Search

Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament--Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)--nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008. (Contains 2 tables and 3 figures.)

William R. Tonso has chosen an issue that he knows something about to examine how sociology textbooks address controversy. Appealing for gun control is fashionable, but it is at odds with a fondness that ordinary Americans have for their firearms--one that is supported by a growing body of research on deterrence to crime. There are two sides to the issue, but Tonso shows that in a large sample of texts, the sociology establishment predictably shades, omits, and distorts the politically incorrect position that citizens should not be compelled to relinquish responsibility for the security of their families and property. (Contains 54 notes.)

A pooled cross-section time series model is used to evaluate the effect of the 1977 Canadian firearms legislation on the provincial homicide rate between 1969 and 1989. Results agree with most studies that indicate no significant effect of this legislation on homicide rates. (SLD)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides the first legal history of the regulation of “assault-style” weapons in Canada. A contentious part of Canada’s gun control regime is the firearms classification system that divides guns into non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms. The sale of semi-automatic firearms, often based on military designs that could be quickly fired and reloaded, sparked concerns since the 1970s, particularly after mass shooting events. Canada adopted a classification regime relying on both statutory provisions that used technical details of firearms and Orders-in-Council to name models of firearms as restricted or prohibited weapons. Critics warned that this system allowed private citizens to possess firearm models that can cause substantial harms. This article describes key changes in firearms technology, discusses the legal and criminal uses of assault-style firearms, explores the history of public concern with such guns, and then surveys the development of Canada’s gun control regime. Finally, it considers proposals for future policy options regarding the availability of assault-style weapons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the popularity of the Evidence-Based Policy Making paradigm, scholarly evidence often fails to have an impact in emotional or value-laden policy debates. Consequently, changes to Canada's gun control laws in recent years have often failed to incorporate scholarly research. This is problematic given that the forces of path dependence impose costs on policy makers who seek to reverse established policies, even if they are dysfunctional. This article lays the theoretical foundations for a Firearms Policy Evaluation Framework, which can be used by scholars, policy makers, advocates, and the public to conduct preliminary evaluations of proposed firearms policies before they become law. The utility of the framework is then demonstrated with an evaluation of the 2020 assault-style weapons ban in Canada, which includes a systematic scoping review of the literature on the impact of assault-weapons bans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identity is an important aspect of group politics in Canada. This article examines the impact of gun owner's social identity on the political participation of gun owners and, thus, the success of the Canadian gun rights movement. It investigates whether Canadian gun owners are politically active, and if so, why? The article is based on an online survey of 16,880 Canadian gun owners. Cross‐tabulation, probit regression, and negative binomial regression were used to assess the impact of gun owner's social identity on political participation. Results indicate that gun owners are avid political participants and that this can be explained by the existence of a strong gun owner's social identity within a subset of Canadians. This has implications for our understanding of how social identities tied to serious leisure communities can impact politics. Related Articles: Cagle, M. Christine, and J. Michael Martinez. 2004. "Have Gun, Will Travel: The Dispute between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem." Politics &Policy 32 (2): 278‐310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2004.tb00185.x Joslyn, Mark R., and Donald P. Haider‐Markel. 2018. "Motivated Innumeracy: Estimating the Size of the Gun Owner Population and its Consequences for Opposition to Gun Restrictions." Politics & Policy 46 (6): 827‐850. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12276 Smith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. " Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States." Politics & Policy 44 (6): 1053‐1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do major events of gun violence (i.e., mass shootings) lead to incremental change or no federal legislative change at all in the United States while major events of gun violence have resulted in large-scale legislative changes in Canada? Exploring the complexities involved in this compelling question, this article conducts a comparative analysis of recent gun control policy gridlock and shift in these two countries. We concentrate on two mass shooting cases in each country: the Columbine (1990) and Sandy Hook (2012) massacres in the United States and the École Polytechnique Massacre (1989) and Concordia Shooting (1992) in Canada. We use veto player theory to gain insights into why tightening gun policy is so difficult to implement in the United States while Canada often follows up with policy transformations after a focusing event. This theory informs the central argument that the key factors underpinning the divergent policy outcomes on gun control issues in both countries involve differences in the structure of government/institutional design and the role and power of interest groups in each case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The weakness of the antigun lobby in the United States is attributed to the "collective action problem" of trying to mobilize "free riders" behind a public purpose. But the Coalition for Gun Control emerged in Canada to successfully lobby for the Firearms Act of 1995. If the "collective action problem" is not limited to the United States, then are its effects "mediated" by political culture? To address this research question, we content analyze (1) media coverage, (2) party platforms, (3) presidential, and (4) ministerial rhetoric. Three frames represent "restrictive" gun policies that ban or regulate firearms, "punitive" gun policies that penalize the person for the unlawful use of firearms, or "lenient" gun policies that encourage gun ownership and gun rights. Marked differences in framing the gun debate help explain why an antigun coalition emerged in Canada but not the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, author talks about his role as the editor of the periodical. Topics discussed include information on the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq in 2003; discussions on the beliefs of the Canadians in the universal healthcare, gun control and the public education; and the information on the commitment of the federal government towards climate change.

The article presents a case study on the dismantling of Canada's long-gun registry and deregulation in the nation, focusing on issues related to gun control in Canada, the country's constitutional and administrative laws, and various hearings before the Supreme Court of Canada. The scope of the power to repeal legislation is mentioned, along with federalism and the Canadian common law. The Canadian Parliament, the nation's Firearms Act, and judgments from courts in Quebec are examined.

Copyright of Criminologie is the property of Presses de l'Universite de Montreal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Firearms became a key part of boy and male youth culture in English Canada before the Great War. By the 1890s, imperialist sentiments had infused the growing interest in hunting, advocates of which celebrated the value of rifle shooting by suggesting that it made boys into ideal British men. As well, emerging worries about the feminization of urban youth led to calls for military drill and rifle training. At the same time, businesses heavily marketed cheap, mass-produced arms to young people by asserting that firearms could inculcate manly virtues. Businesses also attempted to redefine some weapons as acceptable consumer items. The use of weapons by young people led to a number of apprehended social ills, including accidental shootings, environmental destruction, and militarizing a generation of young people. However, legislative efforts to limit access to firearms were modest. In 1892 and 1913, the Canadian government placed limitations on to whom certain weapons could be sold, but the widespread assumption that certain kinds of arms were acceptable for most boys and youth meant that these measures frequently went unenforced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bills C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995) were enacted into law by the Government of Canada with a view to tightening controls on firearms in order to prevent homicides related to their use. The effectiveness of these laws has fuelled several debates on the political scene. Given the many limitations of assessments conducted to this day, the credibility of their results is often questioned. Using a multiple-time-series design, the purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the three most recent Canadian gun control laws, all the while overcoming the limitations identified in the scientific literature. Our results show that the enactment of Bills C-51 and C-68 was followed by a significant drop in the number of homicides committed with a firearm, a decrease of 5% to 10%, depending on the province. This reduction was most noticeable in the case of homicides committed with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. No tactical displacement was observed. Finally, results suggest that the effectiveness of these laws is due to the reduced access and availability of firearms rather than to the severity of sentences provided in the legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1992, the Canadian Firearms Act aimed at ensuring safe storage of firearms was promulgated. This study compares suicide methods 6 years prior to the enactment of the law and 5 years after its enactment. The study encompassed 426 suicide cases from Abitibi-Témiscamingue (Northern Quebec), the region with the highest suicide rate and the highest firearm suicide rate in Quebec. Suicide by firearms decreased in the male and female population. Suicide by hanging increased among youths of both sexes, and suicide by poisoning doubled in the female population. A decrease in firearm suicides was most noticeable in the under-25 age group, although it was in this same age group that the general suicide rate increased the most. The reduction of firearm suicides was not accompanied by a decrease in overall suicide rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canadian Bill C-17 was implemented in 1991 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a chance to investigate the effect of firearm control laws in the use of firearms for suicide and homicide. Following Lester and Leenaars' comprehensive studies, the present study examined the use of firearms for suicide and homicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-17 to assess the association of the bill with rates of suicide and homicide by method. Analysis showed a significant decrease after passage of Bill C-17 in the rates of suicides and homicides involving firearms and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gun control was the subject of increased public attention and debate in Canada in the 1990's as more restrictive legislation was passed by Parliament. Although there was a good deal of public support for these increased restrictions, there was also vocal opposition in some segments of the population. However, there has been little multivariate research directed at explaining variation in attitudes toward gun control in Canada. The present research uses data from a telephone survey of adult residents of the Province of Alberta to test hypotheses concerning instrumental and ideological explanations of support for universal registration of firearms. These hypotheses are tested with controls for characteristics of the respondents. The results are mainly supportive of the instrumental (liberal) perspective: respondents who believe gun control is effective at crime control are more likely to support universal registration, although there is some evidence that internal (conservative) attributions of the causes of crime results in less support for universal registration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Suicide and suicidal behaviour are multifaceted events requiring complex solutions. Controlling the environment is a neglected solution, despite strong support for this approach from the World Health Organization (WHO).Method: To discuss this approach from a global view, this review is written by authors from various cultures: American, Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Cuban, Dutch, Indian, Irish, Japanese, Lithuanian, Native North American, Russian, and South African.Results: We examine gun control to illustrate the environmental control approach; however, the worldwide diversity of suicide methods calls for diverse responses. Further, controlling the environment encompasses more than restricting the means of suicide, which we illustrate with examples of toned-down media reports and restricted medicine availability.Conclusions: Controlling the environment may be a viable strategy for preventing suicide, although research shows that few clinicians implement such approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suicide accounts for approximately 4000 deaths a year in Canada, of which about 16% of those are suicide using a firearm. Canada has undertaken legislative efforts to regulate and control firearms, Bill C-51 in 1977 and Bills C-17 and C-68 in 1991 and 1995. Regulatory approaches that decrease the availability of firearms are hypothesized to reduce suicide by firearm however the substitution effect suggests it is possible that people may substitute other methods of suicide in place. Canadian studies on associations between legislation, regulation, and suicide rates have been published over the last three decades, and a search revealed thirteen that met the criteria. Seven studies examined the association between Bill C-51 and suicide rates and found that while rates of suicide by firearm appeared to have declined in association with regulations, there appears to be a substitution effect into other methods and no overall change in suicide rates. Six studies examining the effects of Bill C-17 and C-68 revealed a decrease in the rates of suicide by firearms, with a corresponding increase in non-firearms suicide rates and no decrease in overall suicide rates. One study even suggested no associated decrease in firearm suicide rates with an increasing rate of suicide by hanging possibly due to changes in preferences. These results suggest legislation has mixed effects on firearm suicide rates and may not alone reduce overall suicide in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the factor of the availability of a lethal agent in the environment, as affecting accidental death rates in Canada. Hypothesis for the case of firearm availability; Reference to the passage of Canada's Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977.

The article criticizes sociologist Neil Boyd's article on the subject of firearms homicide in Canada. The argument in Boyd's paper rests upon several unsupported claims. Boyd's knowledge of Canadian homicide statistics is faulty. The typical Canadian homicide victim is male, not female, as he states. As well, the typical homicide victim is not killed with a firearm; as two-thirds of all homicides involve other implements than firearms. Firearms may be useful for self-protection even if they are not fired. Clearly this would be so if a woman deterred a rapist simply by showing him her firearm and her resolve to use it if necessarily. Such an incident would probably not be brought to the attention of the police. In the case of the woman who used a firearm to deter a potential rapist, she has nothing to gain by going to the polite, and given the official attitude towards the defensive use of firearm, much to lose by doing so. Nevertheless, the article does not recommend that anyone buy a firearm for self-protection— that is a very personal decision.

The article comments on the proposed gun control legislation of the Canadian government in 1995. The author's position on the proposed legislation is that they do have the potential to help. The proposed system seems workable, although there are a number of pitfalls which must be addressed to avoid the risk of implementation failure. They should also help reduce deaths and injuries, largely through their impact on the number of suicides or accidents related to firearms use. The author claims to be less optimistic that the proposals, on their own, will significantly reduce crime or improve community safety. The reason is that the proposals address only a limited range of the issues and concerns involved in a comprehensive approach to the prevention of crime and victimization. The goal of the proposals for firearms control is to help prevent crime by increasing the controls on ammunition and certain weapons. The proposals are organized around three themes or strategies: controls on the import, export or transportation of firearms; controls on the legal ownership of firearms; and sanctions for the illegal possession, use, or trafficking of firearms. The emphasis on border controls is a response to the problems created by the disjunction between the relatively strict controls over firearms in Canada and the ease of access to guns and ammunition in the U.S.

The article comments on the legislative proposals of the Canadian federal government concerning gun control in 1995. The main document entitled The Government's Action Plan on Firearms Control, outlining the proposals is strangely silent about the nature and dimensions of the problems which requires such action. The background document which accompanied it is scarcely more informative, intoning as it does that tough action is necessary to address violence in the society, and to prevent crime in communities. Exactly how the proposed action plan will address violence and prevent crime--and what kinds and levels of reductions in firearms abuses in particular might be expected from its implementation, and over what period of time, and at what cost--are the subject of no serious discussion in either document, and are not-self evident from the proposals themselves. The conclusion that the clamor for tougher gun control laws is the product of a moral panic, engendered by sensational media reporting of isolated firearms incidents such as the Just Desserts killing in Toronto and a drive-by homicide in Ottawa, is hard to resist. That neither of these tragic events involved the use of handguns, but both generated immediate and vocal calls for increased controls over handguns, is indicative of the confusion and misconceptions which so easily dominate public and political debate following such sensational media coverage of relatively unusual events.

The article presents an update on the proposed gun control legislation of the Canadian federal government in 1995. Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock and the federal government are set to take on an angry gaggle of gun owners, gun dealers, and their supporters. This opposition is a mostly male and largely rural lobby, passionate about the right to bear arms. Guns are, like drugs and automobiles, dangerous commodities. The state has a responsibility to ensure that if the commodity can be used, it will be used in a manner that is consistent with public safety. Second, guns kill about 1400 Canadians annually, automobiles about 3,000, legal drugs about 35,000, and illegal drugs about 500. The Bill that is currently before Parliament (Bill C-68) will require gun owners, on a one time basis, to register all guns, and to renew possession permits for rifles, shotguns, and handguns every five years. The Bill will also prohibit certain kinds of military weapons, and impose increased penalties for the use of a gun in the context of a criminal offense. It cannot be claimed, however, that registration and the new systems of permit proposed in Bill C-68 will produce dramatic changes in homicide or robbery rates during the next few years.

The article comments on the proposed legislation of the Canadian government regarding gun control in 1995. The Canadian government is endeavoring to pass its second major package of legislation dealing with firearms in the last three years. While such legislation may serve the symbolic function of communicating people's collective condemnation of violence, its primary purpose is to foster public safety through the prevention of firearm-related violence. The proposed legislation is designed to curb criminal violence and other harms in two ways. First, it elevates the risks of using firearms for criminal purposes, for smuggling, or for failing to comply with safe storage and other requirements through mandatory penalties, enhanced border controls, and the establishment of a national registration system. Second, it proposes to limit the availability of certain handguns, assault and replica weapons. About seven million firearms are owned by Canadians, as of 1995. The proposed legislation includes provisions for banning various models of handguns and military-type long guns. These bans, given full compliance on the part of those currently in possession of these weapons, would reduce the overall inventory of firearms in Canada by approximately half a million providing the volume of all other categories of firearms remain unchanged.

The article focuses on the firearms policy in Canada. From an international perspective, Canada enjoys a unique reputation as a civil and peaceful country. There is a long history in Canada of regulating the safe use and ownership of firearms. As early as 1877, justices of the peace were allowed to jail people in possession of a handgun without reasonable cause. Criminal Code controls have existed since 1892 when the first nationwide permit system for the carrying of small arms were created. The registration of handguns began in 1932. The law was amended in 1969, 1976-77, and 1991 and reflects three fundamental policies: the deterrence of the misuse of firearms, general controls on persons given access to firearms, and controls placed on specific types of firearms. The Federal Government has come to the realization that there are some broad areas of consensus among people about the kind of society they want to have for themselves and future generations. First, Canadians believe strongly that they do not want a country in which people feel they must own a firearm to protect themselves. Second, Canadians want to have a lawful and safe society and they want the criminal misuse of firearms to be dealt with severely. Third, it has become increasingly apparent that the firearms question is not a rural-urban issue.

This article presents the author's response to the comments of C. Kwing Hung on his article Gun Control and Rates of Firearms Violence in Canada and the United States. It is gratifying that the author of the accompanying critique read my article so carefully; that critique identified some minor data problems, and pointed to some alternative interpretations of those data. I hope to demonstrate that the totality of the criticisms does not challenge the conclusions reached in the article. The critique presents the data mostly in terms of percentage changes in crime rates. This is a perfectly acceptable approach to describing the data, but obviously it will tend to show a greater change than does the gap in points shown in the line graphs in my article, especially starting from the lower base of Canadian rates. Furthermore, the critique never refers to the sense of parallel change that is conveyed in the line graphs, that is, whether the direction of change is the same over time, and whether the gap between the rates narrows or widens. There is more than one way to present and describe a given set of data: the approach in my article was not wrong. The critique identifies a factual inaccuracy in the comparison of victim rates depicted in Figure 1 and the accompanying narrative.

This article presents the author's comments on the Robert J. Mundt's article Gun Control and the Rates of Firearms Violence in Canada and the United States. The major thesis of the article by Mundt is that parallel trends in violent firearm crimes, firearm suicides, and firearm accidental deaths in both the U.S. and Canada prove that the decrease in firearm crimes and deaths in Canada is part of a secular trend as in the U.S., not a result of firearm control legislation in Canada. A detailed examination, however, reveals that the article is badly flawed with factual inaccuracies, logical inconsistencies, and methodological fallacies. The trends in the two countries are, in fact, not parallel. The analysis and the conclusion of the article are thus erroneous. Contrary to the article, it is clear from the available data that decreases in firearm crimes and firearm deaths in Canada are much steeper than in the U.S. and are most likely the result of the firearm control legislation. The major conclusion of the article that firearm legislation in Canada does not result a decrease in firearm crimes and deaths is erroneous. One possible reason for such errors may be the author's lack of understanding of the differences between Canadian and U.S. law and other factors which results in misinterpretations.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Presents a study assessing the impact of the 1978 Canadian gun control law on suicide rates in Ontario. Comparison of firearm and nonfirearm suicide rates; Use of mean rates and trends over time; Difference in pre and postlegislation periods.