Archive-name: talk-politics-guns/canadian-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
URL: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt


                        The can.talk.guns FAQ List

      E-mail additions and suggestions to ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
                  Your help is welcome and appreciated!

Last modified:
30 July 1996

My aim is to keep this FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) list as short as
possible while covering a lot of areas quickly and pointing people toward
more information.  Instead of providing exhaustive detail, I have listed
references and "recommended reading".  The trade-off between precision and
brevity will be an ongoing struggle.

This FAQ list has undergone a major restructuring that is not yet complete.
The "myths and facts" statements have finally been amalgamated with the FAQs
(where they always belonged).  I hope to have it better-organized and
cleaned up Real Soon Now[TM].

============================= Table of Contents =============================

Sections/lines that have been changed recently are marked with a "|" in
the first column.  (Typo corrections don't get marked.)

A. Frequently Asked Questions

| 1. Where is the latest version of this FAQ list?
  2. What about the 1400 Canadians who are killed with guns?
  3. But even if most of the deaths are suicides, won't gun control help?
  4. Wouldn't it help to at least ban handguns?
  5. What about "military-style assault weapons"?
| 6. Don't we have to do something about violence against women?
  7. Does gun control work?
| 8. But doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than
    Canada?
  9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher
  10. What about violent crime rates?
  11. What about the Vancouver/Seattle study?
    murder rates, just like the US?
  12. What about children and firearms?
  13. Why do some say we have a right to have and use firearms when we have
    no "2nd amendment" in Canada?
| 14. Isn't the US-style self-defence illegal in Canada?
  15. What is Bill C-68?
  16. What is Bill C-17?
  17. What about Bill C-51?
| 18. What did the Auditor General write about "gun control" in Canada?
  19. What is unlawful about our gun control laws?
  20. Did a judge really say our laws are badly written?
  21. Was there a coroner's report that focussed on firearm storage?
  22. What did the coroner write about the murders at L'Ecole Polytechnique?
  23. What is "banned" in Canada?
  24. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?
  25. Do tougher gun control laws reduce armed robberies?
  26. Do mandatory jail sentences deter the armed criminal?
  27. What about the claim that "People without guns injure, people with
    guns kill"?
  28. Aren't dogs more regulated than firearms?
  29. Aren't motor vehicles more regulated and taxed than guns?
  30. Aren't guns more lethal on a per use basis than motor vehicles?
  31. Doesn't easy access to firearms contribute to crime?
  32. Don't the majority of Canadians support tougher gun control?
  33. Don't the experts support tougher gun control?
| 34. Isn't a gun in the home 43 times more likely to kill a friend or
    loved-one than be used against an intruder?
| 35. Didn't someone find that firearm ownership causes higher murder
|   and suicide rates?

B. Questions firearm prohibitionists can't answer

C. Miscellaneous

  Recommended reading:
  Periodic reports:
  Other FAQ lists:
  Where to go for more information:
  Credits: 
  Personal note:
  DISCLAIMER: 
  Copyright notice

======================= A. Frequently Asked Questions =======================


1.  Where is the latest version of this FAQ list?

    The latest HTML version of this FAQ list is at:
    main:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.html
    ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.html
    mirrors:
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Faq/ctg.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.html
    archives:
    http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-bng/can.talk.guns.html

    The latest plain text version of this FAQ list is at:
    main:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt
    ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt
    mirrors:
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Faq/ctg.txt
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt
    archives:
    ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.answers/talk-politics-guns/canadian-faq.Z
    ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/talk-politics-guns/canadian-faq

    You can also get the HTML version from the Cdn-Firearms Home Page at:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/homepage.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
    Just select ``Research Related to "Gun Control"'' and you'll see the "The
    can.talk.guns FAQ list" link near the top.


2.  What about the 1400 Canadians who are killed with guns?

    That was only true for the early 1990s, and it's only a partial truth.

    Deaths with firearms from 1980 to 1990 can be broken down like this:
    Suicides    80%
    Homicides   15%
    Accidents    5%
    TOTAL      100%

    However, over the last ten years:
              gun used  no gun
              --------  ------
    murder      33%      67%
    suicide     30%      70%
    accidents    1%      99%

    Two-thirds of all Canadian homicides do not involve firearms[9].
    Stabbings, strangulations and beatings account for the majority of
    homicides[10].

    The percentage of homicides involving firearms has varied from 45% to
    29% over the years.  Since 1926, firearms have been involved in about
    37% of murders.

    For example, Causes of Death in Canada [1992]:

                    Total  Involving Firearms
                    -----  ------------------
    Suicides        3,709   1,050   28.31%
    Homicides         732     247   33.74%
    Accidents       8,801      63    0.72%
    Deaths        196,535   1,360    0.69%


    Mortality 1991 - Statistics Canada - Summary List of Causes
    Accidents, Suicide; Homicide (from Juristat)
    -------------------------------------------------
        Causes        Number   Percent
    -------------------------------------------------
    ALL CAUSES             195,568   100.00%
    ACCIDENTS                8,212     4.20%
    SUICIDE                  3,593     1.84%
    HOMICIDE                   753     0.39%
    ALL OTHER CAUSES       183,010    93.58%

    ACCIDENTS                8,721   100.00%
    Transport                3,882    44.51%
    Falls                    2,053    23.54%
    Poisoning                  699     8.02%
    Drowning                   390     4.47%
    Inhaling Food              341     3.91%
    Fire and Flames            318     3.65%
    Medical Misadventures      146     1.67%
    Other Firearms              62     0.71%
    Electric Current            39     0.45%
    Theraputic Drugs            33     0.38%
    Explosives                  22     0.25%
    Lightning                    5     0.06%
    Handgun                      4     0.05%
    All other accidents        727     8.34%

    SUICIDE                  3,593   100.00%
    Other Firearms           1,065    29.64%
    Hanging, Strangulation   1,034    28.78%
    Drugs                      502    13.97%
    Gas                        393    10.94%
    Other Solid or Liquid       46     1.28%
    Handgun                     43     1.20%
    All Other Means            510    14.19%

    HOMICIDE (Juristat)        753   100.00%
    Stabbings                  224    29.75%
    Beatings                   140    18.59%
    Other Firearms             135    17.93%
    Illegal Handguns           131    17.40%
    Legal Handgun (Est.)         5     0.66%
    All Other Means            118    15.67%

    Note:  There are numerous errors in the 1991 Mortality Tables, totals
    that don't match the range they are supposed to cover, etc.  I took the
    figures for homicide from Juristat because they are better.  The
    mortality tables list about 200 fewer homicides than Juristat, and far
    fewer handgun homicides.[Prof, H. Taylor Buckner]

    It's also interesting to note that while 33% of homicides involve
    firearms, over half of murders involve alcohol or illicit drugs.
    Alcohol and drug use was evident in 50% of all homicides in 1991[14].
    Historically, alcohol has been estimated as the most important
    contributing factor in two of every three homicides in Canada[15].

    Roughly half of Canada's murder _victims_ have serious criminal
    records.[StatCan]  In 1991, two-thirds of all accused murderers had
    criminal records, of which 69% were prohibited from acquiring or
    possessing firearms due to previous violent offences.[43]

    Firearm homicides typically represent less than 2% of all
    externally-caused deaths in Canada[11]. Since 1975, the homicide rate
    for Canadian men has been twice as high as women's[12].  Lightning
    killed more Canadians in 1987 than did legally-owned handguns [13].
    Between 1961 and 1990, less than 1% of all homicides involved firearms
    legally registered in Canada. [42]

    [9] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol. 12 No.18, "Homicide in
        Canada 1991" (Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice
        Statistics, Oct 1992) p.2.
    [10] Ibid, p.8
    [11] Health Reports Vol. 1 No.1, "Mortality: Summary List of
         Causes 1987", (Statistics Canada, Health Division, Oct. 1989), p.60.
    [12] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol.12 No.21, op. cit., p.11.
    [13] Health Reports Vol.1 No.1,"Causes of Death 1987", (Statistics
         Canada, Health Division, Oct. 1989) pp, 176-178
    [14] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol.12 NO.18, op. cit., p.15.
    [15] Neil Boyd, "The Last Dance: Murder in Canada", (Prentice-Hall
         Canada, 1988) pp. 156-157
    [42] Number of Restricted Guns Used in Homicide Offences by Year,
         (Statistics Canada, Can. Centre for Justice Statistics, Law
         Enforcement Program), pp.1 to 8
    [43] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 18, Homicide in Canada
         1991, (Statistics Canada, Can. Centre for Justice Statistics,
         Oct. 1992), p. 15


3.  But even if most of the deaths are suicides, won't gun control help?

    While suicides account for the overwhelming majority of all gun-related
    deaths in Canada (80% in 1987), over two-thirds of all suicides are
    committed by methods other than firearms[19].

    For "gun control" to prevent suicides, potential suicides would have to
    be very fleeting impulses that would pass before a person could get a
    key, put it into a lock, open the lock, load the firearm, and fire it.
    Since roughly as many people hang/suffocate/strangle themselves, the
    argument is absurd.

    Many suicides are contemplated for weeks or months and there are many
    methods that are just as "impulsive" and just as deadly, such as jumping
    off buildings.

    There are two main types of suicides: the ones who want to die and the
    ones who "cry out for help".  The former uses methods that offer little
    in the way of a "second chance" (firearms, jumping off buildings) and
    the latter group uses methods that take a long time (pills).  Most
    suicides follow months or years of depression or illness, unlocking a
    gun takes at most a couple of minutes.

    From the book Waking Up Alive by Richard A. Heckler 1994:
        "Although there are no official statistics on attempted (ie
        non-fatal actions) suicide, it is generally estimated that there are
        at least 8 to 20 attempts for each death by suicide."
    While roughly 30% of suicides involve a firearm, the "success" rate
    approaches 100% when a firearm is involved.  If, on the other hand, the
    other 70% of suicides actually have 8 to 20 attempts for every death,
    then only 2 to 5% of suicide attempts involve a firearm.  This is
    especially interesting when you consider that 1 in four Canadian homes
    has an average of 3 firearms.  Wouldn't it be more prudent to expend our
    resources trying to help the 20 to 50 thousand persons attempting
    suicide every year than on trying to control a method employed in a
    minority of suicides?

    Canada has very strict firearm regulation yet it also has a higher
    suicide rate than the US.  (Japan has nearly no legally owned firearms
    and their suicide rate is higher than Canada's.)  [The Samurai, the
    Mountie and the Cowboy; Observations on a One-Way Street]

    Until 1960, Canada's suicide rate was fairly stable at about 7 per
    100,000.  Between 1960 and 1980 the suicide rate roughly doubled and has
    remained high around 14 per 100,000 persons.  The suicide rate for males
    aged 20 to 24 roughly tripled between 1960 and 1980.  [StatCan]

    Studies indicate that the suicide rate in Canada increased after Bill
    C-51 was adopted[20].  Alcohol abuse is estimated to be a significant
    contributing factor in 50% of all firearms `accidents' and
    suicides[22].

    [19] Health Reports Vol.1 No.1 "Causes of Death 1987" (Statistics
         Canada, Health Division, Oct. 1989), pp. 184-186
    [20] Robert J. Mundt, op cit.; and, David B. Kopel, op. cit.
    [22] National Safety Council, "Accident Facts 1988-1991".


4.  Wouldn't it help to at least ban handguns?

    Handguns have been required to be registered since 1934 (unlike most
    rifles and shotguns), yet their use has been increasing (even though the
    less regulated and more deadly rifles and shotguns are easier to
    procure).  From the 1960s to now, the use of handguns in homicide has
    roughly doubled (from 10% of homicides to 18%).  [StatCan]  Shotgun and
    rifle use has actually dropped.  If registration works, why are
    criminals moving from firearms that need not be registered to ones that
    must?  If we ban pistols to prevent use in crime, the effect will only
    be to confiscate over half a billion dollars in property from those who
    legally possess roughly 1,000,000 registered pistols.

    More control seems to be increasing use, one reason could be that the
    now-existing smuggling infrastructure (thanks to high cigarette and
    alcohol taxes) makes it trivial to "import" pistols. [Misfire:  The
    Black Market and Gun Control, The Mackenzie Institute, 1995] The strict
    anti-gun laws make smuggling profitable.

    Project Cannon and Operation Gunrunner in 1994 both found that about 90%
    of pistols recovered and/or purchased "from the street" were
    unregistered and could not be traced in Canada. [from the
    project/operation reports]

    A good reference for US vs. Canada is Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide
    and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United States, 1976 to
    1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1,
    1991.

    Abstract: As compared with Americans, Canadians in the 1970s
        possessed one tenth as many handguns per capita.  To assess whether
        this affected the total criminal homicide rate, the mean annual
        criminal homicide rates of Canadian provinces were compared with
        those of adjoining US states for the period of 1976 to 1980.  NO
        CONSISTENT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED; CRIMINAL HOMICIDE RATES WERE
        SOMETIMES HIGHER IN THE CANADIAN PROVINCE, and sometimes higher in
        the adjoining US state.  MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN THE PREVALENCE OF
        HANDGUNS HAVE NOT RESULTED IN DIFFERING TOTAL CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
        RATES IN CANADIAN PROVINCES AND ADJOINING US STATES.  The similar
        rates of criminal homicide are primarily attributable to underlying
        similar rates of aggravated assault.  (emphasis added)


5.  What about "military-style assault weapons?"

    What is an assault weapon?  Assault _rifles_ are selective-fire (semi-
    or full-auto) weapons that are often smaller calibre.  Assault rifles
    have been prohibited since 1978 (except for about 4500 Canadians who
    owned at least one before 1978).  No registered automatic (i.e.  machine
    gun) has ever been used in Canada in any violent crime or suicide.

    Banning the semi-automatic rifles too-often called "assault weapons"
    makes little sense, since the semi-auto rifles that remain legal for
    hunting and other purposes are usually more powerful.  (It takes more to
    knock down a moose than a human.)

    As for "military-style" or "paramilitary" firearms versus "domestic" or
    "hunting" rifles:  the distinction is useless.  There are rifles used
    for hunting and sport that were/are of military origin and there are
    firearms that are/were used by the military that began as "hunting"
    rifles.  The designs are similar and basic.  The goal of each is the
    same:  force a piece of lead out at high speeds.  Both "military" and
    "hunting" rifles are available in semi-automatic.  (e.g.  The "civilian"
    Colt AR-15 is actually the predecessor of the military version:  the
    M-16.  In spite of this, it is usually classed by the media as a
    "military- style" weapon.)

    Semi-automatics patterned after state-of-the-art firearms technology
    used by the military and popular with millions of responsible gun owners
    offer increased reliability and durability.

    It makes little sense to ban rifles because of their appearance while
    ignoring performance and function.  There is more about this in the
    coroner's report on the murder of 14 persons at L'Ecole Polytechnique.

    Semiautomatics which externally resemble automatics are difficult to
    convert to automatic and such a conversion is illegal and subject to a
    ten-year jail term.  There is no evidence that semiautomatic firearms
    are disproportionately used in crime. Through 1988-1991, 20% of all
    firearms homicides involved prohibited weapons, 60% involved ordinary
    hunting rifles and shotguns, and 20% involved handguns[30].

    Semiautomatics targeted by anti-gun legislation could affect more than
    30% of the guns legally owned by Canadians. The cost of replacing these
    firearms could cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $2,000,000,000.

    [30] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol. 11 No. 12 op. cit., p. 13


6.  Don't we have to do something about violence against women?

|   Bare hands and feet are most often used to murder Canadian women.
|   More women (44.0%) are strangled or beaten to death than are murdered by
|   any other single method.  Knives and other sharp instruments are the
|   next favorite weapon as stabbings accounted for 27.7% of female
|   homicides.  Firearms are third: 25.6% of Canadian women were murdered by
|   someone using a gun.  [StatCan, 1984 to 1993] In 1994, 45.7% of female
|   homicide victims were strangled or beaten to death, 22.6% were stabbed,
|   and 19.6% were shot.  [StatCan]

    We also have to do something about violence against people.  Men are
    more than twice as likely to be murdered (with or without a firearm),
    nearly 10 times more likely to complete suicide with a firearm and over
    15 times more likely to die in an accident involving a firearm.  (But I
    digress.)

    "Crimes of passion" are almost always preceded by a long history of
    domestic turmoil (in 1991, 44% of all domestic murders in Canada had a
    previous record of violent conflict), committed between the hours of
    10:00pm and 2:00 a.m. with any object close at hand and by persons under
    the influence of drugs or alcohol.  In 1991, 60% of all domestic
    homicides in Canada involved weapons other than firearms, with alcohol
    and drug abuse a relevant factor in 64%[23].  Between 1974 and 1987, the
    use of firearms in domestic homicide fluctuated with Bill C-51 having
    had no apparent effect[24].  Studies on firearms acquisition 'waiting
    periods' have found them to be totally useless in curbing either violent
    crime or domestic violence[25].

    What follows is an excerpt from a speech made by Senator Anne Cools on
    29 Nov 1995.  (The complete version of the following can be found from
    the Cdn-Firearms Home Page and from:
    http://fox.nstn.ca/~dvc14/awsc.html)

        During the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-68, the Manitoba
        Attorney General, the Honourable Rosemary Vodrey, testified. I asked
        her:

        I should just like to know how many wives were killed by husbands in
        your province last year by firearms, and how many children in your
        province alone?

        She replied:

        I can just tell you women on homicides by firearms. I gather the
        figure is zero.

        Ms Vodrey gave more detail. She said:

        The statistics I have are for 1994, and they relate to deaths due to
        domestic violence: Three by stabbing; three by strangulation; two by
        beating; one by asphyxiation; none by firearms.

        Honourable senators, it is no simple task to identify the actual and
        precise number of women killed by spouses using firearms. I have
        studied this question using Statistics Canada's published data on
        homicides. In 1994, the actual number of women killed with firearms
        by conjugal intimates was 23. I repeat: The precise number of women
        killed by spouses using firearms was 23.

        Statistics Canada defines "conjugal intimates" as including spouses
        - legal, common-law, separated, divorced - boyfriends, extramarital
        lovers or estranged lovers. Neither feminist groups nor the Minister
        of Justice have placed the number of 23 on the table in this debate.
        I am unsympathetic to the act of toying with or exaggerating the
        true numbers.

        Please be clear that Minister Vodrey's answer that no woman in her
        province had been killed by the use of a firearm in a
        conjugal-intimate relationship in 1994 surprised the committee.

        In 1994, the actual number of children under the age of 12 years
        killed with firearms by a parent was two. The favoured weapon of
        murder in Canada is bare hands and feet - the human body.  For
        example, in 1994, 27 babies under 12 months of age were killed, most
        with bare hands. In 1994, the total number of homicides was 596, of
        which 196 were by the use of firearms. Of these 196 with firearms,
        157 of the victims were men and 39 were women. Consistently, more
        men are killed with firearms than women; in fact, four times as
        many. The tragedy of domestic homicide is too horrific to be
        trivialized by numerical manipulation.

    Here's a breakdown of causes of death for men and women [1992]:

    males  females  total   Cause of Death
    39290   36921   76211   Circulatory system diseases
    30481   25167   55648   All Cancer
     9411    7252   16663   Respiratory system diseases
     3774    3450    7224   Digestive system diseases
     2923     786    3709   Suicide, all causes
     1559    2034    3593   Mental disorders
     2376    1061    3437   Motor vehicle collisions
     2317     844    3161   Substance abuse
     1932     727    2659   Suicide, non-firearm
      985    1153    2138   Accidental falls
     1278      70    1358   HIV
      991      59    1050   Suicide, with firearm
      487     245     732   Homicide, all causes
      528     198     726   Accidental poisoning
      309     176     485   Homicide, non-firearm
      167     108     275   Homicide, no gun; no knife
      178      69     247   Homicide, with firearm
      142      68     210   Homicide, by cutting/piercing
                            instrument
       74      80     154   Surgical/medical misadventure
       61       2      63   Fatal Gun Accidents

     1230     130    1360   Total deaths with firearms

    [Causes of Death 1992 (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology,
    Statistics Canada, Health Statistics Division, Sept.  1994); and, Method
    of Committing Homicide Offences, Canadian, the Provinces/Territories,
    1992 (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, Statistics Canada,
    Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1992)]


    [23] Juristat Service Bulletin, Vol.12 No. 18, op. cit. pp 13-14;
        and, Peter H. Rossi and James D. Wright, op. cit.
    [24] Juristat Service Bulletin, Vol. 9 No. 1, (Statistics Canada,
        Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1989); and
        Robert J. Mundt, op. cit.
    [25] James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, op. cit., and Joseph
        P. Magadino and Marshal H. Medoff, op. cit.


7.  Does gun control work?

    The answer depends upon what you mean by "gun control" and "work".  You
    can "control" (i.e. influence) access, but you can't stop it
    altogether.

    If, by "gun control", you mean attempting to keep firearms out of
    criminal hands (through background checks) and educating users (so
    accident rates can be reduced and kept low), then it would be hard to
    find someone to disagree with you.  If, however, you think that
    prohibitions, confiscations and other such limits on law-abiding
    Canadians are necessary, then I suggest that is rather like taking
    equipment away from Jill and Jack -- and even banning hockey altogether
    -- because Paul hit Jane with a stick.  The result is that those not
    hurting anybody are the ones punished.

    We've had increasing "gun control" in Canada since the late 1800s --
    most of it from 1978 to the present -- and only since 1974 have the
    murder rates been this high.  Before 1968, when nearly anyone could
    legally purchase almost anything -- even machine guns -- our murder
    rates were roughly HALF what they have been since 1974:  a 20+ year
    period of the toughest "gun control" we've ever had.

    Comparing two twenty-year periods, one where one could legally own
    almost anything, and one with "strict laws":  from 1974 to 1993 the
    Canadian homicide rate was roughly 2.4 murders per 100,000 persons and
    from 1946 to 1965 it was about 1.1 per 100,000.  [Dominion Bureau of
    Statistics and Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics]

    In the 22 years from 1973 to 1994, the rate was never below 2, and in
    the 42 years before 1973, the Canadian homicide rate was never above 2
    (murders per 100,000 persons).  [Dominion Bureau of Statistics and
    Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics]

    A sharp increase occurred from 1966 and 1974.  The homicide rate nearly
    tripled in this 9 year period.  Some like to say that the 1978 anti-gun
    laws (Bill C-51) caused the drop, but their reasoning is faulty since
    the decrease started three or four years earlier.  A similar decrease
    and "levelling-off" of homicides rates occurred in the US around the
    same time.  Several researchers, including Alan Gilmour (1993 report of
    the Auditor General) have noted that there is no statistical evidence to
    support the claim that homicide rates in Canada decreased "as a result
    of stricter gun control laws".

    It's also interesting to note that firearms are actually used in a
    slightly greater portion of today's homicides than those from 1926 to
    1961 despite tougher anti-gun laws.  (This is really irrelevant anyway,
    since "dead is dead", but it further shows that our anti-gun laws aren't
    reducing the use of firearms in homicide.)

    When it comes to the attention-grabbing, emotionally-charged mass
    murders, anti-gun laws are not going to stop someone willing to murder
    so many.  This is especially true for those who kill themselves
    afterward.  Anyone not stopped by the toughest law we have -- the law
    against murder -- will not be stopped by anti-gun laws.


8.  But doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada?

|   The higher murder rate in the USA is not just the result of firearm
|   ownership.  If a prohibition eliminated all firearms, and, therefore,
|   all firearm-related homicides, _without_ those homicides becoming
|   non-firearm homicides (i.e.  no one simply uses another weapon or bare
|   hands), the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the Canadian
|   rate.  If the USA without firearms would have more murder per person
|   than Canada with firearms, there must be other factors at work.

    The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause.  If firearms caused
    murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates
    similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica,
    Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

    One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned.  Canada is more
    rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a
    variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses.  In the US, firearm
    owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two
    because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator
    control, etc.

    This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a
    firearm, those that do, have more.  This confirms most government
    estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US,
    there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per
|   capita rates of firearm ownership).  If the rates of firearm
|   ownership are similar in countries with drastically different
|   murder rates, then it's probably not the firearms that are the
|   problem.

|   Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership
|   and murder rates.  After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in
|   sales.  The following year, sales slumped because the market was
|   saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_.  The US
|   murder rate peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing.  It dropped 8%
|   from 1994 to 1995.  Even as ownership increases in the US, the
|   murder (and accident) rates decrease.  Allowing citizens to possess
|   and acquire firearms doesn't seem to be the problem.

    If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than
    Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than
    Canadian homicide rates.  Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates
    similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate.  Additionaly, if
    one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces,
    the states more often have lower murder rates.  [StatCan, the USDoJ and
    the FBI Uniform Crime Reports]

    comparison of Canada and the US:
    Province / State                                Homicide rate/100,000
    ----------------                                ---------
    B.C / Washington                                3.7 / 5.0
    Alberta / Montana                               3.6 / 2.9
    Saskatchewan / North Dakota                     3.2 / 1.9
    Manitoba / Minnesota                            2.6 / 1.9
    Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit      2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9
    Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC                 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2
    Quebec / New Hampshire                          2.4 / 1.6
    New Brunswick / Maine                           1.5 / 1.7
    Territories / Alaska                            17.8 / 7.5
    [taken from:
    Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns:  Canada
    and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of
    Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.]


9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher
    murder rates, just like the US?

    We have an entirely different system in Canada, and murder rates and
    perception of murder rates have been more closely related to economic
    conditions than laws and imprisonment/execution policies, let alone "gun
    control".  As long as you had no criminal record, you used to be able to
    legally acquire machine guns in Canada, and there was no permit needed
    to buy most shotguns and rifles, yet the murder rate was half what it is
    now.

    Each state in the USA has it's own laws.  Generally, states with
    strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice
    versa).  That doesn't mean that "gun control" leads to murder and crime,
    but it doesn't seem to have ever lowered rates, either.

    Many states, with similar population densities, have less "gun control"
    than Canada, while having similar homicide rates.

    The US has higher firearm- and non-firearm-related homicide rates.  If
    "gun control" made the difference between Canadian and US murder rates,
    then our non-firearm homicide rates should be similar, and they aren't.

    The difference may be whatever cause increases the risk of being murdered
    by a stranger.  In the US (as a whole), one is slightly more likely to
    be killed by a stranger than some acquaintance.  In Canada, the figure
    is less than 20%.

    It's also interesting to note that from 1985 to 1995, roughly 20 states
    instituted non-discretionary Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws, and not
    one has experienced the "blood bath" predicted by many "gun control"
    proponents.

    More on this in
    ``The Long List of "Gun-Control" Myths'', available from:
    http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
    ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/rkba.faq


10.  What about violent crime rates?

    In 1962, the US per capita violent crime rate was about 185 (violent
    crimes per 100,000 persons) and Canada's was around 250.  The US rate
    has been lower than Canada's ever since, and as can been seen below, the
    gap is widening.  Note that even though the violent crime rate indicies
    include homicides, the US rates are still lower.

    Year    US      Canada
    1962    ~185    ~250

    1967    ~250    ~390

    1972    401     507
    1973    417     534
    1974    461     564
    1975    488     597
    1976    468     596
    1977    476     583
    1978    498     591
    1979    549     621
    1980    597     648
    1981    594     666
    1982    571     686
    1983    538     686
    1984    539     715
    1985    557     751
    1986    618     808
    1987    610     856
    1988    637     898
    1989    663     947
    1990    732     1013
    1991    758     1099

    1994    716     1037
    1995             995

    The violent crime rate is calculated by adding up the number of
    homicides, attempted murders, assaults, sexual assaults, other sexual
    offences, abductions, and robberies, and dividing by the mean population
    (times 100,000).  The definitions for the US offences are a bit
    different (e.g. they have "rape" whereas Canada has "aggravated sexual
    assault") which is one reason some people note that violent crime rates
    in different countries should not be directly compared.  (Other
    differences include criminal law, legal systems, and the way data are
    collected and calculated.)

    However, it's easy to see that Canada's violent crime rate has been
    increasing rapidly -- in spite of increasingly strict gun laws -- and it
    has increased faster than the US rate.

    Example:
    - Canada's "tough gun laws" came info effect on Jan 1, 1978.
    - Increase in Canada's violent crime rate 1977 to 1991: 89%
    - Increase in USA's violent crime rate 1977 to 1991: 58%
    Also, note that Canada's violent crime rate was dropping 1975 to 1977,
    and started climbing sharply after Bill C-51 was passed in 1978.  "Gun
    control" doesn't seem to have decreased violent crime.

    In addition, Canadian break and enter rates were greater than US rates
    in 1983 and the difference has only increased since.

    US and Canadian residential burglary rates were very similar until 1991
    when Canadian rates surpassed the US rates.  In 1992, the Canadian
    residential burglary rate was 896 (per 100,000 persons) and the US rate
    was 774.

    "...our 1992 residential/commercial burglary and property crime rates
    were 33% and 25% higher, respectively, than our southern neighbours, and
    have remained consistently higher than the US for over ten years."
    (Observations on a One Way Street, 1994, p. 71)

    Since 1982, the residential and commercial burglary rate in the US has
    been lower than Canada's.  It's also interesting to note that since
    1982, Canada's rates have been lower than in England/Wales.  [StatCan,
    the FBI UCRs, the US DoJ crime surveys, and the UK Home Office]

    The rate of violent crime in Canada increased 60% between 1982 and 1991,
    twice as high as all other Criminal Code offenses combined[2].  Canadian
    women are as likely as as men to be victims of crime; however, weapons
    were used against 31% of men compared to 19% of women [3]. The majority
    of women are victimized in their own home by individuals they know
    (particularly husbands or ex-husbands), while men are victimized by
    strangers[4]. The common weapons are "other" weapons (such as motor
    vehicles, fire, poison, hot water), followed by sharp instruments[5].
    Gun control legislation (Bill C-51) was introduced in 1978 in a attempt
    to reduce violent crime. Current research indicates that C-51 had
    virtually no perceptible impact on violent crime, suicide, or accidental
    deaths[6].  The American states bordering Canada have homicide rates
    similar to ours despite easier legal access to firearms and liberal
    handgun laws[7].

    There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the types and
    availability are directly related to  increasing rates of either violent
    crime or the criminal misuse of firearms. In the absence of firearms,
    criminals switch to other weapons or other sources of weapons. No gun
    law in any city, state, or nation, has ever reduced violent crime or
    slowed its rate or growth compared to similar jurisdictions without such
    laws[8].

    [2] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol. 12 No 21, "Gender Differences
        Among Violent Crime Victims", (Statistics Canada, Circulation
        Centre for Justice Statistics, Nov. 1992) p.4
    [3] Ibid, p.5, p.9
    [4] Ibid, pp.8-9
    [5] Ibid.
    [6] Robert J. Mundt, "Gun Control and Rates of Firearms
        Violence in Canada and the United States", Canadian Journal of
        Criminology, Vol. 32 No. 1 (Jan 1990), pp 137-154; and Paul
        Blackman, "The Canadian Gun Law, Bill C-51: Its Effectiveness
        and Lessons for Research on the Gun Control Issue", American
        Society of Criminology, (Nov. 1984)
    [7] Gary Kleck and Brett Patterson, "The Impact of Gun Control
        and Gun Ownership on City Violence", (1989)
    [8] David B. Kopel, op. cit., examined the effectiveness of the
        firearms control policies of Japan, Canada, Britain,
        Switzerland, Jamaica, Austraila, New Zealand, and the United
        States, from a historical and sociological perspective.
        Additional source references are: Gary Kleck and Brett
        Patterson, op. cit; Joseph P. Magadin and Marshal Medoff, "An
        Empirical Analysis of Federal and State Firearms Control Laws",
        (1984); Douglas R.  Murray, "Handguns, Gun Control Laws and
        Firearms Violence", Social Problems, Vol. 23 (1975), Matthew R.
        Dezee, "Gun Control Legislation: Impact and Ideology", Law and
        Policy Quarterly Vol. 5 (1983), p.367; J. Killias, "Gun
        Ownership and Violent Crime", Security Journal, Vol.1 No.3
        (1990), p.171; Peter H.  Rossi and James D. Wright, "Weapons,
        Crimes, and Violence in America: Executive Summary", (US
        Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1981);
        Solicitor General of Canada, "Firearms Control in Canada: An
        Evaluation", (Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, 1983);
        Don B. Kates Jr., "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics
        Speak Out", (North River Press, 1979); and B. Bruce-Briggs,
        "The Great American Gun War", The Public Interest, No. 45 (Fall
        1976), pp. 37-62


11.  What about the Vancouver/Seattle study?

    "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two
    Cities" (Sloan et al) compared Vancouver and Seattle after the 1979
    Canadian gun laws, but Vancouver also had lower murder rates _before_
    the new gun laws.  Many other factors were also ignored.

    Much has been written to rebut this "study".  There is a lot of
    information on this in the t.p.g Usenet group's
    ``The Long List of "Gun-Control" Myths'', available from:
    http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
    ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/rkba.faq
    and in "Guns in the Medical Literature -- a Failure of Peer Review"
    ("Why are the Black and Hispanic homicide rates so high in Seattle?"),
    which is available from
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/seattle.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Suter/med-lit/seattle.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/seattle.h
tml


12. What about children and firearms?

    All of those child-killed-another-child "accidental" deaths could have
    been prevented with firearms safety instructions and by putting a $4
    padlock between the trigger and the trigger guard.  I have not been able
    to find a single example of a child getting a hold of a locked firearm,
    unlocking it, loading it, firing it and hurting or killing anyone,
    including himself.

    Most of the time, when a child "finds" a gun and has an "accident", the
    firearm has been hidden from the kid.  She has never been taught firearm
    safety and the gun is an item about which the youngster is curious.  If
    your child wants to "try your gun", please take her to a range and make
    sure she gets proper instruction.  Deal with the curiosity and you could
    save a life.

    If we are going to ban guns to protect kids, then we should first ban
    bicycles and balloons** since each kills many times more kids each
    year.

    **for those under 1 year, balloons are the main choking hazard

    For safety issues you could try the misc.kids
    "Firearm Safety & Children" FAQ list at:
    http://www.familyweb.com/faqs/FirearmsSafety.shtml


13. Why do some say we have a right to have and use firearms when we have
    no "2nd amendment" in Canada?

    While such a guarantee was not put into our constitution (as was done in
    the US), our countries share a common history.  We both have legal
    systems based on English Common Law.  We share rights dating back to the
    Magna Carta.

    The 1689 English Bill of Rights specifically states that subjects of
    the Crown (citizens), in their capacity as individuals, as a right
    "may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions".  The
    Bill also states that disarming citizens is contrary to the law.
    This law still applies and re-inforces the common-law right.

    Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
    "7.  Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
    person and the rights not to be deprived thereof except in
    accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
    This section re-inforces the right of self-defence and strengthen
    the argument that access to firearms by law-abiding citizens is a
    right that continues to exist for Canadians.

    The Charter also states:
    "26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
    shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights
    or freedoms that exist in Canada."
    This section states that even if a right is not mentioned in the
    Charter, that doesn't mean it does not exist.  Many of our rights
    exist in common-law and were established centuries ago by such
    documents as the Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

    Rights of having arms for self-defence are tied direct to the
    centuries-old common law right of self-defence.  If one has the
    right to defend one's self and others, one must have the right to
    the tools necessary to uphold such a right.  As always, there is
    much debate about "where to draw the line".  There is more detail in
    the section on self-defence.

    For more info on the US 2nd amendment, etc., try
    ``The Long List of "Gun-Control" Myths'', available from:
    http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
    ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/rkba.faq


14. Isn't the US-style self-defence illegal in Canada?

    Not only can you defend your life with deadly force, but you may defend
    your home.  Sections 32 and 40 of the Criminal Code (CC) allow use of
    deadly force
    1) where you fear death or grievous bodily harm, and
    2) to keep persons from illegally entering your home.

    Colet v Regina (CCC vol. 57, 2d, pages 105 to 113, Jan 27, 1981) is the
    most recent example of the latter that I have found.  Briefly, the local
    police tried to enter Mr Colet's home in Prince Rupert, BC, without a
    warrant to do so.  (They had only a warrant to seize whatever weapon he
    might have had.)  He violently denied entry, even throwing Molotov
    cocktails at the police.  Mr Justice Ritchie wrote in the _unanimous_
    Supreme Court of Canada decision:

        "The common law principle has been firmly engrafted in our law since
        Semayne's case (1604) as reported in 5 Co. rep. 91a 77E.R. 194 where
        it was said [at p. 91b]: ``that the house of every one is to him as
        his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and
        violence, as for his repose...''.  This famous dictum was cited by
        my Brother Dickson in the case of Eccles v Bourque et al (1974),  19
        CCC (2d) 129, 50 D.L.R.  (3d) 753, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739, in which he
        made an extensive review of many of the relevant authorities."

|   However, it is likely far better to use the protection offered by
|   sections 494, 25 and 29 of the Criminal Code (CC) of Canada.  They
|   "marry" to offer major protection to any person who is trying to
|   _arrest_ a criminal, or a person he or she believes on reasonable
|   grounds to be a criminal _and_ a threat of death or grievous bodily
|   harm.  They also protect him or her if force is used because the
|   person being arrested is resisting arrest.
|
|   When dealing with any home invasion (or other criminals) the _first_
|   words out of your mouth should _always_ be, "YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!"
|   If the intruder then assaults _you_, he has _no_ justification.  He
|   is resisting arrest, and that is a crime under CC s. 270.  One
|   should also read CC s. 265, 267, 268, and 270(1)(b) to clarify the
|   above sections.  CC s. 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
|   and 45 should be read by every person interested in what one can and
|   cannot do in the areas of self-protection and control of doubtful
|   situations.


15. What is Bill C-68?

    Bill C-68 (now "Chapter 39 of the 1995 Statutes of Canada" or "S.C.
    1995, c. 39") was the latest legislative installment in Canada's "gun
    control" saga.

    Among many other things, it means:
    - Bill C-68 was drafted before evaluating of the effectiveness of the
      current program (as per the Auditor General's 1993 report).
    - the justice minister can ban any thing he/she thinks is
      unreasonable for hunting or sporting purposes without judicial
      or parliamentary review.
    - such prohibitions will continue to steal lawfully-owned (registered)
      property from law-abiding Canadians and/or their estates.
    - the justice minister can regulate where, when and how all firearms
      may be used.
    - these sweeping Order in Council provisions, affecting everything
      from the operation of gun shows to licence fees and effective
      dates, undermine our democratic system of government which
      normally requires the separation of executive, legislative and
      judicial powers.
    - prohibition orders may be granted against persons "associated" with
      someone who is the subject of a prohibition order.
    - various sections read "the onus is on the accused [to prove no crime
      was committed]", which is contrary to basic rights in law.
    - "inspectors" can search any place they suspect has a legal
      "gun collection" or a record of a "gun collection". (Normally,
      homes cannot be searched without suspicion of a crime.)
    - "inspection" provisions allow seisure of property and computer
      data even where there is no suspicion of any crime.
    - people who forget to renew possession licences can be
      imprisoned for up to five years.
    - all pistols that are .25 or .32 calibre and/or have a barrel
      that are 105 mm or shorter will be destroyed if they were not
      registered to a person on February 14, 1995 (the day the bill
      was first tabled in Parliament).  That means that pistols belonging
      to businesses and museums will be destroyed without compensation.
    - any pistols made after 1945 that are .25 or .32 calibre or
      have barrels that are 105 mm or shorter will be destroyed
      when the current owner dies.
    - portions of this bill and current legislation violate Section 8
      of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    - licensing and registration schemes require accused citizens
      to prove their innocence (violates Charter, Sec. 11(d)) or face
      up to 10 years in prison, loss of all firearms, and a criminal
      record.
    - if you make a "statement", orally or in writing, that turns out
      to be false or misleading, you can go to prison.
    - the failure of the current registration system for restricted
      firearms (mostly pistols) was obviously ignored.
    - licensing and registration schemes are needlessly complex,
      wasteful of money and resources, and will simply lead to an
      increase in smuggling without reducing crime and homicide.
    - simple possession of property is a crime, when only a deliberate
      act causing harm or danger should be criminal.
    - various sections allow wide-ranging discretion in the granting of
      permits required for shooting competitions and other activities.
    - various sections break the connection between the standards police
      must maintain and standards required of citizens.  We can think
      of no practical benefit for exempting police officers from, for
      example, reporting the loss of a firearm.
    - dual registration has been ended, so spouses can no longer share
      and jointly own their firearms.
    - relatives and friends will not be able to purchase ammunition for
      a person; this will be especially onerous on rural persons
      who must travel great distances for supplies.
    - antiques like muzzle-loaders are now considered to be firearms
      and will be similarly regulated.
    - it's worse to possess objects that resemble firearms than actual
      firearms

    You can find a complete copy of C-68 at:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/c68.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Gov/c68.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Gov/c68.html
    http://www.interlog.com/~alton/c68.html
    http://www.interlog.com/~remnevin/nfa/billc68.html
    http://www.nfa.ca/billc68.html
    ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Gov/c68

    Bill C-68 was tabled in the Commons on 14 Feb 1995, received third
    reading and was passed by the Commons on 13 Jun 1995, was passed by the
    Senate on 22 Nov 1995, and received Royal Assent on 6 Dec 1995.

    Most of Bill C-68 is not yet law as only a small portion of it has been
    proclaimed.


16. What is Bill C-17?

    Bill C-17 was introduced and passed in 1991 by the Kim Campbell
    Conservatives.  It created expanded powers for the minister of justice
    to restrict any firearm and prohibit those not "commonly used in Canada
    for hunting or sporting purposes".  Other sections included new powers
    for police to search the homes of certain types of "gun collectors", and
    placed limits on magazine sizes (10 rounds for semi-auto pistols and 5
    for centre-fire semi-auto rifles and shotguns, but there are a few
    exceptions).

    Some of C-17 is illegal, much is unnecessary, and some of the OICs
    (Orders in Council) have been thrown out (currently under appeal).  A
    decision will soon (as early as Feb 1996) be handed down that will
    affect eleven OICs.  Updates to follow...

    Bill C-17 was preceded by Bill C-80 which died on the Order Paper.


17. What about Bill C-51?

    C-51 came after C-83 which was withdrawn by the Liberals and then
    justice minister Ron Basford.  Among other things, Bill C-51 created the
    FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) and prohibited fully automatic
    firearms (unless registered before January 1, 1978).


18. What did the Auditor General write about "gun control" in Canada?

|   The Auditor General of Canada's report to the House of Commons in 1993
|   (re: "Gun Control Program", Assistant Auditor General: Richard B.
|   Fadden; Responsible Auditor: Alan Gilmore) contains the following:

|   27.20  Canada's gun control program is controversial and complex.
|   Evaluation of the program is therefore essential to give the Canadian
|   public and members of Parliament the assurance that its objectives are
|   being met.  A more up-to date evaluation of the program is essential.

|   27.25  ... However, we found several weaknesses in the methodology,
|   which significantly reduce the extent to which government, members of
|   Parliament and the Canadian public can rely on the evaluation to be
|   assured that the gun control program is effective.

|   27.27  We calculated tests of significance on much of the of the data
|   found in the evaluation.  These data included such things as the
|   percentage of firearms-related homicides before the introduction of the
|   legislation in 1978 and the percentage after.  We found that many of the
|   observed differences in the data before 1978 and after could have
|   occurred by chance.  More and different testing would be necessary before
|   these differences could be attributed to the 1978 legislation.

|   27.29  Our review of the new regulations indicated that important
|   data, needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness
|   of the regulations, were not available at the time the regulations were
|   drafted.  The government proceeded with new regulations for reasons of
|   public policy.

|   27.30  Because the data were not available when the regulations were
|   drafted, we believe it is important that the measures chosen by the
|   government be evaluated at the earliest opportunity.  ...


19. What is unlawful about our gun control laws?

    Highlights:
    Supreme Court decisions indicate the current permit system is illegal.
    If it is illegal to do something unless one possesses a certificate (or
    permit) the court ruled in the recent abortion law decision the permit
    is thus a "specifically tailored defence to a particular charge" and
    "...when Parliament creates a defence to a criminal charge, the defence
    should not be illusory or so difficult to obtain as to be practically
    illusory." It is illegal to carry a firearm without a permit, but
    citizens are routinely refused that permit, and so the defence is
    illusory or so difficult to obtain as to be practically illusory.

    In Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines Investigation
    Branch et al. v. Southam Inc. [1984], the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
    "The location of the constitutional balance between a justifiable
    expectation of privacy and the legitimate needs of the state cannot
    depend upon the subjective appreciation of individual adjudicators. Some
    objective standard must be established." Local firearms registrars and
    provincial firearms officers are individual adjudicators who decide
    whether one will get the specifically tailored defence (a permit) to a
    particular charge (carrying without a permit).

    In R. V. Sault Ste. Marie (3CR [3d] 30) the Supreme Court said, "The
    distinction between the true criminal offence and the public welfare
    offence is one of prime importance" "... the offences in question have
    usually turned on... an unlawful status... e.g.  permitting an
    unlicensed person to drive or lacking a valid licence oneself".  Since
    registrations permits are licences to possess, and carry permits are
    licenses to carry, it follows that lack of such a licence places one in
    an unlawful status, and that such offences are public welfare offences,
    not criminal offences. As such, the offences do not belong in the
    criminal code.


20. Did a judge really say our laws are badly written?

    Yes. Justice Gibb, Supreme Court Of B.C.; Hurley V. Dawson and
    Newson, 1985:

    Not the least of the difficulties is due to the tortuous language of the
    gun control provisions of the criminal code. In Regina V. Neil,
    (Provincial Court Judge) Gordon was moved with some justification, to
    refer to those provisions as one of the most horrifying examples of bad
    draftsmanship I have had the misfortune to consider, as "so convoluted
    that even those responsible for enforcing the provisions are apparently
    unable to understand them."


21. Was there a coroner's report that focussed on firearm storage?

    Coroner Anne Marie David wrote the following in her report published the
    13th of January, 1995 [translated from French]:

    According to the majority of the interested parties, the Regulation "is
    written in a hermetic legal language, far from being always
    understandable by everyone".  "... the different discussions show that
    it can sometimes be difficult to put in practice and lends itself to
    interpretation" (C-52, page 7). It contains gray areas and "navy blue"
    (sic) areas (testimony of Mr. Banks). This is why, the interested
    parties suggest that the wording of the Regulation be modified.

    No argument was made against this suggestion. Far from it, the Federal
    Department of Justice admitted to having been informed, by various
    sources, of the difficulty in understanding the wording.

    4) COMMUNITY STORAGE OF FIREARMS   (pp.46 and 47)

    Suggestion and arguments in favor

    The Coalition for gun control (C-64), the Association
    quebecoise de suicidologie (C-27), Mr. Bolea and Mrs. Derasp
    suggest that locations be setup for community storage of
    firearms. This form of storage would avoid that the weapons be
    in the residences all year long while in fact, several are
    utilized only for a very short period of time, such as the
    hunting season.

    Opposing argument

    According to the Federation quebecoise de tir and the
    Regroupement pour une gestion efficace de la possession d'armes
    a feu "... the idea of community storage ... is ...
    dangerous". For instance we can discuss the case of several
    armorers and sports retail stores which were the target of
    thefts and this on more than one occasion. We believe that
    amassing a great number of firearms in the same location would
    only serve to tempt forcible action by our criminal elite,
    increasing de facto the number of illegal weapons in
    circulation on the black market. This would be opposite of the
    desired goal.  Moreover, a community storage would have the
    side-effect of increasing traffic in the immediate vicinity of
    said weapons depot. The weapons owners would therefore become
    easy prey for thieves who would only have to chose which bird
    to fleece from the lot. Incidentally, a significant increase of
    police officers would be also required in order to ensure the
    safety of the surroundings.

    Analysis

    Remembering the weapons thefts which occurred in the warehouses of a
    weapons import company in 1992 and 1993; keeping in mind the testimony
    of Mr. Ct, owner of sports retail store, to the effect that,
    notwithstanding the installation of a secure vault, his store still is
    the subject of occasional attempts to steal weapons: I reject this
    suggestion because it seems to me that it has a disadvantage
    (possibility of theft of several weapons) which would annihilate the
    advantage of the desired goal, said advantage being achievable by safe
    storage at home.

    INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES - Analysis
    I have not exposed the arguments supporting this suggestion nor those
    opposing it, this for a major reason, this suggestion clearly goes
    against the Canadian and Provincial Charters of Rights. It would be, if
    applied, a search without motive and without warrant.

    Moreover, I cannot see how this suggestion could be justified, while it
    is presently possible:

    - to obtain a search warrant to seize the weapons of a person, if there
    "are reasonable motives to believe that it is not in the interest of
    this person or of other to let that person keep these weapons" (Criminal
    Code, article 103(1)).

    - for the same reasons, to seize these weapons without a warrant "when
    the urgency of the situation, due to the risks for the safety of that
    person or of another, makes the securing of a warrant impractical ..."
    (Criminal Code, article 103(2)).

    MANDATORY REGISTRATION OF UNRESTRICTED WEAPONS - Analysis
    After examining the supporting arguments, I note the following:

    - There is a main suggestion (the registration) and accessory suggestions
    (modification of the rules of evidence, searches without motives and
    warrants).

    - The direct consequence of the main suggestion is to establish the count
    of weapons and their owners, not safe storage and transportation of
    weapons.

    - The supporting "arguments" of the main suggestion are not arguments,
    they are only a statement to the effect that the will be owners will
    become responsible, if there is registration.

    But:
    - the interested parties brought no study or analysis allowing to
    demonstrate that the desired goal (safe storage and transportation) will
    be achieved by applying the main suggestion;

    - failing to produce such a study, they have not produced any study or
    analysis demonstrating that a similar or an identical method, already
    applied to reach a similar or identical goal, has yielded the
    anticipated results.

    - It has been admitted that, registration would not achieve the desired
    goal since it would be necessary to use, not the main suggestion, but
    the accessory suggestion to achieve the desired goal, the safe storage
    and transportation.

    This is why, taking the following into account:

    - the total absence of arguments which would demonstrate that the desired
    goal will be achieved though the main suggestion;

    - a suggestion (the registration) having for direct consequence the count
    of firearms and of their owners, which is not the subject of the
    inquiry; I reject said suggestion.

    Having rendered this decision; I do not proceed with the analysis of the
    opposing arguments and I reject the accessory suggestions, one of which
    had been rejected earlier, the accessory having to follow the main.

    The complete report is available in MicroSoft WORD format from:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Misc/coroner.doc
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Misc/coroner.doc
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Misc/coroner.doc
    ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Misc/coroner.doc


21. What did the coroner write about the murders at L'Ecole Polytechnique?

    [translated from French]
    2.6  Conclusions

    For all the involved parties (<<intervenants>>), this event, as sad
    as it is, is not exceptional. In fact, armed aggression by a single
    person is in itself an event which the Montreal Urban Community Police
    Department faces on a regular basis.

    However, let us keep in mind the sixty (60) cartridges that Marc Lepine
    leaves on the scene when he decides to put an end to this terrible
    episode when he was not at risk, no assault by the police was in
    progress nor was being obviously in preparation.  Thank God, he decides
    by himself that it is enough.

    It is deliberately that the gun control issue is not discussed.  Indeed,
    the ammunition and the time at Marc Lepine's disposal, without any
    constraint, would have probably allowed him to achieve similar results
    even with an easily accessible conventional hunting weapon. On the other
    hand, the importance of the issues pertaining to pre-hospitalization
    care and to the emergency police intervention deserve our undivided
    attention.

    The deficiencies noted regarding the interventions require in all
    conscience that they be seriously considered, not to find
    responsibilities*** but to bring corrections intended to ensure a better
    protection of human life.

    Some of the questions raised in the preceding section do not require an
    answer because in itself raising them was answering them. It does not
    mean however that that they are not worth to be followed up without
    having to make formal recommendations.

    For several other questions, however, it would not be proper or
    equitable to attempt to answer them wihtout hearing all involved
    persons, taking into account the proper context, more so that the
    complexity of several elements require that various experts be heard,
    all this not being in the domain of the coroner's area.

    Theresa Z. Sourour, Coroner, m.d. FRCPC, May 10, 1990

    *** very diplomatic langage meaning: finding who was responsible for
    several "inefficiencies" in the overall rescue operation. In some cases,
    almost like the keystone cops.


23. What is "banned" in Canada?

    Note: The Orders in Council (OICs) that banned the following items
    (Effective October 1, 1992) are currently under appeal.

    Current owners of the "banned" firearms are urged
    to contact the National Firearms Association for further info.
    o Edmonton Phone: (403) 439-1394  o Edmonton FAX: (403) 439-4091
    o Calgary Phone: (403) 640-1110   o Calgary FAX: (403) 640-1144

    A list of "assault pistols", "combat shotguns", .50 calibre sniper
    rifles and other military-type firearms are classified as prohibited
    weapons.

    These Orders apply to the following firearms, accessories, components
    and types of ammunition:

    PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE.  EVEN IF YOUR MODEL ISN'T
    LISTED, IT MAY STILL BE "PROHIBITED".

    Shotguns
    - Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12
    - Striker 12 and Streetsweeper
    - USAS-12 Auto Shotgun

    Rifles and Carbines
    - American 180 Auto Carbine and variants
    - Barrett "Light Fifty" model 82A1, Model 90 rifle and variants
    - Calico M-900, M-951, M-100 and M-105 and variants
    - FAMAS Rifle, MAS 223, FAMAS Export, FAMAS Civil and
      Mitchell MAS/22 and variants
    - Feather AT-9 Semi-Auto, Feather AT-22 Auto Carbines and variants
    - Federal XC-450 Auto Rifle, XC-900, XC-220 and variants
    - Gepard Long Range Sniper Rifle and variants
    - Heckler and Koch (HK) Model G11 and variants
    - Illinois Arms Co. Model 180 Auto Carbine
    - Iver Johnson AMAC Long Range Rifle and variants
    - McMillan M87, M87R, M88 and variants
    - Pauza Specialties P50 Rifle and P50 Carbine and variants
    - Research Armament Industries (RAI)  Model 500 Rifle and variants
    - Spectre Auto Carbine and variants
    - US Arms PMAI "Assault" 22 Rfile and variants
    - Weaver Arms Nighthawk Carbine and variants

    Pistols
    - Bushmaster Auto Pistol and variants
    - Calico M-110, M-950 and variants
    - Encom MK-IV, MP-9, MP-45 and variants
    - Federal XP-450, XP-900 Auto Pistols and variants
    - Goncz High-Tech Long Pistol and variants
    - Heckler and Koch (HK) SP89 Auto Pistol and variants
    - Intratec Tec-9 Auto Pistol, Tec-9m, Tec-9MS, Tec-22T,
      Tec-22TM and variants
    - Iver Johnson Enforcer Model 3000 Auto Pistol, Plainfield
      Super Enforcer Carbine and variants
    - Leader Mark 5 Auto Pistol and variants
    - Skorpion Auto Pistol and variants
    - Spectre Auto Pistol and variants
    - Sterling Mk 7, Mk 7C4, Mk7C8 Pistols and variants
    - Universal Enforcer Model 3000 Auto Carbine, Model 3010N,
      Model 3015G, Model 3020TRB, Model 3025 TCO and variants
    - US Arms PMAIP Assault 22 Pistol and Variants.

    SSS-1 Stinger
    (prohibition order extended to other calibres)

    Ammunition
    A list of cartridges were declared to be prohibited weapons.  The list
    imcludes armour-piercing bullets, explosive and incendiary cartridges,
    and exotic shotgun cartridges known as "flechettes" (small pins or
    needles).

    Accessories and Components
    One accessory and one component are prohibited.  The component is a
    "bull-pup" stock, used in modern assault rifles and shotguns to reduce
    length for storage and transport.  The accessory is a type of trigger
    enhancement device designed to fire semi-automatic firearms at machine
    gun speeds. This is done by rapidly moving the trigger back and forth,
    as the gun reloads and fires.


24. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?

    According to the United Nations, Canada ranks third among the developed
    western coutries (behind the US and Norway) in civilian ownership of
    firearms.[40]  A 1992 survey sponsored by the UN reported that 26% of
    Canadians, over 7,000,000 people, own firearms.[41]  A 1991 Justice
    Department telephone survey indicated there were an average of 2.67
    firearms in one of every four Canadian Households, with 71% having
    access to a rifle, 64% to a shotgun, and 12% to a handgun. They
    calculated that there are over six million legally owned firearms in
    Canada.  Other authorities insist that this estimate is much too low and
    that there are at least 20,000,000 rifles and shotguns in Canada; as
    many, per capita, as in the United States. [1]

    Past government surveys of much larger populations showed there were at
    least 15,000,000 legal firearms back in the 1970s.[39] The government's
    own estimate in Dec. 1976, published as part of its gun control
    campaign, was 6,000,000 owners with 18,000,000 firearms.  During
    hearings on the Campbell bill, officials from the office of the Minister
    of Justice testified that the long-term average net annual importation
    of firearms into Canada (imports minus exports) was 190,000 per year.
    Therefore, adding 190,000 per year to the 18,000,000 of 1976, we get a
    total of 21,610,000 by Dec 1993.  Subtract 610,000 plus one firearm for
    every firearm manufactured in Canada during those 17 years as an
    allowance for firearms destroyed, dismantled or worn out--and you are
    back at 21,000,000 firearms with 7,000,000 owners. [38]

    There were 1,221,179 registered restricted firearms in the RCMP FRAS
    records in Dec 1993. The unrestricted firearm to "restricted" firearm
    ratio is at least 20:1.  Conservatively, that means 24,423,580
    unrestricted plus 1,221,179 restricted.  Allowing for errors in the
    RCMP's registration system, we strike off 221,179 registered firearms as
    non-existent, which reduces the total to 21,000,000 firearms with
    7,000,000 owners. [38]

    Restricted firearm ownership increased from 861,571 in Dec 1984 to
    1,221,179 in Dec 93, an increase of (1,221,179 - 861,571) divided by
    861,571 = 41.74 per cent in 9 years. Those figures are solid, because
    they are taken from the Annual Report of the Commissioner of the RCMP.
    The NFA estimates that the 1976 figure for total firearms owned,
    18,000,000, increased to 21,000,000 by 1993. That represents a "total
    firearms" increase of only 16.67 per cent in 17 years, which is again
    quite conservative. [38]

    None of the above estimates include any figures for illegally imported
    firearms, which are known to have increased sharply each time
    restrictive, costly, and/or vague legislation has made legal ownership
    more complicated, more expensive, and/or more risky. [38]

    [39]For a more detailed analysis, try one of these URLs:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gimbarzevsky/number.gun
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Gimbarzevsky/number.gun
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Gimbarzevsky/number.gun
    ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Gimbarzevsky/number.gun

    [1] David B. Kopel, "The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy:
        Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of other Democracies",
        (Prometheus Books, 1992), p.136
    [38] David A. Tomlinson, _How Many Firearms and Owners are
        There in Canada?_, leaflet, 1994
    [40] Understanding Crime: Experiences of Crime and Crime Control,
        (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute,
        Pulications No. 49, Aug., 1993), p.292
    [41] Ibid, p.481


25. Do tougher gun control laws reduce armed robberies?

    In 1990, 74% of all robberies involved weapons other than firearms[16].
    The number of armed robberies for the period 1974 (prior to Bill C-51)
    and 1988 has remained almost the same and any decrease in robberies
    involving firearms has been counterbalanced by the increasing use of
    other weapons[17].  Victim injury is much more frequent, and
    substantially more serious, if armed robbery is carried out with some
    weapon other than a firearm[18]. Other weapons require close personal
    contact with the victim.

    [16] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol.12 No.10, "Robbery in
        Canada", (Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice
        Statistics, May 1992) p.1, p.5.
    [17] Ibid.,pp.1-4 and Robert J. Mundt, op. cit.
    [18] Don B. Kates Jr. op. cit., p.121; and Juristat Service
        Bulletin Vol.11 No.12, "Weapons and Violent Crime",(Statistics
        Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Aug. 1991),
        p.12.



26. Do mandatory jail sentences deter the armed criminal?

    Over 70% of all convicted criminals in Canada are released early under
    some form of community supervision[26]. In 1991, two-thirds of all
    accused murderers had criminal records, 71% for previous violent
    offenses[27]. A 1988 study revealed that between January 1, 1987 and
    June 30, 1988, 124 people were arrested in the greater Montreal area for
    armed robbery.  Of that group, 65% were still under sentence for a
    previous crime and 36% were either on full parole, day parole, temporary
    absence, mandatory supervision, or probation. Of 133 persons arrested
    for armed robbery in Toronto between January 1, 1986 and March 1, 1988,
    50% were still under sentence and 92% had previous criminal
    records[28].  It has been estimated that career convicted felons out of
    prison commit an average of 187 crimes per year, costing society over
    seventeen times their yearly cost of imprisonment.  Surveys of
    incarcerated violent offenders has revealed: The majority of substance
    abusers with a long history of alcoholism and/or drug addiction. A
    criminal can obtain a firearm illegally within 24 hours of their release
    from jail. Theft from individual gun owners is exaggerated as a problem
    in the illegal commerce in firearms as most are stolen from stores,
    shippers, manufacturers, and even the police and the armed forces.
    Criminals would rather encounter the police than an armed homeowner.
    Criminals do not purchase their firearms from well-regulated sources
    such as licensed gun dealers. Criminals prefer handguns as their primary
    weapon and in their absence will "saw-off" shotguns or rifles to a
    concealable length.  Fear of a mandatory jail sentence is identified as
    the principal deterrent to the criminal use of a firearm[29].

    [26] Statistics Canada, "1992 Yearbook", (Statistics Canada,1991),
        p.255-257
    [27] Juristat Service Bulletin Vol.12 No.18, op.cit., p.15.
    [28] D. Owen Carrigan, "Crime and Punishment in Canada: A History",
        (McClelland and Steward, Inc., 1991) p.396
    [29] James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, "The Armed Criminal in
        America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons", (US Department of
        Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1985); and, James D. Wright
        and Peter H. Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous, (NY: Aldin
        de Gruyler, 1986)


27. What about the claim that "People without guns injure, people with
    guns kill"?[32]

    Most homicides (c. 60-70%) in Canada are done with something other than
    a firearm. One is more likely to be injured by a knife wielding attacker
    than a gun wielding attacker. If injured, (non fatal) knife wounds are
    more likely to be more serious than firearms injuries according to
    Statistics Canada.

    In Canada from 1961-1990, there were a total of 15,198 homicides.[33]
    63.1% were with a non-firearm.
    14.3% were with a non-restricted rifle.
    13% were with a illegally owned restricted firearm.
    6.5% were with a non-restricted shotgun.
    2.4% were with a unidentified firearm.
    0.7% were with a legally owned and registered restricted firearm.

    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.
    [33]Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (Stats Canada)


28. Aren't dogs more regulated than firearms?[32]

    Handguns have been registered since 1934, but 58% of over 1,000,000
    handguns already registered have just been declared prohibited.  Why is
    the registration of rifles and shotguns sufficient while the
    registration of pistols is nsufficient?  Handguns and rifles are both
    firearms; they are closely related with one another, not with dogs.

    It does not make any sense to compare the registration of rifles to to
    the registration dogs when we already have on hand the example of
    handgun registration.

    Legal provisions for the registration of rifles are totally out of
    proportion with those pertaining to dog registration.

    Failure to register a dog does not entail a 10-year jail sentence and
    criminal record. Dog owners are not subject to police searches of their
    homes without warrants for the sole purpose of trying to find evidence
    of an offense. Dog owners do not have to co-operate in warrantless
    searches and cannot be arrested for refusing to do so.  Dog owners are
    NOT forbidden to obtain legal counsel during the search.

    No permit is needed to purchase or acquire a dog.  No permit is required
    to transport a dog or take a dog for a walk. Dogs are not banned because
    of physical appearance. Small dogs are not more strictly regulated than
    larger dogs. Dogs are not registered everywhere, and where they are,
    registration is quick and easy, available to everyone, and used to
    control dogs that tend to run around on their own. Registration of dogs
    has not been used to confiscate expensive dogs that have not been used
    in criminal offenses.

    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.


29. Aren't motor vehicles more regulated and taxed than guns?[32]

    Applicable taxes on firearms and motor vehicles are the same, being the
    Goods and Services Tax and Provincial Sales Taxes.  Motor vehicles are
    not banned for being paramilitary in appearance (i.e Jeeps and 4WD
    vehicles), having automatic transmissions, large capacity (> 5
    litres) gas tanks, or colour.

    Cars versus firearms

    - Driver licences allow you to take your vehicle anywhere in Canada.
    - There is no national vehicle registry.
    - You don't have to register a car at time of purchase.
    - You don't have to register your car (unless you drive on public
      roads).
    - If you register your car, you don't need a permit to drive it
      somewhere.
    - It is not a _crime_ to not register your car.
    - You don't need a driver's licence to buy a car (or fuel).
    - You don't need references to buy a car or get a licence.
    - You don't need a permit to tow or ship a vehicle.
    - You don't have to take a safety course to own a car.
    - You don't have to pass a criminal background check to buy a car.
    - You don't have to be over 17 to buy a car (or fuel).
    - You don't have to prove you own a car to buy fuel.
    - You don't have to justify the purchase of a car to anyone.
    - You don't have to justify continuing to own your car.
    - You don't have to pay a fee for continuing to own your car.
    - You don't have to be a member of an accredited national club to own
      a car.
    - You don't have to store your locked car in a locked garage.
    - You don't have to remove the spark plugs and fuel when the car is
      not in use.
    - You won't lose your car because of "improper storage" or someone's
      "misuse".
    - You may own as many cars as you want (and can afford).
    - You may sell your car to anyone at any time.
    - No one fears government confiscation of her/his car.
    - There is no list of prohibited "assault cars" (based on appearance).
    - You can use a car as collateral on a loan.

    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.


30. Aren't guns more lethal on a per use basis than motor vehicles?[32]

    Number of motor vehicle related accidental deaths in Canada in 1991,
    3882.  Number of firearms related accidental deaths in Canada in 1990,
    66.  Canadians fire millions of rounds of ammunition every year while
    hunting, plinking, target practise, and competitive shooting. Target
    shooting is one of the safest of the outdoor sports.

    The cost of insurance shows that firearms are considerably less
    dangerous than motor vehicles. The National Firearms Association offers
    $2,000,000.00 insurance for just $4.75 per year.  Motor vehicle insure
    ranges from $400. to $2,000 per year.  All insurance rates are based on
    actuarial studies of risks and actual accident histories.  (Insurance
    companies are not in the business of LOSING money nor giving it away.)

    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.


31. Doesn't easy access to firearms contribute to crime?[32]

    Areas that have instituted tougher restrictions on the legal access or
    ownership of firearms have seen increases in the violent crime rates.
    Canada and Britain have both increased the restrictions on firearms
    owners in the last 15 years, and have seen dramatic increases in violent
    crime and the use of illegal firearms. Areas of the US (and several
    countries) that have liberal restrictions, or have eased their
    restrictions on legal gun owners have low crime rates, or have seen
    their crime rates drop.

    Prior to January 1978 when Bill C-51 came into effect, Canada had very
    liberal gun laws. From 1977 to 1991, Canada's violent crime rate has
    increased 89% (583 to 1099 violent crimes per 100,000 population)
    compared to a 59% for the US in the same period.  (476 to 758 violent
    crimes per 100,000 population).  [34]

    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.
    [34] U.S. Source: "Uniform Crime Reports for the United States
        1991", Federal Bureau of Investigation, p.58;  Canadian Source:
        "Crime Trends in Canada 1962-1990", Cdn. Ctr.  for Justice
        Statistics, p.15.


32. Don't the majority of Canadians support tougher gun control?[32]

    While a survey that asked "Do you favour more gun control?" had 80% of
    the respondents say yes. However when asked "What should the Government
    do to fight crime?", less than 1% responded by saying "more gun
    control". "Do you agree that the courts are presently much too lenient
    in punishing criminals using guns?" 86% said yes. "Do you agree that law
    abiding sportsmen, recreational shooters and collectors should not lose
    their guns because the the actions of relatively few criminals?" 82%
    said yes. A September 1991 nationwide Gallup poll found that 88% of
    Canadians favor sever penalties for crimes involving firearms, in
    preference the only 8% in favour of increasing restrictions over
    existing firearms owners, and 68% felt that passing more severe laws
    over legitimate gun users will have very little influence on
    criminals.[35]

    The January 1996 and 1995 issues of Macleans revealed that only 5% of
    Canadians would pass stricter laws to reduce crime rates[Maclean's, Jan
    1996] and that only 5% (of the 85% of Canadians who believe crime has
    increased in the last 10 years and not stayed the same or decreased)
    believe that too few/too lax "gun control" laws have caused the
    perceived crime increase[Maclean's, Jan 1995].

    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.
    [35]National Firearms Association fact sheet.


33. Don't the experts support tougher gun control?[32]

    The individuals that the Coalition for Gun Control claims are experts,
    are not experts on gun control.  Some are politicians and some are
    professionals in unrelated fields.  Criminologists and sociologists,
    such as Gary Kleck, Don B. Kates, Jr. and James D. Wright,[31] who have
    actually studied the effects of gun control have found that gun control
    does not reduce violent crime.

    [31] These three are prime examples of experts who supported "gun
        control" until their own research showed them that most efforts are
        a waste of time and money, and some actual put citizens in danger.
    [32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.


34. Isn't a gun in the home 43 times more likely to kill a friend or
    loved-one than be used against an intruder?

    It was actually an intruder versus a non-intruder.  Nevertheless, it was
    a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and
    poorly done study.  This study was performed over a 6 year period in one
    single county in the USA.  As this study is was done in just one county,
    that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else.
    Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one".

    The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges
    comparison.  37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal
    homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[36]

    Kellermann and Reay, the authors of the study have stated themselves
    that "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened
    away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be
    intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed.."[36]
    should be included as a benefit. BUT, when they calculated their
    comparison they did NOT include those cases. They therefore undercounted
    protection uses by at least 500 times.[37] If the purpose is to compare
    defensive uses verses misuse, all defensive uses should be counted, not
    just the 0.2% of time when a defensive use results in the death of an
    attacker. You measure defensive uses by lives saved, not criminals
    killed, after all, the purpose of self defense is to prevent or stop a
    criminal attack, not kill the attacker.

    Homicides that were found to be self-defense in a court of law were
    counted as criminal homicides by this study, thus over stating the
    number of criminal homicides, and under stating the number of
    self-defense homicides.

    "Someone you know" is often described as friends or even "loved ones",
    but in reality this includes rival gang members, drug dealers, abusive
    spouses and acquaintances, and so on. Those who proclaim the 43 to 1
    statistics will often imply that only dear friends, loved family
    members, and small innocent children are the ones being killed, an
    obviously misleading statement.

    The study failed to distinguish between households or environs populated
    by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories -- where
    the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited by more
    civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities like drug
    dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is very low
    indeed.  In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but avoidable
    accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with histories
    of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and certifiably at
    ~high risk~ for misadventure.

    The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per
    year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year.
    The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive
    uses per year.  The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive
    uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms
    by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year.  A more recent study by
    Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive
    uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000
    to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and
    self defense homicides.  That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely
    to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody.  As
    accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including
    hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is
    about 700-800 to 1.

|   Gary Kleck completed another survey in 1995.  This one had a sample size
|   of 5000 and confirmed his former estimate of 2,400,000 defensive uses
|   per year in the USA.  [Kleck, Gary and Gertz, M, Armed resistance to
|   crime:  the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun.  Journal
|   of Criminal Law and Criminology.  86:143-186. (1995)]

|   It's interesting to note three things about the Kellermann "studies":
|   1.) Even though Kellermann did a second study which revised the "43
|   times" figure to "2.7 times", the former is the one that is most often
|   repeated.
|   2.) The data for the latter "revised study" shows that alcohol, family
|   violence, living alone, and renting one's home are bigger risk factors
|   than having firearms.
|   3.) Kellermann is quoted in the March/April 1994 issue of _Health_ (pp.
|   59-61) as saying  "If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt
|   are less the more lethal your weapon....  If that were my wife, would I
|   want her to have a .38 special in her hand?  Yeah."

    More on this subject in "When Doctor's call for Gun Seizures, It's Grand
    Malpractice" at
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Schulman/doctors.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Schulman/doctors.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Schulman/doctors.html
    and in "Guns in the Medical Literature -- a Failure of Peer Review"
    ("the 43 times fallacy" and "the 43 times fallacy becomes the 2.8 times
    fallacy") at
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/benefits.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Suter/med-lit/benefits.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit/benefits.
html
    and in ``The Long List of "Gun-Control" Myths'', available from:
    http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
    ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/rkba.faq

    [36]"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths
        in the Home," Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, The New
        England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24 (June 12, 1986):
        1557-1560
    [37]"Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force" by
        Professor Gary Kleck.


35. Didn't someone find that firearm ownership causes higher murder and
    suicide rates?

|   No.  Martin Killias surveyed 14 "countries".  (England/Wales, Northern
|   Ireland and Scotland, which are not countries, are counted as three.)
|   He found a correlation between firearm ownership rates and murder and
|   suicide rates.

|   However, correlation is not causation, and it is difficult to show
|   causation, which seems to be what the author is attempting.  The
|   connexion between "firearm ownership" and higher murder rates isn't
|   obvious, especially when the non-firearm rate is also higher, and a high
|   percentage of murders involve illicit drugs and/or alcohol.  Many are
|   also committed by convicted felons, who are prohibited from legally
|   owning firearms.  Also, in the USA, a higher percentage of victims are
|   strangers.

|   When so many murders are outside the home, it's quite difficult to
|   relate the murder rate directly to "guns in the home".  It's much easier
|   to conclude that people will arm themselves as a _reaction_ to high
|   murder rates, espescially when they are allowed to do so lawfully.

|   One must wonder why the UK was divided up into three "countries" but the
|   same was not done for the USA, especially when the UK has one set of
|   laws, whereas the laws in the US vary from state to county to city.

|   For reference, here is a table from the paper:

    Rates of homicide, suicide and household gun ownership in 14 countries.
    =========================================================================
                                Rate per 100,000
                    _______________________________________
                          Homicide              Suicide            % of
                           with a                with a         households
    Country      Overall    Gun       Overall     Gun            with guns
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Australia       1.95    .66        11.58        3.42            1.96
    Belgium         1.85    .87        23.15        2.45            1.66
    Canada          2.60    .84        13.94        4.44            2.91
    England/
    Wales            .67    .08         8.61         .38             .47
    Finland         2.96    .74        25.35        5.43            2.32
    France          1.25    .55        22.30        4.93            2.26
    Holland         1.18    .27        11.72         .28             .19
    N. Ireland      4.66   3.55         8.27        1.18             .84
    Norway          1.21    .36        14.27        3.87            3.20
    Scotland        1.63    .11        10.51         .69             .47
    Spain           1.37    .38         6.45         .45            1.31
    Switzerland     1.17    .46        24.45        5.74            2.72
    USA             7.59   4.46        12.40        7.28            4.80
    West Germany    1.21    .20        20.37        1.38             .89
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Spearman Rank Correlations
     between % of households
     owning guns and                                r value         p value
                                                   ________________________
    Proportions of homicides with a gun             0.608
============ B. Questions firearm prohibitionists can't answer ============


  Even though the "suicide with firearms" rate is higher in the US, why is
  Canada's overall suicide rate higher than the overall US rate ?

  Why is the homicide rate in Canada now DOUBLE what it was back when
  persons with a clean criminal and psychiatric record could buy nearly
  anything, including machine guns (pre-1963)?

  Why is Canada's NON-firearm homicide rate also lower than the US rate?
  Shouldn't only the firearm rate be lower?  If it really was "access to
  guns", shouldn't the Canadian non-firearm homicide rate be higher than the
  US rate?  Why has Canada's homicide rate ALWAYS been lower than the US
  rate?

  Why is US homicide rate similar to the Canadian rate if you remove
  Washington DC and all cities larger than the largest Canadian cities?

  Why has the Canadian violent crime rate increased over 500% since 1962
  (when anti-gun laws were much less strict)?  Why has it been increasing
  more rapidly than the US rate?

  Why are states with laxer laws the ones with lower crime and homicide
  rates?  Why are the ones that ban/restrict civilian ownership the worst?

  Why do the states bordering on Canada have lower murder rates than their
  Canadian neighbours (except where their laws are stricter)?  Why does
  Washington, D.C., which has banned handguns and other firearms since 1976,
  have a murder rate 8 times the national average while the surrounding
  area, with liberal gun laws, has a murder rate _half_ the US average?

  Why did Florida (and many other new CCW states) not experience the
  predicted "blood baths" when citizens were allowed to carry concealed
  firearms?

  Why are Switzerland and Norway so peaceful when they have as many firearms
  per person as the US?

============================= C. Miscellaneous =============================


Recommended reading:

    "Gun Control is not crime control" by Gary Mauser of the Canadian
    Fraser Forum (1995). ph. (416) 363-6575.  It's about $9.

    _Observations on a One-Way Street: The Canadian Firearm Control
    Debate,_ by the Shooting Organizations of Canada, [available from the
    Ontario Handgun Association, 2055 Dundas St E, Unit 105, Mississauga
    ON  L4X 2V9 and from http://www.nfa.ca/research/observations/], (1994)

    _The Politics of Panic: Registration Will Mean Confiscation_, by the
    Shooting Organizations of Canada, Ontario Handgun Association, (1994)

    _Misfire: the Black Market and Gun Control_, by John C. Thompson
    (May 1995) [available from the Mackenzie Institute, P. O. Box
    338 Adelaide Station, Toronto ON  M5C 2J4]

    _Reasonable and Necessary,_ by David Young, Canadian Academy of
    Practical Shooting, (1994)

    _Guns: Who Should Have Them?,_David B. Kopel, ed., Prometheus
    Books, ISBN 0-87975-958-5 (1995), a book which is an excellent
    introduction to the political issues surrounding gun ownership.

    _The Samurai, The Mountie, And The Cowboy,_by David Kopel,
    Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-756-6, (1992)

    _Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,_by Gary Kleck,
    Aldine de Gruyter, ISBN 0-202-30419-1 (1991)

    _In The Gravest Extreme,_by Massad Ayoob
    [available from Police Bookshelf, P.O. Box 122, Concord, NH 03301],
    ISBN 0-936297-00-1, (1980)

    _The Truth About Self Protection,_by Massad Ayoob, Police Bookshelf,
    ISBN 0553-23664-6, (1983)

    _Armed and Female: Twelve Million American Women Own Guns,
    Should You?,_ by Paxton Quigley, St. Martin's Press, ISBN
    0-312-95150-7, (1993)

    _Not An Easy Target,_by Paxton Quigley, Simon and Schuster,
    ISBN 0-671-89081-6, (1995)

    _Firing Back,_by Clayton E. Cramer, Krause Publications,
    ISBN 0-87341-344-X, (1994)

    _Stopping Power: Why Seventy Million Americans Own Guns,_by J. Neil
    Schulman, Synapse-Centurion Books, ISBN 1-882639-03-0, (1994)

    _Firearms and violence: issues of public policy,_by Don B.
    Kates (ed.)  Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, San
    Francisco, California, 1984, ISBN 0884109283.  Also, Ballinger,
    Cambridge, Massachusetts, ISBN 0884109224 or 0884109232
    (paper).  Also, ISBN 1884109291 (paper).

    _Gun control: you decide,_by Lee Nisbet (ed.)  Prometheus Books,
    Buffalo, New York, 1990, ISBN 0879756187 (paper).

    _The gun culture and its enemies,_by William R. Tonso, (ed.)
    Second Amendment Foundation, distributed by Merrill Press,
    Bellvue, Washington, 1990, ISBN 0936783052.

    _Armed and considered dangerous: a survey of felons and their
    firearms,_by James D. Wright, and Peter Henry Rossi.  Aldine de
    Gruyter, Hawthorne, New York, 1986, ISBN 0202303306 or ISBN
    0202303314.

    _Under the gun: weapons, crime, and violence in America,_by
    James D. Wright, Peter Henry Rossi, and Kathleen Daly.  Aldine
    de Gruyter, New York, 1983, ISBN 0202303055.

    _Gun Control: A reference handbook,_ by Earl R. Kruschke.  ABC-CLIO,
    Inc. Santa Barbara, 408 pp., (1995), ISBN 0-87436-695-X



Periodic reports:

    Statistics Canada/Centre for Justice Statistics: many,
    including Homicide Juristat

    U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States.
    Published annually.

    United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
    Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics.
    [Published how often?]

    U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform
    Crime Reports.  Published annually.



Other FAQ lists:

    ``The Long List of "Gun-Control" Myths'' is available from:
    http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
    ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/rkba.faq

    "How to Win Debates With Hoplophobes" is at:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/debates.hop
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Faq/debates.hop
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Faq/debates.hop
    ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Faq/debates.hop

    The complete rec.guns FAQ is at:
    http://www.teleport.com/~dputzolu/

    Firearm safety basics are here:
    http://www.teleport.com/~dputzolu/ID.html

    The CHILDREN & GUN SAFETY FAQ is here:
    http://www.familyweb.com/faqs/FirearmsSafety.shtml
    another version for people familiar with firearms is at:
    http://www.teleport.com/~dputzolu/XIIIA1b.html
    and there is also:
    http://www.teleport.com/~dputzolu/XIIIA1a.html
    http://www.teleport.com/~dputzolu/XIIIA1c.html



Where to go for more information:

    Karen Selick's famous "Off the Mark" article (complete with graphs)
    can be found at:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Selick/off-mark.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

    The Cdn-Firearms Home Page can be found at the following URLs:
    http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
    http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/homepage.html
    http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/homepage.html


Credits:

    Persons to whom I am personally grateful for their help:  Greg Booth,
    Taylor Buckner, Eric Cartman, Wayne Chapeskie, Jean Hogue, Ian
    Jefferson, Gary Mauser, Karen Selick, Carmel Stalteri, Dave Tomlinson

    I have attempted to give full credit, but I know I have missed a few
    hundred names...



Personal note:

    I was never "anti-gun", but, before 1991, I actually supported many of
    the "gun control" strategies.  I now know that I did so out of
    ignorance.  Since then I have read everything I could -- and more than I
    could ever remember -- on the subject of "gun control".

    I now have a growing library of reference material, a mailing list
    dedicated to firearm legislation in Canada, World-Wide Web pages which I
    maintain in parallel with an FTP site, and I got involved with the NFA
    (National Firearms Association) because I saw many of our ideas and
    goals were similar.  Like a lot of people in this debate, I "got sucked
    right in" and there is no end in sight.



DISCLAIMER:

    This FAQ list should not be used in lieu of legal advice.  While care
    has been taken to ensure the accuracy of everything here, errors are
    always possible.  The author and contributors are not liable for damages
    (and so on) resulting from anyone using the information contained
    herein.  Nothing presented in this text should be construed as legal
    advice.



This FAQ list is copyright (C) 1995,1996 Skeeter Abell-Smith and may only be
used as a reference, in whole or in part, only when no fee is charged in any
way.  No part of this FAQ list may be sold in any medium, including print
and electronic, without the explicit written permission of Skeeter
Abell-Smith.

Copyright (C) 1995,1996 Skeeter Abell-Smith
=============================================================================
--
ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca  <--------------------->  Saskatoon Free-Net
My opinions may be unlike others.  No one else's opinions are implied.
                  The Cdn-Firearms Home Page is now at:
            http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
