John-Michael. 2019. Race, Threat, and Firearms: Analysis of State-
Level Self-Defense and “Stand Your Ground” Laws. PhD Thesis. Albany,
State University of New York. New York, USA.
SMALL ARMS SURVEY. 2018. Global rearms holdings. Available online. In:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/weapons-and-markets/tools/global-
rearms-holdings.html. Consultation date: 06/10/2021.
STRAIGHT, Jasnine Rae. 2021. “The right to self-defense against the state” In:
Philosophia. Vol. 49, pp. 437–458.
WRIGHT, James D; ROSSI, Peter H; DALY, Kathleen. 2017. Under the Gun:
Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. Routledge. New York, USA.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 72
