ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content Contenu archivé

Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

FI REARMS & T HE I P. CONTROL I "r CATIP_DA :

WORKING '?EE TS

1

P. Stenning, editor

HV 8059 F5 1978 I Ci7?' 11

FIREARMS & THEIR CONTROL IN CANADA:

WORKING PAPERS\

LIBRARY MINISTRY OP THE SOLICITOR GENirP

Itou UG 2 1903

BIBLIOTHÈQUE MINISTÈRE DU P. Stenning, editor SOLLICITEUR GÉNÉRAL

Prepared under contract with the Solicitor General of Canada. or The views expressed in these working papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Solicitor General of Canada.

December 1978

I TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword Summary 1 Acknowledgements 1. Canadian Firearms Laws to 1976 2. Gun Control in Canada: A Discussion of Public Reaction 3. The Control of Firearms in Other Selected Jurisdictions 4. Firearms and Suicide 5. Hunter Safety Training in Canada 6. Guns and Violence 7. Guns in Canada: A Review of Statistics 8. Selected Bibliography FOREWORD FOREWORD

In the spring of 1975, the then Solicitor General of Canada, the Honourable Warren Allmand, established the Working Group on Gun Control as a departmental task force. The purposes of the Working Group were to examine the area of firearms ownership and use in Canada, to review existing legal controls of firearms, and to make recommendations as to what changes in the law relating to firearms may be necessary. As the Working Group set about this task, it quickly became aware of the dearth of reliable information and literature on the Canadian situation with respect to the subject of its inquiries. Almost all of the information and literature which was available at that time related either to the United States or to the United Kingdom.

Confronted with this situation, the Working Group and the Ministry's Itsearch Division commissioned several persons to undertake preliminary studies of various aspects of firearms ownership and use in Canada. The primary objective of this initial research program was to provide the Working Group with at least a minimum degree of accurate information to enable policy discussions to be undertaken. A second objective was to identify the extent and limitations of existing information on firearms ownership and use in Canada and to indicate what areas would be the subject of more research at a later stage. The papers which appear in this volume are the product of this initial research program of the Working Group.* As such, they constitute a unique contribution to the debate concerning firearms and their control in Canada. Thus it is intended that this volume will be a valuable source of information for all who may participate in the aun control debate in Canada. It is also hoped that this

* For a more detailed account of the genesis of these papers, see the "Acknowledgements" section. - 2 -

first major collection of research material related to firearms use in Canada will be a stimulus to further research in the area. In addition, these papers represent an indication of what research inputs were used in the development of a major area of criminal justice policy.

Since the research papers in this collection were pre- pared in 1975 and early 1976 much of the statistical material and all of the references to existing firearms legislation •are based on data which were available in 1975 and on the legisla- tion which existed at that time. The' only attempts to reflect later developments include a summary of the amendments proposed in February 1976, which is contained in the paper "Canadian Firearms Laws to 1976",and a brief reference to the Gun Ownership Survey carried out in August 1976, which is contained in "Guns in Canada: A Review of Statistics".

Other significant developments have taken place between the completion of the research papers and the eventual amend- ments to the legislation. By the Fall of 1976 the amendments which had been proposed earlier that year had not completed the legislative process and the Government did not proceed with them in the subsequent session of Parliament. Insteadtin April 1977 the Government introduced in Parliament new proposals to amend Canada's gun control legislation. By August the amendments had been passed by Parliament and had received Royal Assent. The new legislation was proclaimed in two stages namely on January 1, 1978 and on January 1, 1979.

The amendments which came into effect on January 1, 1978 included significant changes to the definition of restricted and prohibited weapons, new penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms, expanded powers of search and seizure by police of firearms in threatening situations, greater powers for the courts to prohibit the possession of firearms by dangerous persons, and new criminal penalties for carelessly handling or using a firearm. The restricted weapons category was expanded to include semi-automatic rifles with a barrel length of less than 18 inches,and which discharge centre-fire ammunition. In addition, persons wishing to acquire a restricted weapon now must cite a specific reason for doing so. The criteria for ownership of a restricted weapon include at least one of use for protection of life, use in a lawful profession or occupation, use in supervised target practice, use as part of a bona fide gun collection, or use as a relic.

The legislation also expanded the category of prohibited weapons to include fully automatic firearms as well as operable rifles and shotguns with a barrel length that has been modified to less than 18 inches long, or which can be fired when overall length is less than 26 inches. In addition, no persons other than bona fide collectors can acquire or own a fully automatic weapon.' However bona fide collectors who legally owned a fully automatic weapon as of January 1, 1978 can sell or trade these weapons with other bona fide collectors.

. The amended penalty provisions for criminal misuse of a firearm Specify that Use of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence carries a mandatory prison sentence of one to fourteen years for a first conviction. Subsequent convictions carry a mandatory penalty of three to fourteen years imprisonment. This' sentence'will be served Consecutive to any prison sentence imposed for the offence in which the firearm was used. In addition, carrying a concealed' weapon or possession of an unregistered restricted weapon is punishable by up to five years , imprisonment, or is an offence punishable on summary.conviction:-1

The expanded powers of search and seizure allow police to search for and seize a firearm without a warrant if there is an immediate danger to the Safety of an individual, and if it is impractical to obtain a warrant. In addition police must furnish an immediate report to a magistrate after any search and seizure has taken place whether or not articles were seized and whether or not a warrant was obtained.

The authority to prohibit the ownership and use of firearms and ammunition has been expanded so that persons who have been convicted of an indictable offence involving violence, or any offence involving firearms could be the subject of a court-ordered prohibition for a period of up to ten years. In a more serious class of offences outlined in the legislation, prohibition will be automatically imposed after conviction. The prohibition period will commence after the person has served any prison sentence imposed for the offence.

In addition, the police may apply to a magistrate for an order . prohibiting persons who exhibit dangerous or threate- ning behavior.from owning or using a firearm for a period of up to five years. These persons will be notified beforehand . and in writing of their right to oppose the application to a magistrate'for a prohibition order. The prohibition.order

\of the magistrate is appealable to the appeal Court. Ns:

The amendments which , came into effect on January 1, 1978 also Provide penalties for'persons who carelessly handle, use, or store weapons and ammunition. These penalties, range from a fine to five years' imprisonment, depending on hOw the courts interpret the 'seriousness of the offence. '

The aMendments which were proclaimed on january 1, 1979 , established the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) system ., affects individuals, and the business permit system which which affects all manufactUring, wholesale, and retail businesses • which deal in firearms and ammunition. The FAC provisions require that any person over 16 years of age who wishes to acquire a firearm through purchase, borrowing and the like must be the holder of a FAC. All applicants for a FAC are screened to determine that in the previous five years they have not been convicted of a firearms related offence, that they have not been treated for a mental disorder associated with violence, and that they do not other- wise have a history of violence related behavior. If any of these conditions are present the application could be refused. In addition, each provincial Attorney General has the option to require applicants to complete a course or test in the safe handling and use of firearMs.

The new legislation does allow a person who is not the holder of a FAC to borrow a firearm, but only under the gui- dance and supervision of a. person who is lawfully in'possession of the firearm. A person not in possession of a FAC also may borrow a firearm without any supervision requirement if the firearm is required to hunt or trap in order to sustain the borrower or his family.

The FAC is issued at a cost of $10.00 and is valid for use anywhere in Canada for a five-year period. Any niimber of' firearms can be acquired before it expires. No FAC is needed for firearms acquired before January 1, 1979. . In addition, certificates are issued free of charge ta persons who must use firearms>to hunt or trap to sustain themselves and their families

The firearms business permit provisions provide that any person carrying on a business involving firearms or ammunition is reqUired to. obtain a permit for each separate outlet. The handling, storage, shipping, transportation, display and adver- .tising of firearms must conform with the standards set forth in the regulations of the statute. Before a permit is issued an inspection of the business premises is carried out to deter- mine that these standards have been met. A business permit is Ma, 6

valid for one year and the fees Vary depending upon the type and size of the business. In addition, each business is required to maintain records of all firearms transactions, but only a copy of the record and inventory relating to restricted weapons must be forwarded to a central registry: 7 These amendments to Canada's gun control legislation are contained in sections 82 to 106.9 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and in paragraphs (b) to (d) of item 999220-1.of Schedule C to the Customs Tariff, as amended in 1977. S UMMARY SUMMARY

Tho individual papers in this collection were prepared in 1975 and early 1976. Therefore, all references to existing federal and provincial laws, as well as all references to statistical data are based on information which was available when the research was carried out. The only exception to this is the data from the Gun Ownership Survey which was carried out in August, 1976. Because of the importance of this major survey, the paper "Guns in Canada - A Review of Statistics" was amended slightly to incorporàte some of the survey results.

1. Canadian Firearms Laws to 1976 The paper "Canadian Firearms Laws to 1976" gives a brief ' historical account of firearms laws in Canadh. The gradual evolution, over a period of a hundred years, of laws governing ownership and use of firearms in this country is outlined, and is followed by a description of the legislative controls as of 1976 and their administration. The paper concludes with a review of the legislative proposals which the Government presented to Parliament in February, 1976.

2 , Gun Control in Canada: A Discussion of Public Reaction

This paper represents a brief summary of information pertaining to attitudes in Canada towards gun control. - 2 --

It has been drawn from three sources, namely groups and organizations which have made formal statements, the media, in particular newspapers, and public opinion polls. In addition, further information was obtained from the substantial volume of mail generated by the gun s control proposals of Bill C-83. çl.,-The study concludes that there is no widespread opposition to the concept of gun control legislation. However, it points out that there is ' strong opposition to any measures which are seen as unnecessarily inconveniencing the majority of law-abiding firearms owners without significantly reducing the accidental, careless, or criminal mis- use of firearms-.1

3. The Control of Firearms in Other Selected Jurisdictions Firearms control measures which are in effect in a number of selected jurisdictions abroad are reviewed in "The Control of Firearms in Other Selected Jurisdictions". - 3 -

While it is important, of course, to exercise caution in attempting to draw direct comparisons between laws in other jurisdictions which in many cases differ widely in social, cultural and political ways from our own, it was felt important to include in this collection of research papers at least a short review of legislative initiatives which are being taken elsewhere in the world. Time and resources to undertake this endeavour being necessarily limited, thé paper offers a selective account of laws in other jurisdictions, concentrating most heavily on those which have been most commonly mentioned in the context of the Canadian debate over gun control.

4. Firearms and Suicide The fact that suicides account for about 70 per cent of all firearms deaths in Canada is, of course, the reason - why this subject was made the focus of special study in "Firearms and Suicide". Apart from providing a more detailed analysis of the role of firearms in suicide than was appropriate in the statistical overview in "Guns in Canada -- A Review of Statistics", the paper stresses the importance of examining the phenomenon of firearms suicides in the context of the overall problem of suicides and suicide attempts of all kinds. The commonly held assumption that control of firéarms, by influencing the choice of a firearm as the instrument of •■■••

suicide, will necessarily result in a reduction in overall suicide rates is subjected to critical review which should caution the reader against over-optimism about the likely effectiveness of gun control laws in curbing suicide in our society. The evidence relating to the "effectiveness" of firearms as suicide weapons, however, is of course equally deserving of attention.

. Hunter Safety Training in Canada In "Hunter Safety Training in Canada", provincial and territorial hunter safety training programs and

initiatives are reviewed. The paper describes in some ' detail the lack of uniformity in such programs and in the standards they implement. Perhaps more importantly, however, the paper reviews the unsatisfactory nature of information about hunting firearms accidents in many 11) jurisdictions. It could perhaps be agreed that a proper understanding of the problems associated with firearms ownership and use in Canada will never be reached until more reliable information on accidental and careless hunting deaths and injuries is available. Equally worthy of note, however, is the hint which the paper gives about the extent to which accidental firearms deaths and injuries occur in the home rather than during hunting activities outdoors. Again, attempts to define the problem are seriously handicapped by the

dearth of reliable information about this phenomenon. -5-

6. Guns and Violence A review of the complex, and often confusing, psy- chological literature on the relationship between firearms availability and use, and violent behaviour follows in the paper "Guns and Violence". The paper makes it clear that there is still little positive consensus among social scientists about anything more than the general dimensions of the relationship between guns and violence in our society, and few incontrovertible conclusions are to be drawn from the existing, almost exclusively American, literature on this subject. The need for some original Canadial2 research in this area is one conclusion which clearly emerges from this paper.

7. Guns in Canada: A Review of Statistics In "Guns in Canada -- A Review of Statistics", the reader is given an overview of statistics on guns and their use in Canada from a very wide variety of sources. The collection of data on this subject remains in its infancy in Canada, and at beSt this paper can be viewed as a summary of the best available information, rather than as being in any sense definitive. It represents, however, an attempt to substitute reasonably reliable data for folklore and anecdote in the ongoing debate over firearms use and abuse in Canada. -6-

8. Selected Bibliography The monograph concludes with a selected bibliography of materials related to gun control, although this

list is only current to the end of 1975. It is hoped that it will direct the reader to more detailed references on specific matters discussed in the general body of the monograph. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The initial gun control research efforts of the Ministry's Research Division and the Working Group resulted in the preparation of seven original papers on various aspects of firearms ownership and use in Canada, as well as a substantial volume of statistical material on the area which was assembled through the efforts of the Statistics Division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, in co-operation with Statistics Canada.

As the process of policy deliberation and formulation progressed, further information about many of the topics covered in the initial research program continuously came to light, and in early 1976 the Ministry of the Solicitor General commissioned Mr. Philip Stenning, assisted by Ms. Maureen Callon, to edit the original research papers for publication, to summarize the available statistical information in a further paper, and to incorporate into the original papers such néw information as had come to light since their submission to the Working Group. The papers which are included in this volume thus constitute the end product of the Working Group's initial research program. As such, they are based substantially on the work undertaken by the authors of the seven papers originally submitted. The original material has been significantly edited, however, as well as expanded upon by the editor.

One of the original papers in this research program was Dean Martin Friedland's "Gun Control: The Options." It has been published elsewhere*, and has therefore not been included

* (1975) 18 Criminal Law Quarterly 29-71. 2

in this monograph in its entirety; excerpts from it are to be found in the paper, "Canadian Firearms Laws to 1976", however. Contributors to the papers in this volume are:

"Canadian Firearms Laws to 1976" - Mr. P. Stenning "Gun Control in Canada: A Discussion of Public Reaction" - Ms. Maureen Beard-Freedman 11 "The Control of Firearms in Other Selected Jurisdictions" - Ms. Joan Nuffield "Firearms and Suicide" - Mr. John Petko "Hunter Safety Training in Canada" - Mr. Gary Giuliani "Guns and Violence" - Mr. F. Bellemare "Guns in Canada: A Review of Statistics" - Mr. P. Stenning

The majority of the statistical material presented in "Guns in Canada - A Review of Statistics" was prepared by Mr. John • Townesend, assisted by Mr. Rick Beatty, of the Statistics Division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Members of the staff of the Judicial Division of Statistics Canada also assisted in the preparation of this material. The Ministry of the Solicitor General also gratefully acknowledges the co-operation of the following persons who contributed material for this paper: Dr. H.B. Cotnam, Chief Coroner of Ontario; Mr. Paul E. Pageau, President, Canadian Association of (Provincial) Hunter Safety Co-Ordinators; and the Municipal Police Departments of Halifax, Ottawa, Metropolitan Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Victoria.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General also wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Professor A.N. Doob, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, in critically reviewing the paper, "Guns and Violence." • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CANADIAN FIREARMS LAWS TO 1976 CANADIAN FIREARMS LAWS TO 1976*

Canada has had gun control laws of one kind or another throughout its history, and in this paper the development of those laws over the years will be briefly reviewed, and the present laws and their administration will be described. The paper concludes with a review of the major alternatives to the existing laws, which have been canvassed in recent years, and a description of recent legislative initiatives in this regard.

A. History of Methods of Control l

A history of Canada, social, political and economic, could be written based on the history.of its gun control legislation. There have been over one hundred years of such legislation, at first prohibiting certain undesirable conduct, then requiring permits to carry firearms in certain circumstances, and finally requiring registration of handguns and certain other "restricted weapons."

Firearms control in Canada has generally been viewed as a Federal legislative responsibility, discharged through the enactment of provisions of the Criminal Code, which it is the responsibility of the respective Provincial Governments to administer. As will be noted below, however, the Criminal Code has expressly excluded certain types of hunting guns from its administrative control provisions. In many provinces, these are subject to legislative controls through Provincial laws.

For the most part, nineteenth-century laws simply attached criminal penalties to unlawful conduct. So, for example, it was

1 This section of the paper is adapted from Dean M.L. Friedland's "Gun Control: The Options," published in (1975) 18 Criminal Law Quarterly 29-71.

* The research for this paper was based on data available up to 1976. 2

an offence for a person to have "in his custody or possession ... any offensive weapons for any purpose dangerous to the public peace"2 or to carry an offensive weapon while engaged in smuggling 3 or when arrested on a warrant or while committing an offence. 4 A number of these early provisions are interesting in showing how Canada coped with the activities that take place in the typical Western movie. The law in Canada prohibited the carrying of a firearm while "masked or disguised". 5 Thus, the "Lone Ranger" would have been an outlaw in Canada. Similarly, the Canadian "Dodge City" could have dealt with the bad men riding into town through a provision in the law making it an «offence "if two or more persons openly carry offensive weapons in a public place in such a manner and under such circumstances as are calculated to create terror and alarm". 6 In both these cases the penalty was merely a simple fine: in the former between $10 and $50; in the latter between $10 and $40. But it gave the law enforcement authorities a handle.on potential lawbreakers.

Prior to the 1892 Code the only provision which required a person_to obtain consent to carry a firearm related to certain areas of the Northwest Territories, where it was an offence (with up to six months imprisonment) for anyone to possess Or sell any firearm except a shotgun without the permission of the Lieutenant Governor or a commissioner appointed by him. 7

2. 1892 Criminal Code, S.102. See Stat. Can. 1867, C.15 3. 1892 Code, S.104 4. Introduced by Stat. Can. 1877, C.30, S.2; re-enacted in 1892 Code, S.107. 5. Introduced in the 1892 Code.s. 110. 6. Introduced by R.S.C. 1886 c. 148, s. 8: re-enacted in 1892 Code, s. 103 Prior to the 1886 Code the provisions were in the pre-Confederation legislation of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (not the Wild West) 7. Introduced by Stat. Can. 1885. c. 51.s. 14; re-enacted in 1892 Code.s. 116. 3

A form of control was brought in by the 1877 Improper Use of Firearms Act, 8 which permitted a justice of the peace to bind over for 6 months any person who "has upon his person a pistol or air gun without reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury to his person or his family or property".

It was in 1892 that the first permit system relating to small arms was introduced. A minor penalty was provided (between $5 and $25) for anyone to have a pistol outside his house or place of business without a certificate of exemption who did not have "at the time reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury to his person, family or property". 9 The certificate was granted by a justice of the peace for up to 12 months if he was satisfied by evidence upon oath of the "discretion and good character" of the applicant. 10

This loose permit provision was tightened up in 1913, 11 at which time a permit was required for carrying any small arms - whether or not there was "reasonable cause to fear an assault". The legislation did not affect existing handguns kept in the home or place of business, but proscribed the sale of any hand- gun to a person who did not have a permit. A permit was to be issued for up to 12 months if the issuer was satisfied of the applicant's "discretion and good character"; and instead of being granted by a justice of the peace, permits were granted by a magistrate or by the police. The penalty was also raised from the relatively insignificant maximum of $25 found in the 1892 Code to a possible three months' imprisonment.

In each of the years, 1919, 1920 and 1921 the Government brought in amending legislation. The 1920 legislation was extremely far-reaching - indeed, much more restrictive than anything that has been seen since then, except during the

9. 1892 Code.s. 105 10. 1892 Code, s. 105. Note that section 105(5) allowed the Government to suspend the operation of the provision in certain areas. 11. Stat. Can. 1913, c. 13,s. 4. MOM 4

Second World War. The 1919 legislation made it unlawful for any alien to possess any firearm without a permit. The legislation, which was introduced on June 27, 1919, was undoubtedly prompted by the Winnipeg General Strike, which had erupted in violence on June 21, 1919. 12 The debates in the House show a very strong anti-foreign bias. 13

The Government extended the legislation in the following year, 1920, to require all persons, whether aliens or not, to obtain permits for all guns, including rifles and shotguns. The only exception was that "no British subject shall be required to obtain a permit with respect to any shot gun now owned by - him". 14 The purpose of the legislation, according to the statement of the Minister of Justice in the House was "to enable us to obtain knowledge of the trafficking in dangerous firearms, and keep control over persons who have them in their possession". . This legislation was probably influenced by the

12. See generally McNaught and Bercuson. The Winnipeg Strike.(1919)11 (1974) 13. Hansard, House of Commons, July 1, 1919 at pp. 4357 et seq. One member stated: "During the last two years, almost all serious crimes of violence, murder and the like, committed in Ontario, have been committed by aliens." Another stated: "Are we to allow these aliens to bring their bad habits, notions and vicious practices into this country?" As it turned out, all the leaders of the Winnipeg Strike were British-born (except one who was born in Ontario): see McNaught, "Political Trials and the Canadian Political Tradition"in Friedland, Courts and Trials: A Multi-disciplinary n" Approach (1975) at p. 149. 14. S.118 of the 1906 Code, as enacted by Stat. Can. 1920 c 43.s 2.11 15. Hansard, House of Commons, June 10, 1920, at p. 3411 5 far-reaching U.K. legislation enacted in 1920. 16 No legislation in Canada before or since has gone as far.

The 1920 legislation was short-lived. In 1921 the Government reverted to the 1919 position and required an alien to have a permit for any firearm he possessed, but required British subjects to have permits only for handguns carried outside their home or place of business, or for any handguns subsequently pur- chased by them. A provision of the Act 17 permitted the Government to require, by means of a proclamation, permits for all guns "for such period" and "in such portion of Canada" as named in the proclamation.

In 1933 the Government again strengthened the permit provisions 18 by increasing the penalty for carrying a handgun outside a person's house or place of business from the previous maximum of 3 month's to a maximum of 5 years. In fact the Government wanted to make the provision even stronger by providing a minimum 1-year penalty. (As originally introduced there was a minimum 5-year penalty!)- 9 But the Senate would not agree .to a

16 See the U.K. Firearms Act, 1920,s. 1(1): "A person shall not purchase, have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a certificate (in this Act called a firearm certificate) granted under this section, and in force at the time." This legislation was introduced in the U.K. Parliament on April 19, 1920. See generally, Greenwood, Firearms Control (1972) at pp. 45 et seq. The legislation was not influenced by U.S. Federal legislation because until 1927 the only U.S. Federal legislation affecting firearms was a 10% manufacturers' excise tax enacted in 1919: see Zimring, supra footnote 11 at pp. 135-6. (The tax aspect explains why enforcement has been in the hands of the U.S. Treasury. (However, State legislation, such as in New York, may have had some impact in Canada. 17 S. 118(4), as enacted by Stat. Can. 1921, c. 25, s. 2. 18 Stat. Can. 1933, c. 25. 19 Hansard, House of Commons, March 29, 1933, p. 3512. - 6 - minimum penalty in these circumstances and the Commons accepted the Senate's position- 20 Section 122, as enacted by the 1933 Act, included one minimum sentence, a minimum sentence of 2 years in addition to any other sentence if the offender carried a handgun while committing a criminal offence; this was not changed by the Senate. 21

Another major change brought in by the 1933 Act was to bring sellers of handguns within the permit system. There was considerable doubt as to how far the Federal Government could go in regulating sales. 22 The Minister of Justice stated: "In this bill we have sought to regulate the sale, without actually prohibiting it, and we believe that in the regulations proposed in the bill we are within our constitutional rights". 23

A third major change was to tighten further the issuing of permits to carry'handguns by limiting the circumstances in which the permits could be issued to cases where the person "requires a pistol or revolver for the protection of life or property, or for target practice in a regularly organized shooting club, approved by the Attorney-General of the province". 24 The target practice provision was not included in the Commons Bill, but was inserted by the Senate. 25 In the following year, this leg- islation was changed to permit a carrying permit "upon sufficient cause being shown". Thus the collectors could add to their col- lections, and target shooting did not necessarily have to be through an organized shooting club.

20 Hansard, House of Commons, April 28, 1933, p. 4397 21 This was extended to long-guns by Stat. Can. 1938.c. 44, s 7. The section was given a narrow interpretation in R. v Quon (1948), 92 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), the Court holding that it did not apply to a gun used in an armed robbery. The section was repealed by Stat. Can. 1951, c. 47, s. 7. 22 See Hansard, Houàe of Commons, March 20, 1933, p. 3147 and March 29, 1933, p. 3512. 23 Hansard, House of Commons, March 29, 1933, p. 3512. 24 S. 120 as enacted by Stat. Can. 1933, c. 25 s. 1 25 See Hansard, House of Commons, April 28, 1933, p. 4397. These highly restrictive provisions of 1933 were brought in, as Hugh Guthrie, the Minister of Justice, stated in the n House, 26 in response to many requests which have come from municipal bodies, boards of trade and various other societies throughout Canada, asking that more drastic legislation be passed in regard to the use or carrying of pistols and revolvers." It may be that the lack of opposition to the legislation was due to the fact, noted by the Minister of 27 Justice, "that there is no manufacture in Canada of pistols or revolvers". No doubt this "drastic" legislation was designated to cope with the rise of gangsterism in North America associated with prohibition and the anti-gambling laws.

The following year, 1934, the Government, perhaps 28 influenced by Roosevelt's New Deal gun control proposals, brought in a new Bill providing for the registration of all handguns, wherever kept. There was no discretion to refuse registration; the Act provided that the R.C.M.P. or any person authorized by a provincial Attorney General "shall register all revolvers and pistols in respect of which application for registration is made". 28 During the Second World War all

26 Hansard, House of Commons, March 29, 1933, at p. 3512. 27 Hansard, House of Commons, March 20, 1933, at p. 3147. 28 The U.S. National Firearms Act of 1934, which was strongly backed by the U.S. Justice Department, had provided for federal registration of all handguns, but this was deleted in the House of Representatives: see Zimring, supra footnote 11 at pp. 137-8. The passage of the Act was expedited by the occurrence of John Dillinger's escape from jail: see Zimring, supra footnote 11 at p. 148. There was little relevant U.S. Federal legislation of consequence until 1968. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (supported by the National Rifle Association) was according to Zimring, supra footnote 11 at p. 140, only "a thin coat of regulation over all firearms and many classes of ammunition suitable for handguns." - 8 -

firearms were registered but these records were destroyed after the war.

A full revision of the Act was made in 1951, and this, with some changes in the 1953 and 1954 Code and other amend- ments, lasted until the revision of 1968-69. The 1951 legislation set up a single registry system under the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. 30 (In the 1934 legislation, centralized recording was attempted administratively through co-operative efforts.) It also included for the first time fully automatic weapons within the registration and permit provisions. (The legislation was somewhat confusing because "firearms" were artificially defined as handguns and automatic weapons.) The legislation was in one respect less restrictive in that purchasers of handguns could insist on registration if they kept their guns at home or at their places of business. It was only if a purchaser wished to carry the gun that a permit was needed and in such a case there was apparently a measure of discretion left to th è issuer because of the word "may" in the section. 31

In 1968-69, the firearms laws were revised once again, 32 and have not been amended since. The original Bill proposed by the Government (which died on the order paper when an election was called) was much more restrictive than the subsequently introduced Bill which finally passed into law in 1969. The result of this latter Bill is the current law relating to gun control which is described in the following section of the paper.

30. S. 124, as enacted by s. 7 of Stat. Can. 1951, c. 47 31. S. 125, as enacted by s. 7 of Stat. Can. 1951, c. 47 32. Again, the 1968 legislation and the events preceding its passage (e.g. the assassinatione of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King) undoubtedly played a role in shaping the 1968-69 Canadian legislation. For .a des- cription of the background to the 1968 U.S. legislation see Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special (1973), and Zimring, "Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968", (1975) 4 Journal of Legal.Studies 133. 9

33 B. Current Canadian Firearms Laws

(i) Prohibited, Restricted and Other Weapons The principal provisions of the Criminal Code governing the possession and use of firearms are Sections 82 to 106. These provisions establish three basic categories with respect to firearms - prohibited weapons, restricted weapons and other weapons (S.82). It is an offence to possess any prohibited weapon under any circumstances 34 (sections 89 and 90). The only "weapon" relating to firearms which is currently prohibited under S.82 is a silencer.

The "restricted weapon" category currently includes only the following types of firearms: "(a) any firearm designed, altered or intended . and fired by the action of one hand, to be aimed "(b) any firearm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger, "(c) any firearm that is less than twenty-six inches in length or that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than twenty-six inches by folding, telescoping or otherwise."

In practice, this "restricted" category includes all handguns (sidearms) and all fully automatic firearms. In addition, the Code gives power to the Governor-in-Council to declare other weapons (except shotguns or rifles "of a kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes") to be "restricted weapons". Semi-automatic commando rifles have also been declared restricted weapons by virtue of this provision.

33. This and the following section of the paper are adapted from Philip C. Stenning's paper entitled "Firearms and the Private Security Industry in Canada" (as yet unpublished, Toronto, September 1975) 34. The only exception to this prohibition exempts peace officers and certain other specific persons under certain circumstances, and is to be found in S.100 of the Code. - 10 -

Under S.82(2) of the Code, firearms are deemed not to be prohibited or restricted where it is proved that they are not "designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other missile at a muzzle velocity exceeding five hundred feet per second or to discharge a shot, bullet or other missile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 'five hundred feet per second." In practice, this provision exempts virtually all pellet guns (e.g. air guns, BB guns, etc.) and many antique guns (e.g. muskets, flintlocks, etc.) from the "prohibited" and "restricted" categories under the Code.

(ii) Registration Certificates

Section 91 of the Code makes it an offence for a person to have in his possession a restricted weapon "for which he does not have a registration certificate issued to him". In Sections 82 and 98, the Code provides for a registration system which may be administered either by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and his appointed agents alone, or by him jointly with the Provincial Attorneys General and their appointed agents. The agents, whether appointed by the R.C.M.P. èommissioner or by a Provincial Attorney General, are known as local registrars of firearms ( 5.82(1)). The Provinces are thus given the option of leaving the registration of restricted weapons entirely up to the R.C.M.P., or of assuming responsibility for the initial processing of registration applications by making their own local registrar appointments. A third possibility, which has been adopted by a number of Provinces, is that responsibility is shared between local registrars appointed by the Commissioner (in practice always members of the R.C.M.P.) and local registrars appointed by the Provincial Attorney General (in practice nearly always members of Provincial or municipal police forces).

Whichever scheme is adopted, however, the procedure for the il registration of a restricted firearm is essentially the same. The applicant files his application with the local registrar of firearms,II who issues a "transportation permit" permitting the applicant to - 1 1 - bring the weapon to the registrar for examination. When satisfied that the application is in proper form, and that the weapon bears the required degree of identification (S.98(2) (h)), the local registrar forwards the application to the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. (in practice the R.C.M.P. Firearms Registration Branch in Ottawa), together with his rec-oMmendations (if any) as to whether a registration certificate should be issued (S.98(3)). The decision whether or not to issue a certificate, however, rests solely with the Commissioner of the who is also charged with the responsibility of maintaining an up-to-date registry of all registration certificates issued (S.98(1)). While copies of registration applications are retained by local registrars, the only commlete records of registration certificates issued appear to be the central records kept by the Commissioner in Ottawa.

A registration certificate only gives its holder the right to possess the firearm at his.dwelling-house or at his place of business, for Section 93 of the Code makes it an offence to possess a restricted weapon elsewhere unless the person possessing the weapon is the holder of a permit under which he may lawfully so possess it. Without such a permit, therefore, a person may only maintain a restricted weapon at a single address to which it is registered: whether this is a business address or a private home address is not necessarily indicated on the registration application or on the registration certificate.

(iii) "Transportation" and "Carrying" Permits

If the owner of a registered restricted firearm wishes to carry the firearm off the premises to which it is registered, he must obtain either a "transportation permit" under S.97(3) of the Code, or a "carrying permit" under S.97(2). "Transportation permits" are generally issued solely for single transfers of a weapon from one address to another (e.g. from an old home to a

35 The Code provides that "The Commissioner may refuse to issue a registration certificate where he has notice of any matter that may render it desirable in the interests of the safety 9f other persons that the applicant should not possess a restricted weapon" (S.99(4)). There is such a retusal. an appeal against - 12 - new house, from a city home to a cottage, or from a business address to a home address), or to target-shooters or gun collectors visiting Canada from abroad, for a short period of time (e.g. for the duration of a competition here). "Carrying permits" under S.97(2), on the other hand, are issued to allow 1 regular or frequent possession of the weapon off the premises to which it is registered, and may only be issued in cases where the applicant requires to possess the weapon off the premises:

(a) to protect life or property, (b) for use in connection with his lawful profession or occupation, (c) for use in target practice under the auspices of a shooting club approved for the purpose of this section by the Attorney General of the Province in which the premises of the shooting club are located, or (d) for use in target practice in accordance with the .conditions attached to the permit.

Section 97(1) of the Code provides for an administration scheme for the issuance of "transportation" or "carrying" nermits which essentially parallels that provided for the registration of firearms. Thus, permits may be issued only by the Commissioner I of the R.C.M.P. or his appointees, or by a Provincial Attorney General or his appointees. In practice, but not necessarily or always, persons who have been appointed local registrars under S.82(1) are often also appointed under S.97(1) to issue "transportation" and "carrying permits". The essential difference I between the two schemes of administration, however, is that while local registrars merely process applications for registration for issuance centrally by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa, persons appointed under S.97(1) to issue permits, are. empowered to issue the permits themselves without reference to the Commissioner. The result is that records of permits are maintained locally, and not centrally as is the case with records II - 13 - of registration certificates.

Unlike registration certificates, "transportation" and rcarrying" permits are valid only for a specified period of l itime; in the case of "transportation" permits, this is usually no more than a few days, whereas "carrying" permits are usually valid for one year, unless sooner revoked. The issuance of such permits appears to be entirely discretionary, and a refusal to issue one is not subject to appeal to the 36 courts. A person who is authorized to issue permits may attach to them "such reasonable conditions relating to the use, carriage or possession of the weapon or ammunition as he deems desirable in the interests of the safety of other persons" (S.97(9)).

(iv) Other Permits

Four other kinds of permits are provided for under S.97 of the Code. A "transport for registration" permit may be 'issued by a local registrar of firearms to allow an applicant for a registration certificate for a restricted weapon to bring the weapon to the registrar for examination by him (S.97(7)).

Section 87 of the Code makes it an offence to sell, barter give, lend, transfer or deliver "any firearm" (i.e. including long guns which are not restricted) or ammunition to a person under the age of 16 years who is not the holder of a permit under which he may lawfully possess it, and S.97(7) allows for such permits to be issued by a local registrar of firearms to persons who are 14 years old or more, but under 16. Persons under the age of 14 years who live in certain designated areas, and who are judged by a local registrar to need a firearm "to hunt game for food or' family support" may also be issued permits for this purpose by a local registrar (S.97(5.)). Permits in either of these categories generally remain valid until the holder reaches the age of 16 years, unless sooner revoked. Their 36 This was confirmed in the case of Re Purdy (1975) 20c.c.c. - (2d.) 247. There is an appeal against a revocation of a permit, however, but not against a refusal to renew one. - 14 -

issuance is discretionary and a refusal is not subject to appeal to the courts. If such a permit is revoked, however, the holder has a right to appeal this decision (S.99). Conditions may be attached to these permits, as in the case of "transportation" and "carrying" permits.

An important provision of the Code is S.101(b) which allows a person lawfully in possession of a firearm to permit another person to use it "under his immediate supervision in the same manner as he may lawfully use it", and allows such other person to so use the firearm. The effect of this provision is to exempt persons from the need for a permit of any kind when they are under the immediate supervision of someone who either . has such a permit or is not required to have one. In particular, these are the only circumstances (except for children living in designated âreas who need to hunt for food or family support) under which children under 14 years of age can legally possess or use firearms 37 or ammunition of any kind.

Section 96(2) requires anyone who carries on a business which includes the selling at retail, repairing, or taking in pawn of restricted weapons, to have a permit for this purpose. Under 5.97(4) such a permit may be issued by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. or his designate, or by a Provincial Attorney General or his designate. In practice a limited number of local registrars of firearms are usually designated for this purpose. Such permits are generally valid until revoked, and may have conditions attached to them (relating to safe storage requirements etc.). There is an appeal against a refusal to issue one, or a revocation of one (S.99).

37. "Firearms" are defined in.S.82 to include only weapons which are "capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to the person". Although in theory this could include most of the more sophisticated air and gas guns, in practice such weapons have not been considered as being included in the definition of firearms under the Code. - 15 -

(v) Other Criminal Code RestrictiOns

Since only "restricted weapons" are required to be registered, possession and use (except by minors) of firearms which are not restricted require neither registration certificates nor carrying permits. In practice, this includes virtually all long guns (rifles and shotguns) except fully automatic weapons. 38 While such weapons are not subject to registration or permits, however, their possession and use is of course subject to the more general legal restraints provided for in other sections of the Criminal Code which apply to all firearms whether restricted or not. Chief of these are:

S.83 - possession of a weapon or imitation thereof, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence (maximum penalty: 5 years). S.84 - possession of a weapon while attending, or on one's way to attend, a public meeting (maximum penalty: 6 months or $500 fine or both).

S.85 - carrying a weapon concealed, without a permit authorizing one lawfully to so carry it (maximum penalty: 5 years).

S.86 - without lawful excuse, pointing a loaded or unloaded firearm at another person, or using, carrying or possessing any firearm or ammunition in a manner that is dangerous to the safety of other persons (maximum penalty: 5 years).

S.87 - selling, giving, etc., a firearm to a person under 16 years who does not have a permit under which he may lawfully possess it (maximum penalty: 6 months or $500 fine, or both).

S.88 - knowingly selling, giving, etc. a firearm to a person who is prohibited by court order from possessing one, or who is of unsound mind (maximum penalty: 6 months or $500 fine, or both).

S.171 -discharging a firearm so as to disturb the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling house (maximum penalty: 6 months or $500 fine, or both). - 16 -

In addition, stringent penalties are provided for possession, use, etc. of prohibited weapons or of restricted weapons in contravention of registration or permit requirements:

S.89 - possession etc. of a prohibited weapon, and 11 selling such weapons (maximum penalty: 5 years) S.90 - possession of a prohibited weapon in a motor vehicle or being in a motor vehicle knowing it contains such a weapon (maximum penalty: 2 years) S.91 - possession of a restricted weapon without having a registration certificate for it (maximum penalty: 2 years). S.92 - selling, giving a restricted weapon to a person who does not have a "transport for registration" permit (maximum penalty: 2 years). S.93 - possession of a restricted weapon outside the place to which it is registered, without a permit under which it may be lawfully so possessed (maximum penalty: 2 years). S.94 °- being in a motor vehicle knowing that it contains a restricted weapon for which no-one has a permit 11 permitting him or her to possess such weapon in the motor vehicle (maximum penalty: 2 years).

Section 95 of the Code gives the courts power to prohibit persons convicted of offences involving firearms from possessing firearms for periods of up to five years. Anyone who possesses a firearm while so prohibited is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for up to five years.

S.102(1) - finding a prohibited weapon, or a restricted weapon 11 which is obviously lost or abandoned, and failing to deliver it forthwith to a peace officer or a lama regist —r or report to such person that it has been found (maximum penalty: 2 years). S.102(2) - failing to report the loss of a restricted weapon registered to you, to a peace officer or local registrar (maximum penalty: 2 years). - 17 -

S.102(3) - alter, deface or remove a serial number on a restricted weapon, or alter, deface or falsify a registration certificate (maximum penalty: 2 years).

Sections 103 and 104 of the Code give police the power to seize restricted or prohibited weapons from persons whom they find in illegal possession of them, or where they have been, or are, involved in an offence under the Code, and permits searches of persons, vehicles or premises other than private residences for this purpose. Section 104 also permits the seizure of any firearm or ammunition illegally in the possession of a person under 16 years of age.

Under S.105, the Attorney General of a Province or his agent may apply to the courts for a warrant to seize firearms or ammunition from a person with respect to whom the court is satisfied that "there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of that person or of other persons, that that person should own or have in his possession, custody or control" such firearms or ammunition. A seizure made under this Section may be followed by a hearing, as a result of which the court may order the weapons sold, returned to the person from whom they were seized or to the lawful owner or otherwise disposed of. In addition, in appropriate cases, the court may order that the sale, giving etc. to the person from whom the seizure was made, of any such weapons shall be prohibited for such period as the court thinks fit. An appeal against such decisions is provided for.

(vi) Provincial and Municipal Laws

A wide variety of Provincial statutes and municipal by-laws also regulate the possession and use of firearms. Chief of these, at the Provincial level, are statutes regulating the hunting of - 18 -

19 game and other wildlife. In addition, however, statutes dealing with such diverse topics as cemeteries” forest 41 42 fire prevention, elections, police"3 andand the licensing of private security personnel, 44 may be found which regulate the use and possession of firearms by various persons under various circumstances. Also, British Columbia and Newfoundland both have Firearms Acts. The Newfoundland Firearms Act, 45 which was passed prior to Newfoundland joining Confederation in 1949, and has not since been amended, purports to require anyone wishing to "purchase, have in his possession, use or carry any firearm", to obtain a certificate issued under the Act. Such a certificate will only be granted to someone "who has a good reason for requiring such a certificate and can be permitted to have in his possession, use and carry a firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace." . The Act appears to cover hunting guns as well as fire- arms which may be restricted under the Criminal Code; but it is arguable that the entire Act, for this_reason, is unconsti- tutional since this is an area of law which has been occupied by federal legislation. In any event, the Act does not appear

39. For a description of such laws in so far as they deal with hunter safety and training, see the paper entitled "Hunter Safety Training in Canada", below. 40. E.g. sections 36-37 of the Manitoba Cemeteries Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. C-30 (for texts of fns. 41-45, see next page. 41. E.g. sections 29 and 34 of the Ontario Forest Fires Prevention Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 179. 42. E.g. section 102(1) of the Manitoba Election Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. E-30. 43. E.g. sections 3-11 of Ontario Regulation 679, R.R.O. 1970 made under the Ontario Police Act, R.S.O. 1970, c.351. 44. E.g. section 13 of Alberta Regulation 188/73, made under the Alberta Private Investigators and Security Guards Act R.S.A. 1970, C.283.

45. Firearms Act, 1966, C.46 (B.C.) and Firearms Act, R.S.N. 1970, C. 129 (Newf.) - 19 -

46 to be enforced in Newfoundland at the present time. Municipal by-laws dealing with firearms are generally limited to prohibitions against the discharge of firearms in built-up areas, public parks, etc.

C. Administration of Criminal Code Registration and Permit Provisions

The administration of the registration (S.98) and permit (S.97) provisions of the Criminal Code is by no means uniform throughout Canada, and in fact varies quite considerably between different Provinces. As was noted earlier, the Code allows for responsibility for the administration of these provisions to be shared between federal authorities (under the general supervision and control of the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P.) and Provincial authorities (under the supervision and control of the Provincial Attorney General, Minister of Justice or Solicitor General, as the case may be). In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, these provisions are administered by the R.C.M.P. under the direction of the Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General. As will be apparent from the description of the various Provincial jurisdictions which follows, the manner in which responsibility in this area is shared between Federal and Provincial authorities (and between Provincial and Municipal police authorities) varies substantially from one Province to another, and is largely dependent on the attitude taken towards it by the Provincial Attorney General, Minister of Justice or Solicitor General, as the case may be.

British Columbia All appointments under S.82(1) as local registrars, and under S.97(1) to issue permits, are made by the Provincial Attorney General in British Columbia. A local registrar is

46. Section 3(1) of the B.C. Wildlife Act, 1966, C.55 also requires a licence to "carry a firearm", and is similarly open to question as to its con- stitutionality. - 20 - appointed for each of 11 municipal police forces, as well as three registrars for the Vancouver City Police Department. In addition, every member of the R.C.M.P. in the Province is a local registrar for the purpose of firearms registration although in practice all applications must be reviewed by a senior officer (generally a detachment commander). Only specified personnel at the R.C.M.P.'s "E" Division Headquarters in Victoria, however, are authorized to issue carrying permits by virtue of S.97(1), and local police or R.C.M.P. therefore do not have authority to issue such permits. The result is that while central records of carrying permits exist, no such central records of registrations are available in the Province.

Alberta In Alberta, each of the five municipal police forces in the Province (Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Camrose) has one person appointed as a local registrar (under S.92(1)) and to issue permits (under S.97(1)). In addition, at present all members of the R.C.M.P. in the Province are designated as local registrars, and have authority to issue permits. The R.C.M.P. in the Province, however, after consultation with the Provincial Solicitor General, have agreed to restructure their system so that in future all applications to the R.C.M.P. for carrying permits will be handled at the Divisional Headquarters in Edmonton. Plans to establish a central registry of registrations and permits issued in the Province have fallen victim to budget cuts, and are not expected to be implemented in the near future. Central records are therefore not currently available in the Province.

Saskatchewan In this Province, each of five municipal police forces (Estevan, Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw) have one person appointed by the Provincial Attorney General as a local - 21 - registrar and to issue permits. A sixth municipal force (Weyburn) has two such appointees. All members of the R.C.M.P. in the Province are designated as local registrars. In addition, between one and three persons in each of six R.C.M.P. subdivisions in the Province are authorized to issue permits. No central records of registrations or permits are therefore currently available in this Province.

Manitoba

The R.C.M.P. are now responsible for all registration applications and permit issuance within the Province of Manitoba. All members of the force are designated as local registrars for the purpose of registrations, but only N.C.O.'s (generally detachment commanders) are authorized to issue permits. If it is intended to deny a permit, the application must be referred to Divisional Headquarters, but not otherwise. No central records of either registrations or permits are therefore available in the Province.

Ontario Five Chiefs of Police (in Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton and London) have appointments as local registrars under S.82(1) and to issue permits under S.97(1), from the Provincial Attorney General. These five appointees deal only with applicants living within their own respective police jurisdictions. In addition a Provincial Registrar and a Deputy Provincial Registrar (members of the Ontario Provincial Police's Registration Branch) have been appointed. These two appointees have authority to issue pc-*rmits and entertain registration applications in all areas of the Province other than those covered by the five local registrars, and for maintaining central cumulative records for the entire Province. The local registrars are required to furnish the Provincial Registrar with information necessary for these records, but they are autonomous appointments and are apparently not subject to direction of any kind from the Provincial Registrar. This - 22 -

latter does act in an advisory capacity.

Quebec Registration and issuance of permits in Quebec is centralized 11 in the headquarters of the Quebec Police Force. Four officers in the force (the Assistant Director-General, an inspector, a lieutenant and a sergeant) constitute the only persons appointed by the Quebec Department of Justice as local registrars and to issue permits under S.97 of the Code. Applications are made to local detachments of the Q.P.F., but are processed at the Force's headquarters in Montreal. No municipal police in Quebec have responsibilities in this area. 11 New Brunswick

In New Brunswick, the system of registration and permit 1/ issuance is currently under review. Appointments as registrars and under S.97 appear in some cases to have been made some 11 years ago, and there remains some uncertainty at the present time as to exactly who has appointments to do what. As far as I could gather, however, the current situation is that the 11 Chief of the Moncton Police Force, the Deputy Chiefs of the St. John and Fredericton Police Forces, and a civilian member of the St. John Police Force all have appointments under 5 .82(1) as local registrars. In addition, the Deputy Chief of the St. John Police Force holds an appointment under S.27(1) to issue permits. Provincial policing in New Brunswick is provided by the R.C.M.P., and all members of the R.C.M.P. in the Province have been authorized by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. as local registrars and to issue permits. While registration applications are processed at the detachment level, however, in practice carrying permits must all be approved by staff at the Divisional Headquarters in Fredericton. On approval, they too are issued at the detachment level. The result of this 11 arrangement appears to be that no central records of registration - 23 - or permits are available in the Province.

Nova Scotia

In Nova Scotia, all registrations and permits.are processed through the R.C.M.P. who provide Provincial policing. No municipal forces have responsibilities in this area. As in New Brunswick, all R.C.M.P. members are authorized as local registrars; in practice however, only detachment commanders issue carrying permits, and only detachment commanders normally act as registrars. Unlike New Brunswick, however, carrying permit applications are only referred to the Divisional Headquarters for decision in exceptional cases not falling within the guidelines set down for the Division. Central records relating to registrations and permits, therefore, appear to be similarly unavailable in this Province.

Prince Edward Island

Arrangements in this Province are identical to those in Nova Scotia, except that all carrying permits are issued through the R.C.M.P.'s Divisional Headquarters.

Newfoundland

Responsibility for this area in Newfoundland is shared between the Newfoundland Constabulary, which deals with applications emanating from within the St. John's area (the Constabulary's practical jurisdiction), and the R.C.M.P., who deal with all other applications. The Deputy Chief of the Constabulary holds an appointment as a local registrar and to issue permits. As in other maritime Provinces, every member of the R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland is authorized as a local registrar and to issue permits. All registrations and permits are dealt with at the detachment level in Newfoundland, however, and a similar lack - 24 - 1 of central records exists, therefore, as in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. 11 The principal results of this diversity in the administration 1/ of the registration and permit provisions of the Criminal Code are: (a) an absence, in most jurisdictions, of centralized records, through examination of which the administration of the firearms I/ laws might be monitored for uniformity, consistency, etc.; and (b) an absence of uniform and consistent policy in the application 11 of the law across the nation. In some Provinces, however, uniformity and attempts have been made to achieve a degree of /I consistency in the application of the law. Undoubtedly, the most comprehensive of these attempts is that undertaken in Alberta II in 1975. After a substantial review of existing policies and practices within the Province, the Alberta Solicitor General

issued a document entitled Policy Instructions - Restricted 11 Weapons: Guidelines to Local Registrars of Firearms. These policy instructions are comprehensive in scope and contain II detailed directives with respect both to the handling of registration applications and the issuance of permits. In order to maximize 1/ uniformity, the instructions require that cases of doubt be referred to the Province's Solicitor General's Department for clarification. II Ot In Ontario, general policy for registrars is set out in le a Firearms Manual, prepared some time ago by the Ministry of the Attorney General, and issued "for guidance of local registrars II and police in the Province". In addition to the Manual, ad hoc memoranda on specific matters relating to registrations and permits are occasionally issued by the responsible member of II • the Provincial Solicitor General's Ministry (which, because it is responsible for policing in the Province, shares 11 responsibility, with the Attorney General's Ministry, for the administration of the firearms laws). It appears, however, that II ' 11 - 25 - neither the Firearms Manual, nor the ad hoc memoranda have always been regarded as binding by all the persons appointed as registrars in the Province, with the result that they have not always been followed uniformly throughout the Province. In some cases, registrars have adopted less restrictive policies, and in others more restrictive ones, than those spelled out in the Manual and in memoranda. Meetings between the six registrars and the officials of the two Ministries are occasionally held in an attempt to eliminate such divergencies, but appear to have been only partially successful in achieving this goal.

In Saskatchewan no general policy manual exists. Occasionally, however, directives dealing with specific issues are sent to registrars by the Crown Solicitor.

In Quebec, uniformity is hardly a problem, since all applications for registrations and permits are processed through the Quebec Police Force's headquarters in Montreal. The Force'S Permit Branch recently revised their policies relating to firearms applications, and have developed a comprehensive document setting out the new policies.

In the remaining Provinces, officials have been content to follow policies adopted by the R.C.M.P. Divisions in their respective jurisdictions. Each of these R.C.M.P. Divisions operates according to its own Divisional Instructions, which originate in Ottawa. The Instructions, which are not the same for each Division, were drawn up by the R.C.M.P. after consultation with each of the Provincial governments concerned. There appears to be no formal policy documents in relation to firearms applications, however, which have emanated directly from any of these six Provincial governments. 47

47 The British Columbia government, however, has effectively stopped the issuance of permits in relation to fully automatic weapons, by refusing to give authority to anyone to issue such permits. - 26 -

In conclusion, on the subject of administration of the firearms laws in Canada, it may be said that there is little uniformity in the application of these laws throughout the country. This lack of uniformity, furthermore, is to some extent tacitly encouraged by the legislation itself which: (a) places no limit on the number of persons who may be appointed to administer the laws; (b) makes no provision for regulations through which uniform policies might be promoted; and (c) grants wide discretionary powers to local registrars of firearms and to persons appointed to issue permits under S.97, which in many cases are not subject to appeal to the courts.

Under these conditions, considerable divergencies in policy have developed. Thus, for instance, in some Provinces applications for registration of fully automatic weapons will not be entertained despite the fact that local registrars do not appear to have any lt discretion to refuse such applications under the Criminal Code. In some jurisdictions, a "good reason" is required before an application to register a restricted weapon will be accepted, despite the fact that . the Code does not appear to require any reason to be given. Some jurisdictions will not entertain ap- plications for registration of restricted weapons where the applicant wishes to have the weapon registered to his business premises. Interpretations of what constitutes a "profession or occupation" for which a carrying permit may appropriately be issued under S.97(1) vary significantly between different jurisdictions. In some cases, proof of competency in the use of a restricted weapon (or at least successful completion of a "recognized" course) is required before a carrying permit will be issued, whereas in others it is not. Similarly, policy I varies widely with respect to the conditions under which permits i to possess firearms and ammunition will be issued to persons under the age of 16 years. I - 27 -

While the administration of the firearms laws throughout Canada does not appear to have been the subject of any comprehensive empirical study, divergencies in policy of the kind described in the preceding paragraph are readily acknowledged by many officials. They are frequently explained as a virtually inevitable product of the existing laws and of the administrative structures set up to enforce them, in which a great deal of the decision-making is decentralized, discretionary, and not subject to formal policy guidelines.

D. The Move for Further Reform

Despite the fact that the last amendments to the federal gun control laws are of quite recent origin, pressure for further reforms has been growing once more in recent years. To a large extent, these pressures may be explained as a response to a substantial number of reported (and in many instances, widely publicized) firearms "incidents", involving hostage-takings, murders followed by suicides, killings of law enforcement personnel, as well as reported increases in the use of firearms during the commission of crimes such as robbery, extortion and kidnappings. While the available statistics on firearms use and abuse examined in the paper "Guns in Canada: A Review of Statistics", below, and the positions of the major interest groups in the gun control debate are described in the paper "Gun Control: A Discussion of Public Reaction", below, it is intended here merely to summarize the major options for reform which have been 48 given consideration in recent years.

48 The reader is also referred to Dean Friedland's article, "Gun Control: The Options" (see footnote 1, above) for a further discussion of some of these options. - 28 -

Suggestions for reform vary significantly in their approach to gun control. Some concentrate on greater regulation of firearms ownership and use by all persons, while others emphasize the control (usually by increasing penalties) of firearms misuse by criminals. Yet others are aimed at increasing safety by legislating minimum standards of safe storage and handling of firearms, and a training requirement for firearms owners and users. In the catalogue of proposals which follows, each of these different approaches will be found reflected to varying degrees. •

Enlargement of "prohibited" and "restricted" categories: suggestions along these lines usually advocate removing certain 1/ of those weapons which are currently "restricted" (e.g. fully automatic weapons, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, and I/ cheap low-quality handguns (the so-called "Saturday Niaht Specials" )) into the "prohibited" category, so that private 1/ ownership of them would be completely outlawed. Extreme 'propbnents of such a reform would place all handguns in the 11 "prohibited" category, arguing that there is no justification for private ownership of such weapons in peace time. Such a position, however, is strongly disputed by target shooters and 1/ collectors. This kind of reform has also included suggestions I that certain weapons which are not currently restricted at all a (e.g. semi-automatic guns, and other guns not commonly used for hunting or sporting purposes), should be placed in the "restricted" ir' category, with the attendant registration and permit requirements.

Reasons to own restricted weapons: as was noted above, the law currently only requires a valid reason to be given for possession of a restricted weapon if the owner wishes to "carry" it elsewhere than at the place to which it is registered (i.e. other than at his home or place of business). Some advocates - 29 -

for reform have suggested that any ownership or possession of restricted weapons, whether in one's home, place of business or elsewhere, should only be permitted where some valid for possessing such a weapon can be demonstrated. "Valid reasons" usually suggested are those which currently apply before a "carrying permit" under S.97 of the Criminal Code will be issued, although there are those who advocate that the protection of property should be eliminated from this list. Proponents of this view suggest that demonstration of a yalid reason such as those proposed should be a condition of the issuance of a registration certificate for a restricted weapon. Some advocates of more restrictive registration requirements such as these, have also suggested that owners should be

:required to re-register weapons periodically (e.g. every 49 five years) ; in this way a periodic review of the validity of the applicant's need for a restricted weapon would be effected.

Proof of competence: many people have suggested that proof H of competence in the safe handling and care of the weapcn should j be required by law as a condition of the issuance of a registration certificate or permit for a restricted weapon. Advocates of this reform generally suggest that courses given by private organizations (e.g. gun clubs, community colleges etc.) should be approved for this purpose, or that officially sponsored courses should be established.

Proof of fitness to own a gun: while current laws allow registration certificates and permits to be refused where tue have notice of "any matter that may render it authorities desirable in the interests of the safety of other persons that the applicant should not possess a restricted weapon", some advocates of reform have suggested that specific criteria of fitness to possess a firearm should be spelled out

49 Currently, a restricted weapon need only be re-registered on change of ownership. - 30 -

in the law. Suggestions as to what these criteria should be, and what would be the implications of meeting all of them, vary considerably. Among the suggested disabilities are: conviction of an offence of violence; possession of any criminal record; a record of mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or frequent drunkenness; being on bail; being on parole; a history of domestic violence or quick temper (whether or not it has resulted in criminal charges); conviction of any offence involving firearms; involvement in a firearms accident involving personal injury to anyone; a history of association with known criminals. While most advocates of such criteria suggest that they should be adopted merely as guidelines for the exercise of discretion by the authorities who issue permits, etc., in some cases the criteria have been suggested as legal bars to ownership etc. of guns. The suggestion has also been made that applicants for registration certificates or permits should be required to

find.one or more persons who are prepared to be "guarantors" of 1/ their fitness, i.e. who will indicate in a written statement that they know of no reason why the applicant is unfit to own a weapon. Such suggestions usually recommend that persons who should qualify as guarantors should be similar to those who qualify as auarantors for a passport application..

Extension of controls to long guns: many advocates of reform have suggested that current controls should be extended to cover ownership of all firearms other than pellet guns (e.g. air guns, B.B. guns etc.) and certain antique guns not in common use. Some have also suggested that controls be extended to include the acquisition or possession of ammunition as well as firearms. . Many who advocate extension of controls to long guns also propose the application of competence and fitness criteria to owners and users of such guns, in the same manner as they are - 31 -

recommended for owners and users of restricted weapons.

(a) registration of long guns: the most extremc proposals of control over long guns recommend registration cf all firearms. This proposal, if implemented, would effectiw,.ly result in all firearms being treated in the same manner as restricted weapons are now treated.

(h) licences for ownership and/or users: less extreme advocates of control over long guns simply recommend that anyone who wishes to own long guns should be required to obtain a licence for this purpose. Licences would be renewable periodically, allowing the applicants' competence and fitness to be reviewed every so often. Proposals of this kind vary from suggestions for universal licensing of all owners and users, to suggestions for licensing only those wishing to acquire new firearms (thus only gradually affecting the total gun-owning population). Persons who qualified for licences under either of such proposals, however, would not be limited as to the number of long guns they would be permitted to possess, as might be the case under a program of registration of long guns; the emphasis of licensing would be on ensuring the fitness and competence of gun owners and users, rather than on registerina the guns themselves. Some proponents of licensing have suagested that in appropriate cases, a valid Provincial hunting licence could be a substitute for a licence under the Criminal Code, thus avoiding administrative duplication and effecting economy in the administration of controls.

Raising age limits: it has been suggested that the current provisions of the Code requiring persons uhder 16 years of age to obtain a permit to possess any firearm or ammunition, should be changed to require anyone under the age of 18 years to require such a permit. Some advocates of reform have gone further and - 32 - suggested that possession of such a permit should be the only circumstances under which minors should be allowed to possess firearms or ammunition, and that the current S.101(b) of the Code (whereby a minor can possess firearms or ammunition without a permit as long as he is under the immediate supervision of an adult, or of a minor who has a permit) should be repealed. Some people who advocate this latter change, however, also recommend that minors' permits should be available to persons 12 years of age or more (rather than 14 years, as at present).

Depositories: a more extreme proposal for the control of long guns involves the suggestion that depositories be established, and that firearms owners be required to leave their weapons at such places when they are not using them for hunting or sporting purposes. This proposal, which would virtually outlaw private possession of firearms in the home etc., has very few supporters, however.

'"Cooling off" period: many people have suggested the imposition of a mandatory "cooling off" period between the purchase and receipt of a firearm. The period suggested varies considerably, but is most commonly recommended to be 48 hours. Proponents of this reform feel that it might result in the prevention of many killings and suicides committed in the heat of passion or on sudden impulse.

Banning mail-order sales of firearms: advocates of controls over long guns have often also advocated the banning of mail- order sales of firearms, in the belief that such sales make it too easy for firearms to be acquired by unsuitable persons, including young children.

Increased control over the firearms industry: the most common suggestions along these lines involve recommendations that - 33 - existing controls over businesses which include the selling, repairing or taking in pawn of restricted weapons, should be extended to include businesses which deal with any type of firearm, and to include importers, manufacturers and shippers. Extreme proponents of such reforms recommend that the retail sale of firearms and ammunition should be under extensive government control in much the same manner as the sale of liquor is now controlled.

Liability for careless handling and storage of firearms: advocateof this kind of reform have recommended that criminal and/or civil liability should be imposed on anyone who fails to handle or store a firearm in such a way as to protect others from actual or potential harm. Proponents of such measures usually recommend such standards as: not storing a firearm and its ammunition in the same place when not in use; requiring firearms to have a trigger lock attached to them when not in use; requiring rifle bolts to be stored separately from the rest of the weapon; requiring firearms or ammunition to be stored in a locked cabinet when not in use etc. etc. Proposals in this vein also include recommendations such as that it be an offence to fail to report the loss, theft or finding of any firearm (or ammunition) to the police. As well as establishing criminal and/or civil liability,5D advocates of such measures also recommend that such safety criteria be applied as conditions for the granting and continued validity of licences, business permits etc.

Insurance requirements: some advocates of reform have suggested that anyone who owns or uses a firearm should be required to carry a minimum amount of civil insurance in relation to

50 Creation of civil liability would not be within federal legislative competence, and would have to be effected through Provincial legislation. - 34 -

such ownership or use. While estimates vary as to how much insurance would be reasonable, $100,000 is the most commonly recommended figure.

Increased or mandatory minimum criminal penalties: probably the most commonly recommended "reform" is that which advocates increasing the current penalties for offences involving firearms under the Criminal Code. In many cases, the call is for the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for offences in which a gun is actually used (i.e. discharged, or pointed at someone, or visibly displayed) or in which such use is threatened. Some advocates of this latter reform have advocated that in such cases a mandatory minimum penalty (usually a gaol sentence) be added to any other penalty provided for in the law, as a consecutive sentence, and that normal parole eligibility be withdrawn. Along with recommendations to increase penalties, suggestions are often made that offences which are now summary conviction offences begupgraded" to indictable offences, or at least be made . mandatory for a specified period (e.g. five years) on conviction of major offences of violence involving firearms. Advocates of such measures stress the need to protect society from those who have demonstrated their propensity to insure firearms.

Enlarged police powers of search, seizure, etc: currently the police can only search for, and seize, a firearm without a warrant when they believe on reasonable grounds that "an offence is being committed or has been committed against any of the provisions of (the Criminal Code) relating to prohibited weapons or restricted weapons" (S.103). Many people feel that this does not give the police adequate authority to deal effectively with violent or potentially violent situations (e.g. domestic disputes between neighbours) in which it is quite apparent that an offence is, or may be, about to occur involving a firearm - 35 -

(whether prohibited, or restricted, or not). In such cases the police must obtain a warrant before they may search for, or seize, a firearm (S.105). Advocates of reforms to these provisions recommend that the police power to search for and seize firearms without warrant be greatly expanded so that 51 whenever, and wherever, a policeman comes upon a situation which he believes, on reasonable grounds, that an offence has been is being, or is about to be, committed involving any kind of firearm, and the danger or potential danger to anyone's safety is such that it would not be practicable to go and obtain a warrant for the purpose, he may search for and seize any firearm involved at once without a warrant.

Development of uniform and consistent administration of firearms laws: suggestions for reform of the administration of the firearms laws abound. Chief of these are: (a) to restrict the number of persons appointed to administer the laws; (h) to create a single official in each Province who will have authority and supervisory powers over other officials appointed ta administer the laws in that Peovince, and who will be responsible for maintaining Provincial records relating to the administration of firearms laws in the Province; (c) to establish more specific guidelines for the exercise of discretionary powers under the Code, either through regulations passed pursuant to the Code, or through a uniform policy manual which is binding on all persons administering the firearms laws; (d) to make all discretionary decisions under the firearms provisions of the Code subject to appeal to the courts; (e) to expand the Central Firearms Registry maintained by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to include more information (e.g. issuance and refusals of permits, licences etc.) and to ensure that such , information is more readily accessible to administrators of firearms laws; and (f) to require the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to report annually to Parliament on the administration of the firearms laws. In addition, it has been suggested that programs should be initiated to attempt to integrate, or at least co-ordinate

51 Police power to search without a warrant 'currently only applies to places other than "dwelling houses" (i.e. private residence's): see S.103, Criminal Code - 36 -

as far as possible, the administration of federal firearms laws with that of Provincial laws relating to hunting, etc., and of Provincial programs for firearms safety training and competence testing. A further suggestion along these lines is that the administration of firearms laws should be supported by an ongoing program of research, both to evaluate administrative effectiveness and to provide current information on the extent of firearms use and misuse in the country.

Firearms amnesty and voluntary turn-in programs: as a way of reducing the number of firearms which are in private ownership, either legally or illegally, but which are not really wanted or needed by their owners, firearms amnesties and voluntary turn-in programs have been recommended, during which unwanted firearms could be turned over to the government with "no questions asked" and no liability to criminal prosecution. Some advocates of voluntary turn-in programs have gone so far as to suggest that the government should pay a small amount as compensation for each firearm so surrendered; a nominal payment under such circumstances is proposed primarily as an incentive to participate in the program rather than as genuine compensation for the weapon.

Educational programs: finally, a number of advocates of reform have suggested public educational programs as the method most likely to succeed in promoting safe and responsible firearms ownership and use. Again, proponents of such programs refer to the need for an effective program of research into firearms use and abuse, in order to provide adequate information on the subject as a basis for educational initiatives.

E. Recent Legislative Initiatives

Since the last amendments to the federal firearms laws in - 37 -

1969, a number of attempts have been made to introduce further amendments to the law, incorporating some of the proposed reforms reviewed in the preceding section of this paper. In 1972, Mr. Warren Allmand, then a Liberal backbencher, introduced a Bill in the House of Commons which proposed significantly more 52 restrictive gun laws. The Bill proposed changes in the law which would remove all fully automatic weapons and all privately shortened long guns (e.g. sawed-off rifles and shotguns) from the "restricted" category to the "prohibited" category, thus making private ownership of such weapons entirely illegal. In addition, the Bill provided that all other firearms (including pellet guns, if they could be considered deadly weapons) would become restricted weapons, ana thus subject to registration and permit requirementsin the same way that handguns are now. The Bill proposed that a permit, similar to the existing carrying permit, would be required in order to possess any firearm, and provided for a mandatory test of competence and knowledge of firearms laws which had to be successfully passed before a permit could be issued. Permits could under no circumstances be issued to persons who were of unsound mind, or who were prohibited from possessing firearms by a court order, under the Bill's proposal. Finally, the Bill proposed that on conviction for an offence involving the use, carriage or possession of a firearm or ammunition, the court would be required to impose an order prohibiting the offender from possessing or acquiring firearms or ammunition for a minimum ten-year period.

Mr. Allmand's Bill did not receive Government backing, and as a result did not become law. The Bill, however, found several supporters in Parliament, and in the following session Bills in

52 Bill C-36, 28th Parliament, 4th Session, introduced on 25th February, 1972. - 38 - almost identical terms to Mr. Allmand's Bill were introduced in the House of Commons (by Mr. Legatt) 53 and in the Senate 54 (by Senator Cameron). The only change made in these Bills was that, in addition to those whom Mr. Allmand proposed should be disqualified from obtaining permits, Mr. Leggatt and Senator Cameron added persorPwho had required treatment for any mental illness connected with an incident which involved actual or threatened bodily harm to any person. Neither of these Bills received Government support, however, and neither passed beyond first reading. Senator Cameron's Bill was 55 re-introduced in each of the two ensuing sessions, but made no better progress. In 1975, Mr. Leggatt re-introduced his Bill, with some minor amendments to it, but this too failed to pass beyond first reading. 56

In February of 1975, Mr. Diefenbaker introduced a Bill into the House of Commons which proposed a simple but 57 tough amendment to the Criminal Code. Under the Bill, anyone who carried or had in his possession a firearm "for the purpose of, or while committing, an indictable offence" would be liable to - a minimum 5 year prison sentence on conviction of this new offence. Such sentence, of course, would be in addition to any penalty he might receive for the offence in which the firearm was involved. The Bill, however, did not proceed beyond first reading. 53. Bill C-138, 29th Parliament, 1st session, introduced on 6th February, 1973. 54. Bill S-2, 29th Parliament, 1st session, introduced on 5th February, 1973. 55. Bill S-4, 29th Parliament, 2nd session, introduced on March 26th, 1974, and Bill S.14, 30th Parliament, 1st session introduced on 29th October, 1974. 56. Bill C.392, 30th Parliament, 1st session, introduced on 4th June, 1975. 57. Bill C.379, 30th Parliament, 1st session, introduced on 19th, February, 1975. - 39 -

Later in 1975, Mr. Reynolds introduced a Bill in the House of Commons which proposed to relax the firearms laws in 58 one respect. Under his Bill, antique firearms (e.g. muskets and other muzzle-loaded weapons) which used only black powder ammunition and could not accommodate cartridge ammunition, would have been exempted from the "restricted weapon" category in all cases. Mr. Reynolds argued that such weapons are "of interest only to collectors and are too cumbrous to be a threat 59 to public safety". This Bill suffered the same fate as all the previous attempts by private members to amend the firearms laws, and did not proceed beyond first reading. Mr. Reynolds, however, has re-introduced the Bill in the new session of 60 Parliament.

By 1975, Mr. Allmand had become Solicitor General of Canada, and had begun once more to press for amendment of the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code. A minor amendment to the general law governing offensive weapons was effected by 61 the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1975 Section 21 of this Act amended S.244 of the Criminal Code to extend the definition of assault to include accosting or impeding a person and begging from him "while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof".

In February, 1976, however, a Bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Ronald Basford, which proposed sweeping changes to the firearms laws, as well as to other 62 parts of the Criminal Code. The Bill proposed the repeal of the current Sections 82 to 106 of the Criminal Code, and the

58. Bill C-398, 30th Parliament, 1st session, introduced on 3rd July, 1975. 59. House of Commons Debates, Official Report, 30th Parliament 1st session, Vol. VII, 1975, at p.7232. 60. Bill C.300, 30th Parliament, 2nd session, introduced on 22nd October, 1976.

61. S.C. 1975, c. 93.

62. Bill C.83, 30th Parliament, 1st session, introduced on 24th February, 1976. - 40 -

enactment of new provisions to replace them. While the new provisions which were proposed would have modified the present law and added new provisions to it, rather than proposing a radically new system, the major changes and innovations which were proposed in this Bill were:

(1) prohibition of fully automatic firearms and sawed-off long guns;

(2) restriction of most semi-automatic firearms not commonly used for hunting purposes;

(3) increased, and in some cases doubled, penalties for many of the offences in the Code related to firearms;

(4) a new criminal offence of using an offensive weapon during the commission of, or during flight following the commission of, an indictable offence. The new offence would carry a minimum penalty of one year's imprisonment and a maximum of 14 years, such sentence to run consecutively to any sentence imposed for the indictable offence in which the offensive weapon was used;

(5) a new criminal offence of carelessly using, carrying, handling or storing a firearm or ammunition (maximum penalty; 5 years);

(6) extension of the offences of failing to report or turn in lost, found or stolen, prohibited or restricted weapons, to include all firearms and ammunition, and an increase in the penalties for such offences (from 2 to 5 years);

(7) a requirement that anyone who owns or uses any firearms or ammunition must be the holder of a valid firearms licence; to be issued under the Code, and renewable every five years. An application for a licence would have to be supported by two "guarantors" who were prepared to certify that to the best of their knowledge and belief there was no reason to believe that the applicant was unfit to possess a firearm or ammunition. Refusals and revocations of licences would be subject to appeal to the courts; - 41 -

(8) repeal of the current 5 .101(b) of the Code, exempting persons from the need for registration certificates or permits when using a firearm under the immediate supervision of someone who may lawfully possess the firearms;

(9 ) minors between the ages of 14 and 18 years (instead of 16, as presently) could only possess firearms or ammunition if they were the holders of a permit issued under the Code for this purpose. Applications for such permits would have to be supported by one "guarantor" and the consent of one parent. The effect of this and the immediately preceding proposal, would be that children under 14 years of age could under circumstances legally possess firearms or ammunition. Refusals or revocations of permits would be subject to appeal to the courts;

(10) special temporary permits for visiting foreigners and, in certain circumstances, for residents who were unable to meet the requirements for a licence;

(11) extension of the requirement for a business permit under the Code to dealers in all kinds of firearms and ammunition (instead of just dealersin restricted weapons as at present). Importers and manufacturers were also to be required to obtain permits. The Bill proposed that the handling, storage, display, advertising, mail-order sales and transportation of firearms and ammunition by such businesses should be subject to regulations made under the Code;

(12) a requirement that restricted weapons be re-registered every five years. Registration certificates would only be issued to persons who could meet the "need" criteria currently applied to carrying permit applications (a fifth criterion - that of being a bona fide collector of restricted weapons - was added). Antique weapons, curios and relics which formed part of a conection of a bona fide collector would be exempted from registration requirements;

(13) enlarged police power to search for and seize firearms and ammunition, without a warrant, anywhere where a situation involved such imminent danger to the safety of any person that it would be impractical to wait to obtain a warrant;

(14) new offences of defacing, falsifying etc. licences and failure to comply with conditions attached to licences, registration certificates or permits (maximum penalty: 2 years); - 42 -

(15) an expanded firearms registry, including information on issuances, refusals and revocations of licences and permits;

(16) extensive authority for the Governor-in-Council to make regulations under the Code for the better administration of the firearms provisions;

(17) a requirement that the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. submit a report on the administration of the firearms laws annually to the Federal Solicitor General, and that this report be tabled in Parliament;

(18) authority for proclamations by the Governor- in-Council of firearms amnesty periods, during which legally or illegally owned firearms could be turned in to the authorities without liability to criminal sanctions.

(19) amendment of the Customs Tariff Act to prohibit the importation of firearms by persons not having the necessary licence or permit required under the Criminal Code. 1 The Government Bill which proposed these changes to the firearms laws proceeded through second reading and detailed 1 scrutiny by the Standing 'Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of the House of Commons. The Bill attracted considerable opposition and criticism which resulted in several changes to its original proposals being made during the Committee hearings. The Bill never received third reading, however, and died on the order paper at the end of the Parliamentary session in the fall of 1976. 1

In October 1976, the Minister of Justice announced his Government's intention to re-introduce proposals for amendment of the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code in the new session of Parliament. Despite the introduction of several Bills attempting to amend the laws, therefore, Canadian firearms laws currently remain unchanged since the amendments to them in 1969. GUN CONTROL IN CANADA: A DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC REACTION GUN CONTROL IN CANADA: A DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC REACTION*

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a brief summary of information pertaining to attitudes towards gun control in Canada. The information presented here was obtained mainly from three sources. The first source of information includes groups and organizations who have developed formal positions on the issue of gun control and these groups will be termed "interest" groups. For the purposes of this paper, the interest groups considered in the discussion are the most longstanding groups in terms of having formulated, developed and publicized widely their positions on the gun control issue. In all cases, the positions of these interest groups had been formulated and well publicized before the introduction of the government's proposed legislation on gun control in December of 1975. The second source of information used iA the media and, in particular, newspapers. In this instance, opinions expressed in letters to the editor and editorials were examined over a period with a view to ascertaining public attitudes towards gun control. The third source of information is public opinion polls and, in this case, the results of two recently conducted surveys on the subject of firearms control are reviewed.

In addition to the information obtained from the above-noted sources, there was further information available which reveals the widespread interest in gun control that has been generated by the government's proposed legislation. As an example of the level of public interest in the firearms control issue, it is interesting to note that during the week of April 19-23, 1976, a total of 9,500 form letters opposing the proposed legislation were received by the government. The majority of these form letters had originated in the western provinces (50% in Alberta and 20% in British Columbia). In addition to the form letters, a total of 850 personal letters concerning the gun control issue

* The research for this paper was based on data available up to 1976. 2 1 were answered during the week of April 19-23, 1976. The majority of these letters had also originated in the western provinces (30% 1 in British Columbia and 30% in the Prairies). Several aspects of the proposed legislation on gun control were considered in these letters and, often, more than one aspect of the legislation was 1 commented on in one letter. However, there were several comments that appeared repeatedly in this correspondence. Many people 1 were concerned that the proposed legislation on gun control was not designed to punish criminals. Many people also indicated that the proposed legislation constituted an infringement of the civil rights of Canadian citizens. Another related comment that also appeared frequently in the correspondence answered by the government during this week was that, rather than implementing new legislation on gun control, the existing laws should be enforced. 1

Although the volume of form letters received by the government decreased somewhat during the following weeks (up to the end of May), the number of personal letters answered by the government remained 1 fairly constant. During the periods of April 26-30, 1976; May 3-7, 1976; May 14-20, 1976; and May 25-31, 1976 a further 24,719 form letters were received and 3,521 personal letters concerning gun 1 control were answered. During these periods, the regional distribution II of correspondence remained basically the same as it had been during the week of April 19-23, 1976 except that there was an increase in correspondence received from Ontario. The comments that appeared 1 most frequently during these periods were the saine comments that had appeared most frequently during the week of April 19-23, 1976. However, it was noted that, during the period of May 25-31, 1976 questions arising in the correspondence were becoming more and more specific, suggesting that the public had now had an opportunity to 1 digest the proposed legislation more completely. 1 As can he seen from the volume of correspondence received by the government, there is a great deal of public interest and concern over the whole issue of gun control. The more detailed information relating to public opinion on gun cont.rol will now -3-- be discussed according to the three main sources of information; namely, in'terest groups, media and public opinion polls.

INTEREST GROUPS

As an introduction to this section of the paper, some back- ground information will be provided on groups and organizations who made their positions on the issue of gun control known at the time of the last set of amendments to the Criminal Code con- cerning firearms in 1968-69.

Although an examination of the minutes of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee meetings for the 1968-69 session of Parliament revealed that none of the witnesses appearing before the Committee to express their opinion on the firearms amendments represented a particular group or organization, the Minister of Justice hadreceived written submissions and conducted meetings with several groups. For instance, Crosman Arms Canada, Limited was one group that wrote to the Minister of Justice. As a manu- facturer of air and spring operated guns, this group's main concern was related to the definition of a firearm and they recommended that this definition be narrowed to exclude guns whose propellant force is not powder. There was also correspond- ence from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop- ment requesting that consideration be given to making provision in the legislation for native persons under fourteen years of age to be permitted to use firearms where it could be shown that they needed to do so in order to obtain food.

Records showed that representatives of the Shooting Federation of Canada, the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association and the Canadian Wildlife Federation met with representatives of the Ministry of Justice to discuss the proposed 1968-69 firearms amendments. Among the issues raised by these groups was the concern that the powers of the Governor-in-Council should be restricted to the classification of weapons other than those which -4- may be legitimately possessed or used by citizens. These groups feared that, unless these powers were restricted, the Governor- in-Council might prohibit rifles or shotguns or bring them under the registration and permit provisions. It was also suggested that the powers of local firearms registrars should be clearly defined and uniformly administered across the country. These groups were also concerned that requiring young people between the ages of fourteen and seventeen to obtain a firearms permit created unnecessary difficulty for scout and cadet groups whose programs often included training in the safe handling of firearms. Other comments made at that time included the recommendation that provision be made in the legislation for a special permit for collectors to transport their firearms for the purposes of display, and a recommendation that permits to use handguns and automatic firearms in target shooting shoilld not be restricted to a particular shooting club or to the province in which the permit was issued. It was suggested that such permits should allow the holder to carry his firearms anywhere; that is, to any competition, including an out-of-province competition.

According to this background information, in 1968-69 there were very few groups and organizations who had formulated and presented a position on the issue of gun control. The fact that there are now (i.e. 1975-76) many more gun control interest groups who have made their positions well known has certain implications, the most important of which is that many of the gun control interest groups now in existence have been formed either in response to the legislation that was introduced in December of 1975 or as a result of a growing concern about the increasing number of recent incidents related to the misuse of firearms. -5-

The following is a list of the gun control interest groups considered in this section of the paper.*

Association des Chefs de Police et Pompiers du Québec Canadian Affiliation of Gun Owners Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Canadian Bar Association Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association Canadian Wildlife Federation Firearms and Responsible Ownership Firearms Registrars** National Firearms Safety Association Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Shooting Federation of Canada

Although the function of most of these groups is evident from their titles, some of the groups will require some explanation of their purpose in organizing in a formal way.

The Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association is ° composed of manufacturers and distributors of a wide variety of sporting arms and ammunition in Canada. The members of this group employ approximately 1,500 skilled personnel, most of whom are located in Ontario and Quebec. The group formed in 1973 because its members felt that there was a clear need for the sporting arms industry to act as one in developing uniform policy with respect to firearms legislation and developing better relations with the government, police, educational authorities, youth groups, sport shooting clubs, conservation groups and environmental groups. * For information purposes, a complete list of gun control interest groups who submitted briefs and/or appeared before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee regarding the 1975 proposed legislation is attached as an appendix to this paper. ** The recommendations of this group were extracted from the report of a national conference of local firearms registrars. The con- ference had been held in June of 1975. 1

-6-- 1

Firearms and Responsible Ownership was formed in 1972 and is a non-profit corporation whose membership consists of repre- sentatives of shooting clubs, hunting clubs, fish and game clubs and collectors. "FARO" is a national group and its members united because of a growing conviction that firearms enthusiasts must organize to counter demands for further restrictive firearms 1 legislation. This group became particularly active following a firearms incident in Brampton, Ontario, in June of 1975 in which a high school student shot and killed two students and a teacher, wounded 14 students and then shot and killed himself. 1 The group also responded to a bill on firearms control that had been privately introduced by Senator Cameron in 1975. 1 The National Firearms Safety Association is a group composed of approximately 3,000 concerned citizens. This group was formed 1 in June of 1975 as a result of the same firearms incident that had taken place in Brampton, Ontario. Members of this group felt that such incidents pointed to the need for further controls over firearms. 1 The Shooting Federation of Canada governs all formal target shooting in Canada and its membership includes over 250,000 sport shooters. The group was formed originally in 1932 and was called the "Canadian Small Bore Rifle Association." Over the 1 years the name of the organization was changed several times until, in 1964, it became known as the "Shooting Federation of Canada." The organization's membership includes provincial 1 governing bodies representing the various target shooting disciplines II and many of these members and others are hunters and firearms collectors. This group describes its concern with gun control legislation as related to its involvement with the sport of target shooting. 1 1 - 7 -

The Canadian Affiliation of Gun Owners was formed in 1967 and has approximately 11,000 members across Canada. Its members are primarily collectors and shooters and their main reason for organizing themselves as a group has been described as the pro- tection of their interests as firearms collectors and shooters.

The positions taken by the interest groups will now be presented according to the issues that were most frequently commented on. It should be noted that there are many other aspects of the proposed legislation that could be and have been commented on, but this paper will be confined to a discussion of the issues most frequently commented on by the particular interest groups under consideration here.

Firearms Registration

The Criminal Code of Canada presently requires that all firearms classified as "restricted" be registered; that is, any person wishing to own such a firearm must appear before a local firearms registrar to identify the firearm for records purposes and obtain a certificate authorizing possession of that particular firearm.

There were differing opinions among the lobby groups as to which firearms should be classified as "restricted" (and thus, subject to registration requirements) and which firearms should be classified as "prohibited." For instance, the National Fire- arms Safety Association recommended that semi-automatic firearms be classified as "restricted." The Canadian Wildlife Federation suggested that "sawed-off" shotguns or rifles should be classified as "prohibited," excluding such firearms already registered as "restricted." The Federation also recommended that the commercially produced folding or telescopic arm (under 26 inches) firearm remain classified as "restricted." Local firearms registrars as a group -8- agreed that "Saturday Night Specials" (cheaply produced handguns) should be classified as "prohibited." The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police suggested that automatic rifles and machine guns should be classified as "prohibited." The Canadian Bar Association recommended that the possession of handguns be limited to the police and other specified public officials. On the other hand, the Canadian Affiliation of Gun Owners indicated that such a restriction would constitute an unfair and unnecessary restraint on law abiding citizens and would not serve to reduce the rate of violent crime.

Although the group responses to the present registration requirementswere varied in terms of the classification of firearms, a proposed registration program encompassing all firearms appears to have elicited a similar response form both "pro" stricter gun control and "anti" stricter gun control groups. It should be noted here that, although the legislation that had been introduced I. in December of 1975 did not include a proposal encompassing the registration of all firearms, such a proposal had been made earlier in 1975 in two privately introduced bills concerning the control of firearms and this accounts for all the comments on this issue.

An all -firearms registration program was rejected by all of the interest groups on the basis that it would be impractical and would not have a significant effect in keeping firearms out of the 1 hands of criminals. The Canadian Wildlife Federation indicated that mandatory registration of all firearms would be unrealistic and achrinistratively unworkable and would not act as a deterrent to violence. Similarly, the Canadian Affiliation of Gun Owners suggested that a program involving the registration of all firearms would be impossible to enforce. -9-

Competency Tests

Some of the groups suggested alternatives to the all-firearms registration option. For instance, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association suggested that, instead of classifying sporting rifles, shotguns and air rifles as "restricted" and, thus, subject to registration, training programs in the safe handling of firearms should be promoted and compulsory competency tests should be administered.

The National Firearms Safety Association suggested that a permit system be used where unrestricted firearms (e.g. shotguns, rifles) are concerned. The granting of a permit under this proposed program would involve a competency test. The group also recommended that the requirements of such a program should apply to present owners of firearms as well as to persons who may wish to purchase firearms.

Firearms and Responsible Ownership rejected any proposal that would involve the registration of rifles and shotguns and suggested that a "Federal Firearms Qualification Certificate" system should be implemented. Under this proposed system, an applicant would be required to pass a competency test and be cleared by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as having no record of violence, no history of alcoholism or drug abuse and no con- firmed instability tending to violence. It was also recommended that, if an applicant qualifies under their proposed program, the certificate must be issued and the onus should be on the govern- ment to show cause why a certificate should not be issued.

The Canadian Bar Association supported competency testing as a requirement for registering "restricted" firearms. In addition, according to the report of a national conference of firearms registrars, this group suggested that competency tests - 1 0- should be administered to all owners and purchasers of firearms. Similarly, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that competency tests be administered in all cases prior to the purchase of firearms.

From the above discussion, it is evident that testing for competence in the safe handling of firearms was represented as a desirable component of a gun control program by almost all of the interest groups.

Criminal Offences Involving the Use of Firearms

Most of the major interest groups agreed that the commission of criminal offences involving the use of firearms should result in more severe penalties being administered to offenders. Some groups recommended that the use of firearms in the commission of a criminal offence should constitute a separate offence under the Criminal Code. .The Shooting Federation of Canada suggested that, where such offences are concerned, the penalties should be man- datory and, further, that the specific penalty should be a five year term of imprisonment. Another group, the Ontario Association bf Chiefs of Police, recommended that criminal offences involving firearms be dealt with by administering a mandatory three year sentence which would be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the offence itself. On the same subject, L'Association des Chefs de Police et Pompiers du Québec indicated that offenders should be liable to a minimum sentence of two years. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that a minimum prison term (length not specified) be administered to persons convicted of an indictable offence, during the commission of which they were armed with an offensive weapon. The Association further recommended that the weapon concerned in such cases be confiscated. -11-

Several of the interest groups also considered circumstances under which the courts should issue an order prohibiting the possession or use of firearms. For example, Firearms and Responsible Ownership suggested that a person convicted of a violent crime should be prohibited from owning or using firearms for a period of three years from the date of release from prison. This group further suggested that any subsequent convictions should automatically result in an order being issued which prohibits the possession or use of firearms for life. Similarly, the National Firearms Safety Association recommended that convicted offenders should not be permitted to own firearms. Another group, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, suggested that prohibition orders against carrying firearms should be a penalty available to the courts where a person has been convicted of any violent crime. The Federation also added the stipulation that, when these orders are issued, they should apply for a minimum term of five years.

In addition to considering prohibition orders in relation to convicted offenders, a few of the major groups suggested that such orders shouldapply to persons charged with criminal offences. For instance, the Canadian Wildlife Federation recommended that persons on bail be prohibited from carrying firearms. Firearms and Responsible Ownership took this suggestion one step further .and recommended that persons charged with criminal offences involv- ing firearms and having a previous record of violent crime should not be eligible for bail.

Firearms Manufacturers and Retail Dealers

The major point raised by the interest groups in connection with the manufacture of firearms was that all manufacturers should be required to place a serial number on each firearm produced. The National Firearms Safety Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police both made this recommendation. -12-

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that all retail dealers in firearms be required to record the name and address of the purchaser on all sales, as well as a description of the firearm purchased. The Association also suggested that persons auctioning firearms should be subject to the saine requirements as firearms dealers. On the subject of dealers' records, the National Firearms Safety Association

• suggested that these records should include the serial number of the firearm purchased and the naine, permit number and signature of the purchaser. The Association also recommended that all retail firearms dealers be required to obtain a license to operate a business. The Canadian Wildlife Federation and the firearms registrars both agreed with this recommendation.

Regarding the records kept by firearms dealers, the fire- arms registrars recommended that the reports presently kept on restricted firearms acquired for sale be forwarded to the local firearms registrar. On the other hand, L'Association des Chefs de Police et Pompiers du Québec suggested that the reports kept by firearms dealers should be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on a monthly basis.

Safe Display and Storage of Firearms

Some groups commented on the requirements that should apply to the display and storage of firearms. Some of the recommend- ations mede encompassed firearms owners and retail firearms dealers. For instance, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recom- mended that the failure of any person to take necessary precautions in ensuring the safe storage of their firearms should result in that person being criminally liable at the discretion of the presiding judge. The National Firearms Safety Association suggested that, as well as being responsible for the safe storage of firearms, any person who fails to report the 'theft, loss or - 13 - sale of a firearm should be liable for criminal charges. Fire- arms registrars as a group recommended that the Criminal Code include requirements related to the safe use, carriage, possession and storage of firearms and that failure to comply with these requirements should result in criminal liability.

Police Authority

The comments made by the groups with respect to the police and gun control were confined mainly to "search and seizure" powers. At present, police are required to obtain a warrant from a magistrate in order to search a dwelling house. Some groups indicated that a police officer should be able to conduct a search without a warrant if there are reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be, committed.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that police officers be authorized to conduct searches without warrants under certain circumstances. An example was provided by the Association. In cases where a police officer sees a known criminal in what the officer considers to be suspicious circumstances, he should be able to act immediately if he is to be an effective law enforcer. Firearms registrars as a group also supported the police being able to conduct a search without a warrant, providing that there are reasonable and probable grounds of an offence.

It is interesting to note that the Canadian Wildlife Federation had initially suggested that the police should make fuller use of the present provisions of the Criminal Code regard- ing "search and seizure." However, in response to the proposed legislation, the Federation agreed that the seizure of firearms without a warrant is a valid proposal if it is in the interest of public safety. -14-

Transporting of Firearms

Some of the interest groups çommented on the conditions surrounding the transport of firearms. One group, Firearms and Responsible Ownership, suggested that the restraints on the transporting of firearms should be reasonable and, in that regard, registered handgun owners should be permitted to transport their firearms for such purposes as target shooting and small gaine On the other hand, the Canadian Association of Chiefs hunting. of Police recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to include further legislation concerning permits for the conveyance of restricted firearms. The Association suggested that such permits should be issued under the condition that the applicant has successfully .completed a firearms safety course as authorized by the local firearms registrar or the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Similarly, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that the transporting of firearms should require a competency certificate as well as adherence to provincial requirements respecting,hunting licenses.

On the subject of transporting firearms, the Canadian Wildlife Federation made a proposal and suggested that further study should be conducted on its feasibility. The recommendation was that all gun clubs initially accept members on the basis of their being qualified as safe gun handlers and having a good reputation as such in the community. If these conditions were -15- met, then a gun club membership card could be accepted as justification for transporting firearms between the home and the shooting range.

Other Issues

Another aspect of the proposed legislation that was commented on by some of the groups was the proposal that persons under the age of fourteen years not be permitted to use firearms. A few groups suggested that the implementation of this proposal would serve to discourage young people from taking up any sport involv- ing firearms and would also interfere unnecessarily with the programs offered by scout and cadet groups which often involve training in the safe handling of firearms.

In addition to the comments made by the various interest groups on the proposed legislation, several suggestions were made with respect to other aspects of firearms control that should be studied and considered further. For instance, the Canadian Wildlife Federation suggested that further consideration should be given to limiting the mail order sale of firearms to those sales made through shooting and gaine clubs or where the delivery is made through a local representative of a mail order house. The Federation also recommended that there should be further study and consultation on requiring firearms dealers to keep records of shotgun and rifle sales and requiring that these records be available for police inspection. The Federation further suggested that firearms dealers should demand presentation of a hunting or trapping license, a gun club membership card or a document testifying to the successful completion of a course in the safe handling of firearms from all persons wishing to pur- chase firearms. -16-

MEDIA

The information contained in this section of the paper came from various newspapers across the country. A total of 36 major newspapers from all parts of Canada were examined over two three- month periods, with particular emphasis on columns, editorials and letters to the editor concerning the topic of gun control in Canada.

The two periods examined were October, November and December of 1975 and February, March and April of 1976. As mentioned earlier in the paper, the government introduced proposed legis- lation on gun control as part of its "Peace and Security" package in December of 1975 and these two particular time periods were chosen in order to compare public reaction to gun control both before and after the introduction of the proposed legis- lation.

During the period from October to December of 1975, a total of 17 editorials and 10 letters to the editor concerning gun control appeared in the newspapers examined. On the other hand, during the period from February to April of 1976, a total of 29 editorials and 64 letters to the editor concerning gun control appeared in the newspapers examined. The increase in the number of letters and editorials related to gun control in the second period seems to be related to the tabling of the proposed legis- lation in late December of 1975.

During the first period under consideration, the majority of the editorials and letters to the editor were written either in anticipation of new legislation on gun control or as a reaction to a widely publicized shooting incident at an Ottawa high school. In addition, the majority of the material relating to gun control during this period appeared in newspapers that are published in the central part of Canada (i.e. Ontario, Quebec). In this regard, it should be noted that an incident involving the misuse -17- of firearms took place in Ottawa during this period and many of the letters to the editor included comments about this par- ticular incident. Some of these authors pointed to this incident as evidence of the need for stricter gun control and did not comment any further on the issue, except to say that immediate action by the government was called for.

Although many different comments and suggestions were made in the editorials and letters to the editor during this period, the majority of the authors favoured stricter gun control measures. On the whole, the authors of the editorials appeared to be slightly more favourable towards stricter gun control legislation than the authors of the letters to the editor.

During the second period under consideration, the over- whelming majority of the editorials and letters to the editor were responses to various aspects of the proposed gun control legislation that had been introduced in December of 1975. In addition, the majority of these editorials and letters appeared in newspapers that are published in the central part of Canada (i.e. Ontario, Quebec).

For the most part, the content of both the editorials and the letters to the editor during this period was much more specific in terms of comments and suggestions than it had been in the editorials and letters to the editor that appeared during the first period. This is not surprising since the authors in the second period would have had an opportunity to familiarize them- selves with the specific provisions of the proposed legislation before making any comments. - 18 -

Although most of the writers during the second period supported some form of gun control, over half of them were opposed to a specific provision or provisions of the proposed legislation that had been introduced by the government in December of 1975. Overall, the authors of the editorials wère more favourable towards stricter gun control measures than the authors of the letters to the editor during this period.

Many of the editorials and letters to the editor that appeared during both periods contained comments and suggestions on the same issues. For this reason, both periods will be discussed according to the issues that were most frequently commented on.

Firearms Registration

During both periods, the registration of firearms was the aspect of gun control that was commented on most frequently by both the authors of the editorials and the authors of the letters to the editor. It is interesting to note that a few authors of editorials in both periods favoured a program involving the mandatory registration of all firearms. One editorial writer during the first period suggested that, although the mandatory registration of all firearms might not be a perfect solution to the problem of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, such a program would constitute a measure that could result in a reduction in the number of firearms incidents such as the ones that had taken place at high schools in Brampton and Ottawa during 1975. This author saw the function of an all-firearms registration program as making firearms less available and exercising some control over the kind of person who buys a gun. One author of an editorial in the second period acknowledged that there would be strong objections to a program involving the mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns but felt that, nevertheless, the government had a right to administer as tough a control over guns as it could invoke. -19-

Generally, the editorial authors in both periods who favoured the mandatory registration of all firearms were aware of the opposition of many hunters and sportsmen. However, these authors felt that opposition to such a system was not justified in terms of the inconvenience it might create for legitimate fire- arms owners and further that the benefits of implementing this system would far outweigh any inconvenience that may be caused.

It should be noted that authors who supported an all-firearms registration system were definitely in the minority. By far the majority of editorialand letter writers in both periods were opposed to this option. Most of the authors objected to an all-firearms registration system on the basis of one or more of the following arguments:

-registration will not stop criminals from obtaining firearms or reduce the rate of violent crime

-registration will only affect law abiding citizens by inconveniencing them and interfering with their right to own guns

-registration will result in the creation of a large government bureaucracy and millions of dollars will be expended to keep the program going

-registration will eventually result in the elimination of all privately owned firearms

Although these arguments appeared in both editorials and letters to the editor, they appeared far more frequently in letters to the editor. This was the case in both periods under consider- ation. -20-

Many of the writers of letters to the editor suggested that, as well as being a nuisance and causing interference in the private lives of citizens, a program of mandatory registration of all firearms would, of necessity, mean the creation of a large govern- ment bureaucracy involving expenditures of millions of dollars for the paper work and record keeping that would be required.

One author of a letter to the editor in the second period who objected to a system of mandatory registration suggested that, if the laws did require that all firearms be registered, the owner's rights should be guaranteed, including the right to keep the firearms in the home for use in hunting, target shooting and protection of family and property.

Licensing Firearms Owners

Several authors in the second period commented on the licensing provisions of the proposed legislation on gun control. Most of the authors who commented on the proposed licensing system were editorial writers and most of them indicated that it was a good idea to license gun owners rather than register fire- arms. It is interesting to note that some of the editorial writers in the second period suggested that the proposed system of licens- ing gun owners did not go far enough in controlling firearms ownership. These authors suggested that some sort of training in the safe handling of firearms should also be a statutory require- ment for obtaining a license.

There was also some criticism of the proposed guarantor system, whichwould require that persons wishing to obtain a fire- arms licens& must produce written statements from two persons testifying that, to the best of their knowledge, the applicant is not unfit to own firearms. One editorial writer indicated that such a system would not be effective because persons acting as guarantors will sign for license applicants just to be obliging. This writer suggested that an applicant should also be reauired -21-

to produce a certificate from the police stating that he/she has no criminal record and is a law-abiding citizen. Another editorial writer recommended that the screening process in a firearms licensing system should include a provision that persons convicted of violent crimes will be prohibited from obtaining a firearms license.

One editorial writer recommended that the proposed licensing system be implemented and should also provide for a periodic check of the licensee's suitability to own firearms.

It is interesting to note that a few of the authors of editorials who indicated their support of a licensing system com- mented that the ownership of firearms is a privilege and not a . right and, further, that persons wishing to enjoY the privilege of owning firearms should only be allowed to do so under conditions of strict supervision (e.g. according to the terms of the pro- posed licensing system).

Criminal Offences Involving the Use of Firearms

A few authors in the first period had suggested that new legislation on gun control was not necessary and the criminal use of firearms could effectively be reduced if the present laws were properly enforced. Such comments were made most frequently by authors of letters to the editor and these authors, in par- ticular, supported the introduction of more severe penalties in dealing with persons convicted of offences involving the use of firearms. For example, one author of a letter to the editor suggested that persons charged with armed robbery should not be eligible for bail. Another letter to the editor recommended the introduction of a mandatory five year term of imprisonment, served consecutively to the sentence imposed for an offence, where the offence committed also involved the use of a firearm. This author also stipulated that the full term of imprisonment should be served in such cases and the offender should not be eligible for parole.

Several authors in the second period also suggested ways of dealing with the criminal use of firearms. Most of these comments also focused on the penalties that are available to be administered in such cases. Some of these writers indicated that the existing penalties are not severe enough and that new legislation should provide for more severe penalties. Several specific suggestions were made.

One author of a letter to the editor in the second period also recommended that persons convicted of an indictable offence in which firearms were used should be liable to a mandatory five year term of imprisonment. This writer felt that the introduction of this provision into the legislation would provide an effective method of deterring the criminal use of firearms.

A few editorial writers in the second period suggested that, rather than increasing maximum penalties, the proposed minimum penalties for criminal offences involving the use of firearms should be increased. One editorial writer felt that the pro- posed minimum one year term of imprisonment for the use of a fire- arm in the commission of a crime was too lenient and that, in this case, the minimum penalty should be two years of imprison- ment. Similarly, an author of a letter to the editor in the second period recommended that anyone who used an offensive weapon' (including knives, etc.) with the intent to commit a criminal act should be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of two years. This writer also suggested that persons charged with this offence should not be eligible for bail. -23-

Safe Display and Storage of Firearms

In the first period under consideration, few authors com- mented on the "safe storage" concept. However, one editorial writer suggested that owners who did not take proper precautions to keep their firearms under lock and key (safely stored) should be liable to pay for any injuries resulting from the criminal or negligent use of a firearm that had been stolen or borrowed.

Several authors in the second period commented on the "safe storage" provision of the government's proposed legislation. Under this provision, firearms owners would be criminally liable for the unsafe storage of their firearms. There were both favourable and unfavourable reactions to this provision.

A few authors of both editorials and letters to the editor indicated that the proposed provision of the legislation concern- ing the safe storage of firearms was too vague. One editorial writer suggested that the rules had not been specified and that such rules would have to be set out in some detail. One writer of a letter to the editor indicated that terms such as "reasonable precautions" and "careless manner" in the proposed provision had not been adequately defined.

For the most part, editorial writers favoured a "safe storage" provision in the legislation and authors of letters to the editor were opposed to such a provision. For instance, one editorial writer indicated that the proposed provision for a five year term of imprisonment if firearms are not safely stored would prevent firearms incidents in the home. As examples of the kind of incident that this provision would prevent, the author mentioned two similar cases in which a child had been accidentally killed by a gun that had been fired by another child. Both of these incidents had taken place in the home. Another editorial writer suggested that a "safe storage" provision in the proposed legisiation would help -24-- to achieve responsible firearms ownership. This particular author also recommended that the provinces follow up the federal govern- ment's criminal liability provision with a provincial provision for civil liability. He indicated that civil liability would create the need for insurance and the need for insurance could, in turn, dissuade people from keeping firearms unnecessarily.

Most of the writers of letters to the editor who disagreed with the "safe storage" provision of the proposed legislation felt that the penalty was too severe. One writer indicated his opinion that such a provision was totally unjust.

Police Authority

Several authors in the second period commented on the pro- posed provision of the legislation that would allow police officers to conduct a search and seize firearms without the benefit of an - authorizing warrant, providing that the circumstances of a sit- uation were such that an officer believed that an offence was being or had been committed, or that circumstances of immediate danger to a person existed.

Most of the editorial writers and authors of letters to the editor who commented on these provisions felt that they would 1 result in there being a potential for abuse of authority on the part of the police. One author of a letter to the editor suggest- ed that the system of requiring police officers to obtain a warrant before conducting a search provided a safeguard that re- moved the potential for abuse by the police because an additional authority must also believe that the conduct of a search is justified. One editorial writer suggested that if the proposed "search and seizure" provisions were enacted, police officers should be required to file a full report with a magistrate in cases where a search is conducted without a warrant. -25-

Other Issues

A few authors of letters to the editor in the second period commented on the authority of local firearms registrars. These authors criticized this area of the legislation because the authority of the firearms registrar had not been defined specif- ically and clearly and could thus result in abuse of that author- ity. One writer felt that local firearms registrars should not have the authority to issue conditional permits or to revoke permits. Another author suggested that the law as proposed in the Bill was vague and would become a matter of interpretation by minor officials.

It is interesting to note that a few editorial writers and authors of letters to the editor in the second period suggested that the provisions of the legislation related to gun control (Bill C-83) were being used by the government as an appeasement for the abolition of capital punishment, which was proposed in the other Bill (C-84) included in the "Peace and Security" package.

Finally, as a general point, it should be noted that both editorial writers and authors of letters to the editor in both periods appealed to members of the public to express their opinion on the issue of gun control. In the case of the first period under consideration, this appeal was made in order that members of the public have an effect on the nature of the legislation that would shortly be introduced by the government. In the second period under consideration, authors made this appeal in order that members of the public should influence the content of the laws relating to gun control that would eventually be passed. - 26 -

SURVEYS

There have been two Canadian surveys conducted recently on the subject of firearms control and both were conducted by the Canadian Gallup Poll.*

The first survey was conducted in April of 1975. A total of 500 telephone interviews were conducted with male and female heads of households in five cities across Canada. Approximately one hundred interviews were conducted in each of the following cities between April 19 and April 22, 1975: Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. Respondents were randomly selected from the telephone directories and the results of the survey were weighted according to the population in each city because of the disproportionate sampling. 1 It should be noted that, in addition to the small sample size in this survey, which was conducted as a national survey, the sample itself was derived from large urban centres only. Thus, the attitudes of Canadians living in smaller communities, rural areas and farm areas II were not considered in this survey. Since it is likely that the attitudes of Canadians living outside the large urban centres could be significantly different from those of the respondents in this survey on firearms control, this factor should be kept in mind when interpreting its results.

Respondents were asked three questions** on the subject of firearms control. When asked whether Canadians should have the

* Question 1: "Those that argue against gun controls say that Canadians should have the right to bear arms. Do you agree or disagree that Canadians should have the right to bear arms?" Question 2: "Some people feel gun controls discriminate against the law-abiding and do nothing to discourage the criminal. DO you agree or disagree?" Question 3: "Would you favour or oppose registration of all rifles and shotguns even if it required a major expenditure for administration?"

** A third, more comprehensive survey was being undertaken at the time this paper was being written. Prepared by Goldfarb Consultants Ltd. for the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada; the results of this survey are included in a report entitled "National Attitudes Towards Crime and Gun Control (September 1976)". -27-

right to bear arms, 29% of the respondents agreed that Canadians should have the right to bear arms, 65% indicated that Canadians should not have the right to bear arms and 6% of the respondents were undecided on this question.

In the second question, respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that gun controls discriminate against the law-abiding and do nothing to discourage the criminal. It is interesting to note that 37% of the respondents agreed with this statement, 54% disagreed, and 9% were undecided.

The third question was worded as follows: "Would you favour or oppose registration of all rifles and shotguns even if it required a major expenditure for administration?" The majority of respondents L87%) indicated that they would favour a program involving the registration of all firearms. Only 9% of the respondents indicated that they would be opposed to such a pro- gram and 4% of the respondents were undecided on this question.

The second survey was carried out in July of 1975 and, in this case, personal interviews were conducted with 1,039 adults. The sample was drawn on a national basis and included all centres with populations over 1,000 as well as rural farm and non-farm areas.

Respondents were asked two questions*concerning firearms controls. In the first question, respondents were asked to

* Question 1: "Do you favour or oppose the registration of all firearms?" Question 2: "Here is a question about pistols and revolvers. Do you think there should or should not be a law which would forbid the possession of this type of gun except by the police and other authorized persons?" -28- indicate whether they favoured or opposed the registration of all firearms. In this case, 83% of the respondents indicated that they favoured registration of all firearms, 13% indicated that they opposed the registration of all firearms and 4% of the respond- ents had no opinion on the question.

In the second question in this survey, respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought there should or should not be a law which would forbid the possession of handguns (e.g. pistols and revolvers), except by the police and "other authorized persons." It is interesting to note that 81% of the respondents indicated

- that there should be such a law, 15% indicated that there should not be such a law and 4% of the respondents had no opinion on this question.

Interpretation of the results of opinion polls such as these presents great problems, chiefly because of the generality of the questions and significant ambiguities in their meaning. In the first question in the first survey, for instance, the term "right to bear arms" was not defined at all for the interviewees. When a respondent indicated support for "the right to bear arms'," does he mean the right to bear arms for all purposes, without qualification, or only for certain ("legitimate") purposes (e.g. hunting, target-shooting, home protection, etc.)? And if it is only for certain purposes, which purposes did the respondent think were "legitimate"?

Similarly, in the second question in the second survey, the term "other authorized persons" was left entirely undefined. When a respondent indicates that he thinks only "police and other authorized persons" should be allowed to possess handguns, just whom does he have in mind? Security guards? Bank employees? Target shooters? Airline pilots? Trappers? Prospectors? -29-

Collectors? Others? All of these? Or none of them? It is clear that two people could answer such a question in the saine way, and yet radically disagree about who should be allowed to own handguns.

Again, the absence of any elaboration of what is meant by "gun controls" in the second question in the first survey, makes it difficult if not impossible to draw any very useful conclusions about public attitudes towards gun controls from the responses to such a question. As we have noted in the earlier parts of this paper, "gun controls" can mean very different things to different people.

While the results of these two surveys make it difficult to draw definite conclusions about public attitudes towards gun control, the extremely high percentages of respondents in both surveys who indicated support for some form of firearms regis- tration for all kinds of firearms (in the first survey, only rifles and shotguns were specified), does seem to indicate that Canadians may favour stricter gun controls than those proposed in the 1976 amendments to the Criminal Code. It should be remembered, however, that both of these surveys were conducted before these proposals were made public, and there is reason to believe (from the analysis in earlier parts of this paper) that such overwhelming support for an all-firearms registration system would not now be found to exist.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have surveyed three sources of information about public reaction to proposals for gun control legislation. While the information thus obtained is by no means necessarily representative of public attitudes generally on this subject (the information sources used are quite selective), it does give -30- a general idea of the reactions of those most publicly interested in this subject. Overall, this available information seems to indicate that there is no widespread opposition to the concept of gun control legislation per se. Even those who expressed the greatest opposition to the government's proposals in Bill C-83 usually advocated some form of gun control. There does appear, however, to have been strong opposition to the implementation of any measures which are seen as unnecessarily inconveniencing the majority of law-abiding firearms owners without significantly reducing the accidental, careless or criminal misuse of firearms. APPENDIX

The following is a list of groups who submitted briefs and/or appeared before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to express their opinions on the gun control issue:

Alberta Fish and Gaine Association British Columbia Wildlife Federation Canadian Affiliation of Gun Owners Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies* Canadian Bar Association Canadian Black Powder Federation Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association* Canadian Police Association Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association Canadian Wildlife Federation Fédération Québecoise de la Faune Fédération Québecoise de tir au Pistolet Firearms Legislation Committee (Nova Scotia) Firearms and Responsible Ownership Golden Horseshoe Trap League John Howard Society (Oshawa-Whitby Branch) La Ligue des Droits de l'Homme Lower Canada Arms Collectors Association Manitoba Wildlife Federation National Firearms Safety Association National Indian Brotherhood Native Council of Canada Ontario Arms Collectors Association Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Province of Quebec Rifle Association Quebec Provincial Police Association Responsible Alberta Gun Owners Retail Council of Canada Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Service Rifle Shooting Association Shooting Federation of Canada Terrace Rod and Gun Club (British Columbia)

* Indicates groups who commented on the gun control issue but who were primarily concerned with other aspects of the proposed "Peace and Security" legislation. THE CONTROL OF FIREARMS IN . OTHER SELECTED JURISDICTIONS THE CONTROL OF FIREARMS IN OTHER SELECTED JURISDICTIONS*

Introduction

In December of 1975, the government of Canada introduced a proposal to amend the legislation on the control of firearms and, as a result, a great deal of public attention has been focused on the issue in this country. The intention of this paper is to provide the reader with a more overall perspective of the firearm control issue by examining the relevant provisions in law in other selected jurisdictions.

It is evident that there are many factors (e.g. cultural, attitudinal, economic) involved which suggest that caution should be exercised before attempting to draw direct comparisons between the firearm control situation here and in other countries. This paper will, therefore be limited to a description of other systems and will indicate the concern of other countries with respect to firearms where these concerns have been expressed, and the measures that have been, or are being taken to deal with the control of firearms.

Discussions in this paper will be centred on the provisions for the control of firearms in the laws of the following jurisdictions: Great Britain, United States, Jamaica, Japan, Switzerland and Sweden. These particular jurisdictions are included both because the systems of these countries are not infrequently cited as examples in the Canadian debate and because they represent a variety of approaches to gun control. A brief summary of a 1968 Interpol survey of gun control policies in other countries is also included in this paper.

It should be noted that, while this paper is confined to a discussion of firearms control systems in selected juris- dictions outside of Canada, concern over the issue is by no means limited to these particular countries. In fact, a general indication of the growing concern of many countries over the role of

* The research for this paper was based on data available up to 1976. - -

firearms in increasing rates of violent crime can be found in the repeated recommendations of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe regarding stricter measures 'of firearms control. Countries represented on this council include: Great Britain, France, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, Luxembourg, Federal Republic of Germany and Austria.

In 1972*, the Council suggested that its member countrà..es should examine the possibility of drafting European agreements that would introduce harmonized reg- ulations on the acquisition and possession of firearms. In the course of working such agreements out, the Council recommended that member countries proceed to implement effective regulations governing the export of firearms, in order to prevent the illegal import and use of firearms in other member countries.

In 1974*, the Council moved for a resolution'on the control of the manufacturing and marketing of arms. The resolution called for highly stringent controls over the manufacturing and marketing of arms in member countries, as well as international agreements concerning the restriction of arms manufacturing and marketing.

In 1975*, the Council recommended again that, in order to combat violence, efforts to control the sale and possession of firearms should be accelerated. Although,

* 1972 - Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Twenty-third Ordinary Session. Recommendation 655. Strasbourg, 1972. * 1974 - Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. Motion for a Resolution on the Control of the manufacture and marketing of arms (Document 3496). Strasbourg, 1974. * 1975 - Parliamentary Assembly of the Councir of Europe. Written Question No. 176 (Document 3663). Strasbourg, 1975. according to the information available, the results of these recommendations are not clear, the repeated suggestions of this group on gun control confirm that there are many other jurisdictions concerned about this issue.

Great Britain

Firearms control in Britain provides an example of a fairly stringent system operating in a rather unique environment because of the fact that, except in special circumstances, the British police are not armed with guns.

The Firearms Act of 1920 represents the first effort in Britain to control the acquisition and possession of firearms and to penalize the use of firearms in criminal offences. This Act required persons who wanted to buy, possess, use or carry rifles and/or pistols (handguns) to obtain an authoriz,ing certificate from the police. The police had to be satisfied that an applicant had a good reason for acquiring a firearm and could be permitted to do so without danger to the public safety or peace. Ammunition for rifles and pistols was also subject to these requirements. Firearms dealers were required to be registered with the police accordina to similar conditions.

Over the years, there were several amendments to the 1920 Firearms Act. In 1936, short barrelled shotguns were bought under the same controls as rifles and pistols. The police were authorized to attach conditions related to the safe storage of firearms to the issuance of certificates. In addition, certain fully automatic weapons were declared to be prohibited. 4

In 1962, restrictions were placed on the use of airguns and shotguns by juveniles (persons under the age of seventeen years) as a result of a reported increase in the misuse of these weapons. In 1965, penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of a criminal offence were incfeased. In addition, new offences were created relating to the carrying of firearms and the police were authorized to check the premises of firearms dealers periodically to ensure that weapons were being stored securely.

In 1967, increasing concern over the use of shotguns in the commission of criminal offences resulted in these firearms being brought under a certificate system. In the case of shotgun certificates, the police must be assured that possession of a shotgun by an applicant would not be dangerous to public safety or the peace.

All of the amendments described above were consoli- dated in the Firearms Act of 1968 and also included in this Act was the provision that convicted offenders be prohibited from possessing firearms. In this regard, if the sentence served was three years or more, the offender would be prohibited from the possession of firearms for life. On the other hand, if the sentence served was between three months and three years, the offender was not permitted to possess firearms for a period of five years from the date of release from prison.

The 1968 Act defined the following four categories of weapons: prohibited weapons (e.g. machine guns); rifles, pistols, short barrelled shotguns, ammunition for these firearms and certain air weapons; shotguns; and air weapons other than those included in the second category. 5

With respect to weapons in the second category (e.g. rifles, pistols), a police certificate is required for each firearm. As mentioned previously, an applicant must state the reason for possession of the firearm and it should be noted here that, generally, the protection of life and/or property is not considered a valid reason for acquiring a firearm unless, for example, the circumstances of an applicant's situation are such that there is an immediate danger which justifies the acquisition of a firearm.

In all cases where the certificate issued relates to firearms included in the second category, the certificate holder is required by law to store the firearm in a secure place when it is not in use. In addition, the police may attach conditions for the use of the firearm to the certificate. The certificate holder must report all thefts, losses of weapons and changes of address to the police promptly.

For shotguns (weapons in the third category), the certificates are issued on the basis of whether or not the possession of a shotgun by the applicant would be dangerous to public safety. Once issued, the certificate holder is permitted to acquire an unlimited number of shotguns. There are no restrictions on shotgun ammunition and the certificate holder is not bound by any regulations concerning the safe storage of his/her shotgun(s).

With respect to these controls, it should be noted that there are certain exemptions contained in the 1968 Act. Persons who are members of a government approved rifle club or cadet corps and use a rifle for target practice or drill are not required to obtain a certificate in the usual 6 manner. In addition, rifle and pistol clubs are permitted to buy ammunition in bulk for members' use and, in this case, if the ammunition is used on the range and not taken away, the usual authorization is not required.

The 1968 Act specifies over eighty firearms- related offences and the penalties for these offences range widely in severity. For example, a person in possession of a rifle without the required certificate is liable to a term of up to three years' imprisonment. The fact that the use of firearms in crime is considered a serious matter is evident in that anyone who carries a firearm, real or imitation, during the commission of a crime is liable to imprisonment for a period of ten to fourteen years. In addition, the Criminal Justice Act of 1972 specifies that the possession of a firearm with the intent to endanger life or resist arrest carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

In 1965, prior to the enactment of strictef controls, approximately 220,000 rifle and pistol certificates were issued by the police. In 1968, when the law was amended to require a separate certificate for each firearm, approx- imately 126,000 rifle and pistol certificates were issued. Since a provision requiring certificates for the possession of shotguns came into effect in 1968, approximately 600,000 such certificates have been issued by the police. This figure of 600,000 gun owners is particularly interesting when one considers that Great Britain has a total population of approximately 50 million and, by way of comparison, Canada has a gun owning population of approximately three million and a total population of approximately 23 million.

Another measure that has • een taken in the past in Britain with respect to firearms control is the "firearm amnesty". Since 1933, there have been seven firearm amnesties in Britain where, during a specified period, illegally held firearms may

-7

be turned over to the police without fear of prosecution. The last such amnesty was held prior to the enactment of 1 the 1968 provisions and approximately 25,000 firearms were surrendered to the police. Other amnesties in Britain have yielded as many as 76,000 firearms.

Having described the control system, some information on the use of firearms in crime will now be provided. The following table is a breakdown of firearms offences as known to the police during the period from 1967 to 1971.

TABLE I Firearms Offences in Britain, 1967 - 1971 Firearms Dishonestly Year Firearms Used Firearms Carried Acquired Total

Il. 1967 792 71 1,476 2,339 lg . 1968 878 83 1,542 2,503 I 1969 1,308 109 1,881 3,298 1970 1,359 104 2,023 3,486 II ' 1971 1,735 * 127 2,224 4,086 Note: 'Used' - defined here as fired, used as a blunt instrument II to cause injury or damage, or used as a threat. 'Carried' - defined here as in the possession of an offender during the commission of an offence but not used, 11 even to threaten, and so unknown to the victim at the time 'Dishonestly Acquired' - defined here as stolen, obtained 11 by fraud or forgery or dishonestly handled. Source: The Control of Firearms in Great Britain - A Consulta- II tive Document, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973.

1. As is evident from the above data, there has been a substantial increase in the number of firearms offences known to the police since the 1968 Act came into effect. It is interesting to note that there was a 98% increase from 1968 to 1971 in the number of offences known to the police in which a firearm was used. 1 1 I . -8

With respect to the offences specified in the Firearms Act of 1968, only some are indictable. Where a non-indictable offence is concerned, it is possible that an offender may be simply cautioned by the police. The following table indicates the number of persons convicted and the number of persons cautioned under the 1968 Act for the years 1969 and 1971.

TABLE II Violations of the 1968 Firearms Act 1969 and 1971 Number of Persons Number of Persons Year Convicted Cautioned Total

1969 4,392 3,948 8,340 1971 5,927 7,943 13,870 % INCREASE 35% 101% 66%

Source: The Control of Firearms in Great Britain - A Consul- tative Document, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973.

' As can be seen from the above information, there was . a substantial increase in the number of violations of the 1968 Firearms Act from 1969 to 1971, particularly in cases where the offence is not indictable and is dealt with by a police caution. Although the British authorities (Home Office) suggest that part of this increase may be explained by improved reporting procedures, a significant part of the increase is not accounted for by any administrative explanation.* In this regard, it is interesting to note, at the end of 1970, a Working Party was organized to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing firearms controls. In 1972, the Working Party submitted a report and the recommendations contained in the report called for stricter

controls over firearms. For example, the Working Party recommended • that firearms certificate application forms include provision for reporting offences that result in probation or conditional discharge I/ as well as offences that result in a more substantive penalty. The Working Party also recommended that suspended sentences should

*Source: The Control of Firearms in Great Britain - A Consulta- _ tive Document, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 19 II 9 result in the offender being prohibited from possessing firearms in the same manner as served sentences do.

With respect to the powers of the police, the Working Party suggested that the police should have the authority to revoke a firearms certificate, if it is determined that the certificate holder's reason for acquiring a firearm is no longer valid. Such revocations would be subject to appeal and the Working Party recommended that appeal procedures and rights in general should be specified clearly in the law.

The most stringent measure recommended by the Working Party was that shotguns should be subject to the same controls as rifles and pistols. This would mean that persons wishing to acquire, possess, use or carry shotguns would be required to state reasons for wanting to possess such weapons, be considered fit to own firearms, comply with safe storage regulations and report all transfers of firearms to the police.

Although these recommendations have not yet been incorporated into the system of controls, they do indicate the seriousness with which the firearms control issue is con- sidered in Britain. These recommendations are particularly interesting in light of the fact that, in 1970, there were a total of 29 reported homicides by firearms in England and Wales (total population of fifty million) and, during the same year, the city of New York (total population of eight million) reported a total of 965 homicides by firearms.

United States

In the United States,jurisdiction over the control of firearms is shared between all levels of government (i.e. federal, state and municipal). The result of this divided - 10 -

authority is that control systems can vary a great deal

from state to state, as well as from city to city within the same state. Due to this wide variation, the discussion in this paper will be limited to a brief description of the federal controls, which apply to the whole country, followed by a more detailed description of state controls in Massachusetts.

At the federal level, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division of the Treasury Department, administers 11 a number of provisions related to the control of firearms. These provisions are included in the following acts: National Firearms Act - 1934 (Revised), Federal Aviation Act - 1958, Civil Disobedience Act of 1968, Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed registration requirements as well as a tax on certain types of firearms, incl'uding fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, derringers (pistols) and silenced weapons.

The Civil Disobedience Act of 1968 prohibited the manufacture or demonstration (e.g. training, instruction) of firearms, among other weapons, with the knowledge that such firearms or training will be used illegally in a civil disorder

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 included a provision which prohibited the carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms by air.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 included provisions to restrict the interstate and foreign transportation of firearms and ammunition and to require that all firearms manufacturers and firearms dealers be licensed. This Act also stipulated that all firearms manufactured or imported after December of - 11 -

1968 must have serial numbers and makes clearly marked on them and the obliteration or alteration of such constitutes an offence. In addition, the Act specified that the sale of firearms to persons under eighteen or twenty-one years of age, dependina on the type of firearm, was prohibited.

The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 further defined persons who are prohibited from owning firearms and includes convicted felons, persons dishonourably discharged from the Armed Forces, mental incompetents and aliens illegally in the United States. In 1970, this Act was amended to include the provision that the carrying or use of a firearm during the commission of a criminal offence is punishable by a minimum term of one year and a maximum term of ten years' imprisonment.

Where firearms control in the United States is concerned, it is important to consider that the American constitution includes a provision giving every citizen of the country the right to bear arms. Therefore, in enacting legislation related to firearms control, all levels of government are somewhat constrained in the stringency of the measures that-may be taken without inter- fering with this constitutional right.

The Acts described briefly above constitute the main federal provisions for the control of firearms. It is interesting to note that, during 1974 and 1975, a total of forty different bills related to firearms control were brought before the United States Congress. In June of 1975, President Ford (Republican) issued a statement indicating his support for firearms control and, in particular, the banning of 'Saturday nite specials' (cheaply produced handguns) in the United States. In June of 1976, the Democratic party announced that its platform accorded high priority to firearms control, especially handgun control. At the same time, the executive directors of approximately twenty gun control organizations met in Washington to form a national group whose aim is to effect strong state and national handgun control by co-ordinating their programs, communications and activities. Although no new federal measures have been instituted recently, the indications are that there is growing support in the - 12 -

United States for stricter gun control at the federal level, particularly with respect to handguns.

State laws are concerned mainly with the licensing and registration of firearms, especially handguns. For example, eight states stipulate that a permit must be obtained before a handgun can be purchased. In thirty-one states, there are regulations pertaining to the carrying of handguns that require the carrier to obtain an authorizing licence. It should be noted here that many municipalities enforce regulations on the transport or carrying of firearms.

Estimates of the total firearms stock in the United States range from 100 million to 200 million, including an estimated 40 million handguns. It has also been estimated that over 25 million handguns alone are manufactured or legally imported into the country every year. It is also reported that firearms are responsible for over 20,000 deaths in the United States every year.* Given the large firearms stock and high incidence of deaths caused by firearms in the United States, it seems worthwhile to examine one state firearms control program in greater detail.

Massachusetts

The control system in the state of Massachusetts provides an interesting example of firearms control in the United States. It is a system that was amended in 1975 to include stricter measures and has been publicized a great deal. The first Massachusetts statute requiring some form of a permit to carry a firearm came into effect in 1906. This 1 1906 statute specified that the carrying of a loaded pistol or revolver without a duly issued permit was prohibited. It was not until 1968 that legislation requiring a permit in this case was named the 'Firearms Identification' (F.I.D.) card.

* Source: New York (City). Criminal Justice Co-ordinating Council. The case for federal firearms control. New York, 1973. - 13 -

An F.I.D. card can be obtained by applying to the local police department. The police are obliged to issue an F.I.D. card to every applicant who qualifies according to age requirements; is mentally stable; does not have a felony record; and, is a United States citizen.

Each application is forwarded by the local police department to state authorities who check for criminal record and recorded stays in mental institutions. Following these procedures, every applicant who qualifies is issued an F.I.D. card at a cost of two dollars. The card owner is permitted to possess an unlimited number of firearms, including handguns. However, there is a special regulation pertaining to the carrying of handguns. Persons wishing to carry a handgun must obtain an authorizing permit and carrying permits are issued at the discretion of the local police authority. Applicants must state the reason for carrying a handgun and it should be noted that, although occupational hazard can be considered a sufficient reason, self defence is generally not accepted as a sufficient reason for carrying a handgun. An example of 'occupational hazard' is a person handling payrolls and such persons would be granted permission to carry a handgun in the course of their duties.

In addition to providing reasons, persons who apply for a handgun carrying permit must prove their mechanical competence and are tested by the local police at the police firing range. Applicants who qualify according to the conditions described above are issued a handgun carrying permit at a cost of ten dollars. Until 1972, these licences were valid for a period of two years. In 1972, this period was extended to • five years. - 14 -

Age requirements in the Massachusetts law specify that persons under eighteen years of age are not permitted to carry handguns under any circumstances. However, persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen may, with parental consent, obtain an F.I.D. card which, in addition to authorizing the possession of firearms, authorizes the harrying of long guns (i.e. rifles and shotguns). Persons under fifteen years of age may carry a rifle or shotgun in the course of hunting or target shooting if they are under the immediate supervision of certain licensed persons.

In April of 1975, as a result of concern over an increase in violent crime in the state and a desire to reach persons who were in violation of the existing laws, new firearms control measures became effective in Massachusetts. These measures are included in the Bartley-Fox Act, which specifies that the unauthorized carrying of firearms (i.e. handguns, rifles and shotguns) is punishable by.a mandatory jail sentence of one year. Although certain carrying offences may result in the imposition of a longer sentence, a minimum one-year sentence is an automatic consequence of conviction. In all cases of carrying offences, plea bargaining is not permitted; cases cannot be postponed indefinitely; and, judges are not permitted to suspend a sentence or place the convicted offender on probation. While convicted offenders are serving the mandatory one-year term, they are not eligible for parole, furlough or time off for good behaviour.

A great deal of public attention was focused on the Bartley-Fox Act at the time of its passage into law both because a campaign to educate the people of Massachusetts about their responsibilities with respect to the ownership and carrying of firearms had been undertaken in the three months prior to the enactment of the provisions and, in addition, :because the constitutionality of the Act was questioned in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. In this regard, in Ma'rch of 1976, the - 15 -

Bartley-Fox Act was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, which rejected arguments suggesting that the provisions of the Act constituted cruel and unusual punishment and denied due process or equal protection under the laws to defendants.

The effectiveness of the provisions of the Bartley-Fox Act is not yet entirely clear, although some relevant information is contained in the report of a study conducted by the Center for Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School in Boston, Massachusetts. It should be pointed out that the data provided in this report pertain only to the city of Boston and, there- fore, any conclusions drawn in the report may not necessarily apply to the state of Massachusetts as a whole.

In examining levels of violent crime in the period prior to the enactment of the 1975 provisions, it is interesting to note that total robberies and armed robberies had been increasing in Boston since 1971. There had been a particularly sharp increase in these crimes in July of 1974 and this increase persisted through to the first quarter of 1975. Although the second quarter in 1975 shows a decrease in robberies, this was followed by a further increase in the last half of 1975. Over- all, the robbery rate did not drop much below the high level recorded in July of 1974. Firearms robberies accounted for 30 - 35 per cent of the total robberies in Boston in 1974 and, although the months of May and June of 1975 (the Bartley-Fox provisions became effective on April 1, 1975) show a definite reduction in the proportion of firearm robberies (26%), there was no clear reduction in the total number of robberies during this period.

Similarly, the use of firearms in assaults constituted 25 - 26% of the total number of assaults in Boston every year during the period from 1971 to 1974 and the total number of assaults increased every year during this period. The - 1 6 - proportion of firearms assaults began to drop in March of 1975 and over the whole year (1975), firearms assaults accounted for 18% of the total number of assaults in Boston. The total number of assaults continued to rise during 1975.

In the year following enactment of the Bartley-Fox provisions, there was no significant change in the rate of homicide by firearms. The Harvard study suggests that the shift in the use of firearms in assaults may have played a stabilizing role with respect to the rate of firearms homicides; that is, a reduction in the number of firearms-related assaults could have resulted in the stabilizing of the homicide rate because firearms represent an effective and deadly weapon.

Many of the Bartley-Fox cases studied by the Harvard group are presently being appealed in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and the report indicates that 'the true impact of the law may not be known until its ability to turn arrests into incarceration is demonstrated'. In spite of this, the decreases in the level of firearms use in crime noted above are attributed, in the Harvard study, to increased compliance with the laws relating to the possession and carrying of firearms, which, it is claimed, resulted in a reduction in the casual availability of firearms.

Early in 1976, a group of Massachusetts citizens circulated a petition calling for the banning of the possession of handguns in the state except by peace officers. As a result of this petition, a bill containing this provision was tabled in the Massachusetts legislature. Although the bill was defeated, the proposal was subjected to a statewide referendum in November of 1976.and was defeated by more than a two-to-one ratio. It is also noteworthy that a voluntary gun disposal program was held in Massachusetts in connection with the referendum. For a period of three days prior to the referendum, - 17 -

firearms could be turned in voluntarily, without compensation for same, to the police. Although there were no accurate figures available at the time of writing this paper, the Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts reported that the number of weapons turned in voluntarily during the three- day period was very small.

Jamaica

The firearms control system operating presently in Jamaica represents the most stringent system of all those discussed in this paper, particularly in terms of the penalties imposed on firearms offenders.

Prior to the enactment of these strict controls in 1974, the Firearms Act of 1967 regulated the possession of firearms and ammunition by Jamaican citizens. The 1967 Act requi red. that persons wishing to possess firearms must first obtain a 'Firearm User's Licence '. These licences are only granted if the police authority is satisfied that an applicant has good reason to import, purchase, acquire or have in his possession the firearm or ammunition to which the application relates and, further, that such would not .constitute a danger to the public peace or safety. It should be noted that licences are not granted with respect to weapons or ammunition that have been classified as 'prohibited'. Where firearms and ammunition that have been classified as 'restricted' are concerned, licences can only be issued with the prior approval of the Minister of Justice. The Minister's approval is also required in cases where the applicant is considered to be a 'restricted' person (e.g. habitual criminal) and, generally, such persons are prohibited from the possession of firearms. In addition to the regulations pertaining to the possession of firearms,persons who wish to carry firearms must obtain authorization to do so from the police authority and, in cases where such permission is granted, it is usually written into the termS and conditions of the Firearms User's Licence. - 18 -

These controls had been operating in an environment where violent crime had been increasing over a period of years following independence. It should be noted that a great deal of the increasing violence appears to be politically, rather than criminally motivated and this renders the situation in Jamaica somewhat unique. The followina figures, provided by the Ministry of National Security and Justice, briefly compare the incidence of violent crime in Jamaica in 1960 and 1973.

TABLE III Violent Crime in Jamaica, 1960 and 1973 Type of Crime 1960 1973 Murder 60 232 Rape 156 641 Armed Robbery 226 3,255 Shooting 23 879

In March of 1974,the Jamaican government instituted several measures in an effort to reduce the incidence of violent crime without concentrating authority too much or eroding individual liberty. These measures included amendments to the Firearms Act of 1967 and the enactment of provisions contained in the Gun Court Act and the Suppression of Crime (Special Provisions) Act.

The 1967 Firearms Act was amended to include the provision that the police authority responsible for granting Firearms User's Licences must, in addition to the 1.67 requirements, be satisfied that an applicant is proficient in the use and management of the firearm to which the application relates. The police authority must also be satisfied that an applicant has made adequate provision for keeping the firearm in a secure place when it is not being carried or used. In this regard, if a firearm is lost through negligence on the part of the owner, the owner can be found guilty of a summary - 19 - conviction offence and liable to a maximum fine of 500 dollars or a maximum term of twelve months' imprisonment.

The 1974 Suppression of Crime (Special Provisions) Act authorizes the Minister, in the interest of public safety, to enforce certain measures for a period 0/ thirty days, or longer if the House of Representatives sanctions an extension of the thirty-day period by resolution. Under the provisions of this Act, the Security Forces are permitted to search premises without a warrant; articles may be seized and detained; persons may be arrested upon reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence; and, curfews may be enforced.

The Gun Court Act represents the strictest measure that was instituted in 1974. This Act established a special court to deal with firearms offences. From the date that the Gun Court Act took effect in March of 1974, all cases of firearms offences were required to be transferred to the Gun Court and the accuseds were to be remanded in custody to appear before the Gun Court. The law specified that the actual hearing of the case must commence within seven days of the accused's first appearance before the court, although no objection can be raised by the accused if this requirement is not met.

According to the provisions of the Act, only members and officers of the court, security personnel, parties to the case before the court (e.g. attorneys, witnesses) and any others authorized by the court are permitted to be present at the proceedings. The court is authorized to order that the names of witnesses remain confidential and the court must approve all particulars of the case revealed other than the name of the accused, the offence charged, the verdict and the sentence. Violation of this provision constitutes a summary conviction offence and is punishable by a maximum fine of 2,000 dollars or a maximum term of twelve months' imprisonment. - 20 - I. In the case of offences relating to the possession of firearms and/or ammunition, appeals are not permitted, although other firearms offences are subject to appeal in the usual manner. In these latter cases, the decision of the Court of Appeal is final and conclusive.

The most stringent provision of the 1974 Gun Court Act was related to the penalty imposed upon conviction of a firearms offence. Persons convicted of an offence related to the possession of firearms and/or ammunition are liable to a sentence of indefinite detention and, as mentioned above, these sentences cannot be appealed. Persons detained according to this provision cannot be discharged unless the Governor General, acting on the advice of a 'Review Board', gives such a direction.

The Review Board was authorized by the Act and conbists of five members as follows: active or retired Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judge who is nominated by the Chief Justice to be Chairman of the Review Board; Director of Prisons or his nominee; Chief Medical Officer or his nominee; nominee of Jamaica Council of Churches; and a person nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition as being qualified in psychiatry.

The function of the Review Board is to consider the recommendations of the Gun Court as to length of detention and advise the Govenor General on such matters.

As mentioned previously, the Gun Court Act became effective in Jamaica in the last week of March, 1974. In January of 1975, a total of 96 persons were being held in indefiniteII detention. At the same time, the number of murders in Jamaica - 21 - in 1974 was 207 and this represents a decrease of 11% from 1973 when there had been 232 murders. The number of reported shootings dropped to 556 in 1974 from 879 in 1973 (a decrease of 37%).

The Gun Court Act was challenged as beina uncon- stitutional and in January of 1975 the Gun Court ceased to function, pending the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. Between January 1, 1975 and November 30, 1975, Jamaica reported 4,202 major crimes of violence and 2,324 (55%) of these crimes involved the use of firearms.

The Privy Council found that the following two aspects of the 1974 Gun Court Act were unconstitutional: 1. the sentence of indefinite detention subject to the advice of the Review Board • 2. one of the Court Divisions created by the Act which was presided over by a Resident Magistrate.

As a result of the Privy Council decision, the Gun Court Act was amended in February of 1976. The sentence of indefinite detention was replaced by a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment at hard labour and a Supreme Court judge was substituted for a Resident Magistrate in the Gun Court Division that had been found to be unconstitu- tional.

Although there are no figures available to indicate the effect of the 1976 amendments on rates of violent crime, it should be noted that the Prime Minister of Jamaica declared a state of emergency in June of 1976 which is still in force at the time of writing. Since this measure was taken as a means of curbing violence, it appears that the measures that - 22 - have been taken with respect to the control of firearms have not had the desired effect to date of reducing violent crime.

Japan

In Japan, the law pertaining to the control of firearms is included in a statute which also relates to the control of swords. The law was enacted in 1958 and its purpose was to 'prescribe the necessary controls for preventing the danger relating to the possession of firearms, swords, etc'. Under this law, a firearm is defined as 'pistol, rifle, machine gun, gun, hunting gun and any other firearm charged with gunpowder and air guns (including compressed gas) that are capable of firing bullets'.

The possession of firearms is strictly controlled. Generally, persons are not authorized to own a firearm for the simple pleasure of having.a gun, for a pollection or for self-defence. Authorization is only granted in cases where a person's duties are related to the maintenance of law and order; for test or research purposes by a State officiai or local public entity; for use in teaching a training course; for public display ; for business related to the manufacture or repair of firearms; or in other cases where a person complies with the registration provisions specified in the law.

Any person wishing to own a firearm for any purpose must obtain permission from a local authority called the 'Prefectoral Public Safety Commission'. This Commission is bound by law not to authorize the possession of firearms: - to persons under 18 years of age (under 14 years of age in the case of air guns) - to mentally deranged persons, persons poisoned

• by narcotics or hemp or feeble-minded persons - to persons having no definite residence - 23 -

- to persons whose permission has been cancelled within a period of three years prior to a present application for permission to own a firearm - to persons who have been penalized other than by a fine, where three years has not elapsed since the execution of the penalty has been completed or the penalty has been remitted - in cases where the life or property of other persons or the public safety is likely to be destroyed (this applies to relatives of the applicant as well as to the applicant himself) - in cases where a firearm has been remodeled and the resulting structure or function does not conform to the standards prescribed by Cabinet Order.

If the firearm with respect to which the application is being made is a hunting gun or an air gun, the applicant must have attended a training course or demonstrate equivalent knowledge. The training course in this case is administered by the Prefectoral Public Safety Commission and consists of instruction on the laws and orders relating to the possession, handling and use of hunting guns and air guns. Certificates are issued to persons who have attended the course and completed the lessons.

Once an applicant has met all of the requirements, an authorizing permit is issued. The permit holder is res- ponsible for reporting all changes of address and a lost or stolen permit must be reported promptly to the Prefectoral Public Safety Commission. While permits for hunting guns and air guns must be renewed every five years, permits for pistols are only issued on the basis of a specified period.

In all cases, a person who has obtained permission to own a firearm must confirm with the Prefectoral Public Safety Commission that the firearm with respect to which the application was made is, in fact, the firearm that is authorized 1 - 24 - under the permit. This confirmation must be made within fourteen days of acquiring the firearm.

Circumstances under which the permission granted is automatically invalidated are specified in the legislation and include the following: - person does not acquire the firearm applied for within three months of the date that permission is granted - person given permission dies - person transfers the firearm or does not possess it on the basis of specified intent - firearm is lost, stolen or destroyed - firearm is ordered to be submitted to the authorities or is confiscated - it is recommended by the police that permission be revoked - period of permission expires.

Conditions related to the transport or carrying of firearms are specified in the permit and the firearm can only be discharged according to the terms of the permission that has been granted. Firearms being carried must be covered or in a case and unloaded and, otherwise, must be stored unloaded. Silencers, cartridges or replaceable gun barrels are not permitted unless they are expressly included in the terms of permission.

It is interesting to note that antique firearms are controlled by the 'Cultural Properties Protection Commission'. This group is responsible for registering old firearms that are considered to be worthy as objects of art or antiques.

A person wishing to possess such a firearm must apply to this group and the application is judged by a member of the Registration Examination Committee. In cases where - 25 -

registration is permitted, a certificate is issued and the Cultural Properties Protection Commission notifies the Prefectoral Public Safety Commission that a certificate has been issued. If a certificate is lost, stolen or destroyed, the certificate holder must notify the Cultural Properties Protection Commission and the certificate is re-issued.

In Japan, firearms offences carry relatively severe penalties. For example, the illegal possession of a pistol or hunting gun carries a manixum penalty of five years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 200,000 yen (approximately 700 Canadian dollars). A person who has obtained permission . to possess a pistol or hunting gun by fraud is also liable to the same penalty. The illegal possession of a firearm other than a pistol or hunting gun carries a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 100,000 yen (approximately 350 Canadian dollars). The penalty for carrying or discharging a firearm illegally is a maximum of two years in prison or a fine of up to 50,000 yen.

All transfers and lending of a firearm must be reported to the Prefectoral Public Safety Commission or the Cultural Properties Protection Commission (i.e. to the group that is responsible for the firearm concerned) and failure to do so results in a maximum penalty of one year in prison or a fine of up to 30,000 yen.

Although there were no statistics available on the rate of violent crime in Japan, there were no indications in the available information that violent crime and the use of firearms in violent crime are a serious problem in this country. - 26 -

Sweden

The first Swedish law on firearms control was enacted in 1918 and was only in force for a limited period. The current firearms control legislation was enacted in 1974.

The current regulations pertaining to the acquisition, possession and use of firearms by private citizens are contained mainly in the 1933 Law of Arms and the 1974 Decree of Arms. The 1935 Decree of Control of the Production of Munitions and and the 1949 Decree of Explosive Goods deal with the professional production of firearms, parts and ammunition, although the latter decree does contain some regulations pertaining to the acquisi- tion, possession and use of ammunition by private citizens.

In Sweden, a permit to own a gun is all that is reqUired to purchase one. An owner is personally responsible for his/her firearms and must ensure that they do not fall into the hands of another person.

There are no firearms or ammunition that a private citizen is prohibited from possessing or using, although the possession of pistols, other pocket weapons, machine pistols and other automatic weapons is only permitted for extra- ordinary reasons. The only other restriction is that persons under seventeen years of age are not permitted to acquire or possess air or spring arms without permission from the local police authority.

Citizens are also permitted to collect firearms, parts and/or ammunition which have sentimental or decorative value, although permission to collect machine pistols or automatic weapons is not usually given. In cases where the police are uncertain about an applicant's intention, they are authorized to demand information or documentation from - 27 - the applicant in order to prove that possession really is a question of serious interest and that the weapon has a natural place in the collection. The police also have the authority to give binding instructions concerning the keeping of the weapon. In cases where security is questionable or the weapon is a modern one (e.g. ammunition can be obtained easily), the police can instruct that the weapon be rendered permanently unfit for use. A collector may also obtain permission to acquire one cartridge or one projectile for the weapon that he has been authorized to possess.

Generally, citizens are granted permission to possess firearms only if there is a need and if there are reasonable grounds to assume that the firearm will not be misused. The applicant must be known as reliable, law abiding, sound in judgement and otherwise suitable to be entrusted with the possession of a firearm.

Persons applying to the local police authority to possess a firearm for a purpose other than collecting or decorating must prove that they can handle the weapon properly. There are special requirements for certain kinds of weapons. For instance, if the purpose of possession is given as target shooting, the applicant must be an active member of a shooting association and must show proof of his/her skill in shooting. In this regard, it should be noted that an applicant who is in service and is in need of another firearm (i.e. in addition to the officially granted firearm) to maintain or develop shooting skills will be granted permission.

Where certain types of firearms are concerned, the need to possess is seen to exist for special purposes only. For example, the possession of stunning weapons is permitted only to veterinary surgeons working in a zoo or with wild - 28 -

animals and the applicant must prove that he/she is familiar with the effects of the weapon.

An applicant who meets the established requirements for the possession of firearms is issued a licence which authorizes him to acquire firearms. A small fee is charged for the licence and there is no time limit on the validity of the licence. The licence is issued in the form of a card and this card contains information pertaining to the purpose for which the owner is entitled to use the firearm. All licences are registered by the local police authority.

The licence card must be carried by the owner at all times that the weapon is being carried, either by the owner himself or by another person who has borrowed the firearm to be used in the owner's presence. If the licence holder shows, by misuse or carelessness, that he/she is unfit to possess a firearm, the police have the authority to recall the permission. In these cases, the firearms are either confiscated or must be sold by the owner within a short period. If the firearms are not sold wichin the specified period, they are redeemed by the state.

Persons wishing to deal in firearms must also obtain authorization from the local police authority. Subject to an applicant being considered orderly, reliable and suitable, a dealer's licence will ,be issued for a small fee. The licence is issued on the condition that the dealer will keep all firearms under lock. The goods must be kept and handled in such a way that there is adequate security against unauthorized persons obtaining possession of these goods or causing damage through ignition or explosion. Dealer premises can be checked by the local police authority at any time and a dealer's licence may be recalled if the dealer has not complied with the - 29 - direction issued under the licence. Manufacturers of firearms are subject to the same requirements as firearms dealers.

Penalties for violations of the regulations pertaining to the acquisition, possession and use of firearms range from fines to terms of imprisonment. In addition, firearms, parts and/or ammunition can be confiscated if they are acquired, possessed, used, traded or produced unlawfully.

There were some statistics available which provide a general indication of the level of involvement of firearms in crime. The following table indicates the number of suicides by shooting and blasting; the number of accidents by fire explosion, firearms or hot substance; and, the number of intentional homicides and robberies with firearms during the period from 1970 to 1972 in Sweden. TABLE IV FIREARMS USE IN CRIME, SWEDEN 1970 - 1972

- Year Number of Total Firearms Inten- Total Homicides Firearms Suicides Total Suicides accidents accidents etc. acci - tional Intention-by Fire- Robberiesk by shoot- Suicides by shoot- by fire dents as Homicides al arms as a ing and ing and explosions, a percen- by Homicides percen- blasting blasting firearms, tage of Firearms tage of as a hot sub- total total percen- stance accidents homicides tage of total suicides

1970 148 3,696 4% 60 197 30% 210 217 1,790 12%

1971 133 3,646 4% 44 219 20% 239 169 1,648 10%

1972 192 4,008 5% 41 218 19% 189 209 1,646 13%

* No information available as to the total number of roboeries.

MIN MI all MIMI MI IMO WM MI SIM MI Me Mil ill UM OM OM OM MU - 31 -

It should be noted that, where accidents and suicides are concerned, it is not possible to isolate the number of these incidents that involved firearms. However, even if firearms accounted for the majority of the incidents in the categories specified, the number of incidents in these categories constitute a relatively small proportion of the total number of accidents and suicides. It is interesting to note that, in Canada, firearms accidents account for approximately 1 - 2% of the total accidental deaths each year, while firearms suicides account for approximately one third of all suicides each year.*

The following data indicate the number of crimes committed against the regulations concerning the possession of weapons during the period from 1970 to 1972 by type of weapon involved.

TABLE V Firearms Possession Offences by Type of Weapon Involved, Sweden 1970 - 1972

11 Year Pistols, Machine Hunting Other The Total Rest* ---- Pistols Weapons Weapons II 1970 230 202 96 71 599 1971 642 656 234 87 1,619 11 1972 364 278 140 88 870

* There was no information available to indicate the specific meaning of this category.

* Source: Statistics Canada, Vital Statistics Division. Causes of Death, Catalogue 84-203. - 32 -

As can be seen from the above table, the number of offences related to the possession of weapons increased substantially in 1971 and decreased, again substantially, in 1972. In this regard, it may be significant that, in 1971, the maximum penalty for the unlawful possession of a firearm was increased from one year to two years' imprisonment.

Switzerland

Switzerland is divided into 22 'cantons' or districts (19 full cantons and 6 half cantons) and each of these districts has independent jurisdiction over police matters, including the control of firearms.

In 1944, an agreement concerning the arms and munitions trade was drawn up and all the cantons eventually adhered to the terms of this agreement. The agreement specified that all persons wishing to deal in the sale of firearm s. must first obtain a permit from the local police authority. These permits are granted on the basis of an applicant having a good reputation in the community and the required professional knowledge. Dealers were also required to keep records of all firearms transactions and the police were authorized to check these records at any time to ensure that they are being kept in accordance with the regulations.

On the other hand, a person wishing to buy a firearm is required to obtain an arms buyer's permit from the local police authority. The following classes of individuals may not obtain an arms buyer's permit and are thus excluded from acquiring or owning firearms in Switzerland: - persons under eighteen years of age; - mental patients; - 33 -

- persons considered to be a public menace, of violent character, a drug addict or an alcoholic; and, - persons who have been convicted of a criminal offence.

Arms buyer's permits are valid for a period of three months and may be used by the holder in any of the cantons or districts that adhere to the agreement. The permit holder must present his/her signed permit at the time of the purchase. A person living in a district that does not adhere to the agreement must obtain a declaration from his/her local police authority, if he/she wishes to purchase firearms in a district that does adhere to the agreement. This declaration must state that the purchaser qualifies according to the requirements of the agreement and, in such cases, replaces the arms buyer's permit.

A person who violates the regulations in this agree- ment is subject to a fine or a term of imprisonment, according to the provisions of the Swiss penal code.

In 1970, a new agreement was drawn up and the latter agreement replaces the 1944 agreement. The 1944 agreement had prohibited the buying and selling of machine guns and sub-machine guns and required that any exceptions must be approved by the local police authority. The 1970 agreement extended the definition of prohibited weapons to include switch blades, which had been used increasingly in the commission of serious crimes. The new agreement also specified that persons under eighteen years of age are not permitted to acquire munitions unless they are used immediately and under supervision. Other than the two provisions mentioned above, the terms of the 1970 agreement were the same as the terms of the 1944 agreement. At present, a total of 20 cantons or - 34 - districts (full and half) are adhering to the 1970 agreement.

In addition to the regulations contained in the two agreements, 13 cantons or districts have enacted regulations which forbid the carrying of firearms and automatic knives in public.

As is evident from the information presented, it is the acquisition of firearms that is controlled in Switzerland. There are no regulations pertaining to the possession of firearms. For instance, firearms owners are not bound by any special rules concerning the safe storage of firearms and may, in fact, keep firearms in any manner or place.

In spite of the fact that the possession of firearms is not specifically regulated, it is interesting to note the environment in which this system cf control over the acquisition of firearms operates. In Switzerland, military service is compulsory for all males who are physically fit. At age twenty, males are required to attend a seventeen-week training course. Upon completion of the course, they become members of the active militia for a period of twelve years. In addition, all males between the ages of thirty-two and fifty are members of the reserve militia. As members of the reserve militia, they are required to pass a marksmanship qualification test every year. Persons who fail this test must return to active service until they attain the required standard. These conditions of military service mean that, at least as far as the male population is concerned, the ownership of firearms is very common, and that a large part of the population is tested repeatedly for competence in the handling of firearms.

Very few statistics on the use of firearms in crime in Switzerland are available. The Zurich Cantonal Police reported that 140 persons were convicted of wearing (i.e. carrying) prohibited arms in 1973 and 160 persons were convicted - 35 - of this offence in 1974. The only other information available came from a 1969 enquiry*, the findings of which were still considered to be valid in 1971. The results of this enquiry revealed that the use of firearms in crime in Switzerland is so low that it is not recorded separately in any police statistics.

Other Countries

In 1968, Interpol (an international organization) conducted a survey of gun control policies in its member countries. A total of 56 countries (listed in an appendix to this paper) replied to the questionnaire that was circulated and a brief summary of the results of this survey will be provided here.

Some form of firearms control is evident in almost all of the respondent countries. In countries where persons wishing to purchase or own a firearm must complete an application, they are usually required to indicate reasons for their application. For example, in India, a farmer may indicate that he wishes to own a firearm to protect his crops and must provide details of his land, including location and type of crop grown.

A number of the respondent countries include some form of competence testing as a requirement for the legal ownership of firearms and Peru, Japan (discussed earlier in the paper), Malawi and Uganda are among that group.

Many of the countries included in the survey refuse to grant firearms permits to 'mental patients', (e.g. Ghana, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Lebanon, Luxembourg and Switzerland). In Peru, all applicants must undergo a psychiatric examination and, in France, all applicants who are former psychiatric patients must obtain a certificate from a psychiatrist.

* Reference from Greenwood, Colin. "Firearms Control - A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales". London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972, p. 4. (Study not identified). - 36 -

The following countries have provisions which prohibit the ownership of firearms by convicted criminal offenders: France, Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, Uganda, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Tunisia.

In countries where firearms permits are issued, conditions are often attached to these permits. For instance, in Cyprus and Ghana, permit holders are required to take precautions to ensure that the firearm does not fall into the hands of another person and, in Japan, firearms must be stored unloaded. In Malawi and the United Kingdom, precautions must be taken by the iirearms owner to ensure that his firearm does not cause an accident.

Many of the respondent countries require that special permits be obtained by persons who wish to carry firearms and such permits are only issued upon the demonstration of a spegific need (e.g. the protection of large sums of money to be transported; the protection of life).

In France, permits to carry a firearm are issued only by the Minister of the Interior and are granted only in exceptional cases. In Dahomey, the carrying of firearms is restricted to police personnel.

In some countries, conditions are attached to the issuance of carrying permits. For instance, Algeria, Spain and Thailand require that the firearm be kept out of sight. In most Australian states, gun owners are only allowed to carry their weapons back and forth to the firing range or to a gunsmith repair. In Ireland, some carrying permits are issued with a limit on the number of cartridges which may be carried. In Netherlands Antilles and Tunisia, carrying permits must be renewed every year, while in Uganda a carrying permit is valid only for the duration of the specific need.

In 44 of the 56 countries responding to the questionnaire, persons who have been authorized to own or carry a firearm may purchase ammunition. Only two of the respondent countries do not place any restrictions on the sale or possession of ammunition. - 37 -

In Ceylon, each purchase of ammunition is marked on the back of a purchaser's firearms licence. Several of the respondent countries regulate the number of rounds which may be purchased or held at any one time. In Sierra Leone and Trinidad-Tobago, the number of rounds permitted is specified on the firearms licence. In Malaysia, each gun owner's require- ments are assessed by the authorities and the number of rounds permitted depends on this assessment. France and Surinam have limits on the number of rounds which may be purchased each year. Some of these limits are based on the individual (i.e. per person) and some are based on the number of guns owned by an individual (i.e. per gun). In Brunei, empty cartridges may have to be returned at the time of purchasing ammunition to prove that previous stocks have been used up :

In 34 of the 56 respondent countries, a national file of persons authorized to own and/or bear firearms is maintained. In addition, many of the remaining countries maintain such records at a local level.

In most of the respondent countries, firearms dealers are required to obtain government authorization to carry on a business and this authorization is usually in the form of a licence. Dealers are usually obligated to maintain a record of all sales and this record is subject to periodic inspection by the police to ensure compliance with this regulation.

In some countries, there is a specified time period within which the dealer must record the required information. In India, sales must be recorded on the same day; in Ceylon, the limit is three days; in Uganda, the limit is twenty-one days; in Peru, sales must be recorded on a monthly basis; and in Malawi, firearms sales must be recorded by the dealer twice every year.

It is interesting to note that, where the sale of firearms is concerned, some countries have very tightly controlled systems. For example, in Spain, the manufacture and sale of firearms is government operated and controlled and, similarly, in Turkey firearms can only be purchased through government controlled offices. In Venezuela, the sale of firearms is - 38 - completely outlawed.

The above brief summary of the Interpol survey provides a general outline of some additional firearms control systems operating in jurisdictions outside of Canada. APPENDIX I LIST OF RESPONDENT COUNTRIES IN 1968 INTERPOL SURVEY

Algeria Korea Argentina Laos Australia Lebanon Austria Luxembourg Belgium Madagascar Bolivia Malawi Brunei Malaysia Burma Mexico Cambodia Monaco Canada Netherlands Antilles Central African Republic New Zealand Ceylon Peru Congo Kinshasa Portugal Cyprus Senegal Dahomey Sierra Leone Denmark Spain Federal Germany Surinam Finland Sweden France Switzerland Ghana Thailand India Togo Indonesia Trinidad and Tobago Ireland Tunisia Israel Turkey Italy Uganda Ivory Coast United Kingdom Japan United States Upper Volta Venezuela I . Bibliography

Great Britain Home Department. The control of firearms in Great Britain; a consultative document. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973. Harvard Law School. Center for Criminal Justice. "And nobody can get you out": the impact of a mandatory prison sentence for the illegal carrying of a firearm on the use of firearms and on the administration of criminal justice in Boston. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 19711 "Hinds and others V the Queen, Director of Public Prosecutions V Jacksori c Attorney General of Jamaica (intervener)", All England Law Reports. February 17, 1976, pp. 353-381. II Interpol. Sale, Possession and Transport of Firearms. Thirty-seventh General Assembly Session, 1968. — National Shooting Sports Foundation. A Compilation of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Second Edition. Riverside, Connecticut, 1971. United States Conference of Mayors. 'Do mandatory prison sentences for handgun offences curb violent crime?' Technical Report: One by Matthew G. Yeager, 1976. 1

Additional information was provided by Canadian Embassy Officials in the following countries: Jamaica (Kingston) Japan (Tokyo) Sweden (Stockholm) Switzerland (Berne) United States (Washington, D.C.)

I FIREARMS AND SUICIDE

I FIREARMS AND SUICIDE*

Introduction

This paper examines the available information on suicide in Canada in order to determine whether suicide is causally related to firearms availability and, if so,whether reducing the availability of firearms will result in a decrease in the overall suicide rate. The information contained in this paper was derived from three main sources: official national statistics on suicide; Metropolitan Toronto Police Statistical Records, and; a literature search of the relevant material in the field.

For the most part, existing suicide research incorporates the use of official statistics on suicide. It should be pointed out here that there are some problems related to the use of official suicide statistics in research. It is difficult to ensure that the officials who re primarily responsible for classifying suicides (i.e. coroners, police, psychiatrists) are using uniform criteria consistently in determining whether an incident does, in fact, constitute a suicide and should be classified as such. It is likely that there are various meanings attached to the phenomenon of suicide by different officials and that such inconsistencies are reflected in official suicide statistics. In addition to the problem of possible inconsistencies in recording suicides, the total number of suicides is generally under- estimated. This underestimation is due mainly to the fact that many self-inflicted deaths are not classified as such in official death registration statistics. Furthermore, there is sometimes a tendency for friends and relatives of suicide victims to encourage the concealment of the real cause of death for a variety of reasons (e.g. the stigma attached to suicide, the desire to validate insurance claims etc.).

* The research for this paper was based on data available up to 1976. 2

In spite of the problems described above, official statistics can be useful as general indicators of the overall suicide rate and the frequency with which various methods are used to commit suicide.

A Review of the Statistics

A review of national and Ontario statistics in 1 the paper "Guns in Canada - A Review of Statistics", Delow, revealed the following facts in relation to firearms involve- ment in suicide: 1. Approximately 2 70% of all firearms deaths in Canada are suicides. 2. Approximately one third of all suiciges in Canada are committed by means of a firearm. 3. Over 90% ot all firearms suicide victims in Canada, are males. By comparison, only approximately 60% of all victims of suicie committed by means other than firearms are male. 4. While approximately 44% of the male suidide victims in Canada use firearms as the means, only appgox- imately 10% of the female suicide victims do.

5. The tendency to use a firearm as the means of committing suicide decreases steadily with the increased age of the victim. Approximately 50% of teenage suicide victims in Canada use firearms as the means, whereas less thag one third of suicide victims over the age of 40 do. This is equally true of male and female suicide victims and it is possible (but not proven) that this largely reflects the age distribution of gun owners generally.

1 In order to avoid repetition, the findings of the study "Guns in Canada - A Review of Statistics" relating to suicide are only summarized here. The reader who is interested in further details on the subject is advised to refer to Tables 1.15 to 1.23 inclusive, in that paper. 2 See 'Guns in Canada - A Review of Statistics" 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Derived from Ibid. 6 Ibid. 6. Since 1961, firearms suicides in Canada have increased well out of proportion to estimated increases in gun stock, as well as to increases in population. It would appear that the 97% increase in firearms suicide from 1961 to 1974 cannot be explained simply as a reflection of the increase in gun availability, or of the inrease in population at risk during this period. 7. Handguns accounted for approximately 10% of reported suicides in Ontario for the years 1972 to 1975, while long guns accounted for approximately 85%. In the remaining 5% of cgses, the weapon type was unknown or not reported. In 1974, the figures were:,

rifles - 1%, shotguns - 27%, sawed - off shotguns - 1%."' By comparison, the Canadian gun stock in 1974 is thought to have been made up g: handguns - 6%, rifles - 60%, shotguns - 34%.

The overall picture of firearms suicide which emerges from this review indicates that the typical firearms suicide involves a young male using a rifle. Suicide by firearms appear to be a phenomenon particularly associated with males rather than females, and with young people rather than older peopLe.

Table 1, on the following page, shows that firearms have consistently accounted for the highest number of suicidal deaths in Canada in recent years. During the period from 1960 to 1974, firearms were involved in 10,615 out of a total of 29,950 (36%) reported suicidal deaths. By comparison, poisoning of various kinds accounted for (30%) of all suicidal deaths during this period, while hangings and strangulations accounted for a further 20% of the total suicidal deaths during this period. Thus, the three methods noted above accounted for 85% of all reported suicidal deaths during this fifteen-year period.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid

Table 1

Methods of Suicides in Canada: 1960 - 1974

1960 19.,1 1962 9411 1964 1;115. -1 1966 1967 1960 1969 1970 1971 1972 1- 19/3 330. 9 z 10. 10. 0. Flo. 1 11 . _ No 120, 1,!%2 1 P1 Il (ll:A11I11; air -- ( 622 (11.) 609 ( ( • 7 16 (36) rmrtosivEs 551 140 518 (3 )1) 49% (17) 556 (39) 560 ( 5) 6) 613 (3 ) 719 "331 796 (33) 924_ (36) 935 (35) 950 (14) 1021 (35) 10,6 (16) 191118 11 1 0 C. AND 510 (22) $ (22) 6,118 (20) 1ln: 172 ( 1 3) 7.00 (15) 711 (16 ) 277 (1 9) 297 (19) 336 (20) 310 ( ( 9) 383 (2 ) ) 1 1 2 (20) 19 591 (2 ) ) 622 (23) 647 031 616 (21) 1,101110.1- .• _ VW not, rif: - cm: IN •• •• ,•• 3 4. 3 •• 2 •• A• 3 40 2' 36 3") 100117;1'1C 11111 1 •• •• 4 • • •• 2 1 3 .1 - 3031100(1(1; - 0T111:11 C*0111111 110 (0) 123 (9) III (9) 127 (9) 145 (9) 161 (9) 155 (9) 169 ( 9) 188 (91 215 (9) 229 (1 0) 232 (9 ) 210 (8) 251 (9) 251 (9) 2,679 (9) . -- _ 11A11111/10 111411 111.1,11311:81.67 IC (73 313 121/ 317 (n) 7116 (22) 2 00 (19) 349 (22) 115 (18 ) 156 (2 )) • 384 (7 )) 4 ) 9 (21) 461 (20) 511 (21) 467 00 475 (10) 507 081 554 (19) 5,9112 (20) - • - .- 111011611110 (0) ( 7) _124_ 143 (7) 158 (7) 157 (7 ) "145 (6) 151 (6) 169 (6) 178 (6) 2,011 (7) . 180 (7) 117. _(9),. 1 .12 110_ 105 (7) 120 currirlt; raw 1.1111:•1111I: 10811111- 47 ,11:11TI: 34 (1) 13 (2) 34 • 31 (2) 18 (2) 12 ( 45 (3) (3) 40 (2) 53 (2) 53 (7) 43 (2) 46 (2) 18 (2) 46 (2) 633 (2) ••■•• _ •••■ - • - --- • — .111111 1 1110 Flt(01 61 (1) 94 (4) 111011 1 1 1.ArCS 38 (1) ( 7 (3 ) 9-5 (3) 39 (3) 52 (.I) 62 (4 ) 341 (2) 59 (1) (4) 85 139 (5) 119 (4) 142 (5) 1,093 (4) - --- _ . _ 0•1•111111 AI)!) 1111N0C- 37 (2 (1) C1.111111 11101/11 78 (2) 15 (I) 25 (2) 26 (2) 36 (2) 31 (7) 50 (1) 59 ( 1) ) 61 51 (2) 70 (3) 78 (I) 79 (1) 90 (1) 750 (3 ) _ _ ---• _ . _ •• •- • 1.611; 1:11151111 - - I •• • 5 • - _ . ,.1 00511. ((up% ) 1.170 1166 1130 1436 1 • 84 1715 1714 1811 20)9 229) 211) 2559 2657 2773 29112 2 11,950 _ _ _ • - 1--111e1111 .eif — -6 -4 *12 1 *11 -2 • 1 +17 • 5 36 • 16 41 • 2 u • I15 ;VIM:AP/IN 11111(;111111 _ _ I --1 -)0:-.11-11-6-171 .1 4 11 6 f ;; 4. .1 • 3 01.111:11 SOU:1101N -2 • 5 +16 • 6 + 115 _ . _ _ 1 11 1101t•A1N: IN di la 411 • . 9015“. N111(11111:11 -1 + In 1-11 15 .6 • 4 4 +115

Sources: 1. Statistics Canada, Causes of Death, Catalogue 84-203 (annual) 2. Statistics Canada, Vital Statistics Section

UM> nu ire On OM at 4111111 M. ON MO tali lei MO till lilt Ille MI IOU IMO ONO 11011 1101 IMO OM MI a, OMMI glimq 4011, OM" IMM› Table lA Suicide in Canada: 1960 - 1974 Increase in firearms suicides compared with increase in total suicides (absolute numbers and rates). Population # Firearms Rate per # Other Rate per # Total Rate per (000's) Suicides 100,00C Suicides 100,000 Suicides 100,000 Population Population Population

1960 17,870 551 3.09 799 4.48 1350 7.56

1961 18,238 518 .2.84 848 4.65 1366 7.49

1962 18,583 495 2.66 835 4.50 1330 7.16

1963 18,931 556 2.94 880 4.65 1436 7.59

1964 19,290 560 2.90 1024 5.31 1584 8.22

1965 19,644 622 3.17 1093 5.57 1775 8.73

1966 20,015 609 3.04 1105 5.52 1714 8.57

1967 20,378 613 3.01 1228 6.03 1841 9.04

1968 20,701 716 3.46 1303 6.30 2019 9.76

1969 21,001 749 3.57 1542 7.35 2291 10.91

1970 21,297 796 3.74 1617 7.60 2413 11.33

1971 21,569 924 4.28 1635 7.58 2559 11.87

1972 - 21,830 935 4.28 1722 7.89 2657 12.18

1973 22,095 950 4.30 1823 8.25 2773 12.55

1974 22,446 1021 4.55 1881 8.3.8 2902 12.93

Increase 1960-1974 +25.6% +85.3% +47.3% +135.4% +87.1% +115.0% -1-71.0%

Average Increase * 1.8% *6.1% -/- 3.4% +9.7% +6.2% f8.2% #5.1% Per Year

Sources: 1. Statistics Canada, Causes of Death, Catalogue 84-203 (annual) 2. .qtatisties Canada. Vital Statistics Section 6

Table 1 also shows that, while suicides by poisoning have become relatively more common and suicides by hanging and strangulation relatively less common, during this period the overall pattern of suicides (both in terms of methods used and rates of increase) has remained remarkably constant. In this connection, it is noteworthy that firearms suicides have increased at a significantly slower rate (up 85% from 1960 to 1974) than have suicides by other means (up 135%) during the same period). While annual rates of increase vary substantially, over the fifteen-year period firearms suicides have increased at an average of 6% each year, while suicides by other means show an average annual increase of 10%. Overall, suicides increased by 115% during this period, indicating an average annual increase of 8%.

Simply to examine figures on completed ("successful") suicides, however, is to ignore the fact that many persons attempt suicide unsuccessfully. While detailed national figures on unsuccessful suicide attempts are not presently available, statistics on reported suicide attempts in Metropolitan Toronto provide some indication of the role that firearms play in suicide attempts (successful and unsuccessful) generally. In Table 2, on the following page, these figures are presented cumulatively for the period 1970 to 1974 inclusive. 11

As can be seen from Table 2, less than one third (30%) . of all suicide attempts in Toronto during this period 12 resulted in death for the victims. A higher percentage of

11 • Separate tables for each year during this period are included in the Appendix to this paper. 12 The annual tables, however, appear to show that the "success" rate of suicide attempts in Toronto has been gradually increasing in recent years, both for males and females.

Table 2

Means of Suicide Attempt in Toronto by Sex: 1970 - 1974 Cumulative METHOD MOST Note POPULARITY OF • . RESULTING IN SUCCESSFUL % of All Attempts YEAR TOTALS MALES FEMALES METEOD MOST DEATHS METHOD = Total Number . 1970-1974 MALES AND FEMALES . of attempts (successful cumulative .4 and unsuccersful) by 5 .4 1 '-4 0 that mrthod as a u t •-I U1 a 44 •-4 0 e .■ •--I Ul e c e 4) W 0 e 4 34 0 e e .... percentage of total 0 ,44 Q. 0 0 ).4 0, o m 0 0 E 0 0 w N m CI)' 4c;, É" 0 attempts (successful CI U1 V 01 0 u 01 )11 VI 0 U 0 V U1 0 0 m 0 U m U 0 0 V 4) il/ U 0 d V V and unsuccessful)by I) V 4) 0) u 0 PU 0W x x X all methods ,,1 49 00 WO <.° 74 •-1".. 141 g U/' WV rft .5 L' ril .',' Zi '15 8 'e e 0 8 ,`,1 .4"-. .`-'i 7-1p', 8 I' 1' 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0. e v 0 < Ct. efl '0 U e la. e .0 u < 0. tivri 0 c 0. e .0 0 < P. tfl '0 U 0 m 0 m 0 m z., U1 •••4 .--, W E W U a E cm ..-I .--I -.4 E u -I U E U) W . -I u) e ., O I, ,-( 0 •- -t % of "Successful" V f.) A 7 dl V di 0 7 V U 0 7 .44 11 tu 0 a V t) ftl 7 t4 6) 44 0 P 0 c e o 0 .c • 4) • u) 4) )/1 0 4 0 W U3 • 4) • ..4 ev) oe 0 u) U) • 4, • ...I Pm OA" o-1 v) -) E 4 •-I E 44 ...4ei -i -5 Suicides 04-' 00 0 e a 04.t 000 e e 04-' 000 e o m o o m o 0 m V 0 n < 7,m (...... .,‹ ,,, ,,,, e:‹ z m E...., do < e'm e, Z < Z m E, .,0 a. < w,m es, M tu M M tu M E f4. m . Total number of FIREARMS suicides by that method 62 170 232 11 21 73 8 14 22 1 3 h4 70 184 254 5 15 72 4 11 4 ... 2 9 3 ' 5 3 I ASPIRIN li as a percentage of 38 4 42 2 1 10 63 7 70 3 2 10 101 11 112 3 1 10 9 4 8 12 12 12 15 13 total suicides by all ** ** BURNING 6 2 8 ** ** 25 1 1 2 ** 30 a 3 30 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 8 11 methods. 10 CAReN 4 4 3 33 91 124 6 11 73 8 21 29 1 5 72 41 112 153 4 9 73 6 10 7 5 5 5 % "Success" MONOXIDE of CHLOROFORM/ = Total number 1 ** ** DO - 1 1 ** ** 101 - 2 2 ** ** LOI 16 15 16 15 13 13 1 1 1 suicides by that method ETHER - 1 total as a percentage of DROWNING 3 57 13 21 34 2 5 62 31 45 76 2 4 5 5 9 9 11 7 5 7 7 6 7 of all attempts by 18 24 42 2 (successful and ELECTROCU- unsuccessful). TION - 2 2 e* e* DO 1 - 1 ** 0 10 1 2 3 ** ** 6". 15 15 15 13 15 13 1 15 5 GAS 9 1 10 ** ** 10 17 - 17 1 0 0 26 1 27 1 ** 4 13 13 13 15 15 16 14 15 15 HANGING 167 204 371 17 25 55 15 44 59 3 10 75 182 248 430 10 20 5E'. 3 6 3 1 3 2 9 3 8 ' JUMPING 48 96 144 7 12 67 45 60 105 5 14 57 93 156 249 6 12 6 - 5 3 -5 4 2 4 6 7 6 rkNIFE/RAZOR 508 23 531 25 3 4 513 12 525 25 3 2 \1021 635 1056 25 3 3 1 2 2 8 11 8 16 14 16 MOVING 40 49 89 4 6 55 43 28 71 3 6 39 83 77 160 4 6 4( 7 4 9 VEHICLE 6 6 4 6 8 9 NARCOTICS 21 10 31 1 1 32 44 15 59 3 3 25 65 25 90 2 2 2F 11 6 10 11 8 11 11 11 12 PLASTIC BAG 1 12 13 1 2 9", 2 17 19 1 4 90 3 29 32 1 2 9. 12 12 12 10 7 10 3 2 2 POISON 25 19 44 2 2 4: 33 14 47 2 3 30 58 33 91 2 3 30 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 SLEEPING PILLS 343 115 458 21 14 25 841 182 D23 49 45 18 1184 297 1481 35 24 25 2 1 1 3 1 1 12 12 13 TOTALS 1315 8222142 100 100 3E 1647 437 2084 100100 21 2966 12604226 100 100 35 - - - - - - - - _ . _ ______—____ _ Source: Metropolitan Toronto Police Department 8 suicide attempts by males (38%) resulted in death for the victims than of those by females (21%). Over the five-yea r respect to firearms suicide period, this is also true with attempts (73% of male attempts resulted in death, while 64% of female attempts resulted in death). An examination of annual figures for this period (see Appendix 1), however, reveals that this is not a consistent pattern. In the years 1970, 1973 and 1974, a higher percentage of female firearms suicide attempts resulted in death for the victims than of male firearms suicide attempts.

Table 2 also shows that a considerably higher percentage of males attempting suicide use firearms al%) than of females (1%) , thus confirming that this method of attempting suicide is particularly associated with males. It is clear from Table 2, however, that Toronto statistics are not particularly representative of national statistics. This is evident in that, nationally, firearms account for just over one third of all suicidal deaths and it is apparent from Table 2 that, in Toronto during the five-year period from 1970 to 1974, firearms accounted for only 15% of the total suicidal deaths. Thus, it is not possible to conclude with any confidence that figures on unsuccessful suicide attempts in Toronto accurately reflect the situation nationally.

Table 2 reveals that, in Toronto at . least, the use of firearms is neither the most common nor the most deadly means of attempting suicide. Of the sixteen methods of attempting suicide that are listed in Table 2, shooting is the fourth most common method for males and the eleventh most common method for females. Considering all suicide attempts (by both sexes), shooting is the fourth most common method adopted. For males, shooting is only less deadly (in terms of the number of victims killed) than hanging, while for females shooting is less deadly than eight other methods. Thus, while 21% 9 of male suicide victims in Toronto during this period succumbed to gunshot wounds, only 6% of female victims did.

In addition, Table 2 reveals that, for males, shooting was only the fifth most effective means of committing suicide (as measured by the percentage of attempts resulting in death), while for females there were also four other more effective methods of committing suicide. While for males none of the four more effective means of suicide was more deadly (i.e. involved more deaths) than firearms, for females three methods (suffocation from plastic bags, hanging and carbon monoxide poisoning) were. Table 2 clearly shows that the most common means of attempting suicide tend to be considerably less effective than some of the less common methods. Thus, the use of sleeping pill overdoses, while the most common means of attempting suicide, is less effective than twelve other less common methods. Wrist-slashing, which is the second most common method adopted, is the least effective of all methods listed. Half of the other methods are more effective than hanging, which is the third most common method. However, despite their relative ineffectiveness, sleeping pill overdoses and hangings, because they are relatively so common, account together for almost half (43%) - - of all suicides in Toronto during this period and for three times as many deaths as the much more effective method of shooting.

Thus, shooting emerges from the Toronto gtatistics as one of the more common and more deadly methods of attempted suicide by males, but a considerably less common and less deadly method for females. When adopted, however, it is about an equally effective means of self-destruction for both males and females. The-effectiveness of firearms as a means of committina suicide appears to vary substantially from 40% (female, 1972) to 100% (females, 1973). -1 0 -

Suicide and Firearms Availability

There appears to be no study which has attempted tG directly correlate rates of firearms suicide with availability of guns per se. In Canada, there does not appear to be a direct correlation between the two; the firearms suicide rate has increased (up 60%, from 2.84 per 100,000 population in 1961 to 4.55 per 100,000 population in 1974) at a significantly faster rate than the estimated increase in gun availability (up 39% from 1961 to 1974). Firearms suicide rates have also increased at a significantly faster rate than the estimated increase in firearms per population ratio 13 (up 15%, from 0.40 in 1961 to 0.46 in 1974).

There is no clear evidence that stricter gun control laws lead to a reduction in the firearms suicide rate. As Table 1 shows, there appears to be no evidence that the tightening of the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code in 1968 - 69 has had any significant effect on the firearms suicide rate in Canada. In actual fact, it seems to be suicides by other means which have increased at a somewhat slower rate since 1969, rather than firearms suicides.

In his study of approximately 32,000 suicides in New York City during the period from 1925 to 1954, Dublin suggests that firearms controls have effected a reduction in firearms suicides, but that they have not effected a reduction in overall suicide rates. Dublin concluded that: "New York differs strikingly from the nation in methods of suicide with respect to the relatively low position of firearms and the high position of gas. A similarly low incidence of firearms and a high incidence of gas is reported from Boston by Rescue, Inc. These contrasts doubtless have

13 See "Guns in Canada - A Review of Statistics". - 11 -

resulted from legal prohibition of the possession of concealed weapons and from the general use of gas stoves, which has made carbon moy2xide and butane gas easily accessible agents.

In a study of armed crime and firearms controls in England and Wales, Greenwood has shown that, over 80 years (1890 - 1970), the firearms suicide rate decreased significantly at the same time as stricter gun control laws have been implemented. Table 3, below indicates the use of firearms in suicide from 1890 to 1970 in England and Wales.

TABLE 3 SUICIDES - ENGLAND AND WALES, 1890 - 1970

' Year Total Firearm Population Suicide/ Firearm Suicides Suicides Population suicide/ number ratio ratio population ratio

1890 2,205 184 . 1/12 29,001,000 1/13,1 5 2 1/157,614 1900 2,896 216 1/13 32,249,000 1/11,135 1/149,300 1910 3,567 222 1/16 35,796,000 1/10,035 1/161,243 1920 3,759 258 1/14 37,885,000 1/10,078 1/146,841 1930 5,051 262 1/19 39,806,000 1/7,880 1/151,931 1940 4,517 283 1/15 41,246,000 1/9,131 1/145,745 1950 4,471 207 1/22 43,830,000 1/9,803 1/211,739 1960 5,113 177 1/28 45,775,000 1/8,952 1/258,615 1970 4,711 193 1/24 48,391,000 1/10,271 1/250,730

However, Greenwood does not feel that the decrease in firearms suicide is related to the implementation of stricter gun control laws. Rather, he suggests that the reduction of the firearms suicide rate is due to an increase in the

14 Louis I. Dublin, Suicide:A Sociological and Statistical Study (New York: Ronald, 1963) p. 99; Andrew F.. Henry and James F. Short, Jr., Suicide and Homicide (London: The Free Press, 1954). I

- 12 - availability of other equally or more effective methods of committing suicide. In the conclusion of his study, Greenwood made the following related comments: "Clearly, an exhausiive study of the problem would be needed before one could establish precisely what the relatively constant suicide rate contrasted with the falling rate of the use of firearms in suicide might mean. What is clear is that the use of firearms in suicide has been falling over the years, but it seems likely that this can be attributed to the easy availability of other, more attractive methods, rather than to any effect which firearms controls might have had. The pattern of change shown in the table* cannot be related to the pattern of change in controls in any significant way. It seems unlikely that a • person intent on taking his own life will be deterred merely by the absence of one particular instrument. That a firearm is readily available in a particular case may well influence the choice of method used, and this suggestion is supported to some extent by the fact that in firearm suicides, males outnumber females by between 12 and 20 to 1, against the 1.7 to 1 . ratio for all suicides. It does not seem likely, however, that the complete absence of firearms, even if this were possibl s would materially affect the suicide rate."

If firearms availability were directly related to suicide rates, one would expect to find that a decrease in the firearms suicide rate would be accompanied by a decrease in the overall suicide rate. In fact, in none of those instances in which the firearms suicide rate has been shown to decrease, has a similar decrease in the overall suicide rate been reported.

In Canada, the firearms suicide rate has continued to increase (see Table 1A, above). However, the relatively small rate of increase in firearms suicide (an average of 3% each year) has been smaller than the overall suicide increase'(an average of 3% per year). Similarly, in Toronto,

i.e. Table 3, above. 1/ 15 Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), p. 180. - 13 -

figures show that, although the firearms suicide rate increased by 25% (from 1.74 per 100,000 population to 2.17 per 100,000 population from 1958 to 1974), the total suicide rate increased by 120% (from 6.59 per 100,000 population to 14.5 per 100,000 population during the same period). In each case, the figures appear to indicate that, although relatively (proportionately) fewer people commit suicide in Canada/Toronto now than fifteen years ago, this change has not resulted in a comparable reduction in the rate of increase in overall suicide rates.

In the United States, a Task Force report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence analyzed the suicide rate in sixteen countries, but found no significant relationship between firearms suicide rates and overall suicide rates. The Task Force reported that countries with high suicide rates did not have a correspondingly high percentage of suicides committed with firearms. The Task Force concluded that: "Cultural factors appear to affect the suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readilg affected by making firearms less available."

An analysis of suicide rates in Canada for the period 1970 to 1974 inclusively proved equally inconclusive on this point. Table 4, on the following page shows these rates.

16 George D. Newton and Franklin E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life (Washington: 1969), p.36. Table 4

Suicidal Deaths, Caused by Firearms and Other Means, Canada, 1970 - 1974

1970 . 1971 1972 . 1973 . 1974 CAUSE OF DEATH ' I i % % CHANGE i % ' "% CHANGE i % ' % CHANGE I • .% % CHANGE _ %

SUICIDES ' - Firearms and Explosives 796 ' 30 924 36.1 +16.1 935 ' 35.2 +1.2 950 34.3 .0.6 1,021 35.2 +7.5 - Other Than Firearms and Explosives . 1.617 67.0 1,635 63.9 .1.1 1.722 64.8 +5.3 1,823 65.7 . +5.9 1,881 64.8 43.2 TOTAL 2.413 100.0 2.559 100.0 +6.1 2.657 100.0 +3.8 2,773 100.0 +4.4 2.902 100.0 +4.7 '

OF ::Ekill CHANGE ...AUSE % SOURCES: (1970-1973): Statistics Canada, Causes of Death (Catalogue 04-203) 1970-1974 • . (1974): Statistics Canada. Vital Statistics Division SUICIDES - Firaems e! Explesives .28.3 - 31!,er .ar. Firrares led Explosives +16.3

TOTAL +20.3

Be MU 1110 MO 1111111 Olt imue sam> elle el. ill* ell eel en am, as as all - 15 -

The explanation usually given for the fact that overall suicides do not decrease when firearms suicides decrease is in terms of a displacement effect; that is, the kinds of people who in the past would have committed suicide with firearms have simply resorted to some other equally or more available and equally or more effective means. This notion was explained by Stengel in his book "Suicide and Attempted Suicide" in which he made the following observation: "It is often thought that if a common poison or some other method of suicide were made unavailable, the suicide rate would markedly decline. This is far from certain. In the United States coal gas has been replaced by natural gas which is not toxic, although its inhalation in the absence of oxygen may still be fatal. It is only rarely used for the purpose of suicide. What has happened is that other methods have taken the place of gassing, which in this country (Great Britain) , heads the list of methods. The suicide rates of Basle in Switzerland tell the same story. That city had for a long time.had a high incidence of suicide, with domestic gas at the head of the list of methods. Its detoxication a few years ago reduced the suicide rate only transiently. After a year it reverted to its previous high level, drowning having taken the place of gassing at the top of the list." 17

As mentioned previously in the paper, Greenwood has also advanced this notion of displacement with respect to suicide rates in England and Wales. Greenwood also

17 Erwin Stengel, Suicide and Attempted Suicide (Great Britain: MacGibbon and Kee, 1965) pp.36-38. - 16 - suggests that, in England and Wales, those kinds of people who used to commit suicide by means of a firearm may now br.: 18 19 succeeding with analgesic or soporific substances. This suggestion is supported by the following table which indicates rates of suicide by analgesic and soporific substances during specified periods from 1931 to 1960 in England and Wales.

TABLE 5 ENGLAND AND WALES: SUICIDES BY ANALGESIC AND SOPORIFIC SUBSTANCES

1931 1940 1950 1960 Suicides by analgesic or soporific substances 21 128 421 839 Ratio to all suicides 1/240 1/35 1/10 1/6

This notion of displacement from one method of comMitting suicide to another method may also be an equally plausible explanation of the trends noted by Dublin in his study of suicide in New York City.

Therefore, the important question would seem to be whether, if firearms suicides could be reduced or eliminated, those who would have committed suicide by this means would turn to other means which are equally or more effective (in which case no reduction in overall suicides would occur) or would turn to other less effective means of committing suicide (in which case a reduction in the overall suicide rate would occur). In this regard, the United States Task Force commented that:

18 Defined as 'the psychological state or quality of being insensible to pain without loss of consciousness'.(The Concise Oxford Dictionary). 19 Defined as 'an agent (usually a drug) that.causes or tends to cause sleep'.(The Concise Oxford Dictionary). -17 -

"Although firearms are a highly successful means of committing suicide, a few other methods - hanging, carbon monoxide, jumping, and drowning by jumping - are almost equally effective. The question, therefore, is whether persons attempting suicide, if they had no firearms, wou]d turn to equally effective methods that are now used by only a small proportion of those attempting suicide - or whether some would turn to the more frequently used, but less effective, alternatives such as barbiturates.

Stated differently, the question is whether the 19 percent of all men who attempt suicide by shooting are so determined to kill themselves that they would find another gfective way if firearms were not available."

As noted earlier in the paper (Table 1), the decrease in the percentage of suicides which are committed by means of a firearm in Canada appears to have been accompanied by an increase in the percentage of suicides by poisoning and a slight increase in the percentage of suicides committed by jumping from high places and "other and unspecified means". 21

As noted earlier in Table 2, there are other methods of committing suicide which have shown themselves (in Toronto at least) to be equally or more effective than shooting (chloroform/ether, plastic bags, carbon monoxide poisoning), though currently much less commonly resorted to. In addition, there are other methods of committing suicide which are almost

20 George D. Newton and Franklin E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life (Washington: 1969). pp.34. 21 The Toronto figures in the Appendix show that the percentage of firearms suicides there has remained quite stable over the five-year period from 1970 to 1974 (at approximately 14-15%). The only noticeable trend which appears from these tables is a slight, but quite steady, increase in the percentage of suicides by drowning. -18 - as effective as firearms (electrocution, jumping from high places, drowning, hanging). Given this situation, there seemE to be little evidence to indicate that, even if firearms suicides could be reduced, the overall suicide rate would necessarily decline.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it has been determined that approximately 70% of all firearms deaths in Canada are suicides and approximately one third of all suicides in Canada are .committed by means of a firearm. According to the statistics, the typical firearms suicide involves a young male using a rifle. In addition, during recent years suicides by firearms have consstently accounted for the highest number of suicidal deaths in Canada.

Considering the available information, there seems to be little evidence to indicate that firearms availability is directly related to suicide rates. In addition, there appears to be little evidence to suggest that strict gun control laws affect the overall suicide rate, or even the firearms suicide rate significantly. Even if laws relating to the control of firearms would affect the firearms suicide rate, there appears to be little evidence to indicate that a reduction in the firearms suicide rate would result in a reduction in the overall suicide rate.

However, given that other methods of committing suicide often allow more time for intervention than in the case of a suicide by firearms and are less effective for this and other reasons (e.g. extent of potential damage to victim), there may be some benefit to be derived from attempting to influence the suicide rate by controlling the availability of firearms. - 19 -

Although examinations of official suicide statistics are useful in determining trends in the frequency of suicide and in determining the frequency with which various methods of committing suicide are used, it may also be worthwhile to study the psychology of choice of method for committing suicide. It is evident that studies which consider suicide solely through the use of official statistics cannot be concerned with this crucial issue. A Selected Bibliography

Cavan, Ruth S. Suicide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928. Cavan, Ruth S. "The Wish Never to Have Beul Born," The American Journal of Sociology, XXXVII (January, 1932) 547-559. Dahlgren, Y.G. On Suicide and Attempted Suicide. Lund, Sweden: Linds7EUT-57-17g7.---- Danto, B. "More Suicides than statistics show?", Royal Oak Michigan Daily Tribune(August 26: 1968) 19. Douglas, Jack D. The Social Meanings of Suicide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Dublin, Louis I. Suicide: A Sociological and Statistical Study. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1963. Gibbs, J. "Review of J. Douglas' The social meanings of suicide." Amer. J. of Sociology 74(September, 1968) 201-204. Gibbs, J. "Suicide' pp. 222-261 in R. Merton and R. Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.

Giddens, Anthony. (ed.) The Sociology of Suicide. London:Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., 19 1. Greenwood, Colin. Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972. Henry, Andrew F. and James F, Short. Suicide and Homicide. Glencoe:The Free Press, 1954. Kruijt, C.S. Suicide:Sociological and Statistical Investigations. Door:Van Gorcun and Company, 1960. Meerloo, J.A.M. Suicide and Mass Suicide. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1962. Newton, George D. Jr. and Franklin E. Zimring. Firearms and Violence in American Life. Washington, 1969. Sacks, Harvey. The Search For Help: No one to turn to. University Microfilms Ltd., Michigan, 1966. Schrdd, C.F. and D. van Arsdol, "Completed and Attempted Suicides:A Comparative Analysis," Amr,rican Sociolorical Review, 20(1955) pp.273-283. Shneidman,E.S. and N.L. Farberow.(eds.). Clues to Suicide. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1957. Shneidman I E.S. and N.L. Farberow.(eds.). The Cry for Help. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961. Simpson, G. "Methodological Problems in Determining the Aetiology of Suicide," American Sociological Review, 15 (1950) pp.658-663. Stengel, E. and Nancy Cook. Attempted Suicide: Its Social Significance and Effects. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Stengel, E. Suicide and Attempted Suicide.London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1964.

West,D.J. Murder Followed by Suicide. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1965.

Wilkins, J.L. "Producing Suicides," American Behavioural Scientist, 14:2(November/December, 1970): 185-201.

Wilkins, J.L. "A follow-up study of suicide prevention center callers." American Journal of Psychiatry 1 127:2 (August, 1970). Wilkins, J.L. "Experience in suicide prevention:calls for help in Chicago." Illinois Medical Journal(March, 1970): 257-261.

Wilkins, J.L. "Suicide prevention centers:comparisons of clients in several cities." Comprehensive Psychiatry 10(November): 443-451. APPENDIX

MEANS OF SUICIDE ATTEMPT IN TORONTO

BY SEX AND YEAR, 1970 - 1974

Means of Suicide Attempt in Toronto by Sex, 1971

- POPULARITY OF ' RESULTING IN SUCCESSFUL YEAR • TOTALS MALES FEMALES METI:OD blOST DE7-.TIIS METHOD 197 1 MALES AND rutALcs !

.-4 .-1 e .--, 44 —1 .1 0 ,s-, 0 44 .--i in 0 U) 0 ul u) 0 4-1 884 0 7 41 ‘a-s• 1 0 114 Q. 0 Ul 44 O. csa m w a (a - 0 111 E m 0 an 0 m 0 m E 0 - 1-1 Ul 2114 0 c.) ca y ca w V U1 0 111 0 m m m 0 0 41 CU 0 int.) 0 0 ill 0 in 0 0 4.441) 0 in 0 W ci x x x "..„ ," . 4" -,1 -p• -•1 gul ,,i) VI f.), ull . ,4,"..o. -, I ll ( 11, , gr ral .4".t"...1cl lp g(il .(1] m y m Cl w Cl c ca. 0 '0 U < C. In '0 0 C a 7 '1.1 0 < 0. ta 1:1 O0 R. 7 "0 0 ,--; 0. u) '0 I/ 0 m 0 in 0 (0 :1 E 1/3 ..-1 .--I - ■4 E -.-1 0 D E Ul -,i •--I ..-a 0 —a 0 a ti: tf) -,1 .- 4 —a e •.4 0 an —a tra —: in .--1 0 0 0 7 114 0 44 0 7 0 0 cd 7 114 0 94 0 C 0 u as 0 44 y 44 u 0 0 0 .c.: 0 tu ..e y tu ..c • 4 •,-1 4.1w 00 0,4 w .0 ...4 44W 00 0-,4 W • 0 ...-i om oe o -.4 m —1 E e ....1 E 44 —1 E e 00 OC) 0 0 a 00 Oa 0 4 e 00 Oe 0 0 c W 0 0 ill Cl o m cu o z< zm F-4 ,-u 0..4 .em ... za zr.n E4.41 di.< ePUI 0.11 Zfe ZW P ■15 dPa oem es n.: h, m z w m z w m Firearms 13 30 43 10 20 70 3 3 6 ti. 4 0 16 33 49 5 14 6 4 9 4 2 8 3 . 3 6 4 Aspirin 10 — 10 2 0 0 21 3 24 5 4 Pi 31 3 34 4 1 9 8 3 8 12 8 12 12 10 11 Burning 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 ** 0 h 3 — 3 ** 0 - 0 12 14 14 12 13 13 12 13 13

Carbon Dioxide 3 23 31 7 15 74 — 4 • 1 5 0 8 27 35 4 12 7 5 13 6 2 Chloroform/Ether I Drowning 7 2 57 1 1 6 .83 4 9 13 1 6' 10 9 . 11 5 7 2 3 Electrocution

Gas — 1 ** 0 0 5 5 1 0 0 6 — - 1 0 0 13 11 12 12 13 13 12 13 13 Hanging 27 34 61 14 22 56 2 10 2 10 80 29 42 71 8 18 5': 3 6 3 1 3 2 6 3 Jumping q 17 26 6 11 65 11 6 17 4 8 35 20 23 4'3 5 10 5. 7 5 6 5 4 6 4 7 6 Knife/Razor 5 123 28 3 4 114 2 116 25 3 i2 232 7 239 26 3 3 1 2 2 7 10 8 11 12 12 118 _ Moving Vehicle_ 15 15 30 7 10 50 9 10 :19 1 . 13 53 24 25 49 5 11 5 6 4 4 6 2 5 7 5 7 Narcotics 8 2 10 2 1 206 2 8 2 3 25 14 4 10 2 2 2 9 8 9 10 10 11 9 8 9 Plastic Bag — 1 1 ** 1 10 ) 1 4 5 1 5 80 1 5 6 1 2 8 13 11 12 11 G 9 1 3 r"----, Poison 3 3 6 1 1 2 507 2 9 2 3 22 10 5 152 2 3. 11 7 10 9 10 9 7 9 8 75 18 93 21 12 19 207 29 236 51 37 12 282 47 329 36 20 14 2 10 .. Sleeping Pills ... 1 1 4 1 1 10 11 TOTALS 292 152 444 100 100 34 388 78 466 100 10017 680 230 910 100 100 25, — — — — — — I

Source: Metropolitan Toronto Police Department

all MU OM MI OM SIP MO MO MI OM MO MO OM UV MI SIM MI OM INS 411111111 11111111 MIS MI Ole Mil MI an OM ell URI I. UM en OM ea

Means of Suicide Attempt in Toronto by Sex, 1970

- POPULARITY OF . . " RESULTING IN SUCCES371jL _YEAR TOTALS MALES FEMALES • FIETEOD MOST DEATI1S METHOD 1970 - • • MALES AND FEMALES . .

e-I •-•1 e .--I I (14 .--I vl 0 La 0 .44 0 e 4) 4-1 (4) 0 41 4-I In e 4J W %I Q. VI 0 • 4-1 1:14 0 0 44 Q. 01 a ul E W o w E (1) id LI E (4 - 0 in 0 In 0 0 til a a tu u ton . WV) ar in tri Ir 0 4) 4) .1.i 0 0 VI a a C. U u in u a x x >: fn b)." I .j :Pi :Ili iri ijti 'ill u1e1 (et% -1r.Ii Fie ' 1. .1, ?le) .--- ir g tan , '41 • a tr, Q In c m.1.) u0W 4" :uri .-1-1 .rs g titn, ten) ei r 1.)', al . 0 tr: '0 U , '0 U a < D. u 'à '0 0 c o. e 'I, u e... e. ta ,e u a; VI 0 cr1 e u, a O. In a a. •:.., u ..-1 0 •--I VI ..-4 -rI •--I -..-1 a w -.4 .-1 -.4 e -.-i U tr) D Ei cr, ....1 ,--4 -.4 E ••••1 U D E VI -I E u e 0 «c 0 LI 0 0 Iw 0 44 0 a 0 U n 0 44 0 4.4 U e' 0 U .1 0 4-I 0 4-1 U 0 0 0 e o fo e w ■ -8 0 ..--1 .-1 JJ .- I E a.; • 4.I • ..-f .I-I In 0 4 -I 0 -,- u) • 4-1 • ..- lb VI 0 li 0 -.4 fll • 4 •• ...I 4-/ 01 0 4. , ta 9.,- 79 e, e. ,,t.i. „e) .0 2.., ee) e. ‘,.-gi ,e, ô' .2-. rim e... .-!...!. car?, ,mM 4à; ?Mger..o. i.d Firearms 8 27 35 3 2 1 77 1 4 • 5 h o 9 31 40 5 14 78 4 9 5 P 7 3 3 P 4_ 11 12 13 11 13 Aspirin- 10 - 10 2 0 0 16 1 17 14 11 " 26 1 27 3 1 4 8 5 6 3 I-it-Jill-1-714----------- - - 1 1 * 1 It 0 - 1 1 * ne - 14 14 11 12 1 1 — ------ — - — Carbon Dioxide 9 12 21 5 9 571 4 5 I. 530 10 16 263 7 626 9 7 5 7 5 3 2 1 Chloroform/Ether _ 1 1 *A * * 0) - - 1 * " OC là - 14 12 12 11 1

Drowning 13 4 9 2 3 453 i 0 4 1212 334 12 . 11 ' 13 11 13 10 ------- - - -- E le ctrocuti on - - - - - - - l" - - Gas 3 - 3 1 0 3 - 3 ** 0 0- 12 13 13 15 13 15 Hanging 38 40 78 19 31 51 4 14 18 4 16 178 42 54 96 11 25 56 3 4 3 1 2 1 ji 5 7 ------Jump ing 11 14 25 6 11 56 9 13 22 5 15 59 20 27 47 5 12 5E 5 3 4 4 3 4 7 6 — -- Kni fe/Razo r 109 2 111 27 1 2 110 6 116 4 7 L 214 8 227 25 4 4 2 2 14 Moving Vehicle 5 4 9 2 3 453 5 8 2 - . • - -- 6 3 13 9 17 2 4 539 8 9 5 6 1 . N ar. co ti cs 1 2 3 1. 2 678 3 11 . 3 7 9 5 14 2 2 36 12 7 10 0 10 10 I Plastic gag 4 _ 5_ i_ 11.0. L____ • 5___. 10 O A .2 7 _7_____) 1 Poison 8 3 11 3 2 27 10 5 15 6 33 18 8 26 3 4 31 7 6 7 in 5 7 10 1 11 Sleeping Pills 79 18 97 23 14 19 225 29 254 33 33 11 304 47 351 39 21 13 2 1 1 3 1--- 2 Lr— 0 Er- TOTALS 284 13.1 415 100 100 32 394 89 483 100 00 18 678 220 898 100 100 2E - -- -- ---

Source: Metropolitan Toronto Police Department - • 0 • IIIIII 1111111 MI MIS UM OM OM MO an as eat ma ma tra am ma

Means of Suicide AttemEt in Toronto by Sex, 1972

POPULARITY OF 1 RESULTING IN SUCCESSIrUL YEAR TOTALS MALES FE - ALES METKOD ECST DEATHS METHOD 197 2 MAI ES AND FEMALES

-- C Vi 11) I ■44 trà VI 0 li tfl 0 Cl UT VI al 1 w in• 0 0 cum 0 M a; u) W V) 0 410 O 0 O 43 o O tre G) 4.1 (.1 O• 0 U 0 4.1.0 00 0 • (I) u m • 4-41en O IA 43 '0 u o , O 0 4-1 Cm C_3 •'1 e 0 0 U) 43 0W 4 -4 e w Ul Cl O a. CI) O , triM 0 e CI CM.) U

Chloroform/Ether 1 5.0 * * * * 14 15 11 13 L k ii

Drowning . 4 3 43 4 12 3 10 b 8 11 19 2 10 7 10' Electrocution _ L _ 7 1 7 _4

•■ • 15 H1.4 113 115 Gas 4 4 1 0 0 3 I }.) 7 7 1 0 0 11 12 12 314 13 Hanging 36 38 74 18 24 51 3 6 9 12 18 167 39 44 83 10 19 3 8 3 1 5 3" 146 7 Jumping 9 24 33 8 15 73 10 13 23 16 17 157 19 37 56 7 16 6 5 3 4 3 2 4 5 Knife/Razor 80 5 95 21 3 6 105 105 127 0 185 5 190 24 2 -3- 2 2 2 7 Ti 9 13 113 Moying Vehicle 5 8 13 3 5 62 13 6 19 5 32 18 14 32 4 G 44 7 5 6 6 5 6 5 9 8 Narcotics 3 1 1 1 25 15 6 21 5 8 29 18 7 25 3 3 21 11 4 8 /1 5 8 9 10 10 Plastic Bag • 2 2 1 1 00 2 2 11 3 10 4 4 1 100 14 13 13. 9 11 • 1 1 Poison 9 2 1 22 6 3 9 2 4 33 13 18 2 2 29 8 8 11. 9 8 9 1.10 8 Sleeping pills 135 19 104 25 12 18 136 22 160 41 29 14 223 41 2641 33 18 If 1 1 -7-- 4 1 2 11 11 12 ; TOTALS 259 156 415 100 100 38 316 71 1393 100 1 100 20 575 233 8081 100 100 2 911 •

Source: Metropolitan Toronto Police Department Means of Suicide Attempt in Toronto by Sex, 1973

POPULARITY Oïl PESULTING IN SUCCESSFUL YEAR TOTI-US MALES FEMALES METEOD ilôr DEATHS METHOD 197 3 MALES AND FEMALES .--e , o 4.4 0 4.1 •-4 14 4-1 4 41 O 0 C/1 o. 0 :A 44 a 0 0 O M com 0 o UI O• 0 0 t) M y m 0 to o. 4y 0 O M • O 0 4 0 ...Al U tfl O to O 0 O u) M O 0 00 4 .0 , r u• 0 tn 1J to O U) O 0 0 M4-4 00 4 , 4 e 0 UI < Q ul a :1V o „< 0. am 0 ,0 <0. 0 E r 0 DE m-4 o to D • E ma 4.1 0 4-1 U 0 U 440 0 0 00 440 —0 "71 - .14 U) O -' 0 Success • 4-1 • 4.1 0) 04. 0 ,4 M ...... 1 .001 0 4-' ou o 04.' O :1 O 4 00 oe 0 a o ri < (-1 < te, (i) Z < Z o'< r*.M UP z< 1 zm E-1 0 dp< M z pa Firearms 14 48 12 20 71 2 2 Ma 14 136 50 17 13 72 4 13 4 8 3 11 2 1 118 11 8 11 13 18 12 Aspirin . 4 1 10 10 5 2 2 e 9 9 2 P 1 * * * 1) 0 14 14 112 13 Burning 1 900: - f Carbon Dioxide 3 19 5 84 2 2 4 -r1 2 130 18 23 3 78 6 11 8 US 5 5 Chloroform/Ether — -

Drowning 4 10 60 3 2 5 1 2 7 15 2 5: 8 10. 10 Electrocution 1- Gas . . 2 2 1 o 0 3 3 1 0 ,(1 5 1 0 0 13 12 13 113 13 14 Hanging 27 42 69 17 24 61 3 7 10 3 7 70 30 49 79 11 18 62 3 6 3 11 3 2 3 Jumping 4 22 6 10 82 6 11 17 5 12 65 10 29 39 5 11 74 5 5 14 2 4 4 -1 Knife/Razor 1061 4 1 110 - 28 2 4 86 2 88 25 2 2 192 6 198 26 2 3 1 2 2 11 12 12 Moving Vehicle 7 I 10 1 17 4 G 59 11 5 16 5 5 31 18 15 33 4 6 4(1 7 4 6 4 6 9 8 19 Narcotics 4 I 5 19 2 3 56 12 4 16 5 I 4 125 16 9 25 3 3 3(1 -76 4 7 19 7 10 11 10 Plastic Bag - 4 4 1 2 DO ^ 5 5 1 5 110 (11 - 9 9- 1 3 110(1 11 9 112 110 7 J. 1 Poison 4 6 10 3 4 60 6 3 9 3 3 33 10 9 19 3 3 41 El 17 9 17 7 7 7 8 Sleeping Pills 46 27 .73 18 16 37 119 51 170 48 53 30 11 165 78 2431 32 29 2 1 1 13 11 9 11 TOTALS 2251 17:1398 100 10044 256 96 352 100 I 10(127- 481 1269 750100 100 31

Source: Metropolitan Toronto Police Department

MI IMO OM I» IMO all fall IMP IMO ame an quo OM MI MP MIS III MI MO Mel OM OM On MIS • Mil MO OM OM OBI 11111 MO IMO MI INS I»

Means of Suicide Attempt in Toronto by Sex, 1974

POPULARITY OF • RESULTING IN SUCCESSIML YEAR TOTALS MALES FEMALES METEOD . MOST DEATHS METHOD 1974 • MALES AND ET.mm.rs . .--, ri ..i e• -1 e .--I e •--3 14 H a e 4-1 .--I 111 C 4-1 •-I In e Ii) e 11 4-1 U1 e 4-, u-, to o 41 4-1 U1 44 0. Ill 0 4-1 0. U7 N 4-1 0. UI - 0 Ul E el 0 di E In 0 tri E m- u U7 0 II 0 0 0 WU) 0 Li VI 0 Ul 0 Ul 0 Ul U 0 44 0 U U3 0 0 41 (T) U a u a 4i 0 V cn el 0 M X X X 4-3C) V U) ■ in0u ) ("11OUI <-.-I 111..-f g ctiI) Ï!! g +il 8 L■'L+ ..11 •'Pi :lit IOL 7) 'al ti.l g -tui •' 2 1.- I 2 ran] ttii m a a a a 0 ta TJ (1 0 CI. 'CI U 4 0. In '0 0 c 0. a :.1 u < 0. ul •-0 u

Electrocu :ion ** ** 0 ** 1 6"; 13 14 13 11 12 1 11 5 - 2 li - t1 12 13 11 11- 12 Gas 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 5 1 6- 1 ** 1 12 11 12 12 Hanging 39 50 89 19 24 9 12 3 9 15 42 59 101 12 19 5 3 4 3 1. 3 2 9 2 T Jumping 15 23 •38 8 11 9 17 26 7 18 1.65 I 24 40 64 7 13 6 5 3 4 5 2 4 7 5 F---- 202 24 Knife/Raz, )r 95 7 102 22 3 98 2 100 26 2 2 193 9 3 5 1 2 2 7 7 8 13 10 13 2 " 2 22 15 14 29 3 5 4I 7 5 7 6 7 6 8 8 8 Moving Ve: ticie 8 12 20 4 6 • 7 2 9 . 5 -5 1 0 0 3 0 0 8 - Narcotics ___ ... 8 1 0 11 11 11 1- _ 14 11 14 Plastic E, tgs - 1 ** i. oc 2 2 1 2 10( - 3 3 * 1 10 4 15 13 13 12 7 10 1 1 1 Poison 3 5 8 2 2 6 1 5 1 1 20 7 6 13 2 2 16 10 9 10 9 10 9 G 9 9 Sleeping_ . '- 111s58 33 91 19 16 11 51 203 52 53 25 210 84 294 34 27 '9 2 1 1 3 1 1 10 7 10;

TOTALS 259 211 470 100 100 4! 293 97 390 100 10( 25 552 308 860 100 100 6 - - - - _

Source: Metropolitan Toronto Police Department HUNTER SAFETY TRAINING IN CANADA: A DESCRIPTION OF PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL PROGRAMS HUNTER SAFETY TRAINING IN CANADA: A DESCRIPTION OF PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL PROGRAMS*

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a short summary of the Hunter Safety programs which are operating presently in the provinces and territories in Canada. The description of the various programs outlined in this paper is derived primarily from information furnished by provincial and territorial officials who are associated with the programs.** In addition, a group in the United States, the National Rifle Association, conducted a survey of Hunter Safety programs in 1974 which included Canadian programs, and some information has been extracted from the findings of this survey. The programs will be described in the context of the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a hunting license in each province and territory. In each case, statistics will also be provided to indicate the extent to which the program is used.

British Columbia

The Wildlife and Firearms Acts provide the legislative authority for a Hunter Safety program in British Columbia. The program is called the "British Columbia Conservation and Recreation Education Program" and is administered by the provincial Department of Conservation and Recreation.

* The research for this paper was based on data available up to 1976. ** We would like to acknowledge the co-operation of the Chairman and members of the Canadian Association of the (Provincial) Hunter Safety Co-ordinators in providing valuable information on the various programs. -2-

In British Columbia, successful completion of a Hunter Safety course and test are requirements that must be met in order to obtain a hunting license. Although there is no legal minimum age requirement to obtain a hunting license, it is mandatory for all persons applying for a hunting license for the first time to complete the Hunter Safety course and test and the minimum age to attend the course is fourteen years. In addition, persons under eighteen years of age must have the consent of a parent or guardian in order to obtain a hunting license. The Hunter Safety course and test are sponsored by private groups and institutions and taught by qualified instructors who have completed a course which is conducted by Fish and Wildlife personnel. The course itself has a minimum length of twenty hours, during which time the following subjects are covered: Outdoor Ethics 2 hours Gun Handling and Firearms Safety 3 hours Why we have regulations 2 hours Animal Identification 3 hours Birds of British Columbia 2 hours Survival and First Aid 3 hours

At the end of the course, a written examination consist- ing of 100 questions is administered and a student must obtain 70% in order to pass this examination. The student must also demonstrate the safe handling of a firearm, although there is usually no live firing involved in this practical test. It has been estimated that approximately 10,000 persons complete the Hunter Safety course every year. Up to 1974, a total of 20,000 persons had graduated from the course. It is interesting to note that, in 1974, there were approximately 151,000 licensed hunters in British Columbia. In addition, a total of 1,800 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors up to 1974. -3-

Alberta

The Wildlife Act authorizes a Hunter Safety program in Alberta and the Department of Lands and Forests is responsible for the administration of this program which has been named the "Alberta Hunter Training and Conservation Program." In Alberta, the only requirements that must be met in order to obtain a hunting license are related to age. A person must be fourteen years of age to obtain a hunting license and persons under sixteen years of age can only obtain a hunting license if they have the consent of a parent or guardian. The Hunter Safety course and test are entirely voluntary. The course and test are integrated into the curricula of the high schools and are also sponsored by private groups and institutions. The minimum age to attend the course is twelve years. A minimum of twenty-two hours is spent studying the following subjects: Live firing 4 hours Hunting Traditions and Ethics 1 hour Wildlife Resource Management 2 hours Hunter Responsibilities 2 hours Introduction to Safety, Fundamentals of Shooting 2 hours Firearms and Ammunition, Safe Gun Handling 4 hours Bowhunting 2 hours Survival 4 hours Big Game Care and Identification 2 hours

Following the course, students must take a written examination consisting of 100 questions and must obtain 65% to pass the examination. In addition, approximately 40-50% of the students take a skills test which involves live firing. If a skills test is taken, the student must obtain 100% in order to pass. -4-

Approximately 10-12,000 students graduate from the Hunter Safety course in Alberta every year. Up to 1974, a total of 32,000 persons had successfully completed the course. In 1974, there were approximately 132,000 licensed hunters in the province. Up to 1974, a total of 1,500 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors.

Saskatchewan

The Game Act authorizes a Hunter Safety program and the Department of Natural Resources administers the "Saskatchewan _Firearms Safety Program." Hunting license requirements in Saskatchewan pertain to age. The minimum age to obtain a hunting license is twelve years and persons under 16 years of age must have the consent of a parent or guardian before a hunting license will be issued to them. The Hunter Safety course and test are voluntary. The course and test are sponsored mainly by private groups and institutions, although there is some integration of the course into school curricula for students in grades seven, eight and nine. The minimum age to attend the course is eleven years. The course consists of studying the following subjects for a minimum of eight hours: Firearms, Ammunition, Marksmanship, Hunting and Hunter Safety, Hunter Ethics 2 hours Handling Firearms in the Field 2 hours Archery, Game identification, Field Care of Game 2 hours Survival 2 hours

At the end of the course, a written examination consist- ing of 100 questions is administered and students must obtain 80% on this examination in order to pass. -5-

Approximately 6,000 persons graduate from the Hunter Safety course in Saskatchewan every year and up to 1974, a total of 55,000 persons had successfully completed the course. In 1974, there were 150,000 licensed hunters in Saskatchewan. Up to 1974, a total of 600 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors.

Manitoba

The Wildlife Act is the legislative authority for a Hunter Safety program in Manitoba. The program is called the "Manitoba Hunter and Firearms Safety Training Program" and is administered by the Wildlife Branch of the Department of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management. The minimum age to obtain a hunting license is twelve years . and it is mandatory for persons under fourteen years of age to have parental or guardian consent. In addition, persons under sixteen years of age must have a federal firearms permit from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before they can obtain a hunting license. The most important hunting license requirement in Manitoba is that all non-residents under nineteen years of age and all first-time license holders (of whatever age) must complete the Hunter Safety course and test before a hunting license will be issued to them. The course and test are sponsored by private groups and institutions and the minimum age to attend the course is twelve years. The course has a minimum length of six hours and the following subjects are covered: -6-

Safe Firearm Handling li hours Types of Firearms, Sights and Field Carry 1 hour Knowledge and Care of Ammunition hours Firearms Safety, Hunter Responsibility, Causes of accidents 1 hour Preparation before going into woods 1 hour Basic principles of rifle, shotgun shooting 3/4 hour

At the end of the course, a written examination consist- ing of 50 questions is administered and students must obtain 96% in order to pass the examination. In addition, students are required to attend all classes held during the course in order to pass. An estimated 5-7,000 persons complete the Hunter Safety course in Manitoba every year and up to 1974, a total of 52,000 persons had successfully completed the course. In 1974, there were approximately 80,000 licensed hunters in Manitoba. In addition, as of 1974, 700 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors.

Ontario

The Game and Fish Act in Ontario authorizes a Hunter Safety program and the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for the administration of the "Ontario Hunter Safety Training Program." In Ontario, the minimum age to obtain a hunting license is fifteen years and applicants who are less than sixteen years of age must have the consent of a parent or guardian. It is mandatory for all new hunters under twenty years of age to attend the Hunter Safety course before a hunting license will be issued to them. It is also mandatory for all residents, non-residents and first-time license holders to pass the Hunter Safety test before a hunting license can be obtained. The course is sponsored by private groùps and institutions and the minimum age to attend is fifteen years. A minimum of -7-

eight hours is spent studying the following subjects:

Firearms Safety, Handling, Care and Storage 6 hours Hunting Ethics, Game Regulation, Hunter- Farmer Relations, Basic Game Management, Survival and Cold Water Survival 2 hours

The Hunter Safety test is always administered by Hunting License Examiners of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources. The examination is written and is designed to test for knowledge of Hunter Safety, Gamé Laws, game identification and ability in the safe handling of firearms.

• There is no shooting involved in this Hunter Safety test. An estimated 33,000 persons graduate from the Hunter Safety program every year and up to 1974, a total of 250,000 persons had successfully completed the Hunter Safety program. ° In 1974, there were approximately 450,000 licensed hunters in Ontario. To 1974, a total of 1,150 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors.

Quebec

The "Quebec Hunter Safety Training Program" is authorized by the provincial Game Act and administered by the Ministry of Tourism, Fish and Game. In Quebec, there is no minimum age requirement to obtain a hunting license. However, it is mandatory for all resident hunters to successfully complete the Hunter Safety course and test before they can obtain a hunting license. The course and test are sponsored by private groups and institutions. The course involves a minimum of nine hours studying the following subjects: -8-

Firearms, Shotguns lf hours Firearms and Ammunition 3 hours Game Laws and Regulations, Hunter/ Landowner relations, survival in cold water 2 hours Ten Commandments of Hunting Safety hours

The course is followed by a written examination and a marksmanship test, where facilities permit a practical test. Students must obtain 70% on the written examination in order to pass. Approximately 45,000 persons complete the Hunter Safety course in Quebec every year. Up to 1974, 510,000 persons had graduated from the course. In 1974, there were an estimated 425,000 licensed hunters in Quebec. As of 1974, 500 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors.

Nova Scotia

The Lands and Forest Act provides the legislative authority for a Hunter Safety program and the Department of Lands and Forests administem the "Nova Scotia Hunter Safety and Survival Training Program." In Nova Scotia, the minimum age to obtain a hunting license is fourteen years. The Hunter Safety course and test are entirely voluntary. However, it is mandatory for persons wishing to obtain a moose hunting license to pass a "Moose Hunter Capability Test" before this license will be issued to them. The Hunter Safety course and test are sponsored by private groups and institutions and the minimum age to attend the course is fourteen years. The course has a minimum length of ten hours and includes the study of the following subjects: -9-

Safe Gun Handling 4 hours Live Firing 3 hours Survival and Compass Reading 3-4 hours

The course is followed by a written examination on which students must obtain 90% in order to pass. Students must also demonstrate an ability to handle firearms safely. The "Moose Hunter Capability Test" includes both a written examination and a marksmanship test. Approximately 500 persons complete the Hunter. Safety course and test every year and up to 1974, a total of 5,000 persons had graduated from the program. In 1974, there were 100,000 licensed hunters in Nova Scotia. Up to 1974, 50 persons had been qualified as Hunter Safety instructors.

New Brunswick

The provincial Game Act authorizes a Hunter Safety program and the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the administration of the "New Brunswick Hunter Safety Course." The minimum age to obtain a hunting license in New Brunswick is fourteen years. It is also mandatory for all persons under sixteen who wish to obtain a hunting license to first complete the Hunter Safety course and test. In addition, persons wishing to obtain a moose hunting license must pass a "Moose Hunter Capability Test" before such a license will be issued to them. The Hunter Safety course and test are sponsored by private groups and institutions and the minimum age to attend the course is twelve years. The course lasts for a minimum of eight hours and the following topics are included for study: - 1 0-- I.

Ten Commandments of Hunting Safety Safe Gun Handling Firearms Nomenclature, Hunting Laws Ballistics, Survival Description of Gaine Animals Conservation Hunter/Landowner Relations Game Acts

The course is followed by a written examination and a practical test is also included where possible, according to the facilities available. Students must obtain 90% on the written examination and must also have attended all the classes in order to pass. The "Moose Hunter Capability Test" includes a written examination and a marksmanship test. On the marksmanship test, a person must hit a target twc out of three times atfifty yards in order to pass. Approximately 1,000 persons graduate from the Hunter Safety course every year and up to 1974, a total of 4,800 persons had completed the course. In 1974, there were 105,248 licensed hunters in New Brunswick. Up to 1974, New Brunswick had 248 qualified Hunter Safety instructors.

Prince Edward Island

The Fish and Game Protection Act is the legislative authority in Prince Edward Island for a Hunter Safety program. The Fish and Wildlife Division administers the "Prince Edward Island Firearms Safety Program." Before discussing the hunting license requirements, it should be noted that, in this province, farmers and fishermen and their wives and dependents are not required to obtain a hunting license in order to hunt. Where others . are concerned, the minimum age _ reauirement to obtain a hunting license is fourteen years. It is also mandatory for all persons under - 1 1 - sixteen years of age to have parental or guardian consent and a Federal firearms permit from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Hunter Safety course and test are voluntary and there is no minimum age requirement to attend the course. The course and test are taught by Fish and Wildlife Division personnel and during the last 3-4 years, have been offered in some of the high schools in the province. The course has a minimum length of eight hours and the following subjects are studied: Hunting Traditions and Ethics Hunting Safety Hunter Responsibility Firearms and Ammunition Safe Gun Handling Fundamentals of Shooting Field Care of Game Game Identification Survival First Aid Vision and the Hunter

At the end of the course, a written examination con- sisting of 15-20 questions is administered. Students must obtain 50% on this examination in order to pass. Attendance and attitude during the course are also taken into consideration. Approximately 200 persons complete the Hunter Safety course every year and up to 1974 a total of 400 persons had graduated from the course. In 1974, there were 4,500 licensed hunters in Prince Edward Island. Up to 1974, there were 5 qualified Hunter Safety instructors in the province.

Newfoundland

The provincial Wildlife Act authorizes a Hunter Safety Program and the Department of Tourism is responsible for the administration of the "Newfoundland Hunter Safety Training Program." -12-

Hunting'license requirements in Newfoundland are related to age. The minimum age to obtain a hunting'license is sixteen years, except in the case of a Big Gaine license, with respect to which the minimum age is eighteen years. The Hunter Safety course and test are voluntary and are sponsored by private groups and institutions. The minimum age to attend the course is twelve years. The course has a minimum length of eleven and a half hours and the following subjects are studied: Field Course (11 hours) Hunting Tradition and Ethics Hunter and Conservation Hunter Responsibility Introduction to Safety Firearms and Ammunition Fundamentals of Shooting Safe Gun Handling Survival Vision and the Hunter Field Care of Gaine

The course is followed by a written examination con- sisting of 30-50 questions. A practical test is also administered where facilities would permit such a test. Approximately 600 persons complete the Hunter Safety course every year and up to 1974, a total of 1,800 persons had graduated from the course. In 1974, there were 35,000 licensed hunters in Newfoundland. Up to 1974, Newfoundland had 67 qualified Hunter Safety instructors.

Yukon Territory

The Yukon Act is the legislative authority for a Hunter Safety program in the Yukon Territory. The program was implemented in 1975 and the Game Branch of the Department of Tourism and Conservation is responsible for its administration. -13-

The Hunter Safety course and test are entirely voluntary. Since the program was initiated only last year, there are no statistics available indicating the extent to which the program is being used.

Northwest Territories

The government of the Northwest Territories is presently in the process of organizing a Hunter Safety program and expects that the program will be implemented within the next two years. There is, however, a privately sponsored course available in the Frobisher Bay area through the cadet program.

SUMMARY

Provincial/Territorial government-administered Hunter Safety programs exist in all of the provinces and the Yukon Territory. For the most part, the courses are sponsored by private groups and institutions and taught by instructors who have been qualified/certified by the respective provincial/ territorial governments. It should be noted that all of these courses are available to hunters or potential hunters on a voluntary basis. The lower age limit for enrollment varies from twelve to fifteen yearsin different jurisdictions, although the province of Saskatchewan sometimes permits persons as young as ten years to enroll in the program. In addition, five provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario) have made it mandatory for certain classes of individuals to successfully complete the Hunter Safety course and/or test before a hunting license will be issued. The following is a list of the specific classes of persons for whom the successful completion of a Hunter Safety course and/or test is a requirement that must be met before a hunting license can be obtained: -14-

British Columbia Successful completion of Hunter Safety course and test is mandatory for all first-time license applicants

Manitoba Successful completion of Hunter Safety course and test is mandatory for all non-residents under nineteen years of age and for.all first- time license holders

Ontario Successful completion of Hunter Safdty course is mandatory for all new hunters under twenty years of age; successful completion of Hunter Safety test is mandatory for all first-time license applicants and non-residents

Quebec Successful completion of Hunter Safety course and test is mandatory for all first-time resident license applicants

New Brunswick Successful completion of Hunter Safety course and test is mandatory for all first-time hunting license applicants between the ages of fourteen and sixteen

It is interesting to note that some of the provinces where the Hunter Safety course and/or test are not mandatory requirements that must be met before a hunting license will be issued (e.g. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and the Yukon) are currently considering proposals to introduce such requirements. In addition, some provinces where the Hunter Safety course and/or test are already mandatory for some classes of individuals (e.g. New Brunswick) are considering proposals to expand these provisions to include more hunters (e.g. by eliminating age limitations). -15-

Under the programs as they are presently set up, it . is interesting to note that, across the country, approximately 113,900 persons graduate from Hunter Safety programs every year. Up to 1974, 931,000 Canadians had successfully completed a Hunter Safety course and/or test and 6,620 persons had been qualified/ certified as Hunter Safety instructors. In 1974, there were an estimated 1,632,748 licensed hunters in Canada. In addition to the provincial/territorial government administered Hunter Safety programs, a number of target-shooting and trap-shooting clubs sponsor their own private training courses for these sports. Some private security agencies and some community colleges offer training courses for private security personnel and other law enforcement personnel. The general availability of such privately sponsored courses, however, has not yet been adequately documented on a national basis. It was our original intention, in writing this paper, to consider the effects, if any, which the introduction of hunter safety training programs in the Provinces has had on the level of hunting accidents involving firearms. Various claims have been made in recent years to the effect that the introduction of such programs has resulted in significant reductions in accidental hunting deaths and injuries from firearms. We have been able to find no reliable statistics which can be used to substantiate such claims, however. Information from different sources even on the number of persons killed in hunting accidents in Canada each year varied so greatly, and involved so many gaps and inconsistencies, that it could not be considered a sufficiently reliable base from which to draw conclusions about the effective- ness of training programs in reducing hunting accidents. * It is known, however, that the great majority of accidental firearms deaths are unrelated to hunting activities. Out of the 122 accidental firearms deaths reported by Statistics Canada in its Causes of Death report for 1974, for instance, a

* For example, the province of Manitoba reported'that there were 4 fatal hunting accidents involving firearms in Manitoba in 1974, while a manu check of Statistics Canada data revealed that there were no hunting deaths involvinc firearms in Manitoba in 1974. -16-

manual check revealed that only 18 (15%) involved hunting accidents.* While this does not tell us much about the likely effectiveness of hunter safety training programs in reducing firearms accidents, it does suggest that an effective program may have to reach well beyond the hunting community if it is to have any hope of effecting significant reductions in the accidental firearms death rates. Clearly such information is not adequate, and much more basic research will have to be undertaken before this subject can be properlr addressed, and credible conclusions drawn. The implementation of such research should be considered - a major priority in determining what place safety and competency programs should have in an effective strategy of gun control.

* In a small number of cases, however, the exact circumstances of the deaths could not be determined from the records. Information from other sources, furthermore, suggested that this figure should be nearer 40 (33%) than 18. PROVINCE British Columbia

: NAME OF PROGRAM British Columbia Conservation and Recreatic,n Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Wildlife Act, Firearms Act

:PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Department of Conservation and Recreatlon

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: No Legal Minimum age Requirement

Parental, Guardian Consent: Mandatory for under 18 years

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Mandatory for over 14 and first time licence holders

1

I. Successful Completion ° Hunter Safety Test: Mandatory for over 14 and first time licence holders

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 14 years

Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions

Minimum Length: 20 hours

Content: Outdoor Ethics 2 hours Gun Handling and Firearms Safety 3 hours Why we have regulations 2 hours Animal Identification 3 hours Birds of British Columbia 2 hours Survival and First Aid 3 hours

•

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written examination consisting of 100 questions demonstrate safe handling — usually no firing

Administered By: Private Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Must obtain 70% on written examination to pass

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 1,eco

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: itnnual: 10,000 Cumulative To 1974: 20,000

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 151,000 PROVINCE Alberta

NAME OF PROGRAM Alberta Hunter Training and Conservation Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY . Wildlife Act

"PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Department of Lands and Forests

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 14 years

Parental, Guardian Consent: Mandatory for under 16 years

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Voluntary

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Voluntary

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 12 years

Course Taught By: Integrated into school curriculum, Private Groups

Minimum Length: 22 hours

4 hours ' Content: Live Firing Hunting Traditions and Ethics 1 hour Wildlife Resource Management 2 hours Hunter Responsibilities 2 hours Introduction to Safety, Fundamentals of Shooting 2 hours Firearms and Ammunition, Safe Gun Handling 4 hours Bowhunting 2 hours • • Survival 4 hours Big Game Care and Identification 2 hours

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written test consisting of 100 questions Skills Test including live firing (this is taken by approx. 40-50% of the students)

Administered By: Schools, Private Groups

Conditions for successful completion: Must obtain 65% to pass written examination if Skill Test is taken, must obtain 100% to pass

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974:1,500

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: .*:lnual: 10-12,000 Cumulative To 1974: 32,000

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 132,000

PROVINCE Saskatchewan

NAME OF PROGRAM Saskatchewan Firearms Safety Progr:.m

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Game Act . . :PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Department of Natural Resources

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 12 years

Parental, Guardian Consent: Mandatory for under 16 years

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Voluntary i

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Voluntary

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 11 years 1 Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions, some integration in Schools (Grades 7,8,9 ) I. Minimum Length: 8 hours Content: Firearms, Ammunition, Marksmanship, Hunting and Hunter Safety, Hunter Ethics 2 hours Handling Firearms in the Field 2 hours Archery, Game Identification, Field Care of Game 2 hours Survival 2 hours

'

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written examination consisting of 100 questions

Administered By: Private Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Must obtain 80% on written examination to pass

600 QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974:

Cumulative To 1974: 55,000 HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: Annual: 5,000 _.

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 150,000

PROVINCE Manitoba

NAME OF PROGRAM Manitoba Hunter and Firearms Safety Training Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Wildlife Act

: PRCGRAM ADMINISTRATION Wildlife Branch, Dept. Mines, Resources iI Environmental Mana , ement HUNTING LICEMCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 12 years

Under 16 years must have Parental, Guardian Consent: Mandatory for under 14 years permit from R.C.M.P. Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Mandatory for all residents and non—residents under 19 years and first time licence holders

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Mandatory for all residents and non—residents under 19 years and first time licence holders

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 12 years

Course Taught Dy: Private Groups and Institutions

Minimum Length: 6 hours

Content: Safe Firearm Handling 1-1/2 hours Types of Firearms, Sights and Field Carry 1 nour Knowledge and Care of Ammunition 1-1/2 hours Firearms Safety, Hunter Responsibility, Causes 1 hou' of accidents Preparation before going into woods 1 hour • Basic principles of rifle, shotgun shooting 45 min

'

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written examination consisting of 50 questions

Administered By: Private Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Must obtain 96% to pass . Attend all classes

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 700

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: .".nnual: 5-7,000 Cumulative To 1974: 52,000

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 80,000 PROVINCE Ontario

NAME OF PROGRAM Ontario Hunter Safety Training Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Game and Fish Act

:PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Ministry of Natural Resources

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 15 years

Parental, Guardian Consent: Mandatory for 15 years

-4 Successful Completion I Hunter Safety Course: Mandatory for all New Hunters under 20 years

. Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Mandatory for all residents, non—residents and first time licence holders

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 15 years

Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions

Minimum Langth: 8 hours

Content: Firearms Safety, Handling, Care and Storage 6 hours Hunting Ethics, Game Regulations, Hunter—Farmer Relations, Basic Gaine Management,Survival and Cold Water Survival 2 hours

'

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Tests knowledge of Hunter Safety, Game Laws, Game Identification and ability in safe handling of firearms — no shooting

Administered By: Hunting Licence Examiners of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources

Conditions for successful completion: Must pass Examination

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 1,150

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: 1.nnual: 33,000 Cumulative To 1974: 250,000

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 450,000 PROVINCE Quebec

NAME OF PROGRAM Quebec Hunter Safety Training Program

LEGISLATIVE'AUTHORITY Game Act

. 'PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Ministry of Tourism, Fish and Game

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: No minimum age requirement

Parental, Guardian Consent: N/A

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Mandatory for all resident hunters

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Mandatory for all resident hunters

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: No minimum age requirement

Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions

Minimum Length: 9 hours

1-1/2 hours Content: Firearms, Shotguns Firearms and Ammunition 3 hours . Game Laws and Regulations, Hunter/Landowner 2 hours Relations, Survival in cold water Ten Commandments of Hunting Safety 1-1/2 hours

' .

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written examination and Marksmanship Test where possible

Administered By: Private Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Must obtain 70% on written examination to pass

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 500

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: Cnual: 45,000 Cumulative To 1974: 510,000

LICENAD HUNTERS 1974 425,000 . PROVINCE Nova Scotia r NAME OF PROGRAM Nova Scotia Hunter Safety and Survival Training Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Lands and Forest Act 1 'PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Department of Lands and Forests

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 14 years

Parental, Guardian Consent: N/A

• Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Voluntary

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Voluntary 1 * Moose Hunting Licence — Must pass Moose Hunter Capability Test

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 14 years I I Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions 1

Minimum Length: 10 Hours

Content: Safe Gun Handling 4 Hours Live Firing 3 Hours Survival and Compass Reading 3-4 Hours

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written Examination

* Moose Hunter Capability Test — Written examination and Marksmanship Test

Administered By: Private Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Demonstrate Ability to handle Firearms Safely Must obtain 90% on written examination

Cumulative To 1974: 50 QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: t.nnual: 500 Cumulvtive To 1974: 5,000

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 100,000 PROVINCE New Brunswick

NAME OF PROGRAM New Brunswick Hunter Safety Course

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Game Act

:PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Department of Natural Resources

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 14 years

Parental, Guardian Consent: N/A

Sticcessful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Mandatory for under 16 years

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Test: Mandatory for under 16 years

* Moose Hunting Licence - Must pass Moose Hunter Capability Test

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 12 years

Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions

Minimum Length: 8 hours

Content: Ten Commandments of Hunting Safety Safe Gun Handling Firearms Pomenclature, Hunting Laws Balistics, Survival Description of Game Animals Conservation Hunter/Landowner Relations Game Acts

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written Examination (Practical where possible)

* Moose Hunter Capability Test - Written examination and Marksmanship Test

13n:,; ■2.red by: Private Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Must attend all classes Must obtain 90% on exam (* Moose Hunter Capability Test - 2 out of 3 at 50 yds. to pass)

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 248

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: C.r.ual: 1,000 Cumulative To 1974: 4,800

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 105,248 PROVINCE Prince Edward Island

NAME OF PROGRAM Prince Edward Island Firearms Safety Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Fish and Game Protection Act

'PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Fish and Wildlife Division

HUNTING LICENCE REQU/REMENTS

Minimum Age: 14 years

Parental, Guardian Consent: Mandatory fer under 16 years FRiàParalssol=r2°:n

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Voluntary

Successful Completion • •1 Hunter Safety Test: Voluntary

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: No minimum age requirement

Course Taught By: Fish and Wildlife Division, Some integration in High Schools during last 3-4 years

Minimum Length: 8 hours

Hunting Traditions and Ethics Content: » Hunting Safety Hunter Responsibility Survival Firearms and Ammunition First Aid Safe Gun Handling Vision and the Hunter Fundamentals of Shooting Field Care of Game Game Identification •

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written Examination consisting of 15-20 questions

_____. .. ... _ • Administered Ry: Fish and Wildlife Division

Conditions for successful completion: Must obtain 50% on written examination, attendance and attitude also taken into consideration

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 5

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: :nmual: 200 Cumulative To 1974: 400

LICENSED HUNTERS 1974 4,500 -4

Farmers and Fishermen and their wives and dependents do not need lieence to hunt. PROVINCE Newfoundland

NAME OF PROGRAM Newfoundland Hunter Safety Training Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY Wildlife Act

:PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Department of Tourism

HUNTING LICENCE REQUIREMENTS

Minimum Age: 16 years (18 years for Big Game Licence )

Parental, Guardian Consent: N/A

Successful Completion Hunter Safety Course: Voluntary

Successful Completion • . Hunter Safety Test: Voluntary

HUNTER SAFETY COURSE

Minimum Age to Attend: 12 years

Course Taught By: Private Groups and Institutions

Minimum Length: 11-1/2 Hours

Content: Field Course (1-1/2 Hours) Hunting Tradition and Ethics Survival Hunter and Conservation Vision and the Hunter Hunter Responsibility Field Care of Game Introduction to Safety Firearms and Ammunition Fundamentals of Shooting • Safe Gun Handling '

HUNTER SAFETY TEST

Type of Test: Written examination consisting of 30-50 questions (Practical component where possible)

--

Admints .teriel By: Privale Groups and Institutions

Conditions for successful completion: Must pass written examination

QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS Cumulative To 1974: 67

HUNTER SAFETY GRADUATES: t,nnual: 600 Cumulative To 1974: 1,800

1974 35,000 - , LICENSED HUNTERS , Relevant Provincial Statutes

Alberta Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 1970, C. 391. British Columbia The Firearms Act, Stat. B.C. 1966, C. 46. The Wildlife Act, Stat. B.C. 1966, C. 55; Stat. B.C. 1971, C. 69. Manitoba Wildlife Act, R.S.M. 1970, C. 140. New Brunswick

• The Game Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, C. G-1. Newfoundland The Firearms Act, R.S.N. 1970, C. 129. -The Protection of Animals Act, R.S.N. 1970, C. 311; Stat. Nfld. 1 973, C.2; Stat. Nfld. 1975, C.31. Nova Scotia Lands and Forest Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, C. 163. Ontario The Game and Fish Act, R.S.O. 1970, C. 186; Stat. Ont. 1971, C. 30; Stat. Ont. 1973, C.108; Stat. Ont. 1973, C.174. Prince Edward Island The Fish and Game Protection Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1959, C.13. Quebec Wildlife Conservation Act. Stat. Que. 1969, C. 58. Saskatchewan The Protection of Game Act, Stat. Sask. 1967, C. 78; Stat. Sask. 1968, C. 26; Stat. Sask. 1970, C. 24. The Fur Animals Act, R.S.S. 1965, C.357. GUNS AND VIOLENCE I GUNS AND VIOLENCE*

Introduction

Central to the gun control debate is the issue of whether there exists a causal relationship between firearms and violence. This paper will explore the question of whether the availability of firearms causes violence, con- tributes to it, exacerbates it, facilitates it, or other- wise increases the probability of death or serious injury resulting from criminal or accidental acts.

There are two general levels on which one may speak of a possible contribution of firearms to crime, violence, or injury. First, firearms might contribute to violence in a direct way, whereby the availability of a gun leads to greater violence or more serious injury than would have been the case had an alternative (and less lethal) weapon been used. Second, firearms might contribute to violence in an indirect, cultural sense, in terms of firearm presence contributing to a general subcultural climate in society which is conducive to the violent resolution of conflict. To put it another way, it is possible that society's tolerance of the possession of guns may lead people to make assumptions about the legitimacy of their use in different situations. Thus, the firearm might play a role not only as a tool of violence, but also as its symbol, representing at once the cue and the effective means for violent confrontation.'

This paper will review evidence bearing on both of these possible aspects of the relationship between guns and violence.

To the extent that it is feasible, the focus through- out will be on the Canadian scene: how do guns and violence interact in Canada? As a socio-cultural phenomenon, violent behaviour is most meaningfully considered within the frame-

* The research for this paper was based on data available up to 1976. -2- work of the culture of which it is a part. Unfortunately, most of the material available on the issue of guns and violence comes from the United States, and so poses problems of interpretation when used to support inferences about Canadian social patterns. The similarities between the two countries should not obscure their differences; as Nalgele (1964) has argued, there exist often marked cultural dif- ferences of value emphases and orientations, which preclude the drawing of direct parallels between the countries on any particular issue.

The stance taken in this paper is that in spite of these difficulties, a consideration of American patterns with respect to firearms and violence has relevance for a Canadian analysis, owing to: (1) the substantial similarity of life- 1 styles in the two nations, and (2) the growing importance of a media contagion process whereby American values and orientations (especially in regard to violence) are imported wholesale into Canada through the media, particularly television. 2

Violence in Perspective

Violence may be viewed as the extreme pole of a spectrum of behaviour called aggression; often explosive in nature, it may be defined as "the use of force in order to injure or destroy. 113

In the abstract, violence is neither legitimate nor illegitimate. Whether force is perceived to be good or bad is always decided within the framework of a particular cultural value setting, and is based on the characteristics of the agent administering the force, the target, the ends 4,5 sought, and the context within which it occurs. -3-

What are the root causes of violent behaviour in man? Although numerous types of explanations have been advanced, there are as yet no definitive answers to this question. As with most kinds of behaviour, violence is partly a function of the biological nature of man: for animals can commit violence, and man is an animal. 6 sometimes, violence can . be the result of biological,dysfunction which adversely affects the operation of the mind. 7 In the main, however, violent behaviour - and certainly the particular formit • • • takes in a given situation - is considered to be learned. Adult aggression can be affected by early family and social environment, by early experiences of achievement and failure, and by early experiences in aggressive encounters. 8 All of these experiences contribute to the formation of the individual's attitudinal set; and it is the person's values( his world view, which represents the major factor modulating his behaviour. 9

The course that will be taken in a particular conflict is a function of numerous factors; 10 obviously, not all conflicts lead to violence, and not all violence is par- ticularly serious or illegitimate. Given a conflict, there are basically two determinates of violence: the attitudes held by the participants, and the weaponry at hand. Attitudes are by far the most important of these determinants: behaviour is guided by belief, and people act in the context of con- victions about the meaning of their acts, what acts are appropriate in particular settings, and what responses may be expected from others. 11 -4-

Guns, Cialture & Violence

In analyzing the relationship of guns to violence, we may first consider the question of whether the presence, visibility and easy accessibility of guns might - independ- ent of direct causal links - significantly increase the probability of violence in society. The question will be approéched in three ways. First, the purely psychological impact of the gun will be assessed: what does the gun mean? Second, on a broader cultural plane, a conception of the role of the gun vis-à-vis subcultural values will be develop- ed. Finally, we will discuss7. the important process of violence contagion, whereby values regarding violence are transmitted through the media.

The psychological literature on the subject of guns and violence is limited. In one experiment, however, the researchers Claimed to have demonstrated that the mere pre- sence of a gun may itself stimulate violent behaviour in one whose inhibitions against aggression are already relatively 12 weak. "The finger pulls the trigger," these researchers ,13 concluded, "but the trigger may also be pulling the finger. The conclusions drawn from this experiment have not gone 4 unchallenged 2 however, and the researchers themselves presented them with some tentativeness. 15

That the gun can have special meaning for some users is clearly evident. Basing his remarks on intensive interviews with persons convicted of a range of gun offences including homicide and armed robbery, Newman wrote that: "The gun is many things. It can, in a single individual, play a variety of roles and have a variety of meanings. To:some it can be a source of omnipotent power, while to others it can be an equalizer which erases feelings of inadequacy and helplessness. For some, it is a seducer tempt- -5-

ing them to an easier and quicker path to success and riches....It is both a source of fear and fascination, and for some takes on a magical quality. Whatever else a gun may be, it is clearly not simply another weapon, an inanimate object playing a passive role." 16

In a similar vein, Rotenberg & Sadoff (1970) claimed to have identified within a group of inmates convicted of gun crimes, a subgroup of unstable, emotionally disturbed, paranoid individuals who exhibited particular interest and attachment to their guns. In contrast to the anti-social group (who had no specific need to use their guns unless challenged, and who looked upon guns merely as tools), this "schizoid" group invested in their guns special qualities. For these people, their guns represented a means of resolving . problems which they were otherwise unable to confront, and in this sense were able to compensate for personal inadequa- cies. As Sadoff and Rotenberg describe it: "Instead of the gun being a tool of the trade, or an incidental part of a planned series of crimes,...(it)...became an essential part of his means of dealing with other people without which he felt grossly inadequate. It became a specific part of his defense mechanism to avoid intimate contact in the event of conflict. u. 17

Sadoff and Rctenberg's classifications of "anti-social" and "schizoid" are open to question as adequate bases for the . conclusions which are drawn, particularly when the apparent difference in the types of crimes associated with each group (the typical "anti-social" group member appears to have used his gun in a bank hold-up, while the typical "schizoid" group member had used his gun in a domestic homicide) is taken into consideration. These considerations, howeer, do not -6--

appear to affect at least one conclusion of the study which is of relevance. As reported by Sadoff and Rotenberg: "The most consistent finding in the study, common to both the anti-social and the schizoid group, is the fact that every subject felt he would not have committed a particular act, or acts, without the possession of a gun. u18

As noted before, the main determinant of violence is the attitudes or values of the participants in a conflict., A disproportionate amount of violence is likely to occur in any social circumstance where people share the belief that violence is a legitimate (and in fact, preferred) way of cop- 19 ing with challenges. In the United States, a number of 20 investigators have claimed to have identified a subculture of violence whose main value is precisely this belief in the legitimacy of violence, and whose pre-eminent characteristic is the exercise of such belief. This belief in the legitimacy 21 of violence - linked in the United States to Southern culture - has been seen as a significant factor in determining the geographical distribution of homicide rates in the U.S. 22,23

According to Wolfgang (1970), the gun plays an integral role in the lives of those adhering to the subcultural ethic of violence. In a setting where violence becomes part of the lifestyle, the theme for solving a multitude of difficult problems, ready access and resort to weapons may be essential for protection against others who respond in similarly violent ways. "Carrying a knife or some other protective device be- comes a common symbol of willingness to particiPate in violence, to expect violence, and to be ready for its retaliation."24 -7-

In Canada, the existence of a subculture of violence is not at all clear. While there are regional disparities 25 in homicide rates, they cannot be easily accounted for on the basis of a subcultural argument. Canada is made up of 25 a mosaic of subcultures, but the subcultures are ethnic in character rather than particularly or differentially violent. 27

To the extent that Canadians are saturated with American media reports (and thus vicariously exposed to a level of violence foreign to their culture), the notion of the contagion of criminal violence may have special significance for Canada. According to Berkowitz and Macaulay, 28 sensational reports in the media of violent crimes result in increased crime rates.29 Considering the crime rates of 40 cities in the U.S., they found that the preceding trends failed to pre- dict the considerable increases in aggressive crimes ex-. perienced following the extensive media coverage given the Kennedy assassination and the Speck and Whitman murders.

The mechanism by which this contagion takes place can be broken down into three consecutive steps: (1) the media presentation leads the viewer to experience aggressive ideas and images; (2) if inhibitions against aggression are not evoked by the witnessed violence or by the observers' anti- cipation of the negative consequences of aggressive behaviour, the event may provoke active aggression; (3) these aggressive reactions probably subside fairly quickly, but may reappear if the observer encounters other environmental stimuli assoc- iated with aggression. 30 -8-

After rejecting the possible interpretations that the differences in crime rates they found Were due to (1) different rates of reporting following the media coverage of the crimes, or (2) the general weakening of social controls or restraints, Berkowitz and Macaulay concluded: "Our thesis does not maintain that most (or even a substantial proportion) of violent crimes are instigated by news reports in the mass media. Other determinants are undoubtedly more important in a vast majority of these incidents.....Contagious influences operate on top of these determinants, and probably in conjunction with a number of them. u31

The precise implications of the contagion process for the availability, visibility and tolerance for firearms are by no means clear. It seems possible, however, that if reports of violent crime can trigger violent behaviour in observers, then the visible presence of firearms (which for some individuals are inextricably linked with their potential for violent action) may exert a similar influence and in- crease the probability of their violent misuse.

Firearms and Violence

This section will consider evidence regarding the question of whether the availability of firearms contributes directly to the amount and seriousness of violent behaviour. Two basic approaches to this question may be identified. On the one hand, comparisons may be made between the respective crime rates of jurisdictions with different levels of gun availability. A correlation between the incidence of firearms crime and the availability of guns would be consistent with the notion that gun availability does contribute directly to violence. Sound and reliable data on gun availability and a sophisticated analysis, however, would be required in order to establish -9- whether any causal relationship exists, and whether such relationship involves gun availability contributing to violence, or violence contributing to gun availability. 32

It is doubtful whether sufficiently reliable data on firearms availability exist at present, except perhaps on an international level where extreme differences may be discerned. The great cultural differences between nations, which may substantially affect their definitions of, as well as their reactions to violence, however, make any analysis at this level extremely problematic and speculative. Such an international comparison, furthermore, is beyond the scope of this paper. While analyses involving different jurisdictions within a single country have been undertaken, 33 such studies are open to serious doubt, principally because theyY usually involve the use of data of doubtful reliability on the SOME- what dubious ass-umPtion that gun availability- can be accurately estimated through an examination of the relative restrictiveness of a jurisdiction's gun control laws. As far as can be told, no such assumption has yet been empirically verified.

The second approach to the question of the relationship between firearms availability and firearms misuse, is to develop an analysis of the role the gun plays in the dynamics of criminal and accidental acts of violence, with a view to determining to what extent the availability of a gun is an integral component of the complex of interactive factors predisposing an individual to violence. This approach, which is the one adopted in the following analysis, concentrates on the question of the extent to which violence, or at least an injurious outcome, is predicated upon the availability of a firearm: if a . firearm had not been available in a given situation, would the violence have occurred anyway, and would the consequences have been equally seriouS? - 1 0--

Guns and Accidents

Each year, about 120 Canadians die as a result of firearms accidents; this represents just under 10% of all firearms deaths. 34 ' 35 Only about 1% of all accidental deaths in Canada are due to firearms; moreover, accidental deaths due to firearms have decreased in recent years while accidental deaths due to other causes have continued to increase.

Logically, it seems inescapable that the availability of firearms necessarily is related to accidental deathi due to guns; if there were fewer guns, one could anticipate fewer accidents. However, in the context of making a decision regarding the benefits of gun control, it should be emphasized that(relatively)very few accidental deaths are the result of firearms misuse.

Guns and Suicide

About a thousand Canadians kill themselves each year using firearms. These incidents make up about 70% of all firearms deaths in Canada.

About a third of all suicidal deaths in Canada are committed with firearms. 36

Firearms are a speedy and effective means of committing suicide. There is some evidence indicating that if persons who now use firearms were forced to resort to other means of killing themselves where there is a higher chance of intervention and rescue, some would not die. However, there is little reason to expect that reducing the availability of firearms would cause a significant reduction in suicides, because a person determined to die will usually find a way of doing so. 37 -11-

Guns and Robbery

In Canada, in 1974, the incidence of robbery was 75.5 per 100,000. Frein 1971 - 1974, robbery increased faster than any other violent offence, with an average annual increase of 10.5%, as contrasted with 6.5% for murder.

Considering the first quarters of 1974 and 1975 in a number of selected cities across Canada, 38 robbery increased in all cities, the range being 13.7% (Edmonton) to 95 4% (Ottawa). All cities likewise showed an increase in the use of firearms in robbery, though in all cities except Ottawa, the increased firearms use was paralleled by a greater increase in robberies not involving firearms. In Ottawa, however, while there was no increase in the rate of robberies using other offensive weapons, there was an increase of 392% in 39 _ firearmé robberies. In most centres, the increase In firearms robbery meant, in great measure, an increase in the use of long guns, in spite of the greater éoncealability of handguns:"

As Newman has remarked, "robbery appears to be a crime made infinitely more possible by having a gun. ,41 Without a gun, to'rob requires a degree of strength, size, confidence and determination which is likely to be lacking in many would-be criminals; for the most part, the men involved in 42 robbery are not very large or very strong. .

On'this basis, it seems obvious that if firearms avail- ability were effectively reduced, then the robbery rate would be expected to decline. However, there are serious reasons for doubting that any but the most restrictive cf gun laws would be effective in limiting the availability of guns to the determined criminal. 43 - 12 -

Guns and Homicide 44

In 1974, 273 Canadians were murdered by firearms. Deaths by murder represent about 16% of Canadian firearms deaths; of all murders committed in 1974, about half were committed with a firearm. Of these, approximately 25% were reported as having been committed with a handgun, and 70% with a long gun, 45 a proportion which has remained relatively constant over the years. 46

The most striking aspect of the homicidal pattern is the relationship between the killer and his victim. Murder is most often an impulsive, violent and explosive act that occurs between family members or friends. 47 In Canada, of 1,541 capital murders considered by Cabinet from 1867 to 1971, 72.7% involved relatives or acquaintances. 48 More specific to firearms, of the 2,058 firearm murders in Canada between 1961 and 1974, 42% were classed as domestic, 38% as non-domestic and only 7% were associated with another criminal act (12% were unsolved 49 ).

A murder victim's conduct and attitudes are as vital as those of the killer, and the relationship between them is, in many cases, in the nature of a partnership. 50Many homicides are the result of antagonisms that have endured for years while the victim teased, taunted, goaded or suppressed his eventual murderer until a breaking point was reached.

What role does the gun play in these situations? Would reducing the availability of guns have • ny effect on murder Ii

-13-

I . rates? To deal with these questions, let us consider the nature.of the gun as a tool for murder.

Although other weapons are involved in homicide, firearms are not only the most deadly instrument of attack, but also the most versatile. 51 Firearms make some attacks possible that simply would not occur without firearms, permitting attacks at greater range, and by persons physically or psychologically unable to overpower their victim through physical contact. 52 Firearms are more deadly than other weapons: the fatality rate of firearms attacks is about five times higher than the fatality rate of attacks with knives, the next most dangerous weapon used in homicide.

In view of this, Wolfgang's contention 52 that "...few homicides due to shooting could be avoided merely if a fire- arm were not immediately present, (since) the offender would select some other weapon:to achieve the saMe destructive goal" appears at least open to question.for unless it can be shown that those who choose firearms as murder weapons are more intent on achieving their objectives than those who choose other weapons, there seems every reason to believe that if a greater proportion of homicidal attacks involved weapons other than firearms, fewer deaths would result. 54

Given the unique destrùctive potential of the gun relative to alternative weapons, whether . restricting guns would produce a decline in murder hinges on the nature of aggressors and potential murderers. The evidence indicates that potential murderers are usually not persons engaged in premeditated. homicidal attacks, 55 but rather participants in family _ quarrels, arguments between acquaintances, brawls, clashes of personality, and so on. While such disturbances -14-

precipitate violence, they neither require a death for their resolution nor usually result in fatal 'consequences for those involved. It is unrealistic to assume that the people in- volved in most murder cases are so determined to kill that in the absence of guns they will either seek to achieve their purpose with any available alternative or deliberately evade 56 whatever restrictions may be enacted. "The handy gun has usually become the method of impulse, the vehicle of violence. Without this vehicle there is every reason to expect the violence to be less lethal and less injurious." 57

-;72Conc1usions: Gun Control and Violence

The bulk of the evidence considered in this paper suggests I that the availability' of firearms in fact does contribute to the incidence and seriousness of violent and accidental acts, in ways that are both direct and indirect. What implications does this finding have for the question of gun control? On the basis of this sort of evidence, it has been argued I that_strict laws limiting the availability of firearms will therefore exert a major impact in decreasing the incidence of violence in society. 1

Such a hope ieundoubtedly over-optimistic. For while the availability of guns may sometimes facilitate, aggravate, or even stimulate violence, it could clearly not be described as more than one relativelv smaJ1 unAnse" of violence. An effective gun control program, tnerefore, while it may exert some beneficial influence in reducing violence and its undesirable 'consequences, could never be more than a relAtively small part of the kind of program needed to exert major impact on the incidence and consequences of violence in Canadian society. Such a program, to have any hoDe of being effective, would have to attack cultural and socio-economic factors in society which run much deeper and exert a much More substantial -15- behavinnral influence than simply the presence and tolerance 58 of certain kind of weapons.

Strategies to reduce the availability of firearms, especially to those people with a pre-disposition towards violence which has already been identified in some way, are attractive principal- ly because of their relative simplicity. The outlook for the success of such strategies remains unclear, however. For not only are we a long way from being able to define (let alone 59 identify in advance) the potentially violent person, but we are still unable to state with any precision what the relationships are between guns and various kinds of violent and/or criminal activities. The present state of research in this area permits only broad generalizations on which to base firearms policy. -16-

FOOTNOTES

1. Crysdale and Beattie (1973). 2. See Berkowitz and Macaulay (1974) for a discussion of the contagion of violence. For a consideration of the impact of T.V. violence on behaviour, see, e.g., Cater and Strickland (1975) and Cline (1975). 3. Speigel, in Taylor and Soady (1972). 4. Wolfgang (1969).

5. Perhaps the most common form of physical violence in our ' society is corporal punishment of children by parents. in England and the U.S. suggest that between 84% Studies and 97% of all parents use physical punishment at sortie point in their child's life. See Steinmetz and Strauss, in Lystad, 1974. (page 24.) 6. Violence is by no means peculiar to humans, nor even to primates; many forms of animal life have the capacity to fight among themselves. However, to speak of an animal predilection for violence is nonsense. For example, despite the extremely aggressive behaviour observed in baboons in the London ZOO, it is now clear that in their natural environment, free from the stresses inherent in captivity, these animals may be exceptionally co-operative with almost no serious fighting occurring. 7. For example, the Texas tower killer, Charles Whitman, was found to have a brain tumor which is believed to have triggered his outburst. Other impairments, such as temporal lobe epilepsy and other nervous system maladies are also believed to be responsible at least indirectly for some violent crimes. See Rosenthal, in Taylor and Soady (1972). 8. Gunn (1973). 9. If one wished to analyze a violent event, one would have to try to tease out all of the possible elements: personal, social, psychological and biological - and then attempt to describe their interaction as a complex system. See Gunn (1972). 10. The factors involved in determining the course of a conflict include: (1) the characteristics of the parties involved; (2) their prior relationship to one another; (3) the nature of the issue giving rise to the conflict; (4) the social environment within which the conflict occurs; -17- (5) the interested audience to the conflict; 1 (6) the strategy and tactics employed; and (7) the consequences of the 'conflict to each of the par- ticipants and other parties.

For an exhaustive analysis of conflict, see Deutsch, (1974). 11. See Seigel, in Cline (1974). 12. See Berkowitz and LePage (1967). 13. Berkowitz (1968), at p. 22. 14. See critique by Page and Schmidt (1971), and Berkowitz's reply, Berkowitz (1971). 15. Berkowitz and LePage concluded their paper with the following observation: "Nevertheless, any one experiment cannot possibly definitely exclude all of the alternative explanations. Scientific hypotheses are only probability statements, and further research is needed to heighten the likelihood that the present reasoning is correct." Berkowitz and LePage (1967), at p. 207. 16. Newman, in Newton and Zimring (1969), 1 17. Sadoff and Rotenberg (1970), at p. 86. 18. Sadoff and Rotenberg (1970) at p. 84. 19. Wolfgang (1969). li 20. For example, Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967). 21. In Southern states, a relatively high proportion of suicide - homicide mortality is accounted for by homicides. Relative to Northern states, in the South there are: (1) high assault and murder rates; (2) intermediate rates for property crimes; and (3) low suicide rates. See Hackney reported in Harries (1974). Regarding Southern homicide, regional variation in murders also extends to the type of weapon used. Southern homicide: (1) involves firearms proportionately more often than in other regions; (2) tends to be associated relatively frequently with personal arguments, rather than felonious killing in the course of other criminal activity; and (3) projects its high rate characteristics to the killing of police. Ii See Harries (1974). -18- 22. In 1971, the homicide rates by region (per 100,000 population) were as follows: Northeastern states: 6.8 North central states: 6.9 Southern states: 12.2 Western states: 7.0 Regarding "choice of weapon used in homicide," in the Northeast only 49.2% of homicides were caused by firearms, as compared with 73.5% of Southern homicides. 23. A variety of causal factors have been suggested to account for this distribution, including the media, immigration, increasing mental disorder, types of education and family disorganization, historical background and culture patterns. Only family disorganization and culture patterns have been regarded by recent analysts as having significant impact on homicide rates. The cultural explanation has received considerable support from Gastil (1971), who suggested that there is a graduation of homicide rates from state to state, approximating the diffusion of Southern culture outside the South. Although socio-economic measures accounted for a substantial pro- portion of the variation in inter-regional murder rates, Gastil found that the variable "Southernness" accounted for a significant amount of rate variation not "explained" by the other indicators. See Harries (1974). 24. Wolfgang (1970), p. 14. 25. In 1974, the Canadian homicide rate (per 100,000) was 2.4. Among the provinces, British Columbia led with 4.2 homicides per 100,000, followed by Manitoba (3.9), Saskatchewan (3.3), Quebec (2.5), New Brunswick (2.4), Alberta (2.2), Ontario (1.8), P.E.I. (1.7), Nova Scotia (0.7), and Newfoundland (0.4). Yukon and the Northwest Territories led the provinces in murder rates by 10.5 and 21.1 murders per 100,000 respect- ively. (Source: Statistics Division, Ministry of Solicitor 'General). 26. For a discussion of Canadian subcultures, see Crysdale and Beattie (1973). 27. This is not to suggest that a subculture of violence does not.exist in Canada, or that no Canadian murders can be attributed to subcultural convictions regarding the legitimacy of violence. However, if there is a Canadian subculture of this nature, it is certainly less pervasive than that in the U.S. -19- 28. In Jackwell and Susman (1974). 29. In this connection, it is significant that "....in the mass media presentation of crime news, crimes of personal violence which...account for only 13% of the total index crime (in the U.S.), get 90% of the crime news space and time." See Morris and Hawkins, 1970. P. 60. 30. This speculative paradigm is supported by Bandura's work on imitation: observed experiences lead to imaginal and verbal representations of these events, and these, in turn, can produce imitative versions of the witnessed action, especially if rewards are anticipated for repeating the behaviour. It is worth noting that all media depictions of violence do not lead to aggressive behaviour in the audience; if the witnessed violence is judged to be >rang" or unjustified, many observers will restrain their aggressive inclinations. See Berkowitz and Macaulay (1974). 'U. Berkowitz and Macaulay (1974), p. 177. 32. In other words, the possibility must not be overlooked that a high level of violence (resulting from factors other than gun availability) might cause people to buy more guns (out of fear, for protection, etc.), thus increasing gun availability. 33. See e.g. Newton and Zimring (1969). 34. All the Canadian statistics referred to in this paper, unless otherwise noted, are derived from the statistics used as a basis for the paper entitled "Guns in Canada - A Statistical Review,n below. 35. In contrast, Americans currently (1969) die from firearms accidents at a rate of about 2,900 per year; and another 20,000 persons suffer accidental injuries each year from firearms. In the United States, firearm accident rates follow the pattern of firearm ownership: they are highest in the South and lowest in the East. Over half of all fatal firearms accidents occur in or around the home, and about 40% of accident victims are children or teenagers. See Newton and Zimring (1969). 36. The category used actually includes "firearms and explosives;" however, the number of suicides due to the use of explosives is negligible. In the U.S., over 20,000 persons commit suicide each year, 47% of these using firearms for the purpose. See Newton and Zimxing (1969). -20- 37. Newton and Zimring (1969). 38. These cities were: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax. 39. The interpretation of this statistic is problematic. It may be that the enormous increase in firearms robbery is statistically anamalous, and that things will return to normal fairly shortly. Alternatively, it is possible that the increase is symptomatic of things to come. More data are needed to draw firm conclusions in this area. 40. The relative proportions of handgun to long gun robberies may represent an index of the degree to which Canada's restrictive handgun legislation has proved effective in curtailing their criminal misuse. 41. In Newton and Zimring (1969). 42. Newman, in Newton and Zimring (1969). 43. That the criminal could not be expected to adhere to gun laws is borne out by the finding that (in the U.S.) most of the firearms used in crime are acquired in unrecorded purchases or in burglaries. See Newton and Zimring (1969). 44. Note that 'f rom the clinical observer's point of view, it is fallacious to distinguish murder from acts of wounding or serious assault. As Morris and Hawkins (1970) have written, "The line between willful homicide and assault is uncertain, other than in terms of the outcome of vio- lence. The speed of the ambulance, the competence of the surgeon, and the fortuitous point of impact of the missile or weapon do more to distinguish between these crimes than does any analysis of the states of mind of the assailants." p. 57. 45. In the remaining 5% of cases, the weapon type used was unknown. 46. In the U.S., in 1972, 54% of all murders were committed with handguns, while 12% were cOmmitted with long guns. Between 1969 and 1974, aggravated assault and gun murder increased by 50%, a rate much faster than the population increase. See Massachussetts Council on Crime and Correction (1974). -21-- 47. As Morris and Hawkins remark, "...murders involving spouse killing, parent killing child, other family killings, romantic triangles and lover!s quarrels, and arguments be- tween those previously acquainted account for 80% of all homicides (in the U.S.)." Similar statistics have been reported by McLintock in Great Britain. See Gunn (1973), p. 127. 48. Source: Capital Punishment. It should be noted that the sample of capital murders (from the population of all murders) is a biased one; murders which have plausible extenuating circumstances (as might be the case in family situations) are more likely to be categorized as non capital. This bias may account for the finding that of the 56 capital murders committed with firearms since 1957, only 23% were'domestic. 49. Of course, a considerable proportion of violent interactions do involve strangers. The proportion is relatively low IE homicide, but rises in aggravated assault, and dominates in armed and unarmed robbery. Generally, the percentage of non-primary group relationships rises from homicide to robbery, while the percentage of family and other primary group relationships uniformly declines. See Mulvihill et 41, in Lystad (1974). 50. See Houts, in Lystad (1974). 51. See Newton and Zimring (1969). 52. In this context, it is no coincidence that of 53 policemen murdered while on duty in Canada between 1961 and 1974, 51 were shot. Easy access to firearms accentuates the problem of human instability. The most dangerous aspect of firearms is that they maybe fired in a split second by one who possesses no great strength or skill. As Robert Coles writes; "Every psychiatrist has treated patients who were thankful that guns were not around at one time or another in their lives...We cannot prevent insanity in adults or violent and delinquent urges in many children by curbing guns, but we can certainly make the translation of crazy or vicious impulses into pulled triggers less likely and less possible." See Bessick (1970), p. 558. 53. In Zimring (1966). 54. Newton and Zimring (1969). -22- 55. Of all 56 capital firearm murders in Canada since 1957, only 41% were premeditated. There is good reason to believe, furthermore, that this percentage would be substantially lower in the case of non-capital murders, which comprise the vast majority of murders (see footnote 49, above). 56. Most violent attacks with deadly weapons, whether fatal or non-fatal, are pursued with ambiguous intentions as to whether the victim should die. In 62% of all fatal attacks (in Chicago), the offender did not inflict more than one wound, in spite of his ability to do so. This may mean that the initial intention, in both fatal and non-fatal attacks, is to achieve, by wounding, an objective other than death, but to achieve that objective regardless of whether death occurs. See Zimring (1972). 57. Morris and Hawkins (1970), p. 66. 58. See Scott, in Taylor and Soady (1972). 59. See Gunn (1973), and Wenk, Robinson and Smith (1972). -23-

BIBLIOGRAPHY American Psychiatric Association Task Force 8. Clinical Aspects of the Violent Individual, July 1974. Berkowitz, L. "Impulse, Aggression and the Gun," Psychology Today., September 1968, pp. 19-22. Berkowitz, L. "The 'Weapons Effect,' Demand Characteristics and the Myth of the Compliant Subject," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1971, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 332-338. Berkowitz, L. and LePage, A. "Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1967, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 202-207. Berkowitz, L. and Macaulay, J. "The Contagion of Criminal Violence," in Sussman, J. (ed.) Crime and Justice. New York: McGraw Hill. Cater, D. and Strickland, S. T.V. Violence and the Child New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975. Cline, V. (ed.) Where Do You Draw The Line? - An Exploration Into Media Violence, Pornography and Censorship. Brigham Young University Press, 1975. Crysdale, S., and Beattie, C., Sociology Canada, Toronto: Butterworth and Co., 1973. Deutsch, A., The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973. . Etzioni, A., "Domestic Disarmament," Human Behaviour, June 1975 pp. 13-14. Gastil, R., "Homicide and a regional culture of violence." American Sociological Review, 36 (3), 1971. Glaser, D., and O'Leary, V. The Violent Offender. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966. Gunn, J. Violence London: Praeger, 19 7 3. Harries, K. "Geography of Crime and Justice" in Sussman, J. (ed.) Crime and Justice, New York: McGraw-:-Hill, 1974. Lystad, M. \iiolence at Home - an annotated biblibgraphy. NIMH, 1974. 1

-24- Massachusetts Council on Crime and Correction. A Shooting Gallery Called America. Boxton, 1974. • Morris, N. and Hawkins, G. The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Newton, G. and Zimring, F. Firearms and Violence in American Life: a Staff Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. Page, M. and Scheidt, R. "The Elusive Weapons Effect: Demand Awareness, Evaluation Apprehension, and Slightly Sophisticated Subjects." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1971, Vo. 20, No. 3, pp. 304-318. Ross, M. Analysis of Robbery Occurrences Report, Planning and Research Branch, 1975. Rotenberg, L. and Sadoff, R. "On Guns - history, dynamics and control." Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy, 16: 1970, pp. 82-87. I Tanay, E. Psychiatric Aspects of Homicide Prevention, American Journal of Psychiatry, 128 (7), 1972, pp. 815-818. - Taylor, K. and Soady, F. Violence: An Element of American Life. Boston: Halbrook Press, 1972. Wenk, E., Robinson, J. and Smith, G. "Can Violence Be Predicted?" Crime and Delinquency, October, 1972. • Wolfgang, M. Violent Behaviour, Cambridge, England: W. Heffer and Sons, 1969. Wolfgang, M. and Ferracuti, F. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock, 1967. Zimring, F., "Is Gun Control likely to reduce violent killings?" University of Chicago Law Review, 34, 1967, pp. 721-737. Zimring, F., "The medium is the message: firearm calibre as a determinant of death from assault." Journal of Legal Studies, 1, (1), 11 University of Chicago, 1972, pp. 97-123. GUNS IN CANADA: A REVIEW OF STATISTICS GUNS IN CANADA: A REvIEW OF STAT1STIcS *

INTRODUCTION ; In 1975, a Working Group was established within the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada to review the situation with respect to firearms and their control in Canada.

In order to facilitate this task, the Information, Systems and Statistics Division of the Ministry Secretariat, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, undertook a review of existing statistics relating to the stock, use and abuse of firearms. The result was a collection of statistical tables in which five.main topics in this general area were addressed: gun stock and ownership, importation and domestic manufacturing of firearms, deaths caused by firearms, firearms use in murder, and firearms use in other crimes. In this paper, the major findings which emerged from this preliminary statistical review are summarized and, where appropriate, some conclusions about firearms use and abuse in Canada are drawn.

While some revising and up-dating of the statistics has been undertaken since the work was originally undertaken, is important to emphasize at the outset that this paper es based primarily on the findings of the Ministry'ei pre- t liminary statistical review, and does not therefore purport to present an exhaustive or definitive study of the

* The research for this paper was based on data available uP to 1976. - 2 -

phenomenon of gun ownership and use in Canada. Rather, the material presented here represents an attempt tci. Identify some of the more significant trends, and tct give o the reader a general idea of the scope and magnitude of firearms stocks, use and abuse in Canada.

It will be apparent that the statistics presented in this paper have been drawn from widely disparate sources, some of which may be considered more reliable than othérs. Firearms ownership and use have, to our knowledge, never before been subjected to systematic study in Canada, and, during the course of its work, the Ministry became increasingly aware of the deficiencies and inadequacies of available official statistics for this purpose. In many cases, gaps which appeared in the official statistics (e.g., the number of guns and gun owners in Canada) have had to be filled, to the extent possible, by constructing estimates based on more or less reliable assumptions. In some cases, alternative methodologies have been employed to Provide multiple estimates which can be compared for general consistency. However, while such estimates are of value in providing eneral insights into the firearms situation in Canada, t:4y also clearly indicate the need for more intensie studies based on primary data collection. At the time this paper was being prepared, one:such study was initiated at the national level. At the *equest rpf the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Statisticé tanada added a questionnaire on firearms ownership and use as a supplement to the monthly Labour Force Survey of August 1976. This survey involved interviews with members of 30,000 households across Canada, and the data which have resulted from it thus represent the first primary data on firearms ownership and use throughout the nation,

to be available in Canada. At the time of this writing, analysis of the findings of the survey was only in its early stages, and only preliminary data on the number of persons owning and using firearms, and the numbers and types of firearms owned, were available. These preliminary data have been included in this paper to the extent possible. The reader who desires more information about the data

resulting from the Gun Ownership Survey, is advised to consult the

Research Division, Ministry of the Solicitor General, Ottawa. 4

Until very recently, the general tendency in this subject of study appears to have been to collect statistics linly when things have "gone wrong". Thus, for instance, - there are quite detailed statistics on the numbers and 1 circumstances of deaths attributed to firearms, yettonly khe vaguest and most unsatisfactory statistics relating to the use of firearms generally for recreational and other purposes. This tendency of statistics to be concentrated around the "bad" aspects of firearms use can easily produce a distorted picture in the mind of the observer who does not account for it. The perceptive • reader, however, will find himself able to draw some tentative, and perhaps even encouraging, conclusions about "legitimate" firearms use from the various tables cataloguing firearms misuse.

As has been noted, the statistics presented here were collected with a view to providing the Working Group on Gun Control with a minimum factual basis upon which to recommend policy to the Government; as such, they do not purport to support with scientific validity and reliability any particular set of hypotheses.

GUN STOCK AND OWNERSHIP IN CANADA

Clearly 1.t is difficult to conduct any discussion of •uni and gun control without first having the answers to home basic questions, such as: How many guns are there in Canada? What kind of guns are they? How many people own

how many of them? And, what for? Unfortunately, no clear- cut - 5 -

detailed answers to these questions are readily

available at present. One of the reasons for this es that telly certain kinds of guns ("restricted weapons") hAre :Jeen the subject of government control, in terms of registration, etc., with respect to their possession and use by private individuals. It is only to this small minority of all guns, therefore, that most official statistics relating to numbers and ownership are addressed.

At the time of this review (1976), "restricted weapons" included - all handcuns (pistols, revolvers, etc.), all fully automatic

weapons, and any gun which was less than twenty-six inches in length or which was designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than twenty-six inches by folding, telescoping or by other means (eg., a sawed-off rifle or shotgun). 1 Firearms of any kind which were incapable of firing a bullet at a velocity of more than five hundred feet per second, were not restricted. In practice,this exception primarily affected air guns and BB guns which might otherwise have fallen into one of the restricted categories.

1 The Code also allows the Governor-in-Council to place weapons "rot being a shotgun or rifle of a 4 kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting 1 purposes" in the "restricted" category by order. t Certain semi-automatic commando rifles have been i placed in the "restricted" category by virtue of i this provision. All firearms not within the "prohibited" or "restricted" categories are non-restricted. For purposes of discussion here, we may note that the great majority of non-restricted firearms are rifles and shotguns. Some other firearms (e.g., antique muskets, flint-locks, etc.) also fall into this category, but almost all other guns (e.g., air guns, B.B. guns, etc.) are not legally considered "firearms" within the Criminal Code definition of that term. 2

Since no license is required to own a non-restricted firearm, and such firearms are not required to be registered, there are no official statistics available as to how many of such guns there are in Canada, or how many people own them. We have, therefore, had to rely on constructed estimates for such information. In this paper, two sets of estimates are presented - one prepared by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and relating to the year 1974, and one resulting from the 1976 Gun Ownership Survey, and relating to the year 1976.

Gun Ownership and Use

Prior to the Gun Ownership Survey, the Ministry of the Solicitor General estimated the number of gun owners in Canada in 1974 to be approximately 2 million. Needless to say,

2 Section 82(1) of the Criminal Code defines a "firearm" as "any barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm". Section 82(2), however, provides for certain exceptions to this definition, for the purposes of the provisions relating to prohibiti m, registration, permits and firearms acquisition certificates only. II

- 7 -

this estimate represented a first attempt to quantify in ? 1 an area fraught with uncertainties and characterized by an * absence of "hard" data. 3- It should, accordingly, bd treated 4 $with considerable reserve. The Gun Ownership Survey , however, has produced estimates of the number of gun owners and users in Canada which are in many respects compatible with these earlier, more theoretically-derived estimates.

In Table 1.1 the estimates of gun ownership in Canada in' 1976, derived from the Gun Ownership Survey, are presented, 5 and are compared to the total population aged 15 years and over . It should be noted that the survey derived information only about persons aged 15 years or more in private households. Households which included members of the military were excluded from the survey, as were households on Indian reserves and on Crown land. Estimates for the Yukon and Northwest Territories were not obtained.

The percentage figures in brackets on Table 1.1 indicate the estimated percentage of the population in each Province, and in Canada as a whole, who own firearms. Thus, for example,

3 For a table indicating the detailed estimates derived from these 4 calculations, and a description of the methodology used, see 1: Appendix A to this paper. .4 A copy of the survey questionaire will be found 1 Appendix B to this paper. 5 The estimated total populations for Canada in 1976 were (rounded to thousands): Canada 23,143,000; British Columbia 2,494,000; Alberta 1,832,000; Saskatchewan 936,000; Manitoba 1,028,000; Ontario 8,345,000; Quebec 6,249,000; New Brunswick 689,000; Nova Scotia 833,000; Prince Edward Island 120,000; Newfoundland 558,000; Yukon Territory 21,000; Northwest Territories 38,000. - 8 -

TABLE 1.1: Estimated Numbers of Firearms Owners in Canada, By Province, 1976. (Rounded to 000's)

111. Estimated Gun Owners Total Poulation 154 PROVINCE , # % I

British Columbia 285,000 11.6 1,850,000 10.9 (15.4%)

Alberta 297,000 12.1 1,293,000 7.6 (23.0%) Saskatchewan 168,000 6.8 670,000 4.0 (25.1%)

Manitoba 128,000 5.2 736,000 ' 4.4 (17.4%) I

Ontario 742,000 30.1 6,158,000 36.4 (12.1%)

Queoec 537,000 21.8 4,670,000 27.6 (11.5%) New Brunswick 103,000 4.2 488,000 2.9 (21.1%)

Nova Scotia 125,000 5.1 593,000 3.5 (21.1%) Prince Edward Island 12,000 0.5 85,000 0.5 (14.1%)

Newfoundland 65,000 2.6 371,000 2.2 (17.5%)

CANADA 2,462,000 100.0 16,914,000 100.0 (14.6%)

1SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Gun Ownership Survey, 1976. « % from Table 1.1 it can be seen that while 4% of the total population of Canada (excluding the Territories) liv?s in Saskatchewan, 6.8% of the estimated total number of eun dwners in Canada live in this Province. The percentage l igure in brackets, furthermore, indicates that in Saskatchewan an estimated 25.1% of the population (i.e. one quarter) own firearms. This may be strikingly compared with Quebec which harbours 27.6% of the total population, an estimated 21.8% of all gun owners in Canada, and where only 11.5% of the Provincial population are reported as being firearms owners (i.e. about one person in every nine).

Table 1.1 shows that approximately 1 out of every 6 Canadians (14 ..6%) are reported as owning firearms, for a nation-wide total of approximately 2à million gun-owners. Gun ownership, furthermore, appears to be distributed markedly differently from the distribu- tion of the total population in the country. Thus while Ontario, being the most popular Province, also has the largest number of gun owners of any Province (30.1%), it nevertheless has the second lowest estimated relative freauency of gun ownership (12.1%, second to Quebec with 11.5%). As might be expected, the highest relative frequEncies of gun ownership appears to be in those' Provinces with the most rural populations (Saskatchewan 25.1%, iAlberta 23%, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 21.1% each). This ! pattern is by no means uniform, however, since Manitoba, Newfoundland and especially Prince Edward Island, al with largely rural populations, show lower relative frequencies of firearms ownership.

- 1 0 -

TABLE 1.2: Estimated Numbers of Firearms Owners in Canada, by Region and Metropolitan/Non-Metropolitap Areas, 1976 (Rounded to 000's)

: Estimated Gun Owners Total Population 15 + 1 PRpVINCE # % # %

British Columbia 285,000 11.6 1,850,000 10.9 (15.4%)

Prairie Provinces 593,000 24.1 2,699,00 16.9 (Alta.,Sask.,&Man.) (22.0%)

Ontario 742,000 30.1 6,158,000. 36.4 (12.1%)

Quebec 537,000 21.8 4,670,000 27.6 (11.5%)

Atlantic Provinces 305,000 12.4 1,537,000 9.1 (N.B., N.S.,P.E.I., (19.8%) & Nfld.)

Metropolitan Areas 914,000 37.1 9,692,000 57.3 (9.4%)

Non-Metropolitan 1,548,000 62.9 7,222,000 42.7 Areas (21.4%)

CANADA 2,462,000 100.0 16,914,000 100.0 (14.6%) . 1 tOURCE: Statistics Canada, Gun Ownership Survey, 19e6. - 1 1 -

Table 1.2 shows the firearms ownership estimates broken -down by regions, and by whether the respondents livec in metropolitan urban areas or not. Fifty-three economec areas aicross Canada were used as the basis for the survey, of which 23 are census metropolitan areas. These and other urban areas used, usually included some surrounding rural areas.

Table 1.2 shows that gun ownership varies substantially by region, a higher relative frequency of gun ownershie being . reported in those regions with a more rural population. This pattern appears to be emphasized still further when one examines the data for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. While the majority of the population (57.3%) lives in metropolitan areas, the majority of firearms owners (62.9%) lives in the non-metropolitan areas. Furthermore, the relative frequency o f gun ownership appears to be more than twice as high in non-metropolitan areas (21.4%) as it is in metropolitan areas (9.4%).

Table 1.1 and 1.2 indicate an estimated total of 2,462,000 persons fifteen years of age or older in Canada's ten Provinces, who owned firearms in 1976. If we add to this an estimated maximum 6 of 13,000 such persons in the Yukon and Northwest Territories , and small but unspecified number of persons under the age of fifteen Ph° own firearms, there would appear to be approximeely 21 million ;

6 This estimate is reached by calculating 30% of 73% ofthe total population (59,000) of the two Territories in 1976. This assumes that approximately 73% of that population was 15 years of age or older (as in the rest of Canada), and that approximately 30% of such persons (i.e._slightly higher than in the highest Province) owned firearms. 1 - 12 -

members of private households in Canada who own at least one firearm each. 1 Table 1.3, also based on the 1976 Gun Ownershie Survey, 1 indicates the estimated numbers of owners of different types of firearms in Canada. The percentages do not, of course, add to 100%, due to the fact that some firearms owners reported owning guns of different types, and are therefore counted in more than 1 one of the four categories in Table 1.3. • 1

- TABLE 1.3: Estimated Firearms Owners in Canada, by Type of Weapon Owned, 1976 (rounded to 000's) 1 Type # % 1 Shotgun owners 1,362,000 55.3 Rifle owners 1,870,000 76.0 1 Handgun owners 164,000 6,7 Owners of other firearms 24,000 1.0 1

TOTAL OWNERS 2,462,000 100.0 Note: Figures do not add to 100% because some respondents own more than one type of firearms

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Gun Ownership Survey, 1976. 1 Information on patterns of firearms use 7 in Canada is also . tivallable from the 1976 Gun Ownership Survey, and these data are jpresented in Tables 1.4 and 1.5 in similar fashion tb the firearms ownership data in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. For the purpoes of the

7 1 For the definition of fl usenfor the purposes of the Survey, see the text in between Questions 12 and 13 on the Survey Questionaire, II reproduced in Appendix B to this paper. 1 - 13 -

TABLE 1.4: Estimated Numbers of Firearms Users in Canada, By Province, 1976. (Rounded to 000's)

Estimated Gun _ us% Total Pdpulation 15+ PROVINCE • # 0 t. %

British Columbia 157,000 10.3 1,850,000 10.9 1 (8.5%) Alberta 200,000 13.1 1,293,000 7.6 (15.5%)

Saskatchewan 126,000 8.2 670,000 4.0 1 (18.8%) Manitoba 78,000 5.1 736,000 4.4 (10.6%)

Ontario 430,000 28.1 6,158,000 36.4 (7.0%)

Quebec 324,000 21.2 4,670,000 27.6 (6.9%)

New Brunswick 76,000 5.0 488,000 2.9 1 (15.6%) Nova Scotia 86,000 5.6 593,000 3.5 (14.5%) Prince Edward Island 9,000 0.6 85,000 0.5 (10.6%)

Newfoundland 42,000 2,7 371,000 2.2 (11.3%)

CANADA 1,528,000 100.0 16,914,000 100.0 (9.0%)

J

Si)URCE: Statistics Canada, Gun Ownership Survey, 1976.

14 .r 1

TABLE 1.5: Estimated Numbers of Firearms Users in Canada, by Region and Metropolitan/Non-Metropolitan Areas, 1976 (Rounded to 000's)

Estimated Gun Users Total Papulation 15 + PROiIINCE # % # % t British Columbia 157,000 10.3 1,850,000 10.9 (8.5%)

Prairie Provinces 404,000 26.4 2,699,000 16.0 (Alta.,Sask.,& Man.) (15.0%)

Ontario 430,000 28.1 6,158,000 . 36.4 (7.0%)

Quebec 324,000 21.2 4,670,000 27.6 (6.9%)

Atlantic Provinces 213,000 14.0 1,537,000 9.1 (N.B., N.S.,P.E.I., (13.9%) & Nfld.)

Metropolitan Areas 497,000 32.5 9,692,000 57.3 (5.1%)

Non-Metropolitan 1,031,000 67.5 7,222,000 42.7 Areas (14.3%)

CANADA 1,528,000 100.0 16;914,000 100.0 (9.0%) .

SOURCE: Statistics' Canada, Gun Ownership, Survey, 1976. 4

1 - 15 -

survey a respondent was considered to be a firearms user if he answered affirmatively to either of two questions in4iiring as to whether he had ever used either owned or non-owned fiyearms for iny purpose during the 12-month period immediately preceding the survey. Strictly speaking, therefore, Tables 1.4 and 1.5 only provide estimates based on those respondents who indicated they had used a firearm between August 1975 and August 1976. Two important facts about the relationship of gun owners to gun users

emerged from the survey, however. In the first place, just under 50% .of all those who reported owning firearms also reported having used a firearm during the previous 12 months. Secondly, only 20% of those who reported having used a firearm did not also report owning one.. From these data it appears that the great majority of gun users (approximately 4 out of 5) are also gun owners, but that half of those who own guns are not gun users.

These facts go some way to explaining why the patterns of gun use shown in Tables 1.4 and 1.5 are so similar to the patterns of gun ownership shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Table 1.4 shows that approximately 1 out of 11 Canadians aged 15 years and over use guns (as compared with about 1 out of 6 who own them). As with gun ownership, relative frequency of gun us'e !is highest in Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, -f tand lowest in Quebec and Ontario. British Columbiat Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are closest t4 the national average for both ownership and use. 1 - 16 I. Regional differences, and differences based on whether respondents live in metropolitan areas or not, appeà›- to be mphasized further when gun use is considered, as oeposed to gun immership. This is particularly true of metropolitan/non-metropolitan differences; relative frequency of gun use in non-metropolitan areas appears to be almost three times as high as in metropolitan areas (14.3% compared to 5.1%).

Tables 1.4 and 1.5 indicate that just over 11 million 1 Canadians in private households aged 15 years or more, reported having used a firearm between August 1975 and August 1976. Since there is good reason to believe that firearms use is more common among children under 15 years of age than is gun ownership, we may surmise that the total figure for gun users throughout Canada (including the Territories, and including persons of all ages) is in excess of 1 3/4 million.

The figures for gun ownership and gun use in Tables 1.1 and 1.4 may be compared for general consistency with figures presented in Table 1.6 for the numbers of persons licensed to hunt in the 1 Provinces, the Territories and Canada as a whole in 1974. The data 11 in Table 1.6 were derived from a survey of United States arid iCanadian jurisdictions, conducted by the National Rifle Association in the United States in 1974, and estimates for the,same year by government officials from the Yukon and Northwest 4rritories.

Allowing for the fact that the data in Tables 1.4 (estimated users) 11 and 1.6 (estimated hunters) relate to different years (1976 and 1974 respectively), and that they are derived from different sources" - 17 -

Table 1.6: Estimated numbers of persons licensed to hunt in Canada, by province and territory, 1974 (rounded to 000's)

Estimated number of persons licensed to hunt Province # %

British Columbia 151,000 9.2 Alberta 132,000 '8.0 Saskatchewan 150,000 9.1 Manitoba 80,000 4,9 Ontario 450,000 27.4 Quebec 425,000 25.9 New Brunswick 105,000 6.4 Nova Scotia 100,000 6.1 Prince Edward Island 5,000 0.3 Newfoundland 35,000 2.1 Yukon Territory 4,000 0.2 Northwest Territories 7,000 0.4 I. • CANADA 1,644,000 100.0-

;

Soùrces: Survey conducted by National Rifle Association (v.s.), 1974, and estimates by government officials e f the Yukon and Northwest Territories. r, 18 r.

the rough congruence of the two sets of figures may7.1ead us to suppose that the great majority of those who actually use (as opposed to just owning) guns in Canada, use them for the

t purpose of hunting. More accurate data on the reasons why people own and use guns, however, may be expected to emerge from more 8 complete analysis of the 1976 Gun Ownership Survey data.

Before leaving the subject of gun ownership and use, it may be well to emphasize that the data presented in Tables 1.1 to

• 1.6 include both male and female firearms owners and users. Preliminary analysis of the Gun Ownership Survey data indicates, however, that approximately 95% of all those who own and use firearm"

are.male. Since males and females are distributed approximately evenly within the general population, this indicates that the relative frequency of gun ownership and use among males is very much higher than among females. More complete analysis of the Gun Ownership Survey data, however, will reveal this relationship

in greater detail.

Gun Stocks Prior to the 1976 Gun Ownership Survey, the Ministry of the Solicitor General constructed an • estimate of the number of firearms availahle Un Canada in 1974. Although virtually no official data was F • 7e4vai1ab1e.on this question at that time, the Ministiy's estimate Was reached through resort to a variety of sources dif input. Figures relating to annual gun stock increments for *tthe years

8. See Questions number 12 and 17 in the Gun Ownership Survey Questionnaire, reproduced in AP? endix B to this paper, « Wit um am .'w

TABLE 1.7 SOURCE: MINISTRY OF .THE SOLICITOR GENERAL RESEARCH AND STATISTICS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, OTTAWA _MARCH 1 ci 7 6 . Year y* Reported xl . Annual x2 = Annual y3 = Annual (a) Estimated Gun Stock, Canada, 1974 of Annual Annual Gun Population Number of Number ye= we= Annual Total Annual Cumulative Annual Firearms Gun Stock Percenta9 Stock In- Increment Firearms War Factor Gun Stock Gu n Increase to crement Age 15 6 Over Manufactured Imported Increment Increment Stock Cumulative Stock

65.9 1900 28.1 21.4 50.6 15.3 Boer 65.9 1901 99.4 31.0 87.6 15.3 War 102.9 168.8 156.4 1902 _ 104.0 42.1 88.2 88.2 257.0 52.3 1903 116.3 24.1 98.0 98.0 355.0 38.1 1904 115.7 55.6 92.2 92.2 447.2 26.0 1905 62.8 52.5 64.1 64.1 511.3 14.3 1906 207.6 69.0 139.9 139.9 651.2 27.4 1907 141.4 76.2 102.7 102.7 753.9 15.8 1908 115.7 NO DOMESTIC 53.9 92.5 92.5 846.4 12.3 1909 124.3 MANUFACTURE 45.5 98.7 98.7 945.1 11.7 OF 1910 196.9 FIREARMS 75.0 133.0 133.0 1,078.1 14.1 i 1911 68.1 PRIOR TO 93.7 60.0 60.0 - 1,138.1 5.6 i-) 1912 160.7 1929 IN 108.5 107.8 107.8 1,245.9 9.5 - ve) 1913 163.2 CANADA 103.0 110.0 110.0 1,355.9 9.5 i • 1914 67.4 (ONLY A 87.2 77.1 15.3 92.4 1,448.3 5.7 I 1915 ".. 13.3 FEW PARTS) 35.5 46.7 15.3W.W, 1 62.0 1,510.3 3.2 1916 39.0 46.4 60.9 15.3 76.2 1,586.5 4.0 1917 „. 58.1 14.5 70.7 15.3 86.0 1,672.5 4.5 1918 107.8 12.5 97.6 15.3 112.9 1,785.4 5.8 1919 161.9 47.9 127.7 15.3 143.0 1,928.4 7.2

1920 108.8 50.6 89.4 89.4 2,017.8 4.6 1921 NOT 106.5 21.9 93.0 93.0 2,110.8 4.6 1922 AVAILABLE 79.1 21.8 78.2 78.2 2,189.0 3.7 1923 108.2 29.4 92.7 92.7 2,281.7 4.2 1924 I 123.4 22.8 102.0 102.0 2,283.7 4.5 1925 t 123.3 20.0 102.5 102.5 2,486.2 . 4.3 1926 I 160.9 17.7 123.3 123.3 2,609.5 ' 5.0 1927 169.5 23.3 126.9 126..9 2,736.4 4.9 1928 164.7 21.2 124.7 124.7 2,861.1 4.6

1. '

ESTIMATED MINIMUM GUN STOCK IN CANADA, 1900-1974 TABLE 1.7 continued1 SOURCE: _MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL RESEARCH ANDSTATISTICS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, OTTAWA MARCH 1cr/6 Year y* Reported xl = Annual x2 . Annual y3 . Annual (a) Estimated Gun Stock, Canada 1974 ye= Annual Annual Gun Population Number of Number of we= Annual Total Annual Cumulative Annual Percentag Gun Stock Stock In- Increment Firearms Firearms War Factor Gun Stock Gun Increase to crement Age 15 & Over Manufactured Imported Increment Increment Stock Cumulative Stock , - 1929 151.3 22.8 125.2 125.2 2,986.3 4.4 - , 1930 - 143.7 11.3 123.0 123.0 3,109.3 4.1 1931 130.0 7.3 ' 116.3 116.3 3,225.6 3.7 1932 115.7 3.5 109.1 109.1 3,334.7 3.4 1933 117.5 3.6 101.1 101.1 3,444.8 3.3 1934 116.0 1929-1947 5.7 108.9 108.9 3,553.7 3.2 1935 129.8 665,000 6.9 116.2 116.2 3,669.9 3.3 1936 121.3 FIREARMS 11.9 110.8 110.8 3,780.7 3.0 1937 130.6 MANUFACTURED 14.1 115.4 115.4 3,896.1 3.1 1938 125.1 OR 21.8 111.1 111.1 4,007.2 2.9 1939 120.6 *35.00/YR. 19.3 121.3 15.3 ' 136.6 4,143.8 3.9 I . r vp 1940 106.8 56.1 114.4 15.3W.W. 11 129.7 4,273.5 2.8 G■ 15.3 141.6 4,415.1 3.0 1941 126.8 128.4 126.3 1 131.6 4,546.7 1942 -.. 108.9 100.5 116.3 15.3 2.6 1943 ' 110.7 196.7 119.1 15.3 134.4 4,681.1 2.6 1944 82.7 311.0 106.0 15.3 121.3 4,802.4 2.3 1 945 1. 134.7 30.8 129.2 15.3 144.5 4,946.9 2.7 1946 141.0 45.5 115.8 115.8 5,062.7 2.3 1947 132.1 \./. 84.3 104.3 104.3 5,167.0 2.1 1948 364.2 50.1 241.9 241.9 5,408.9 4.7 " 1949 132.6 70.8 112.6 112.6 5,521.5 2.1

1950 117.2 85.6 101.6 15.3KOREAN 116.9 5,638.4 1.8 1951 247.6 162.8 159.3 15.3 WAR 174.6 5,813.0 2.8 1952 210.6 1948-1966 119.7 146.7 15.3 162.0 5,975.0 2.5 1953 235.4 1,080,000 148.2 155.2 15.3 170.5 6,145.5 2.3 1954 206.8 FIREARMS 159.7 137.8 137.8 6,283.3 2.2 1955 196.4 MANUFACTURED 134.6 136.3 136..3 6,419,6 2.2 1956 297.9 OR 206.1 179.5 179.5 6,599.1 2.8 1957 241.1 *60,000/YR* 154.8 157.4 157.4 6,756.5 2.4

'.

-..

ILA& MAE un "1 ILA! )11" ilk um IF MI 111 ill Of Ur

ESTIMATED MINIMUM *GUN STOCK IN CANADA, 1900-1974 SOURCE: . MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TABLE 1.7 continued RESEARCH AND STATISTICS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH , OTTAWA

Year y* Reported xl = Annua/ x2 . Annual y3 = Annual (a) Estimated Gun Stock, Canada 1974 Number of Number of ye= Annual Annual Gun Population we= Annual Total Annual Cumulative Annual Percentaç Gun Stock Stock In- Increment Firearms Firearms War Factor Gun Stock Gun Increase to Increment crement Age 15 6 Over Manufactured Imported Increment Stock Cumulative Stock '

1958 ' 230.5 125.2 156.4 156.4' 6,912.9 2.3 1959 214.7 147.1 144.2 144-.2 7,057.1 2.1

19'60 - 206.4 126.4 143.2 143.2 7,200.3 2.0 1961 V 226.9 80.2 162.2 162.2 7,362.5 2.3 1962 160.5 239.8 94.7 166.7 166.7 7,529.2 2.3 1963 169.8 273.6 105.7 185.9 185.9 7,715.1 2.5 1964 198.7 296.0 NI/ 133.2 190.7 190.7 7,905.8 2.5 1965 191.5 335.5 147.3 209.8 209.8 8,115.6 2.7 1966 234.3 367.9 124.0 183.3 235.8 . 235.8 8.351.4 2.9 1967 244.3 351.9 101.0 218.2 218.2 8,569.6 2.6 1966 239.5 346.5 132.0 191.2 224.6 224.6 8,794.2 2.6 1 213.2 232.0 232.0 - 9,026.2 2.6 1969 245.8 353.8 163.0 1-. a 1970 220.9 344.1 132.0 200.3 221.7 221.7 9.247.9 2.5 n 1971 228.0 349.9 141.0 182.0 230.1 230.1 9,478.0 2.5 8 1972 236.7 371.7 177.0 270.3 235.1 235.1 9,713.1 2.5 1973 255.9 440.0 220.0 326.3 272.9 272.9 9,986.0 2.8 1974 240.6 439.2 252.0 395.5 244.9 244.9 10,230.9 2.5 '

SOURCES: 1. Handguns Registered, 1960-1974 Firearms Registration Section, RCMP, Ottawa,Canada 2. Domestic Sales of Long Firearms (Rifles and Shotguns) 1962-1974, Winchester Canada Ltd. 3. Population, Canada:

1900-1920, Census Division , Statistics Canada 1921-1971, Statistics Canada Publication (91-512) 1972, Annual (91-202) 1973, 1974, - 20 - 1962-1974, based on domestic sales of long guns (i.e. rifles and shotguns) and registrations of °restricted" firearms, were used as the basis for these calculations. Making the assumption that firearms manufactured prior to 1900 could be considered obsolete and largely irrelevant in terms of existing gun stocks, the Ministry.sought to estimate, using the 1962-19741figures, _ the annual increment in gun stocks from 1900 to 1961, add to this the known increment from 1962-1974, and thereby:arrive at an estimate of the total stock available in Canada in 1974. The calculation of annual increments from 1900 to 1961 was reached by relating the increments from 1962 to 1974 to such factors as increases in population aged 15 years and over, and increases in domestic manufacture of firearms and importation of fiidarms, thus establishing a relationship between annual gun stock increments and these independent variables during this period. Once this relationship was established, it was possible to substitute respective values corresponding to the independent variables for the period from 1900 to 1974 and thus estimate annual gun stock increments for this period. A minimum gun stock in Canada in 3.974 was then estimated by adding the total estimated annual gun stock increments for the period from 1900 to 1974.

The calculations are presented in Table 1.7. As can be seen from that table, the estimated total gun stock in Canada in 1974 derived from this methodology, was 10,230,900. Based on figures available for the years 1962 to 1974, it was estimated that this total gun stock was made up of different weapon-types as shown in Table 1.8:

Table 14i: Estimated Minimum Gun Stock in Canada, ty Type of Weapon, 1974

TYPE OF WEAPON ESTIMATED GUN STOCK

Number Per cent Per 20

Automatics 4,000* 0.04 ::.Negligible Handguns 651 ,800 6.4 ',- 1 Rifles 6,087,000 59.5 12 Shotguns 3,489,000_ _ 34.1 . 7 TOTAL 10,231,000 100.0 20 * Based on R.C.M.P. estimates derived from firearms registration statistics. Source: Ministry of the Solicitor General, Ottawa, 1976. - 21 -

Before considering the estimates derived from these cal- culations, it will be as well to note some of their limitations. In the first place, it is obvious that the estimates do not include firearms manufactured or imported prior to 1900. While in many cases such fir,earms will have deteriorated t6 a point at which they are no longer serviceable, there are no do-ubt some wiiich have not. Secondly, the estimates do not take account of firearms which may have been exported out of, illegally imported into, or covertly manufactured in, Canada. Thirdly, weapons which may have been lost or destroyed are only accounted for in relation to handguns. 9Fourthly. the estimates completely exclude military gun stocks. Finally, the estimates do not take account of weapons which may have been rendered unserviceable (e.g. by "plugging the barrel") by their owners.

Table 1.7 shows a fairly steady annual increase in the total Canadian gun stock. From 1950 to 1974, the average annual increase was 2.5%, the highest being 3.1% in 1951 and the lowest being 2.0% in 1960. Based on estimated total gun stock in 1974, this 2.5% average annual increase would amount to about 260,000 guns being added to the total gun stock every year. 1° The Gun Ownership Survey resulted in gun stock estimates which reinforce the wisdom of treating the Ministry's earlier estimates with caution. This survey, of course, measured the number of firearms reportedly possessed in households in 1976. It did not, therefore, include gun stocks which were at that time in institutions (e.g. gun clubs, shooting ranges etc.), in the hands of law enforcement agencies (e.g. police and correctional institutions), or in manufacturers' warehouses or retail outlets waiting to be sold. Furthermore, households which included members of the military were automatically excluded from the survey as were households on Indiaii reserves and on Crown land.

9. Registration figures used in calculating the ratio for Table 1.7 were adjusted to account for restricted weapons reported lost, stolen or destroyed between the years 1961 and 1971. 10 . The firearMs industry claimed in 1973 that it was experiencing an average 2% annual increase in retail sales: see article "Gun makers link arms to fight controls," by Susan Goldberg Financial August llth, 1973. f . Post. ,f 22 r"

In the survey, householders were asked whether firearms of certain types were owned by members of the household and, if so, how many of each type. While in most cases bothrtypes of information were provided, some respondents. only indi-cated that weapons of a particular type were owned by members of the house- hold without indicating how many were owned. As a result, the eàtimates of the numbers of firearms in private households, based on these responses , must necessarily be presented as minimum astimates, the number or tirearms ot those not responding as to how many firearms of each type they owned being assumed to be at least one of each type reported. In Table 1.9, which presents the survey's findings in this regard, the numbers in brackets indicate how much of each estimate has been based on responses from persons who indicated that a particular weapon-type was owned by a member of the household, but who did not indicate how many weapons of that type were owned; and whose responses have therefore been taken to indicate at least one firearm of that type. .

Table 1.9 indicates an estimated minimum of just over 5 million firearms owned in private households in Canada, of which 34% are shotguns, 59% are rifles, 6% are handguns and just under 1% are other firearms. While the estimates in Table 1.9 are, of course, substantially different from those in Tables 1.7 and 1.8, it is to be remembered that Tables 1.7 and 1.8 are an attempt to estimate total stocks of firearms in Canada, while Table 1.9 purports to represent only those firearms which are to be found in private households in Canada. Of some note, however, is the fact that the estimated proportions of different weapon eypes appear to be substantially the same in Tables 1.8 and 1.9, despite thè fact that they are independently derived. It is perhaps worthy of notice also that while handguns appear to account for aPproximately 6% of all firearms in the total stock arid in house- holds here, it has been estimated that they account far approximately 30% of total stocks in the United States, according to figures released by that country's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1975. 1111111 IMIt BIM at me um ale Mu an «IS ale UM

ESTIMATED MINIMUM NUMBERS OF FIREARMS OWNED IN HOUSEHOLDS IN CANADA, AND (ROUNDED TO TAnue 1,2: ESTIMATED OWNERS_,_BY TYPE OF WEAPON OWNED, 1976 000's)

SHOTGUNS RIFLES HANDGUNS OTHER FIREARMS TOTAL FIREARMS Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated # Owners # Guns # Owners # Guns # Owners # Guns # Owners # Guns # Owners # Guns

CANADA 1,362,000 1,764,000.-. 14.8.70.000 3,070,000 164,000 284,000 24,000 4M1Cid . 2,462,000 5,168,000 (36,000) (12,000) (4,000) (3,000) (55,000)

BRITISH COLUMBIA 119,000 148,000 245,000 452,000 33,000 78,000 5,000 14,000 285,000 692,000 (200) (500) (700) (1,500)

PRAIRIE PROVINCES 327,000 409,000 500,000 860,000 37,000 55,000 3,000 3,000 593,000 1,327,000 (Alb.Sask. (1,300) (2,600) (200) (500) (4,600) E Man.)

ONTARIO 404,000 537,000 561,000 943,000 62,000 103,000 9,000 19,000 742,000 1,602,000 (11,300) (4,300) (2,400) (2.300) (20,300)

QUEBEC 330,000 429.000 343,000 456,000 18,000 23,000 4,000 5,000 537,000 913,000 ,. (22,000) (3,100) (300) (25,400)

ATLANTIC • PROVINCES 183,000 241,000 221,000 359,000 14,000 26,000 3,000 7,000 305,000 634,000 (NB, NS, PEI (1,100) (1,600) (200) (300) (3,300) E. Newf.) -

NOTE: The bracketed numbers indicate how much of each estimate has been based on responses from persons who indicated that a Particu]às type of firearm was owned by a member of the household,but who did not indicate what number was owned. These responses were therefore taken to indicate at least one firearm of that type, and were included in the totals on that basis.

- • •r1P

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Gun Ownership Survey, August 1976 L.) - 24 -

The Gun Ownership Survey estimates with respect to the numbers of handguns and handgun owners, however, must be read in the light of R.C.M.P. estimates, based on registrations of -"restricted" weapons, for the year 1974. The R.C.M.'P. have estimated that in that year approximately 650,000 handguns were recjistereu to approximately 250,000 registrants. Tney aiso estimated a total of approximately 4,000 fully automatic weapons in Canada, in the hands of approximately 2,500 owners. 11 In addition it has been estimated that there are about 50,000 unregistered °restricted" weapons in private hands (i.e. illegally 12 owned firearms)Military stocks, which are not registered, are of course not indicated in these estimates; but police Weapons are.

The Firearms Industry in Canada

Table 1.10 shows patterns of importation and domestic manufacture of firearms in Canada from 1970-1974. As noted in the table, all legally manufactured handguns are imported, since the market is not considered to be large enough to support a manufacturing industry for handguns in Canada. It can be seen from Table 1.10 that in 1974 44.7% of the long guns which reached the market here were imported, and 55.3% were manufactured here. About two out of every five shotguns, and about three out of every five rifles are imported. Tables 1.11(a) and 1.12,which show more detailed import figures for 1974, illustrate the relative significance of the various countries from which imported weapons and ammunition originate and show that, while Brazil and the United States figure most prominently with respect to shotguns, the United Kingdom and the United States account for the great majority of imported rifles. Well over half of the imported handguns originate in the United States. Almost all imported ammunition is from,the United States.

11. More precise figures were precluded by the fact that registration records were not computerized at the time, and would have had to have been counted manually. 12. There is some reason to believe that this estimate, based on an informal survey conducted in London, Ontario, in 1975, may be too low. Bill WM 111011 UM lilt 4111111 I» 11111111 Ste III* 1111114. lie 111111 MR MR OM

TABLE 1.10 IMPORTATION AND DOMESTIC MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, CANADA, 1970-1974

HANDGUNS FIREARMS NE S • PARTS SHOTGUNS RIFLES

DOMESTIC DOMESTIC DOMESTIC DOMESTIC IMPORTS IMPORTS MANUFACTURES MANUFACTURES IMPORTS MANUFACTURES IMPORTS MANUFACTURES

YEA.R NO. % CHANGE NO. % CHANGE NO. % CHANGE NO. % CHANGE NO. '..: CHANGE NO. % CHANGE NO. % CHANGE NO. I. CHANGF FROM FROM FRDM FROM FROM FROM FROM FROM PREV. PREV. PREV. PREY. PREV. PREV. PREY. PREV. YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR

1970 51,227 84,000 81,469 48,000 • - 13,975 HANDGUNS NOT 66,263 FIGUPES 1971 55,984 4 9.3 90,000 .7.1 76,604 - 6.0 51,000 + 6.3 24 . 305 . 2 3. 9 MANUFACTURED 91,734 +38.4 NOT

1972 80,033 .43.0 10+,000 +15.6 111,332 +45.3 7 3. 000 +43.1 32 , 643 +54.9 IN CANADA 116,557 +27.1 AVAILABLE 1973 105,650 '32.0 141,000 +35.6 108,093 - 2.9 81,000 +11.0 22,475 -40.3 153,476 +31.7 1974 79,015 -25.3 140,000 - 0.7 124,643 +15.3 112,000 +38.3 28 . 405 .26.4 133,148 -13.2

TOTAL 371,909 559,000 502,141 365,000 126,806 561,178 40.0 60.0 57.9 42.1

SOURCE: MinràtilY of the Solicitor General, Ottawa, 1976.

TABLE 1.11 FIREARMS IMPORTED INU.0 CANAUm, mNu VALUE, BY TYPE OF WEAPONS, AND BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, 1974

Shotguns Centrefire Rifles Rimf ire Rifles Pistola t Revolvers Firearms NES and Parts • value Value Value Value Value ($000) f ($000) f ($000) f ($000) ($000) Argentina -- -- -- -- 1,500 32 19 ? -- __ Australia -- -- -- -- -- -- 219 3 371 29 Austria -- -- 306 44 1 7 -- -- 204 8 Be1gium-LuX. 2,552 660 1,778 221 74 3 290 24 40 26 Brazil 28,748 408 -- -- 4,750 88 1,233 39 7 9 China (P.R.) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2,400 22 Czech. 64 e 223 18 200 9 535 3 24,354 131 Denmark -- -- -- -- -- -- 360 5 -- -- Finland 804 82 858 83 19 2 -- -- 7 3 France 4 1 -- -- 40 2 20 3 ? 2 Germany, E. 46 6 1 1 -- -- -- __ -- -- Germany, W. 150 53 266 27 2,143 106 2,170 56 3,046 100 Greece -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 750 6 Hungary 947 65 -- -- -- -- 78 2 41,107 245 Iceland 50 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- India 70 2 40 1 -- -- -- -- 7- 1 Italy 3,481 434 827 48 149 7 2,079 .35 3,980 67 Japan 7,175 866 1,061 78 4,025 177 3 7 1 87 Kenya -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ...- 1 3 Korea 40 5 -- -- -- -- -- __ -- -- Mexico -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ? 3 Peru -- -- -- -- -- -- 486 4 -- -- Phillipines 162 8 -- -- 1,194 30 . -- -- ? 1 Poland -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 500 7 Portugal -- -- -- -- -- -- 900 41 -- -- Crt -- Rumania -- -- -- -- -- 600 e -- -- S. Africa -- -- 53 2 -- -- 2 ? -- -- Spain 4,287 267 -- -- -- -- 189 6 1,203 • 55 Sweden -- -- 2,063 177 7- -- -- -- ? 3 Switzerland -- -- 1 ? 4 1 23 5 2 1 United Kingdom . 19 10 36,502 1,234 9,636 181 3,433 19 2,607 116 U.S.S.R. 5,304 207 -- -- 3,703 57 295 18 1,000 10 United States 25,112 2,168 37,885 3,305 15,341 626 15,474 1,011 51,580 4,653

TOTAL 79,015 5,251 81,864 5,240 42,779 1,321 28,408 1,268 133,148 5,588

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Imports by Commodities and Countries" (Catalogue no. 63-007), Ottawa, 1974.

ne ne ein um me en um an MK Me Me me MD en ne um un 0. nn

- 27 - TABLE 1.12 AMMUNITION IMPORTED INTO CANADA, BY VALUE AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, 1974

Shot- Centrefire Ammunition - Ammunition ir Shells Metallic NES Parts ; Value ($000) VafCetfag) Value ($000) Value ($000)

U. Kingdom 14 4 327 20 Austria -- 12 -- -- Finland -- -- 6 40 W. Germany 2 2 259 40 Italy -- -- 193 78

■ -- Spain • a. IM• -- 7 -- 21 30 24 Sweden_ Czechoslovakia 120 9 9 57 Hungary ...... , -- 5 -- Poland 6 -- -- -- U.S.S.R. -- -- 19 -- Japan -- -- 3 . 1 Australia -- -- 2 -- United States 1140 1483 1170 2811 Portugal ...,- 4 .... • -- TOTAL 1282 1536 2032 3071

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Imports by Commodities and Countries" (Catalogue no. 63-007), Ottawa, 1974. - 28 -

There are about a dozen arms and ammunition manufacturing 13 companies in Canada, some of which import parts for assembly in Canada. In 1973, the major manufacturers here formed an association called the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, which now publicly represents this industrY. In briefs to the government , and to Parliament, the Association indicated -in 1975 that the industry employs approximateiy 1,500 perdons in the primary manufacturing and distribution processes, most of whom are located in Quebec and Ontario. The Association also estimated that approximately 25,000 persons are employed in retail sales and repairing of firearms and ammunition across Canada. According to the Association, the industry generated retail sales worth approximately $77 million in 1975, of which $40 million was for firearms, $32 million was for ammunition and $5 million was for accessories (holsters, ammunition clips, telescopic sights, etc.) and repairs. The Association has also been quoted in the press to the effect that approximately 90,000 rimfire rifles, 85,000 centrefire rifles and 142,000 shotguns are sold annually in Canada. 14

Table 1.10 shows that approximately 3 shotguns are manufactured in Canada for every 2 rifles manufactured here. Figures for other weapons (e.g. air pistols, CO2 guns, BB guns, etc.) are not presently available, and therefore no figures comparable to the figures for imported "firearms not elsewhere classified, and parts" on Table 1.10, can be presented. Table 1.10 does show, however, that during the last five years domestic manufacture of rifles and shotguns has increased significantly faster than importation of such weapons. This would seem to suggest a gradual trend towards greater Canadian control of the Canadian firearms market.

; The chief ones are: Browning Arms Co. of CanadaLtd., ' The Canadian Coleman Company Ltd., (Crossman Armd Division), Canadian Industries Ltd., Lakefield Arms Ltd., Peterborough Guns Ltd., Remington Arms of Canada Ltd., Ruko of Canada Ltd., Safari Arms Ltd., S&W Ammunication Co. Ltd., Victor Recreation Products Ltd., and Winchester Canada Ltd. 14, See "Rifle Market Booming," Vancouver Province, August 11, 1975. - 29 -

TABLE 1.13: FIREARMS EXPORTED FROM CANADA, 1970 - 1974

: YEAR NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE CUMULATIVL OVER PRLVIOUS PLUCLNT CHANGE YEAR

1970 100,272 - - 1971 76,729 -23.47 % -23.47 % 1972 98,785 +28.74 % - 1.48 % 1973 121,304 +22.79 % +20.97 % 1974 148,267 +22.22 % ' +47.86 %

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, External Trade Division, Ottawa.

TABLE 1.14: ESTIMATED SALES OF FIREPFMS AND AMMUNITION IN CANADA, BY TYPE OP RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT, 1968

TYPE OF RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT $.COO VALUE % OF TOTAL % OF FIREARM OF SALES SALES CAYMITNITICN SALES

Department Stores 6,209.8 0.2% 27.45% ' General Merchandise Stores 1,418.2 0.4% Gen. Stores, More Than One-Third Food 1,879.5 0.3% • 8.30% Home & Auto Supply Stores 1,454.5 0: 6 % 6.413% Hardware Stores 4,887.5 1.5% 27.60% Sporting Goods Stores. 6,340.1 ' 6.2% 28.02% boats, Motors & Accessories -.. Dealers 430.0 ' O. a t 1.94% 1.. TOTAL 22,419.6 - % ` 100.0%

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Retai1 Commodity . Survey", Ottawa, 1968. Table 1.13 shows that exports of firearms and parts from Canada have steadily increased in recent years. ig 11 The only types of gun dealerships which were subect to control under the Criminal Code at the time this reviê'w was 1/ uneertaken (1976)J were those which traded in restricted weaPons. UnIortunately, central records of permits issued to such dealershinq under S. 96 of the Code are not required to be kept, and therefore no precise figures are available on how many such dealers there are in Canada. The R.C.M.P. have estimated, however, that there were approximately 2,800 such dealerships in 1975. They also estimated that there were approximately 15,000 retail outlets selling firearms II of any kind in Canada. In this respect, Canada appears to be comparable with the United States which, with approximately ten times our populatt has an estimated 158,500 gun dealerships.

Table 1.14 provides an indication of the kinds of retail outlets that are involved in the sale of firearms in Canada, and their relative shares in the market. As might be expected, sporting goods.stores and department stores are shown to account for over 80% of firearms sales in Canada.

FIREARMS DEATHS

There are two principal sources of statistics on firearms deaths in Canada. The first, and most comprehensive, is the 15 annual series entitled "Cause of Death," published by Statistics Canada. This publication catalogues the causes of all offici*ally recorded deaths in Canada. The original sources of such information asis_contained in this publication are official death certificates, mciit of which are completed and signed by doctors or coroners. There are at least two reasons for believing that deweh certificates are not a 100% accurate or complete sour ie of

Neu. 11. Catalogue No. 84-203

I - 31 - information on causes of death. In the first place, doctors do not always agree on causes of death and, in his book The 16 --- Detection of Secret Homicide, Dr. John Havard from England has documented the fact that even gun slayings can sometimes escape the detection of coroners and pathologists and ie mistaken for-deaths from falls or hemorrhages. In the second place, we know that hundreds of people are reported missing each year, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that at least some of these may have become the victims of gunmen.

The second, more limited but more detailed source of information on firearms deaths, is the annual series entitled »17 "Murder Statistics, and the so-called "Ten Year Fireaems Study" conducted by Statistics Canada's Judicial Division on the basis of the annual murder statistics. The "Ten Year Firearms Study" originally covered the period from 1961 to 1970, but has since been revised and up-dated to cover the eifteen-year period 1961-1975. 18 The original sources of such firearms murder statistics are reports to Statistics Canada by the police under the Uniform Crime Reporting program, and this explains why "murder" figures derived from the "Ten Year Firearms Study" are not the same as "homicide" figures for the same years derived from the "Causes of Death" publication. This distinction will be explained in greater detail when "homicide" and "murder" statistics are considered below.

From the "Causes of Death" statistics, it has been possible to derive figures for the annual numbers of deaths attributed to firearms, broken down into five categories -- accidents, suicides, homicides, deaths resulting from legal intervention, and deaths where the circumstances were such that it is uncertain whether they were accidents, suicides, or homicides. For easier reférence, we have labelled this last category "undetermined

16; London, MacMillan; St. Martin's Press, New York, 1960. Cambridge Studies in Criminology, Vol. II. 17. Catalogue No. 85-209. 18. The figures quoted from this study are derived from the revised version of the "Ten Year Firearms Study". - 32 -

intention". The "legal intervention" cateyory include only cases 19 in which criminal suspects have been shot by law enforcement agents.

Table 1.15 gives an overview of firearms deaths for the years 1961 to 1975. The figures in this table are dedved from the annual "Causes'of Death" statistics, and the Category "homicides" includes murders, infanticides, non-accidental marislaughters, deaths resulting from assaults and from poisons administered by persons other than the deceased. Doctors and coroners who fill out death certificates, however, are not always in a position at the time to determine for certain whether a death was a murder, a suicide, or an accident and, even when they can decide, subsequent events may lead to a reclassification of the death. Thus, a death which appears in the "Causes of Death" statistics as an accident or an "undetermineel intention" death may, as a result of police investigations, later show up as a murder in "Murder Statistics". The two sources of data are therefore not entirely congruent. Over the fifteen-year period (1961-1975) under consideration, 2332 deaths were reported in the "homicide" category of the "Causes of death" series, while 2348 murders were reported in the revised "Ten Year Firearms Study," so the inconsistency between these two sources is not great. Furthermore, such inconsistency may be partially accounted for by the fact that the "suicide", "homicide", and "undetermined intention" categories in the "Causes of Death" statistics include deaths from explosives as well as firearms deaths and there is no distinction made between these two causes of deaths in the reporting. However, Statistics Canada indicated that deaths by explosives in these categories are, in all probability, so rare that the undifferentiated categories coufd

19 Up until 1962, this category also included legal execUtions, but these figures have been eliminated for the purposes of this review because they did not involve firearms. It is perhaps worth noting here that between 1969 (the earliest year for which reliable comparative national statistics are available) and 1974, 55 suspects were killed by police guns, while 23 police officers were the victims of firearms murders. eaur an an as imp am me me int eser gat an• am a»

TABLE 1.15: FIREARMS DEATHS IN CANADA, 1961 - 1975

--- :441 1,42 1443 1464 1 04 1 Ma liat Isu Issa 1,70 1171 117: 1173 1174 8 s uns . -7. Chang. Ch.4.1.4 " e [1....-1, S 4 s s 1 . S . % . • . s % t r e Ch4A44. e Ch..,. e Chan't ' Chançe g Chant g Chang«. ' Clunte ' [home ' Changer ' Change g Change ' Th.,. ' Change 1141-1E4 11:0-11174 '4- -7 , Me.- M11- 414 - 413-

10C1Dre3 17i las . 7.4 1111 40.4 100 411.4 116 43.3 161 .42.8 III -11.7 143 • 4. 3 133 -11.4 120 - 3.0 143 .10.0 10: -23.7 123 .30.4 laz - 0.4 -.30.7 ' 1 . 4 111 -to _ ;Li -.:o..c> -4 122.6 1 174.11 110.41 121.2 1 113.61 121.0 117.11 114.11 412.11 811.41 111.01 14.01 Mal (81-1 ) ( 3 .3)

• 8.4 10i1 .7.3 .01.1 ..11:PTS MO Ili - 1 .4 334 .17.3 MI • 0.7 127 •11.1 403 -3.1 433 • 4.7 via .14.4 tte • 4.4 ref • 4.3 424 .84.1 Hs • 1.2 eso .20 . 3 ices .6. 3.o + io1.1 +31.3 -0 166.41 143.31 161.11 164.01 171.41 147.30 447.31 144.11 (70.4 ) 470.11 171.21 173.71 471.41 160.61 (4.0.)

.0.0 44 Mt .14.1 III .17.1 Ito 3.3 303 .4.4 313 • 4 .1 Ise .36.3 434.3 00101015 lio 07 41.0 14 • 7.6 107 • 8.1 tos - 0.3 134 46.7 134 . 1.4 • «.4" :41 - la. +114.1 4112_j -4 _ 410.31 181.71 112.31 112.41 .12.41 810.11 114.41 113.31 114.71 114.31 114.41 114.40 433.01 (33.31 4.3) um. 7 43.0 3 47.1 1 -66.: 1 400.0 1 -44.7 I 400.0 11 40.6 4 -44.4 11 .170.0 14 .21.3 1 44.0 10 442.4 g -00.0 .100.0 -13.3 omens-rig:. • 1 - 4146.0 •• 31.3. -11 10.11 . s 10.07 é 0 .40 toil 80.31 80.11 14.71 10.81 10.41 10.01 11.11 10.111 10.81 10.31 11.5)

MCITP:41,4L0 ■44 MI 0100000 11 10 16 -11.8 II .48.0 71 -77.7 71 .04.7 47 .14.7 0/6 411.4 wrWr no 1 > -enl :4 14 -e .881.1 -0 8. 11.11 11.41 12.11 11.71 42.41 13.21 (3- . 4)

4741. 774 101 • 0.4 IMO • 3.3 444 • 3.0 (71 • 2.7 601 • 3.3 sce • 0.3 1026 013.0 1048 • (L ) ( 134 • 7.0 Het 44.3 1241 ... 3.3 13)1 • 1 .0 8447 40.2 • 114.4 • 20.1 iess 43.1 4-4(3-.‘ .6. 38.,o 110041 110041 11004/ 110081 11 0041 UMM IlOOM 110081 4100111 110041 ( 1004) 110081 I Won I oce.1 1 loos) 40.)

?

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Causes of Death" (Catalogue no. 84-203), Ottawa, 1961-1975.

p - 34 -

be used as a reasonably reliable indicator of the number of firearms 20 deaths. It should be noted, however, that the figures on firearms deaths in these categories quoted from the "Causes of Death" statistics 21 may be marginally too high for this reason. Further contributing to inconsistency is the fact that the files kept by the Judicial Division of Statistics Canada on murders are kept constantly active, and are periodically revised and updated as further information about an incident becomes available. This makes murder statistics somewhat unstable, since figures, for example, for previous years may change 1/ from one annual report •to another as a result of this updating process.

, Table 1.15 shows quite clearly that, while accidental firearm_ deaths have decreased somewhat in recent years and firearms homicides 111 have shown a relatively greater increase than other firearms deaths, suicide has remained by far the most common form of firearms death. 11 Suicides, in fact, have quite consistently accounted for approximately 70% of all deaths attributed to firearms. Homicides have accounted for the next largest proportion, growing from 10.3% in 1961 to 17.3% in 1975. Accidents, by comparison, accounted for only 7.3% of firearms 11 in 1975, while they accounted for 22.6% in 1961. deaths In Table 1.16, the figures from Table 1.15 are placed in a wider context, to show how firearms deaths compare with other accidenta and violent deaths from other causes. Table 1.16 is remarkable for th consistent patterns it reveals. Accidental firearms deaths appear to 1.., have consistently accounted for about 1-2% of all accidental deaths during the period 1961-1975, while a quite consistent one-third of all II suicides have been committed with firearms during the same period. Similarly, with some notably exceptional years (1966 and 1974) approximately 40% of all homicides deaths appear to have been caused li by firearms during this period. As we shall note below, the "murder" It

statistics show a slightly, but not very significantly, different over t picture from that which is revealed by the "homicide" statistics. _ II go. A manual Check of the death certificates in the 629 cases in 1974 which were ' classified as "hlomicides" by either firearms or explosives; for instance, revea1 . that only 2 of these deaths were caused by explosives. ; 21. A further source of inconsistency-lies in the fact that "Causes of Death" sta- tistics only include deaths of Canadian residents in Canada and in the United States (according to the terms of a reciprocal agreement with the United State" and would thus exclude, for instance, the death of foreign residents occurring in Canada. Nürder statistics, on the other hand, include all murders reported by police, regardless of the victim's place of residence. — 11 IRS II» OM UM Mg OA L flat 1111 IMO MN MO 4111111111 «Ill ale ale awl 4.11)

TABLE 1,16 FIREARMS DEATHS AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL ACCIDENTAL AND VIOLENT DEATHS , CANADA, 1961 - 1975

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

ACCIDENTS -Total 9640 10085 10255 10567 10979 11575 11596 11495 11691 11378 12031 12825 13167 12945 12379 -Firearms 176 189 150 180 138 197 155 165 133 129 143 102 123 122 111 -% 1.8% 1.9% 1.5% 1.7% 1.3% 1.7% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

SUICIDES - -Total 1366 1330 1436 1584 1715 1714 1841 2019 2291 2413 2559 2657 -2773 2902 2808 -Firearms 518 495 556 560 622 609 613 716 749 796 924 935 950 1021 1053 -% 37.9% 37.2% 38.7% 35.4% 36.3% 35.5% 33.3% 35,5% 32.7% 33.0% 36.1% 35.2% 34.3% 35.2% 37.5%

HOMICIDES -Total 211 249 240 238 254 149 309 328 375 421 458 505 529 543 604 -Firearms 80 92 99 107 108 98 134 136 156 184 190 203 213 269 263 _% - 37.9% 36.9% 41.3% 45.0% 42.5% 65.8% 43.4% 41.5% 41.6% 43.7% 41.5% 40.2% 40.3% 49.5% 43.5%

LEGAL INTERVENTION -Total 6 10 4 2 4 2 7 10 6 12 15 8 11 8 9 -Firearms. 4 7 3 1 3 1 6 9 5 11 14 7 10 8 8 -,..e 66.7% 70.0% 75.0% 50.0% 75.0% 50.0% 85.7% 90.0% 83.3% 91.7% 93.3% 87.5% 90.9% 100.0% 88.9%

UNDETERMINED INTENTION -Total 142 215 285 351 331 462 499 -Firearms N -1. RECCRDED 19 16 27 21 35 47 87 -% , 13.4% 7.4% 9.5% 6.0% 10.6% 10.2% 17.4%

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Causes of Death" (Catalogue na. 84-203), Ottawa, 1961-1975. Ui - 36 - I

Table 1.17 widens the context still further to illustrate how deaths from firearms compare with other quite common causes of death. It can be seen from this table that, for evpry death caused by firearms, there are approximately 25 caused by cancer, 55'caused by heart disease and 4 caused by road accidents. Nearly half as many people again die from accidental falls as from firearms, while about twice as many deaths result from firearms as from accidental poisonings, fires or drownings. For every two victims of firearms homicide, there are apparently three people who succumb from careless eating habits.

Tables 1.18 and 1.19 illustrate the geographic and demographic distribution of firearms death victims for the years 1970 and 1975. From Table 1.18 it can be seen that the distribution of firearms deaths among the Canadian Provinces and Territories roughly coincides with the distribution of population. Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia appear to have an incidence of fire- arms deaths which is slightly high in relation to their populations There appears to be no ready explanation for this fact, and Table 1.1 and 1.4 above, seem to make it clear that it is not simply a reflection of the varying incidence of estimated gun ownership and use within different jurisdictions.

Table 1.19 shows that the great majority of persons killed by firearms are male(87.5% in 1970 and 87.7% in 1975. ). With respect to accidents and suicides, over 90% of victims are male. The statistics reveal, furthermore, that over half (54% in 1970, 58% in 1975) of the accidental deaths from firearms involve victims who are in their teens or early twenties. Almost 95% of these* young victims are males. It is only in the category of firearms hoecides that female victims are to be found in more significant numbers (70% of victiMs in this category are male, 30% female). A check of the figures for the last six years for which such statistics were available (1970-1975) revealed that thiS 70% - 30% male-female split for firearms homicide victims has been remarkably consistent. As we shall note further below in the discussion of murder statistics, two-thirds of all firearms murders (as indeed most murders by any means) involve offenders and victims who are 1111 1111111 11111 UM 1111 sum au 81111 IMO as us ous au us au au

;

TABLE 1.17: FIREARMS DEATHS COMPARED WITH DEATHS FROM OTHER SELECTED CAUSES, CANADA, 1970 - 1975.

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

FIREARMS DEATHS

- Accidents 129 143 102 . 123 122 111 - Suicides 796 924 935 950 1,021 1,053 - Homicides 184 190 203 213 269 263 - Legal Intervention 11 14 7 lo a 9 - Undetermined Intention 16 27 21 35 47 87 - Total 1,171 1,298 1,268 1,331 1,467 1,522

g * per 0 * per 0 t per 0 * per 0 $ per # per firearms firearms firearms firearms firearms # firearms death death death death death death DEATHS FROM OTHER CAUSES - Neoplasms 30.762 27.1 31,338 24.1 32,561 25.7 33,349 25.1 34,065 23.2 34,381 22.6 - Diseases of Circulatory System 77,379 68.1 77,756 59.9 79,781 62.9 80,332 60.4 82,155 56.0 80,903 53.2 - Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents 5,197 4.6 5,616 4.3 6,237 4.9 6,429 4.8 6,225 4.2 5,821 3.8 - Accidental Poisoningi 720 0.6 699 0.5 783 0.6 740 0.6 695 0.5 648 0.4 - Accidents' Falls 1,609 1.4 1,774 1.4 1,804 1.4 1,814 1.4 1,831 1.2 1,926 1.3 - Accidental Fire and Flames 634 0.6 647 0.5 746 0.6 714 0.5 805 0.5 731 0.5 - Accidental Drownings 874 0.8 762 0.6 747 0.6 861 0.6 712 0.5 848 0.6 - Choking on Food 352 0.3 385 0.3 333 0.3 355 0.3 405 0.3 404 0.3

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Causes of Death" (Catalogue no. 84-203), Ottawa, 1961-1975.

TABLE 1.18: PROPORTION OF FIREARMS DEATHS COMPARED WITH PROPORTION ur ruIeL

• NFLD PEI N.S N.B. DUE ONT MAN SASK ALTA B.0 YUKON NWT CANADA

Accidents _ - 3 129 • - 1570 6 - 11 9 27 25 3 16 16 13 - 1975 2 1 5 5 37 28 5 10 11 4 1 2 • Ill

Suicides - 1970 13 1 33 23 158 252 42 58 98 112 3 3 796 » ... 1975 - 7 7 51 29 188 -357 46 68 121 172 3 4 1053

Homicides 7 49 47 a 11 16 39 2 1 184 - 1970 - - 10 1 - 1975 - .- 12 6 102 75 6 11 18 32 - 1 263 Legal Intervention

-1970 - - - - 7 1 - 1 - 2 - - 11 __ -1975 _ - - - 2 - 1 1 1 3 - - 8

SOURCE: 1. Statistics Undetermined ..1. Intention Canada, "Causes of Death" -1970 4 1 - - 3 5 5 2 - - - - - 16 (Catalogue no. •-• 1975., 1 , -_ 2 61 5 2 6 3 4 1 2 87 84-203), Ottawa, 1970 and 1975. TOTAL

- 1970 20 1 54 36 245 330 55 86 130 166 5 7 1,136 -_1975 10 8 6e 42 390 '465 60 96 154 215 5 9 1,522 % of Total Population

- 1970 2.4% 0.5% 3.7% 2.9% 28.2% 35.5% 4.6% 4.4% 7.5% 10.0% 0,1% 0.2% 100%

7 1975 2.4% 0.5% 3.6% 3.0% 27.1% 36 4% 4-.5% 4.0% 7.8% 10.8% 0.1% 0.2% iom OD % of Total Firearms - Deaths .

• - 1970 1.8% 0.9% 4.8% 3.2% 21.7% 29.0% 4.8% 7.6% 11.4% 14.6% 0.4% 0.6% 100%

• - 1975 0.7% 0.5% 4.5% 2.8% 25.6% 30.6% 3.9% 6.3% 10.1% 14.1% 0.3% 0.6% 100%

11.8 11. IMO • ell ell am elll NIP Ile am am ale ale ON 4111111 111.11 as

O - 1 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 1 40 7 49 50 - 59 60 - 611 70 - 79 40 - • TOTALS

ACCIDENTS TABLE 1:19: 1970 - N a 45 30 11 11 50 4 2- 119 a 2 1 - - FIREARMS .1 3 - 10 DEATHS, -TOTAL 9 49 32 12 11 10 1211 BY AGE AND 1975-s 9 45 16 12 11 3 1 1 1 . 99 SEX OF - r 2 6 4 - -- - - - - 12 VICTIM, - 7074/ 11. . ,51 20 12 11 - 3 1 1 1 111 CANADA, a . 1970 and 1975. SUICIDES

1970 - /1 43 146 124 142 117 91 26 1 711 - r :I 23 15 15 11 1 2 - 78 -TOTAL 74 169 139 157 128 92 28 9 796 1975-N 114 283 143 136 143 99 34 12 969* - r 12 24 12 22 9 1 4 - 84 -TOTAL 126 307 155 158 152 100 38 12 1053* * Includes 5 cases in which age was (A1 not specified. HOMICIDES 1 1970 - of 1 11 27 36 24 16 9 2 1 132

- F 1 3 16 12 9 6 5 - - 52 - TOTAL 7 14 43 48 33 72 14 2 3 184 1975- * 3 20 77 43 le 11 :9 3 184 -r . 13 29 16 11 6 1 «79 - nn'LL 33 106 59 29 17 ° _9 263 6 SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Causes of I. Death" (Catalogue no. 84-203), LEGAL IHTERVINT ION Ottawa, 1970 and 1975.

- TOTAL 11

-r - - -

TOTALS

1970- N 12, . , 121 208 173 171 144 . 104 30 10 990 - r 4 18 41 28 24 17 6 2 - , 140

- TOTAL 19 139 241 201 202 161 110 32 10 112Q 1975-x 12 182 380 198 165 157 109 38 13 1259* _F 5 pi 57 29 1.33 15 1 5 - 176 - TOTAL 437 13 1435* 17- 213 221, 198 17 ______alt .22 ._ - 40 -

related or closely acquainted. From this perspective, it is perhaps somewhat surprising to discover that the majority of firearms homicide victims are males.22

Table 1.20 compares the ratio of male and female .r. ictims in firearms and other suicides and homicides. The table makes itjclear that male suicides are much more likely to involve fiiearms than female suicides, for the male-female distribution in the firearms category does not reflect the male-female distribution in suicides by means other than firearms, or in suicides generally. A check of the statistics revealed, further- more, that these male-female ratios do not vary significantly with the age of the victims. Females who commit suicide with firearms, however, tend to be younger than females who cbmmit suicide by other means.

Table 1.20 also shows a consistent distinction between the male-female ratios of firearms and other homicide victims. In firearms homicides, the victims appear to be consistently 70% males and 30% females, while other kinds of homicides, the ratio is nearer 60% male, 40% female. While the distinction between male-female ratios in different kinds of suicide may not be hard to explain (e.g. by the hypothesis that males tend more frequently to own guns),the distinction in the case of homicide victims is less readily explicable. One explanation, however, may be that males, being often stronger, are more successful at avoiding lethal consequences of potentially homicidal attacks not involving firearms. A check of the statistics also revealed that the male-female ratios of homicide victims do not vary significantly according to the age of the victims. Male victims of firearms ilomicides, however, tendtn bemcmefrequently in their twenties and thirties than male victims of homicides by other means. This does not appear to be the case with female victims.

, 5 22. Analysis of firearms murder statistics, however, reveals that in "domestic" murders female victims predominate.

MI MO OM IMO URI UN 111* MI MI ill 1110111 11111111 OM lit 111111111 MN OM

TABLE 1.20: COMPARISON OF FIREARMS SUICIDES AMD HOMICIDES WITH SUICIDES AND HOMICIDES BY ()TUBA mEAns, By SEX OF VICTIM , CANADA, 197e - 1975

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1970- 1975 . . SUICIDES Firearms - M 718 847 863 862 936 ' 969 5215 % 90.2% 91.7% 92.3% 92.8% 91.7% 92.0% 41.8% - F 78 77 72 68 85 84 464 % 9.8% 8.3% 7.7% 7.2% 8:3% 8.0% 8.2% _ Total 796 924 935 950 1021 1053 5679 (100 )

Other - M 1014 • 1019 - 1037 1103 1167 1061 6401 % 62.7% 62.3% 60.2% 60.5% • 62.0% 60.5% - 61.4% - F 603 616 685 720 714 694 4032 % 37.3% 37.7% 39.8% 39.5% 38.0% 39.5% 38.6% 1823 1881 1755 10433 . - Total 1617 1635 1722 (100%)

HOMICIDES _ Firearms - M 132 130 142 149 - 188 184 925 - % 71.7% 68.4% 70.0% 70.0% 69.9% 70.0% 70.0% - F 52 60 61 64 81 79 397 . .• 28.3% 31.6%" 30.0% 30.0% - J0.1% 30:8% • 30.0%

- Total 184 190 203 213 269 263 1322 • (100%) . .• , ,

Other .L. m 129 169 179 191 154 215 1037 % 54.4% 13.1% 59.3% 60.4% 56.2% 63.0% • 59.7% . . - F 108 99 123 125 120 126 701 % 45.6% 36.9% 40.7% 39.6% 43.8% , 37.0% 40.3%

Total - 237 268 302 ,316 274 . 341 1738 b00%) • '

e'rminnr. Statitirs Canada, "Causes of Death" (Catalogue no. 84-203), Ottawa, 1970 - 19/5. TABLE 1.21; FIREARMS SUICIDES AND HOMICIDES AS A PROPORTION OF ALL SUICIDES AND HOMICIDES, BY AGE OF VICTIM, CANADA, 1970 AND 1975. r .

• 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69' 7 - 79 80 - + TOTALS

SUICflES . +...• . ... 1970 - Total _ 162 463 426 508 432 267 112 43 2413 - Firearms - 74 169 , 139 157 128 92 ' 28 9 796 - % - 45.7% 36.5% 32.6% 30.9% 29.6% 34.5% 25.0% 20.9% 33.0%

1975 - Total 3 256 725 436 478 448 94 118 42 2808* - Firearms - 126 307 155 158 152 100 38 12 1053** _. - % 0:0% 49 ...2% 42;3% 35.6% 33.1% 33.9% 34.0% 32.2% . 21.9% . 37.5% • ,

HOMICIDES . 1970 - Total 42 51 83 78 67 46 34 15 5 421 - Firearms 7 14 43 48 33 22 14 2 1 184 - % . 16.7% 27.5% 51.8% 61.5% 49.3% « 47.8% 41.2% 13.3% 20.0% 43.7%

- Total 34 78 175 108 88 58 32 19 10 604e --- Firearms 6 33 106 59 29 17 - 9 4 - 263 - % 17.6% 42.3% 60.6% 54.6% 32.0% 29.3% 28.1% 21.1% 0.0%- 43,5% ' _

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Causes of Death" (Catalogue no. 84-203), Ottawa, 1970 an 1975. * Inc1udqs,7 cases in which age was not specified. ** Includes 5 cases in which age was not specified. *Includes 2 cases in which age was not specified.

IMO 11. IMO IMO OM Ina MIN III IIIO MI OM Ina 8111 ON INN OM IMO 01111 - 43 -

Table 1.21 elaborates the data presented with respect to suicides and homicides in Table 1.16 according to the ege of the Victims, for the years :1970 and 1975. The table shows. clearly that the chances of a suicide victim choosing a firearm as the instrument of of, his or her death decrease steadily with age. While about half all teenage suicides involve firearms, less than one-third of all suicides by persons over 40 are committed with firearms. One possible explanation for this pattern is that it reflects the patterns of gun used ownership and use generally; that is, guns tend to be owned and this more frequently by young people. We have been unable to test hypothesis, since statistics on the age of gun owners, a previously 23 explained, are not yet available in Canada.

Table 1.21 also shows that'firearms use in homicides is much more prevalent when the victims are in their late teens to forties, than when they are in older or younger age groups. This, again, may perhaps be merely a reflection of the relative strength and agility of potential victims, the old and the vgry young victim being less capable of resisting homicidal attacks not involving firearms.

No national statistics are currently available on the types of firearms used in all kinds of firearms deaths. The only national statistics available on this subject are those relating to firearms murder, which are contained in the "Ten

23. It is of interest to note in this context the statement- of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association in its brief to the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, during consideration of the 1976 amendments to the Code, to the effect that: j." "Generally speaking, those under 21 years of agg comprise over 50% of the membership of target shooting clubs." (See Minutes of Proceeding;and Evidence, April 29th, 1976, Issue No. 42, at p. 94) Data with respect to the age of gun owners and users will, however, be available shortly as a result of the 1976 conducted by Statistics Canada. - 44 -

Year Firearms Study," and which will be considered below. Figures covering accidents, suicides and homicides, however, are available for Ontario for the years 1972 to 1975, de a result of computations by the Chief Coroner's office in that Province. These figures, which are derived from a report entitled "Province of Ontario Firearms Deaths, 1972, 1973, D4f- , 24 1974, and 1975 figures supplied by the Chief Coroner's office, are presented in Tables 1.22 and 1.23. From Table 1.22, it can be seen that the great majority of firearms deaths (approximately 83%) appear to involve long guns (rifles and shotguns), with only about 11% being accounted for by handguns. Handguns account for approximately 7% of accidental firedrms deaths, about 10% of firearms suicides, and about 20% of fire- arms homicides, while long guns account for 91% of accidental firearms deaths, 85% of firearms suicides and 70% of firearms 25 homicides. It is interesting to note that while handgun involvement in accidental deaths almost exactly reflects the estimated proportion of handguns in the total gun stock (6%), handguns appear to play a somewhat disproportionate role in suicides, and a considerably disproportionate role in homicides, relative to long guns.

Table 1.23 presents a more detailed picture, by weapon type, of the 1974 Ontario Firearms death statistics. Such detailed information was not available for other years. Again, it can be seen from Table 1.23 that, in accidental firearms deaths, the distribution of weapon type is almost exactly the saine as the estimated distribution of the different types of weapon generally. 26Handguns, however, play a disproportiontely

24. Dated July 31st, 1975 • • 25. These figures are derived for averages for thethree years included in Table 1.22. 26. See Tables 1.8 and 1.9. am Sall lull OINI lull MO BM 111011 UM MS OM OmII ea Owl ONO 1111111 111.

. )

TABLE 1,22; ' FIREARMS DEATHS IN ONTARIO, BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED, 1972 - 1975.

' Accidents Suicides Homicides TCTALS All Deaths

Handguns 1972 0 0.0% 32 11.3% 13 21.7% 45 12.6% 1973 2 6.1% 21 7.8% 8 14.3% 31 8.6% 1974 3 8.6% 34 11.0% 17* 22.4% 54* 12.9% 1975 3 12.0% 34 8.7% 18 22.8% 55 11.1%

Long Guns 1972 12 92.3% 227 80.2% 32 53.3% 271 - 76.1% 1973 . 31 93.9% 226 83.7% 40 71.4% 297 82.7% 1974 32 91.4% 274- 89.0% 62* 81.6% 368* 87.8% 1975 22 88.0% 343 87.5% 58 73.4% 423 85.3

Unknown 1972 1 7.7% 24 8.5% 15 25.0% 40 11.2% 1973 0 0.0% 23 8.5% 8 14.3% 31 8.6% 1974 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1975 0 0.0% 15 3.8% 3 3.8% 18 3.6%

TOTALS (100%) 1972 13 100% 283 100% 60 100% 356 100% - 1973 33 100% 270 100% 56 100% 359 100% 1974 35 100% 308 100% 76 100% 419 100% 1975 ' 25 100% 392 100% 79 100% 496 100%

* Three homicides in 1974 involved shotguns and handguns, and have therefore been included in both categories.

SOURCE: Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, Toronto. e. TABLE 1.23: FIREARMS DEATHS IN ONTARIO, BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED, 1974

Accidents Suicides Homicides TOTAL

1 7Xx HANDGUNS 3 34 - % ( 8.6%) ( 11.0%) ( 22.4%) ( 12.9%) 6 2xx LONG GUNS 32 274 - % ( 91.4%) ( 89.0%) ( 81.6%) ( 87.8%)

- Rifles 22* 185t. 32 239 % (62.9%) (60.1%) (42.1%) (57.0%) -Sawed-off rifles 3 3 6 % ( 1.0%) ( 3.9%) ( 1.4%) x -Shotguns 11* 83 26 120 % (31.4%) (26.9%) (34.2%) (28.6%) -Sawed-off shotguns 3 1 4 % ( 1.0%) ( 1.3%) ( 0.9%)

TOTAL (100%) 35 308 76 419 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

Notes: Three victims died from handgun and shotgun wounds. e One victim died from rifle and shotgun wounds. 140nemeapon was identified si7F1y as a "hunting gun," and we have assumed that it was a rifle of some sort.

SOURCE: Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, Toronto.

e. cr. me ems me am ma ma um am as me ewe me ea me me am eas um oak - 47 -

low role in homicides, and shotguns play a disproportionately low role in suicides. Sawed-off long guns appear to play a relatively insignificant role in all these categories:of firearms deaths.

•:-s As was noted earlier, the data in Tables 1.22 and 1.23 reilect only the situation in one Province and over a short period of time. The tables are presented here, therefore, not as any reliable indicator of trends generally in Canada, but merely for their illustrative value, and because the data con- tained in them appears to be the best currently available. Obviously, there is a need for better statistics of this kind ' to be collected on a national scale.

FIREARMS MURDERS

We turn now to a consideration of the statistics on firearms murders derived from Statistics Canada's revised "Ten Year Firearms Study". (1961-1975). It will be recalled that the source of these statistics is reports of murders, submitted by police forces 'under the Uniform Crime Reporting program. Caution must be used in interpreting these data, for a number of reasons. In the first place, as was noted earlier, the data are being constantly revised and cannot therefore be regarded as unqualifiedly reliable. Secondly, the categories of incidents included changed after 1974. Prior to 1974, the basis for these data was all charges of "capital murder","non- capital murder" and "murder, not specified". In 1974, incidents of manslaughter and infanticide were added. Comparisons between figures before and after 1974 cannot therefore be made with great confidence. Finally, it must be borne in mind that these statistics reflect police charging practices as much, if not more, than patterns of actual homicidal events. These charging practices, furthermore, almost certainly vary both over time and between different reporting juriseictions at any given time. Various notable feathres of the data (e.g. otherwise inexplicable variations in the rate of incidents reported as "unsolved", or in which the weapon type is reported as "unknown") tend to confirm these suspicions. - 48 -

Unlike the "homicide" category in the "Causes of Death" series, murder statistics include details not only of the number of victims involved, but also of the number of incidents involving firearms murders. Needless to say, there are somewhat fewer inidents than viétims. The availability of figures on both incidents and victims, however, allows firearms murder statistics to be viewed from two perspectives. The picture which emerges, furthermore, does not always look quite the same from both perspectives, and we have therefore prepated statistical tables based both on incident and on victim counts.

Table 1.24 shows firearms murder victims by offendêr-victim 11 relationship, and by type of firearm used, for the years 1961 to 1975. Table 1.25 presents data on firearms murder incidents in similar fashion. It can be seen from both tables that handguns account for about one quarter (26% of both victims and murders (52%) have been committed with rifles, with 16% being committed with shotguns and less than 3% committed with sawed-off long guns). In the remaining 11 cases (4%), the weapon type was not known. Significantly different figures are obtained, however, when firearms murders are analysed by victim-offender relationship. Thus in the category of "domestic" firt arms murders, only 12% are attributable to handguns. The "domestic" category includes murders in which there was an immediate family, other kinship or common-law relationship between the victim and the alleged or suspected offender. In the "non-domestic" category handgun use averages out at 26% of victims and 27% of incidents over the fifteen-year period. Included in this category are murders which involved a lovers' quarrel or lovers' triangle, a close, casual or business relationship between the victim and the offender, or'where the victim and offender were strangers or apparently unknown to each other but no other criminal act was associated with the murder. Although the total number of firearms murder vici.ims in the 'criminal act' category is relatively small, the use of handguns within this category varies a great deal from year to year (e.g. 0% in 1961, 811 in 1963). This category includes firearms murders committed during the course of the commission of other criminal activities (robbery, rape, 11 kidnapping, etc., etc.). Over the 15-year period, however, handgun usell MS Mil IMO IMO MO MI MIR MI 11111111 IMO 111•11 MI MI IMO MO Ma ale UM •

TABLE 1.24: FIREARMS MURDER VICTIMS, BY OFFENDER/VICTIM RELATIONSHIP AND BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED. CANADA. 1961 -- 1975 - , • 1141 1047 1041 Mt 116$ 1466 1967 1941

DOPLLSTIC g - 110140GUMS II) 6 g 1401 44 i 3111 $ 131) 4 1 811 1 g 1811 I 1 8 1 1111 11 1 1401 47 4 - 1.8116 GUMS 33 SI 1 11111) 34 g 1111111 77%1 411 ( 11481 • 44 $ 121) g 8711 01 1 8111 17 1 114b) 38 IS 311 -%111.. 11, 1) 31 41 41 -. 3 -- -- -. -1.wed-oti 11111•0 -. -- 1 -Snotqunt 14 g 12 . 11 11 9 11 _. ...... . .. 1 - 0...d -off 04014...s6 1 .... .- ....

■ UMEM°Heg -- ( 011 -- 1 011 -- f 011 -. 1 811 -- f 811 -- 1 Obi -- 1 011 -- 1 Os) 110011 44 110011 61 410011 01 ''''iotiiik' Ten t 48 110011 It (10811 SS 60 1100%1 46 (10011

Nom - Q0e4ESTIC Is - KASDGUNS ( 21111 11 il 11%1 1 15%1 6 6 US) g 1 3011 4 g 1411 8 13 1 22%1 lb (250% -LONG 34 443%) f 6011) 18 1 4111 14 1 8111 CL-11/i li ( to ) 4)4%) 18 29 40 470%) 24 473%) 71 14 -1111118 14 28 11 74 18 28 . -- - . .. 1 -$6.90-012 7114141 . 1 - . 1 3 -Shottuna o 3 s s 4 1 -. ... .. .- 6 4 -000.4-001 Shotgun* 1 ..- .- .- -- 1 -- f 0b1 ....- -UNKNOU31 ..... 1 811 -- 4 011 7 1 10%) 811 -- 1 01) ' -- 1 0%1 43 (100%) 41 110011 . 72 110011 TOTAL 27 (180%) 22 1100%) 20 (100%) 01 110011 36 11001) 64.

CRIMINIL ACT 1 s 4 ( 8111 ' g 1 46%1 3 / 431/ 4 ( 8011- - 11-MIDGIM5 — 1 4%1 4 0611 8 4 7311 0 I 4111 3 à 7 g 1411 / f 11111 1 4 2011 - LetiG GUIS 4 1 44%1 ( 11%1 1 ' 1 2/01 4 f $711 -0101.4 2 4 1 1 4 1 1 .. «.. .... ... à -6..ed-ogi 0111.1 3 .... .- • .. .. .. 1 • Shotgua6 ... ..... .. 1 .... 1 -6..e 4-olt Shirt/pas ...- -- -- .... -- --

41192/01.18 -- f 8%1 -- f 841 .... 4 8%1 -- 4 811 - --,. g WU •• g est -- 1 0%1 -- 4 011 4100%) 13 guest 7 410011 $ 1100%1 Tarn ,. 4 418011 0 110011 4 11 110011 11 (100%)

IAISOLVTO

3 3 4 0011 1 10%) 1 g 301) 3 f 7161 -1e.N01UNS 3 f 4011 ( $011 1 6 1 7111 13 ( 114) 2 ( 33%) 1 33%1 1 (10%) 1 ( 114) - LONG CLIO{ 1 (21%) (10%) 3 7 à 1 1311 3 ( 14%) -Miles 1 2 2 2 1 a -- -3 -S...do-ogl 2111e3 .. ... .- .0 ... ..... .... — -Sholguna ••••• -- .. ... .. .. 1 ...... -Sawed-olf Shotpund -.. .. .... .. ..... .. ... .

-1112MMCffl 1 ■.. ( 811 111%) 1 (17%) . 8 8 1111 ..... 4 011 ..... g 8%) 1 1 1311 . 6 t 2711 • TOT&L 4 (100% ) 1 1 4 1100%1 4 1100%1 1 110011 4 110011 8 1100%1 31 1100011

70,1"116 • 433%) -M.1,:laCU16 - '1 -• le. 4 1441 18 22 423%) 78 (77%) 33 620%) 18 4 114i " '. 74 ( es%) 37 (23%) GUNS 62 g 7811 -LouG 70 4 8111 là 1 1111 76 1 7211 gg 6 71%) 73 1 7111 101 I 74%1 17 ( 60%) -011 1es 48 41 3) 13 -- Si 61 63 04 -56..4-off 0111em 4 a .... .. à I 4 -Shotgun, 1 0 13 IS 14 11 18 11 13 -6...4-011 tholguee a -- .. .. -. — -- .- 1 011 -uwffloux 1 4 1%1 4 1 111 1 1 1 0 1 ..-. 4 4%1 - ■ 1 0%1 1 1 1%1 4 • ( 4%1 10 11006) CRUM 70752. 00 1100%1 11 1100%) 101 (100%) 113 (1001) 17 11001) 137 1100%1 131 (10001

TABLE 1.24: (continued)

1078 1262 1271 1972 1273 1174 DONE1T1C 1975 1961-1975

-7ung>culls 3 1 410 7 l 111) 2 8 1 10%) 15 f 10%) f 121) 10 1 1411 15 (16%) 118 (12%) -ioNG GUNS 47 l 12%1 St ( 80%) 63 [ 85%) 40 1 81111 74 1 88%) $1 f 8321 77 (83%) 828 (86%) -Ufles 37 48 46 42 511 51 -Seusd-ott 10/1e. I -- 1 3 2 7 55 620 -Shotgun. 1 11 16 IS 14 21 1 13 -6.vc 4-off Shotgun. -- ..... .- -- -- a 21 192 -• -1111X1I01.11 2 ( 411 ( OS) 2 C 311 1 ( 1%) 2 ( 2%) 8 ( 811 .» 3 =AL SI . ( 1001) 66 1100%1 74 (10011 71 (1000 ) 84 (1001) If 1100%1 1 (1%) 16 (2%) 93 (100%) 962 (100%) NON7DONLSTIC

-10.Nrcuits 2)l 3411 . 14 1 1311 20 1 2510 25 1 101i 20 1 27%) 24 1 221) '' 25 (24%) 228 (26%) • . ' - LONG GINS . 42 1 62%) 62 1 81%) 5 11 ( 74%) 54 1 6511 42 ( 67%) 80 1 75111 79 (76%) 640 (72%) -01f1.4. 2, SI 40 38 32 48 55 481 -6. ued-01/ 01/1.4 3 2 1 7 1 4 -Shotgun. 10 1 6 0 9 27 -6....d-o11 Shotguns ..... .... 3 -. -- 2 / 11 -tumowlii • 3 f 411 1 1 1%) 1 f It) 4 t 5%) 4 - 1 5%) 3 f 31) - (0%) 19 (2%) =AL 68 000%1 • 77 (100%) 80 (100%) 83 ( 100%) 72 ( 100%) 107 (100%) 104 (100%) 887 (100%)

CRIN/NAL ACT

-KANOGUNS 8 ( 6511) 8 (62%) 84 (51%) 2 1 2211 S ( 45%1 6 ( 441) 3 1 21111 1 4711 13 tri -UDNG GUNS 4 ( 57%) 6 C 55%) 6 1 44%) 11 1 721) 7 g 41%) 7 1 WO 4 (31%) 77 (46%) Q -N111e. 3 3 4 s s 4 50 - 1....6 -off 01 1 1.8 -.. a -- s -- -- 1 - 12 -5h.:9... __ 1 2 1 2 3 3 14 - $...d -o1/ Shotgun» 2 — -- -- -- •,.- 1 ..... -UNKNOWN .... 1 1 146) ... i 0 1 ) 1 1 8%) •••• f 010 2 ( 1211 ( 01) 1 (8%) 5 (3%)

707AL 7 (300%) . 11 (100% ) 13 ( 1001) 14 (100% ) 17 (10010 211 ( 100%) 13 (100%) 166 (100%) :. uNSOLVED 40 (50%) 180 (54%) -11ANDGUNII 1$ ( 54111 12 1 501) 13 ( 54%) .18 g 561) . 21 ( 5011 28 ( 60%) (39%) 96 (29%) -LONG GUNS 6 g 2111 8 1 33te 7 ( 29%) t I 2811 7 1 171) 1$ 1 3211 31 -01 0 1e. 3 s 2 7 4 20 61 -1....4-.f( Miles 1 -. -. -- -- : 1 5 ...Shotgun. 13 3 1 3 4 10 28 -4...0-001 Shotgun. .... . 2 2 -UNKNOWN 7 1 2511 4 ( 17%) 4 f 17%) S 1 161) 14 f 33111 4 1 2%) 9 (11%) 57 (17%) 80 (100%) 333 (100%) TOTAL 2$ mote 24 1100%1 24 1100%1 32 (100%) 42 (100%) 47 1100%1

TOTALS 88 (30%) 610 (26%) -MAXOGUNS . 42 f 2710 30 ( 2111 48 f 25%1 Si ( 28 1 ) 67 ( 261) 76 ( 271) • 8671/ 191 (66%) 1641 (70%) -LONG Cull 119 C 64%) 135 C .76%) 136 ( 711) • 134 ( 67%) 137 ( 4311 183 1212 -0111e. 72 107 101 12 106 116 32 . -famed-oft *Meg s 4 2 16 3 9 54 • •1 • .i-)% -Shotgun» 21 27 27 28 SS 362 • — 55 -1.1...0-0/1 Shotguns I -- 6 -- 1 2 13 11 (4%) 97 (4%) -1,1,240MM 13 ( 81) 6 ( 3%) 8 ( 41) 10 ! 51/ 22 1 10%1 • IS ( Si) 273 290 (100%) 2348 (100%) GRAND =rm. 1S4 1100%) 178 1100%1 191 (100%) 200 110021 216 (100%) (1001/ SOURCE: Statistics Canada, 'Ten Year Firearms Study" (updated to 1975), Ottawa.

MI IMO OM UM BM 1111111 111111 IMO 11111, Me MI MIS 11•11 MO all all URI IIIIIII all MIR OM MO MI UM 1111111 IIIIIII MI MIS UM MI IMO MIR • gall MI MN MI

TABLE 1.25: FIREARMS MURDER INCIDENTS 4 • Y OFFENDER/VICTIM RELATIONSHIP AND BY TYPE OF WEAPON nsrn_ rhmAnA. 1961 - 1975. 1168 cemrsTic 1041 1942 1643 3944 1961 1117 19611 $ *11%) 7 4 1361 - 3 t 761 8 g 1161 S 1 12%1 ItANDOUN4 - 4 1 111 1 1 1011 $ 4 1411 40 sl g 01%1 44 4511$ 38 f 88%1 1 81%1 11 1 441) .4.0biC COSS 42 1 11%) 31 t 880 33 1S0%) 21 31 33 14 31 41 - $1141.1 30 28 -. -- I -84,-.4-411 0111.4 -. -. 7 -. -- 7 • 1 - Shotguns 13 11 8 18 -- -- - ..9 -- -- -- - 1ausd - o12 Shotguns 1 — ■ -- t •ta -- t en- .,..- 1 0%) 4 Old - 1 en - UTOCHOte ...• 4 0 0) -- 1 044 ••••• 1 011 — • 41 1100%1 58 41 1100%1 Omni SI (100% ) 43 118011 1100%) TOTAL ' 14...1C90. 33 17

NON-DOMLSTIC • 35 f 3741 6 t 3811 13 1 3001 10 42111 - NANOGUN1 8 f 311) • 4 415%) 0 t 3111 11 431%) 2s 24 1 8861 11 ( 72%1 24 1 71%) , -1.000 Melt 051%) 31 $040$ 17 1 6551 g 49%1 26 1 43%) . 18 11 24 18 36 1/ 14 $8 31 -- -- .... / 1 1 - 5....4.011 8111.4 1 -- 6 t 3 S S e -Shotguns 14 • .. .. .. -- -S..4 -.f0 Shotguns 1 . . • .. .. • -- 1 0%) — 1 811 -- 1 0%1 -- I 001 -(6.6Noww -- 1 811 -.. i 011 1 1 4%1 • -- 1 011 110861 • 43 (1006) 34 (100%) Tur4L 26 4150%) 3) 26 1100%1 36 11006) . 41 30 UT ourteAL ICI 3 1 4361 3 1 7111 7 (III) 2 I 421) - 11APDGUINS ....■ 1 SI) 4 f 171) s (lot) 6 g SOO 2 1 3061 6 I 11%) 4 ( sit) 1 I MI" - 1.0711 GUNS 4 (1001 ) (14%) 6 4 00%) 3 ( 4311 1 i 1 a $ - Pities a 3 1 6 -. 1 - 1a.ed - o11 0111.8 • I .. -- .. ... .- .. ... .. 1 -Shotguns 1 .. -- .- -Ss.ad-o11 Shog2usli ... ... .. .... ... 1 011 -- g 061 -- 1 811 -- 1 OU -- - 1110*Mat •-• 1 0%) -- 1 6%1 .... f Os) -. 1 611 4 110011 10 110011 11 110001 5011.1. 4 128011 7 1180%1 7 (100111 11 (1004 ) 1 110011 I.

UnS3LVED (10%) à 1 6711 6 1 75%1 11 16161 -TtAXDGUM5 . à (III) 3 $300) 2 430%) 1 g 5011 1 1 3 1 1161 4 1111 1 $331) g 1361 - 1 (25%) 2 4)4%) (31%) 2 (33%) I. L0mG GUMS 2 1 — 3 -611141. 1 1 a a 1 -. -. .. -.. ... .... .... -24.ed-n41 lit).. -. . -- ... .... -. .. .. 1 -Shotgun• ... .... .- -. -S•.ed-off Shotguns -.... -- ... -. •11 1 g 13%1 4 (12%) 61%1 •-• 1 001 -- 1 - 1.1a0aCsel • I 1 2111 1 1 011 I 1 17%1 I 4 1100%1 18 (1001) 4 1100b1 11042. 1100 01 3 110041 8 TOTAL 4 6 1100%1 6 1100%1 3

MD:2A • . 8 28%1 31 1 7 7 %1 27 f 3611 16 • 430$) 38 - IWIDG1011 14 (III) 17 (34%) .20 4 341) U 4 37%1 4- 14 g 551.'." ..... 11 1 11%1 04 1 4041 -1.0-Lem11 CONS • 4 762) ss g 71%1 16 4 14%1 44 62 4 «PM 48 57 St - 0,11.4 46 42 48 SI 64 4 - Sa.ed - o11 11111es 2 -. 2 11 IS 1 1 13 -Shotguns IS --13 aa 14 .. .-- -. -1sued-o1i Shoteune a — -- ..... — g 4611 1 1 U1 4 1 U1 -ummoww à 1 1U — I In) 1 ( na a t an -.t eu 88 110011 106 110061 121 (1006) 10.1140 TOTAL IS 110011) 1 1 4100%1 84 4100%1 11 10001) 103 1100%1

tutu, • ••••• • •.•-•-•• • 4.-6.. / . 1061 1118 - 11171 1972 . 1.173 1,14 1,11 - 1214 .1/5 ilL. -

it___UM004 '

...HANDGUNS 2 1 4%) • 7 8 ( 1 11111 1 1111 10 1 1511 8 ( 1011 16 ( III) 80 ( 1211 u (i0.1 i c; un.) GUNS t s I 12%) -1444C 11 ( 481) 34 ( 8411 ss / 84%) 111 ( 81111 78 ( 80%1 6(1 1 81%) 73 (gSt• /34, (e14) •9111ue 35 41 111 417 ... 38 SS SO ei 541 -Sawed-o(t XIII« 1 1 3 2 2 11 -1hotguns . • 10 14 15 31 16 151 à .2 -Soved-ott Shotguns -- -- -- .. -- 1.2 . 2 3 - Irl. (c ' -U4114C6414 3 I 4%) -- I 0%) 2 ( 311 ' 1 1 1%) 2 ( III ' 7 ( 8%) 14 1 21) I is- (27.. ) TCTAL 42 (1001 ) • 18 110011 64 (100%) 56 ket) ilt 67 1100111 80 110011 81 110011 764 ..,119011, (4e,%?

NON-DOMESTIC

• -HANDGUNS ' 21 1 3 511 1) 1 206) 17 ( 241) 20 ( 2011) 18 1 28111 21 ( 3111 185 1 1711) 11 (23-7.) lc i (zri, 18 1 40%) 01 4 sg ss; (ro -LONG GUNS 78%) $4 ( 73%) II 1 671) 43 1 47%) 1 741) 488 1 /111 1.? ("kez 14 48 46 34 44 110 i » 4s• ..OU - 1 ewed-01f Ririe. 2 3 1 6 1 3 20 .1h0tgun4 111 9 6 7 a ■ t...... 20 26 -14wed-oft Ohotgunt -- 1 . -- - 1 . 3 " A or • 1 i‘ (it) I ` (61.) e -UNANONW 3 ( 511 ) 1 ( 21) 1 1 1%) 4 i et) • 1 ( 51) 2 1 311 16 I 21) el (fCti ) 707)4. 63 (100%) 45 110011 • 72 110011 72 (1006) 64 110011 62 (100%) • 681 110011 ell VGZ 74)

CRIMINAL ACT

. 2 ( 13 61 S 2 8 -HANDGUNS 1 416) 6 1 SS%) 3 ( 27%) ( 471) ( 53%) 65 1 50%1 g (Ilt) - 72 (5-1.4 -Laic GUNS 3 t sot) i f SS%) 4 i 361) 11 1 73%) 6 1 4011 7 g 4711. 12 ( 47%) ii (146i. -Rill.. e (1 94 2 3 3 S 4 4 45 .. -Sawed-off 6111.8 -- 2 -- 2 • -. - 6 , e -Shotguns -- 1 1 2 2 3 10 t .. 3 -Som.:I-at Shotguns I ------I _ It -urouioust 1..., 4 11%) -- g 011 4 1 311 1 1 11) ' -- ( 01) 2 1 11%) -- ( 01) TCTAL 6 (1001) 11 (10011 ) 131 110011 11 (1001) 11 410011 iS (100%) 11 (10011) Jut, Qcz % . % 13 c7b",.) tINSOLVID

-SARUM« 11 1 60%) 11 ( $ 01 )12421 ( 56%) Is-, 13 ( 54%) 16 ( 5561 16 f SS%) 1 14%) -LCWG GUNS 5 1 20%1 7 1 321) 1 27%) 7 ( 30%) 1 1 11%) S 1 1511 14 131%1 60 g(, (h..7,. --6141.5. 7 4 30 I.L (lie.) à .... 2 7 a a -Sau sd-oif Attlee -. -. .. 2 3 iL SI' . -.Shotungs ' 2 3 16 -- 2 1 4 I e -14.2.1-01f $501956.-- -. -- 3 23 .. I al' s -UNKNOWN ( 20%) 4 ( 18%) 10 1 17%) -- 4 1 17%) 4 2 14%1 10 i 30 1) 4 g 1011 9 tnet) 1 4 t 7«i. 195AL • 25 (1001 ) 22 1100111 213 110011 24 (1001) 21 (100%) 23 1100%) 31 (100%) 64- Qa7.) zse (tne 70TALS 41 ( 21111 36 1 211/ , -NAND01.0111 60 1 3611 443 1 21%1 44 I 26%1 . 411 ( 27%) SI 1 27111 ee 1 64%) ' I - 111.• 1 7411 1 (2s1.) -LONG GUNS 11 221 1 6811 124 ( 651) 156 (66%) 1273 to 110 ( 73%) ika41 (lot -Attlee CS SS 17 106 1150 t•ba (Let? -$4yed-oft Alfles 4 4 110 41 2 11 3 7 . ..Shotguns 21 23 273 112- it‘x 2.1 25 ' 2 4 43 22 -taved-uff ihot gune 1 -- -- -- 3 a ;sr 3 St ilr 11 i 811 S ( 3%) -Lmmotim I g st) ' 1 ( SI) 17 1 V%) 14 2 611 u (Iel, 143 (1001 ) Is; (1001 ) g12 (414 ) GRAND TOTAL 170 (100%) 122 110011 -233 (1006) 1000 ( 200 u 171 (1001) Itiz Oa% SOURCE: Stpi-ictiee ranada. "Ton vpar Firearms Study" (updated to 1975), Ottawa.

IIIIIII MI MIMI MO »II MI URI UM MI OM MI Ilia MI MI Mil MS OM IMP - 53 -

in this category averages out at 51%. In the "unsolved" category (i.e. firearms murders in which the victim-offender relationship, or absence of it, could not be determined), again, the total number of victims and incidents is relatively small but handgun use averlages out at 54% of victims and 53% 'of incidents. However, it sholad be noted, thpt, in the 'unsolved' category, the type of weapon used was unknown in 17% of the cases (as opposed to 2-3% of the cases in the other categories). There is no means of determining what effect greater knowledge of weapon type would have on the handgun/long gun ratios in the "unsolved" category.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of both Tables 1.24 . and 1.25 is that no consistent patterns of change in the relative use of handguns and long guns in firearms murders appears, 'either when such murders are considered as a whole, or when the various victim-offender relationship categories are examined. The tightening of the law with respect to firearms in Canada which occurred in 1969, does not appear to be reflected in any significant way in these two tables.

In Table 1.26, the relative proportions of different types of victim-offender relationship categories in firearms murders generally are considered for the years 1961-1975. Table 1.27 ' presents data on firearms murder incidents in the same manner. It'can be seen from these two tables that, out of 5 firearms murders, two are likely to be "domestic", two "non-domestic", and the other one either unsolved (more likely) or committed during the commission of some other criminal act.

By combining and adding the "domestic" category and all of the non-domestic category, except the "stranger/unknown" sub- dategory, it can be seen from Tables 1.26 and 1.27 that just over 70% (71.5%) of all firearms murders from 1961 to 1975 are known to have involved victime and offenders who had some previous?-relationship with each other. There is good reason to believe, furthermore, that the "criminal act" and "unsolved" categories also contain cases in which the victim and offender were known to each other. The popular image of firearms murders as being usually stranger- to-stranger events, committed as part of other criminal activities or associations, is thus completely refuted by the statistics. TABLE. 1.26: FIREARMS MURDER VICTIMS, BY OFFENDER/VICTIM RELATIONSHIP, CANADA , 1961 - 1975.

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 No. t e . C PO. t No. C No. 1 No. 1 No. t „- DOMESTIC -1crediate raraly 39 41.76 27 33.81 46 46.5% 30 26.611 42 37.2% 41 44.6% 49 35.8% 5.1% -Other Yinship 6 7.1% 5 6.3% 4 ' 4.0% 8 7.6% 11 9.7% 5 5.41 7 4 2.9% -Corpon- 1iw 4 4.7% 7 11.411 5 5.1% 6 5.7% 8 7.1% 5 5.41 60 41.8% Total 48 56.5% 39 48.8% 55 55.6% 44 41.9% 61 54.0% 57 55.4%

NOZ:-DOMESTIC

-Lovers Triangle/ Lovers' Guarrel 3 3.5% tr. 6.3% 10 10.1% 9 6.6% 5 4.4% 5 5.4% 10 7.3% C..n

-nose Acquaintances 11 12.9% 5 6.3% 10 10.1% 9 8.6% 13 11.5% 7 7.61 4 2.9% 15.3% ' -Casual ACqualntanCOS 6 7.1% 5 6.311 2 2.0% 13 12.4% 9 6.0% 9, 9.811 21 -Business Relationships 1 1.2% 1 1.3 1 - -- 3 2.9% 3 2.7% 4 4.3% 6 4.4% -Strangers/Unknown 6 7.11 12 15.0% 7 7.1% à 7.44 13 11.5% 7 7.6% 17 12.4%

Total 27 31.9% 28 35.0% 29 29.3% 42 40.0% 43 38.1% 32 ' 34.8 1 58 42.3%

CRINII:AL ACT 6 7.1% 9 11.31 9 9.1% 13 12.4% 7 6.2% S 5.4% 11 8.0%

UNSOLVED 4 4.7% 4 5.01 6 6.1% 6 5.7% 2 1.11% 4 4.3% 8 5.8%

100% 92 100% 137 1001,.,„ TOTAL 85 10011 80 100% 99 1001 105 100% 113

MI MI MS MU MS MI MS UM MIS UM UM BM MIS UM MO MI OM .1111 11111111 BM MS 111111111 en MI UM MIMI MI Me OM OM nall IIIIII

TABLE 1 , 26 ; (continued)

. - l ei&I - 151Y- 1 iv. - urre 1168 1961 1170 1171 . 1172 1173 1174 N.. lf, N. no. t No. 1 No. % No. % 1 HO. t No. % No. 1 _ DOMESTIC O.} ii. 7 1. 6-44 lea% 3.i z_31%. -Imediate racily 61 2s.6% 36 23.4% 53 21.81 54 28.31 47 23.51 47 21.8% 41 22.31 ic 3 .. 9., lIt i i- 1 LL -Otter Kinship • s.g% 8 5.21 6 3.41 8 4.2% 12 6.0% 13 6.0% 17 6.21

2-i, eit 'i. i5î - Cornon-law 10 7. y % 7 4.5% 7 3.11 12 4. 3 % 12 6.0% 24 11.11 21 7.7% Lk% 64 37.11 74 38.7% 71 35.5% 44 38. 1% 11 16.3% ii 3:...i% ill. L ul ,-,.;,, an it II. Total 6; 66.6% SI 33.11 _

um-Domzs:Ic _ -levers' Trian‘le/ r 141. is) Lovers' Quarrel g 5.6% 16 10.41 14 7.9% 20 10.51 16 8.01 15 6.11 8 2.1% le -Close Acquaintances g 5 . 61: 12 7.8% 11 6.2 1 14 7.31 20 10.0% 20 9.3% 24 8.81 if i-7g. I i6 Y .; 4. ,17. - ?`)., -Casual Acquaintances 12 6.1% 21 11.61 3 0 16.1% 12 6.31 22 11.0% 26 12.01 46 16.8% 4 2.?1- ii.e. I1+1 ; I.G% ti, ;. Vi. - Rosiness PelataoothIps -- -- S 1.2% 1 5.11 17 8.91 4 2.0% 1 0.51 3 1.1% 3 1} z.71, s-- 1% it,s. -Strangers/Unknown 8 5.11 14 1.1% 13 7.3% 17 8.11 21 10.5% 11 5.11 26 9.5% is" 'is 1 4/. it} Total 36 26.76 68 44.21 77 43.3% 80 41.91 83 41.5% 73 33.8% 107 39.21 st4 i%-.fl. S-e-11.

„ 4 /.1'.; Iii CRIMIUAL ACT Il •.1% 7 4.5% 11 6.2% 13 6.8% 14 7.0% 17 la% 20 7.31 13 4S-7 /Li› i.rt

UNSOLVED 22 16.3% 21 18.21 24 13.5% 24 12.6% 32 16.0% 42 11.41 17 17.21 SC 4.6 4 3'il aLlt .1Leî f yi-t

.....

13 5 700% 100% 178 100% 191 1001 200 100% 214 100% 273 1001 leic term. 154 lac% 13us ict%

6. III !..• e ve« qe

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Ten Year Firearms Study" (updated to 1975), Ottawa.

1 01 01

TABLE 1.27: FIREARMS MURDER INCIDENTS, 13Y OFFENDrR/VICTIM RELATIONSHIP, . CANADA, 1961 - 1975.

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968

No. t No. % No. % No. % No. % No. 1 No. % No. %

DOMEST/C • -Immediate Family 36 45.0% 24 33.8 1 36 42.91 28 30.8% 36 35.3%. 35 43.8% 36 34.01 42 34.71 4.7% 6 5.01 -Other Kinship 6 7.5% 5 7.0 1 4 4.8% 4 4.4% 9 8.8% 4 5.01 5 3.8% 10 8.3% -Common-law 4 * 5.04 6 8.4% 5 6.0% 5 5.5% 7 6.9% 4 5.0% 4 45 12.5% 58 47.9% Total 46 57.5% 35 49.3% 45 53.6% 37 40.7% 52 51.0% 43 53.8%

- NON-DOMESTIC • -Lovers' Triangle/ levcrs . Quarrel 3 3.8% 5 7.0% 10 11.9% 8 6.81 5 4.9% 4 5.0% 9 8.5% 8 6.6%

-Close Acquaintances 11 13.8 1 5 7.01 10 11.9% 9 9.9% 12 11.8% 7 6.8% 3 2.8% 8 6.6% I I 5 6.3% 5 7.0% 2 2.4% 9 9.9% 9 8.8% 9 . 11.3% 19 17.9% 12 9.9% f' -Casual Acquaintances -Business Relationshipa 1 1.3% 1 1.4% 0.0% 3 3.3% 3 2.9% 4 5.0% 6 5.7% 0.0 1 -Strangers/Unknown 6 7.5% 9 12.7% 4 4.8% 7 7.7 1 12 11.8% 6. 7.5% 6 5.7% 6 5.0%

Total 26 32.5% 25 35.2 1 26 31.0% 36 39.61 41 40.2% 30 37.5% 43 40.6% 34 28.1%

CRIMINAL ACT 4 5.0% 7 5.9% 7 8.31 12 13.2% 7 6.9% 4 5.0% 10 9.4 1 11 9.1% i s . i UNSOLVED 4 5.0% 4 5.6% 6 7.1% 6 6.6% 2 2.0 1 3. 3.8% 8 7.5% 18 14.9%

!

80 100% 121 100% TOTAL 80 100%. 71 100% 84 100% 91 100% 102 100% .106 100%

um me on • or r r me or on Ima an au as aim aim am

TABLE 1.27; (continued) , . I ;1 7-b-- , .14.: - t" I irk - 1973 1974 ''. 1969 1970 1971 1972 , :N:. ... -4, ! tv. «4, No. co NG No. No. là No. No. No. t--- DOMESTIC i ,i -/mrediate leamily 44 24.6% 47 24.51 53 22.7 5. -S- 21 7%. Siî nvj bp ti.t't, 35 24.5% 46 29.5% I 1.44. -Other Xinship 8 5.6% 5 3.2% 7 4.1% 12 6.7% 10 5.2% 13 5.6 £ -Common-law 6 4.24 7 4.5% 11 6.41 11 6.1% 23 12.0% 21 9.01 le' ci-ti% i4 ,1 7.2.% .is eil., 3i..G eà/ g4 ,5 1. ," Total 49 34.3% 58 37.2% 64 37.4% 67 37.4% 80 41.7% 87 37.3 1 e%

- NON-DOMEST/C

• -Lovers' Triangle/ Lovers' Quarrel 15 10.5% 11 7.1% 20 11.71 15 8.4% 11 5.7 1 8 3.41 (3 5-,i% 'us Tul, 2L4 c .g.» r.i.,.. ic /L cl o. --- -Close Acquaintances 12 8.4% 11 7.1% 14 8.2% 18 10.1% 19 9.9% 21 9.01 1. -Casual Acquaintances 19 13.3 1 24 15.4% 9 5.31 20 11.21 23 12.0% 34 14.61 3 ? n4.L'!. 2- 3, /1.4% ka '14 -Business Pelationships 4 2.8% 8 5.1% 13 7.6% 4 2.2% 1 0.5% 3 1.31 1 eLt(1.. à. 1 3:-

-Strangers/Unknown 13 9.1% 11 7.11 16 9.4% 15 8.4% 10 5.2% 26 11.2e ow. '...1. Ri Tr. ii ?-1% „ Total 63 44.1 1 65 41.71 72 42.1% 72 40.2% 64 33.3% 92 39.5 1

.1 CRIMINAL ACT 6 4.2% 11 7.1% 11 6.4% 11 6.1% 15 7.8% 15 6.4N 13 F. 11t. ILLà 1.c .i.: I

i UNSOLVED 29 16.2% 33 17.2% 39 16.71 25 17.5% 22 14.1% 24 14.0% GS- 248 ruG> La. q11,

TOTAL 192 100% 233 100% 243 143 100% 156 100% 179 1001 1= 4 zia,1_ in'141 Oi.Z . 4

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, "Ten Year Firearms Study" (updated to 1975), Ottawa.

Iii -4 - 58 -

Again, Tables 1.26 and 1 . 27. are somewhat remarkable for the fact that they show few clear patterns of change, over the 15-year period, in the relative proportions of the various victim-offender relationship categories of firearms mitrders. While the proportion of "domestic" firearms murders aiipears to have. decreased somewhat since 1969, proportions of the "non- domestic" and "criminal act" categories appear to have remained fairly constant. It is interesting to note that the proportion of firearms murders classified as "unsolved" appears to have risen significantly since 1968. While this might be thought to be suggestive of an increase in stranger-to-stranger, crime- associated firearms murders, there appears to be no real. evidence on which such a conclusion can be based and several other possible explanations (e.g. inadequate police manpower, exigencies of reporting procedures, etc. etc.) would also have to be considered in any attempt to account for this apparent trend.

Tables 1.28 and 1.29 present figures on firearms murder victims and firearms murder incidents, respectively by type of firearm used, in the context of statistics relating to murders generally, for the years 1970 to 1975. Slight differences are apparent in the pictures presented by the two tables. While Table 1.28 (victims) shows that the percentage of murder victims who were firearms murder victims rose from 41.0% in 1970 to 45.5% in 1975, Table 1,29 (incidents) shows that the percentage of murder incidents which involved firearms rose hardly at all (from 44 to 44.4%)during the saine period. Table 1.28 thus suggests that firearms use in murder has not significantly changed during these six years, while Table 1.29 seems to suggest that firearms murders tend to involve proportionately more victims than murders • • by,other means. Thus, while the number of victims involved in firearms murders rose by 62.9% during these six years, the number Mil OBI OM OM OM NMI MI MI MI UM MI MI MI Ma Mill OM MI UM 011111

TABLE 1,28; FIREARMS MURDER VICTIMS, BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED, AS A PROPORTION -OF TOTAL MURDER VICTIMS, CANADA, 1970 - 1975.

PERCENTAG£ OF NUMBER OF REPORTED FIREARMS MURDER VICTIMS TOTAL REPORTED MURDERS , 1974 1970 1971 - 1972 1973 illr ' 111D il7e 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 "Ile i Il 1 1 'la 4 y ck...,, .( ' . . a 4 Change f .Change • Change 8 Chang t 8.8 11.3 11.7 11.9 13.6 TOTAL HANDGUNS 38 48 +26.3 56 +16.7 57 + 1.8 75 +31.6 81 44.3 4,10; 24.7 23.8 19.2 22.1 21.0 2..0C Rifle 107 101 -5.6 92 - 8.9 106 415.2 116 '4 9.4 ut „Ai.' 4.11,à 0.9 0.5 3.1 0.6 1.6 C 6 Sawed-off rifle 4 2 -50.0 . 15 +650.0 3 -80.0 9 +200.0 q _es. 4 et 5.5 6.4 5.6 5.8 10.0 8 .6 Shotgun 24 27 *12.5 27 0.0 28 + 3.7 SS +96.4 sc. C.0 4114./ .... 1.2 -- -- 0.6 Sauad-off shotgun -- S -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- 1 _ - C.i

31.1 31.8 20.0 28.6 33.2 le.-C TOTAL LONG GUNS 135 135 0.0 134 - 0.7 137 +2.2 183 +33 .6 II I 444.9 -FLOS 2.1 4.6 2.7 10 +25.0 22 +120.0 15 -31.8 1.2 1.9 LI- 1 Unknown 5 8 +60.0 II -2‘.} . 411.n.c. 45.0 41.8 45.1 49.5 TOTAL F/REARKS 178 191 + 7.3 200 + 4.7 216 +8.0 273 +26.4 41.0 4£5 140 46.1 4.1.4 I. 58.2 54.9 50.6 TOTAL OTUER 256 234 - 8.6 279 +19.2 263 -5.7 279 + 6.1 59.0 55.0 341 414,u 415..f

TOTAL MURDER 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (VICTIMS) 434 425 - 2.1 479 4 12.7 479 0.0 552 +15.2 (at .0r4 100.0 -04‘..

• • 1 SOURCE; Statistics Canada, "Ten Year Firearms Study" (updated to 19754 Ottawa.

TABLE 1.29: FIREARMS MURDER INCIDENTS, BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED, AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL MURDER INCIDENTS, CANADA, 1970 - 1975

NUMBER OF REPORTED FIREARMS MURDER INCIDENT5 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL REPORTED MURDER IYCIDENTS iiir 1970 1971 ...... 1972 1973 1974 iee. - ire I jp I. £7. 1973 1974 111-e t t t assyt, c 4,-,e, 1970 1971 1972 , é Change f Change f Change f Change -" 71 4.2[1.e, 12.0 +./..i. TOTAL HANDGUNS 36 44 +22.2 49 +11.4 51 +4.1 60 +17.6 4 fe" 10.2 11.1 11.9 11.4 Hz 4s. -r 21.7 21.2 i q. I, Rifle 89 90 + 2.3 85 -5.6 97 +14.1 . 106 + 9.3 4 "-I 24.9 22.8 20.6 -411 24 0.0 1.4 e. 2- Sawed-off rifle 4 2 -50.0 11 +450.0 3 -72.7 7 +133.3 1.1 0.5 2.7 0.7 5-2- 42411 4121J 8.6 Shotgun 23 24 + 4.3 25 +4.2 24 -4.0 43 +79.2 6.5 6.1 6.1 5.4 1. 1 - - -- 1 C, Sawed-off shotgun 3 -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- -- 0.8 -- .....

- +28 . 2 11-0 4 Li 31.8 ll.t TOTAL LONG GUNS 115 119 + 3.5 121 +1.7 124 +2.5 159 J47. 11 32.5 30.1 29.4 27.1

i.ei Unknown s 5 8 +60.0 9 +12.5 17 +98.9 14 -17.6 4 -11.t. 411.0.C . 1.4 2.0 2.2 3.8 2.8

FIREARMS + 9.6 179 +4.7 192 +7.3 233 +21.4 253 4SJ. • 4(.4.L 44.1 43.3 43.4 43.0 46.6 Uu.0 TOTAL 156» 171

• TOTAL OTHER 198 224 +13.1 233 +4.0 255 +9.4 267 + 4.7 4.7 41t7 4 LC. 1 55.9 56.7 56.6 57.0 53.4

TOTAL MURDER - (INCIDENTS) 354 195 +11.6 412 +4.3 447 +8.5 500 +11.9 sit 414.5 461.0 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 t Cr.. C

SOURCE: 1. Statistics Canada, "Ten Year Firearms Study" (updated to 1975), Ottawa. 2. Statistics Canada, "Murder Statistics" (Catalogue no. 85,209),1970 - 1975, Ottawa.

I•111 OM ill MI MINI 11•111 1111111 IBM OM IMO MI 1•1111 WWI

- 61 -

of victims involved in other murders only rose by 35.5% during the same period. This disparity clearly cannot be entirely explained by the fact that firearms murder incidents rose at a slightly faster rate (up 62.2%) than otner murcer.ilcicents (up 60.1%) during this period. 27

- The apparent increase (from 41.0% to 45.5%) in the percentage of murder victims who were firearms murder victims, noted in the previous paragraph, must be viewed in the light of fairly regular fluctuations in this percentage figure, between 40% and 50%, over the years. Thus, the changes recorded in Table 1.28 must be considered in the light of the following figures, in Table 1.30, for the earlier years: Table 1.30 Firearms Murder Victims as a Percentage of all Murder Victims, 1961-1969

1 1961 1 1942 1963 1961 1165 1966 1967 196t 1969 1 % 1 I 1 t 1 % 1 % 1 I 1 I I t 1 t t seams Murders IS 46% 10 37% 99 46% 105 48% 113 47% 92 41% 137 1191 135 43% 151 44% . .

'Her Murders 100 51% 137 63% 116 51% 113 52% 130 53% 130 591 115 511 210 57% 193 54%

,TAI. I Murders 185 1001 217 100% 215 100% 218 100t 213 100% 222 100% 2 12 100% 315 100% 317 100%

;OURCE: Statistics Canada, "Ten Year Firearms StudY" (updated to 1975), Ottawa.

When examined together, Tables 1.28 and 1.30 show that no clear trends in rates of firearms murder victimization in relation to other murders are discernible over the years.

27 A comparison of the incidence of multiple victimization according to different types of weapons used in firearms murders from 1961 to 1975 did not show any particular type of weapon as being significantly more associated - with multiple victimization than others. Nor does multiple victimization appear to vary significàntly according to different offender-victim relatioriship categories.

I. - 62 - 1.

Table 1.31 shows victimization rates for firearms and other murders, in relation to the total population, for the years 1961-1975. The rates shown represent the number of 11 victims per 100,000 members of the Canadian popu1at4on. This table shows that the ,reported murder rate has increased 176% (from 1.01 to 2.79) over the 15-year period. This is accounted for by a 170% increase in the rate of firearms murders and a 176% increase in the rate of murders not involving firearms. By comparison, the handgun murder rate increased by 387%during the same period (from 0.08 to 0.39).

In Table 1 ..32, firearms murders are compared with murders

. committed by other means, by victim-offender relationship categories, for the years 1970 to 1975. As can be seen from this table, shooting is by far the most common form of murder, followed by beating, stabbing and strangling. Somewhat surprisingly, it is in the relatively small "criminal act" category that firearms murders appear to be least common. While firearms murders account for between 40% and 50% of murders in the other categories, they account for less than one-third of murders in the "criminal act" category. In that category, murders by such methods as beating, suffocating, drowning and arson account for a higher proportion than in other categories. Firearms murders appear to be most common in the "non-domestic" and "unsolved" categories.

In compiling Table 1.32, some interesting variances relating to the sex of the victims were noted. As might be expçcted, there are more female than male victims in the tiomestiecategory, and more male than female victims in every other category. Domestic murders accounted for justover half of all 11 female murder victims, as opposed to only a quarter cif all male victims, during the period considered in Table 1.32. ' 1 1 MU MUM inn UM OM UM MUM - mu MI UM 111111 1.111 1MMM 1.111 IMOM IMMI --

TABLE'1e.31: RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION OF FIREARMS MURDER VICTiMiSAION (BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED) AND OTHER MURDER VICTIMISATION, CANADA, 1961 - 1975..

--, RATE OF mute IdeTimS PER 100,000 TOTAL POPULATION - 1161 1962 1963 1964 196 5 1964 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1173 1974 1975

- TOTAL 11AUDGMS. 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.39 Rifle 0.26 0.27 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.31 0.36 0.34 0.50 0.47 0.42 0.46 0.S2 0.57 Sswed-off rifle 0.02 -- 0.01 -- ..- 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 . 02 0 . 0 0.02 e 0.01 0.07 "2 0'04 Shotgun 0.011 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.011 0.01 0.6 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.24 0.24 sewed-off shotgun 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -. 0.01 -- 0.02 -- -- 0.01 0.01 TOTAL LONG GUNS 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.50 0.44 0.47 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.82 0.84 unknown 0.01 -- 0.02 0.01 -.. -- 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.0 5 0.10 0.07 0.05 TOTAL FIREARMS 0.41 0.44 0.52 0.34 0.58 0.46 0.61 0.65 0.73 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.18 1.22 1.27 TOTAL °Tux 0. 55 0.75 0.61 0.51 0.6i 0.6$ 0.71 0.87 0.12 1.20 1.01 1.28 1.11 1..24 1.52 TOTAL MURDER 1.01 1.11 1.14 1.13 1.24 1.11 1.30 1.52 1.6 5 2.03 1.18 2.11 2.17 2.46 2.79

SOURCE: 1. Statistics Canada, "Ten Year Firearms Study", (updated to 1975), Ottawa.

F •t e.:•! .. Ann

• • 01 Lu

TABLE 1.32: V/CTIMS OF FIREARMS MURDERS COMPARED WITH VICTIMS OF MURDERS COMMITTED BY OTHER MEANS, BY OPFENDER/V/CTIM RELATIONSHIP, CANADA, 1 970-1975 , •

DemESTrc 14Y-Lœ6sTB-: CI1PUTPUL ACT UnqOLVrn _1171,1221_1.972 1971 1974 1975 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1970 1 971J 1072119731_19741 1975 SfloOTING • 66 72 71 79 99 93 74 81 80 81 106 104 14 16 17 18 22 13 24 24 32 38 44 80 178 193 200 216 271 210 1 47.11 47.4% 44.41 46.21 47.8% 47.4% 50.7% 47.1% 47.3845.5% 57.31 46.4% 15.6% 34.8120.0* 28.11, 34.9% 21.31 42.1% 42.91 48.51 56.71 48.41 51.3% 1.1% 45.3% 41.71 45.08 49.61 46•51 ,. BEATING • 19 27 29 33 40 47 31 34 35 39 36 43 13 16 15 21 16 12 9 5 10 12 13 25 82 89 105 105 127 a 1 13.6% 17.81 18.11 19.31 19.31 24.0% 21.2% 19.8% 20.7% 21.9% 19.5% 19.2% 14.5% 34 • 8* 17.6% 32.81 25.41 19.7% 15.8 1. 8.9% 15.21 17.9% 14.3% 16.01 6. 6* 19.2% 18.51 21.9% 19.2* 19.8% STABBING • 19 21 30 39 29 33 27 32 33 40 29 50 14 8 5 9 18 9 8 6 8 5 17 20 68 67 76 93 93 112 1 13.61 13.81 18.8% 22.81 14.01 16.8% 18.5% 18.61 19.5% 22.51 15.7 8 22.3% 15.6% 17.41 5.9% 14 .1% 28.6% 14.8% 14.0* 10.71 12.1* 7.51 18.71 12.81 15.7* 15.71 15.81 19.48 17.01 17.61 STRANc;LtEg. f 10 8 5 8 12 10 6 7 6 5 4 12 5 4 6 12 2 3 7 10 7 7 7 13 28 29 24 32 25 38 4 7.11 5.3% 3.11 4.7% 5.81 5.1% 4.1% 4.1% 3.6% 2.8% 2.2% 5.4% 5.6% 8.71 7.1% 18.81 3.2% 4.91 12.31 17.9% 10.6% 10.4* 7.7% 8.31 6.51 6.8% 5.01 6.71 4.68 6.01 (YIHER 70 • 26 24 25 12 27 13 8 18 15 13 10 15 4e 2 41 4 5 24 9 11 9 5 10 18 87' 55 911 34 52 % 18.61 15.8% 15.6% 7.01 13.01 6.6% 5.5% 10.5% 8.9% 7.3% 5.4% 6.72 48.91 4.4% 49.4% 6.11 7.9% 39.31 15.8% 19.61 13.68 7.5% 11.01 11.51 20.11 12.91 19.0% 7.1* 9.51 11.0* ToTAL * 46 85t 64 63 61 57 56 66 '67 91 156 48ie 480 546. 637 • 140 152 160 171 207 196 146 172 169 178 185 224 90 43; 426 1 100* % 100% 1008 1008 1001 1001 100% 100% 1001 1001 100% 100% 100% 100% 1001 1001 100% 100% iffl 1001 100% 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 100% 100* 1001 100

NOMES: * includes one arson incident with 40 victims. fIncludes one arson incident with 37 victime.

SOUnCE: Statistics Canada, Annual Mbrder StétrWles (Catalogue Nb. 85-209); 1974 and 1975,

Om mom am ma am simi ma am am Ma am am ow ay um Jr es ma - 65 -

TABLE 1.33: COMPARISON BETWEEN ?ALE AND FEMALE VICTIMS OF FIREARMS MUPDF.RS AND OTHER MURDERS, BY OFFENDER/ VICTIM RELATIONSHIP, CANADA, 1970-1974 (CUMULATIVE)

MALE VICTIMS FEMALE VICIi'IMS

Firearms Other Firearms Other Murders Murders Murders Murders

DOMESTIC 1 172 190 224 272 % ( 23%) ( 25%) ( 67%) ( 46%)

NON-DOMESTIC • 355 353 74 99 % ( 48%) ( 46%) ( 22%) ( 17%)

CRIMINAL ACT 1 66 129 9 116 % ( 9%) ( 17%) ( 3%) ( 20%)

UNSOLVED • 143 88 26 98 % ( 19%) ( 12%) ( 8%) ( 17%)

TOTALS

• 736 760 333 585 .. % (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

SOURCE: Statistics Canada, Judicial Division. - 66 - 1 As Table 1.33 illustrates, however, this distinction becomes even greater when firearms murders are considered. Domestic murders accounted for 67% of female firearms murder victims, as opposed to only 23% of male firearms murder victims. Table 1.33 thus shows that one out of every five firearmsmurders is a domestic murder involving a female victim. This t.able presents 1 cumulative figures for the years 1970 to 1974.

In addition to examining the "Ten Year Firearms Study" statistics, the Statistics Division also looked at statistics relating to capital murder cases reviewed by the Cabinet from 1957 to 1974. 28 Somewhat surprisingly , it was found that the methods employed in these cases almost exactly ref).ected the figures shown in Table 142 above(i.e. shooting 46%, beating 1 21%, stabbing 19%, strangling 9%, other and unknown 5%). Figures on these capital cases are presented in Table 1.31. When it is considered that 75% of these murders involved either the killing of a police officer (11%) or prison guard (1%), or a killing during the course of the commission of another criminal offence (63%), one might have expected firearms use to have been more prevalent. The figures on capital murder cases, however, appear simply to confirm our earlier observation that, if anything, contrary to popular belief, murders which occur as a concomitant to the commission of some other criminal act involve firearms somewhat less frequently than other murders. In the capital cases reviewed (which of course include cases which took place before the definition of capital murder was restricted by legislation in 1967), the "criminal act" murder involved firearms

28. It must be remembered, however, that the data on capital 1 cases presented here relates only to those cases in which the alleged offender was brought to trial and convicted of capital murder. In some cases in which the circumstances 11 a capital offence, however, the alleged would amount to offender, for some reason or other (e.g. suigide, commit - ment to a mental institution) did not come to trial. These 11 cases are not included in the data on capital cases pre- sented here, and the data cannot therefore be considered entirely representative of all murders in which the circumstances amounted to a capital offence. 1 - 67 -

in 40% of the cases; while this is significantly more than the average of 24% which can be derived from the "criminal act" category for murder generally (Table 1.32 above) it is still less than the overall 46% figure for all capital cases.

When weapon type used in capital murder cases in‘rolving- firearms is considered; however, it can be seen that handguns and sawed-off long guns have played a much more significant role in these offences than in firearms murders generally. As shown in Table 1.34, handguns accounted for 41% of capital cases involving firearms, while long guns accounted for I. 32% and sawed-off long guns and other guns (probably including some automatics) accounted for an extraordinarily high 27%. It can be seen from a comparison with similar figures for firearms murders generally in Tables 1.24 and 1. 25 above, that these percentages reflect the fact, already noted, that most capital murders occurred as a concomitant of other criminal activities, or during encounters with police. In Table 1.35, the treatment of capital cases, in terms of mercy recommendations, by judges and juries is considered. Table 1.35 appears to show a significant difference in attitude between judges and juries towards firearms involve- ment in capital murder cases. While juries appear to have treated firearms cases in much the same way as other cases in terms of whether or not to recommend mercy, judges appear to have been much more ready to recommend mercy, in firearms cases than in other cases. The implication seems to be that, while juries appear to view all capital cases in much the saine way, judges tend to view cases involving beatings, stabbings, stranglings, etc., with considerably more horror - than cases involving firearms. . Table .1.35, which presents data on commutations and executions in capital murder cases, shows that the Cabinet, in considering these cases, has tended to reflect the. attitudes of juries rather morà than judges, in termd.of

- 68 -

TABLE 1.34: FIREAZYS USE (BY TYPE OF WEAPON USED) AND USE OF OTHER METHODS IN CAPITAL MURDER CASES REVIEWED BY CABINET, CANADA, 1957 — 1974.

METHOD / % TOTAL,11. TOTAL CAPITAL mot! NG CASES METHOD

1. HANDGUN 23 18.9 41. 1 2, LONG GUN 18 . 14.8 32.1 ( (a) Rifle) (14) (11.5) (25.0) ( (b) Shotgun) (4) (3.3) (1.1) 3. OTHER 15 12.3 26.8

TOTAL FIREARMS : 56 46.0 100.0

4. HAT I NG 26 21.3 S. STABB I NG 23 18.9 6. STRA éGL I NG 11 9.0 7. SUFFOCAT I NG 2 1.6 8. OTHER 3 25 9. MOT KNOWN 1 0.8

TOTAL 122 0O.0

SOURCE: 1. Canada, Department of Justice, Capital Punishment, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1965. 2. Canada, Ministry of the Solicitor General, Capital Punishment, 1965-1972, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1972 (updated): - 69 -

TABLE 1.35: RECOMMENDATIONS OF MERCY BY JUDGES AND JURIES IN CAPITAL MURDER CASES, CANADA, 1957-1974 (CUMULATIVrl.

Jury Recommendation Judge Recommendation of Mercy of Mercy Yes No Yes .. No - Firearms Murders 23 (41%) 33 (59%) 23 (41%) . 33 (59%)

Other Murders 29 (44%) 37 (56%) 12 (18%) 54 (82%)

SOURCE: 1. Canada, Department of Justice, Capital Punishment, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1965. 2. Canada, Ministry of the Solicitor General, Capital Punishment, 1965-1972, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1972 (updated). I

II TABLE 1.36: COMMUTATIONS AND EXECUTIONS IN CAPITAL MURDER CASES, CANADA, 1957- 1974 (CUMULATIVE) I. Commuted Executed

Firearms Murders 48 (85%) 8 (14%)

Other Murders 58 (88%) 8 (12%) ..

SOURCE: 1. Canada, Department of Justice, Capital Punishment, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1965. 2. Canada, Ministry of the Solicitor General, Capital Punishment, 1965-1972, Ottawa, Infrrmation Canada, 1972 (updated). - 70 - treating firearms cases no differently from other cases. It must be remembered, however, that since 1962 all death sentences in capital cases have been commuted.

FIREARMS INVOLVEMENT IN OTHER CRIMES

As noted previously in this paper, the information al.railable on firearms incidents in Canada is by no means exhaustive or complete and there has been very little systematic data collection on the subject in the past. However, in the fall of 1975, the Ministry of the Solicitor General conducted a study of firearms-related occurrences reported to the police and the results of this survey will be discussed briefly here. • In co-operation with the police departments in six major Canadian cities (Halifax, Ottawa, Metropolitan Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria), a review of reported gun-related occurrences was undertaken. The municipal police forces included in this survey maintain 'occurrence' and/or 'investigation' reports on each incident that is reported to them and these reports were examined in detail with a view to obtaining as much information as possible on the nature of firearms-related occurrences and the offenders involved, during the months of April 1974 and April 1975, in the following six categories:

1) Homicide 2) *Wounding 3) Armed Robbery 4) Theft of Firearms 5) Offensive Weapon Offences 6) Wilful Damage

Before the results .of this survey are discussed, the reader is cautioned that there are several factors to bear in mind in any interpretation or application of the information presented. - 71 -

Although the municipalities included in the survey are somewhat representative of Canada in terms of geographic location, the results of the survey cannot necessarily be considered to be representa- tive of the national situation with respect to gun-related occurrences for several i reasons. For example, according to official crime statistics, the city of Montreal experiences approximately 65% of the total robberies committed with firearms in Canada. Since it was not possible to include Montreal in the survey sample, the data emanating from the study, particu- larly data concerning firearms robberies, cannot be treated as a reflection of the overall situation in the country.

Another important factor which warrants consideration in any interpretation of the results is that only "urban" areas are included in the study. Since it is not possible to determine what effect, if ann the inclusion of "rural" areas in such a survey might have on the overall results, the information presented here cannot be used to generalize about gun-related occurrences in Canada. With respect to the time period covered by the study there is no evidence to suggest whether the month of April is representative of the whole year in terms of gun- related occurrences, and the results must also be considered in this light. /n sone cases, the number of reported gun-related occurrences in a particular category is so small that it is not possible to discern any patterns or draw any meaningful conclusions. This especially is true of the "homicide" and "wounding" categories.

In spite of these limitations, the results of this surveY provide useful information about gun-related occurrences in , six major Canadian cities. This is verified by the fact that comparison reveals a degree of compatibility between the results obtained in this study and the total incidence of crime in Canada as portrayed by figures obtained through the.'Uniform - 72 -

Crime Reporting" system of Statistics Canada.

The results of the police occurrence study indicate that reported gun-related occurrences in the seven categories under:consideration increased from 204 in April of 1974 to 246 in April of 1975; an increase of 21%. At the same time, the total number of occurrences (i.e. those not involving firearms, as well as those which did) in the seven categories under consideration increased from 14,186 to 17,166,also an increase of 21%. Table 1.37 indicates the number of occurrences reported in each category in April 1974 and April 1975 and isolates the occurrences which involved firearms. The table also indicates that if 20 gun-related occurrences were picked at random from the two periods under study, 7 would involve offensive weapons offences (e.g. pointing a firearm, possession of a dangerous or restricted weapon etc.), 6 would involve robbery, 4 wilful damage, and 3 theft of a firearm. Homicide and wounding were Firoportionate».•, negligible in number.

Robbery Involving Firearms

In April of 1975 there were 74 firearms robberies reported to the police in the six municipalities included in the sample. A total of 83 firearms were reported as having been involved in these 74 robberies. As Table 1.37 shows, armed robberies involving firearms increased 51% between April 1974 and April 1975; by comparison, all armed robberies increased by 58% during the same period. The review of the police reports revealed information pertaining to the type of firearm involved in these cases. Pt should be noted that actual recovery of the weapon occurred only in a-few cases and, in . the remaining cases, the determination of the type offirearm involved in the robbery was based on the observation of victims. Since information obtained by way of victim.observation can be subject to error, the following breakdown, in Table 1.38, of the types of firearms involved in the 74 armed robbery occurrences should be assessed with some degree of caution. alle MO IMO it BIM TM MN 11111* as at as tut me as

TABLE 1,37 COMPARISON BETWEEN FIREARMS-RELATED OCCURRENCES AND TOTAL OCCURRENCES REPORTED TO THE POLICE IN SELECTED URBAN JURISDICTIONS , BY SELECTED OCCURRENCE CATEGORY, APRIL 1974 AND APRIL 1975.

■■■•■

APRIL 1975 APRIL 1974 FIREARMS PER CENT PER CENT OCCURRENCES FIREARMS FIREARMS CHANGE IN CHANGE IN AS A % OCCURRENCE OCCURRENCES OCCURRENCES FIREARMS TOTAL OF TOTAL OCCURRENCES AS A % OCCURRENCES AS A % OCCURRENCES OCCURRENCES OCCURRENCES , CATEGORY INVOLVING TOTAL OF TOTAL INVOLVING • TOTAL OF TOTAL APRIL 1974- APRIL 1974- APRIL 1974 & FIREARMS OCCURRENCES OCCURRENCES FIREARMS OCCURRENCES OCCURRENCES APRIL 1975 APRIL 1975 APRIL 1975

HOMICIDE* 5 10 50% 2 14 14% -60% +40% 29%

WOUNDING* 5 48 10% 2 47 4% -60% - 2% 7%

ARMED ROBBERY 49 98 50% 74 155 48% +51% +58% 49%

THEFT 11,484 negligible 38 14.044 negligible + 3% +22% negligible

OFFENSIVE WEA ON OFFENSES 71 163 44% 86 205 42% +21% +26% 43%

WILFUL DAMAGE 37 2,383 2% 44 2,701 2% +19% +13% 2%

TOTAL 204 14,186 1% 246 17,166 3% +21% +21% 1%

*The numbers of incidents involving firearms in these categories is so small that the results cannot be considered significant ;

SOURCE: Canada, Ministry of the Solicitor General, "Gun Related Police Occurrenceq - A Preliminary Study", Ottawa, 1976.

1 - 74 - a

Table 1.38: Types of Firearms Reported Used in Firearms Related Armed Robberies Reportec: to the Police in Selected Urban Jurisdictinne, April 1975

Apparent : Firearm Type Number of Firearms %- of Total Handgun 46 • 55% Long Gun 15 18% Imitation, Airgun or Weapon Threatened But 12 14% Unseen Sawed-off Firearm 10 12% Total 83 100% SOURCE: Ministry of the Solicitor General, Ottawa, Mardh 1976.

Although over half of the firearms involved in the armed robbery occurrences were identified as handguns, there is a strong possibility that a weapon observed by a victim during the occurrence 1 to be a handgun may, in fact, have been a toy gun, pellet gun, starter's pistol or an imitation handgunP

It is interesting to note that there were only 3 (4%) firearms robbery occurrences in April of 1975 in which the firearm used was reported to have been actually discharged. Although this may reflect the extent to which the firearms used in these incidents • were loaded with live ammunition, there was not information available in the police reports to confirm this. 1 1 1 29. In March 1976, a senior detective in the Montreal Urban Community Police Criminal Investigation Bureau was quoted as saying that almost half of all armed robberies in that city were committed by juveniles carrying starting revolvers and pistols, toy guns or air guns. see. "Imitation guns hike Crime Rate", Montreal Star, 13th 1 March, 1976. - 75 -

Theft of Firearms This category of occurrences includes the following Criminal Code offences: break and enter, theft over $200, and theft under $200. Of the 38 theft of firearms incidents reported in April of 1975, over 'half (22) or 58%) were classifieà as break and enter offences. A total of 68 firearms were stolen in the 38 incidents. In April of 1974, a total of 52 firearms were stolen in 37 theft of firearm occurrences. Thus, there was a 3% increase in the number of firearms thefts and a 31% increase in the number of firearms stolen in these incidents from April of 1974 to April of 1975. As noted in Table 1.37 total thefts of all kinds increased 22% during this period.

Information pertaining to security conditions was available in 38 (51%) of 75 firearms thefts reported in both months. In 7(18%) of these 38 cases, the firearms concerned had been locked away at the time of the theft; in 15(40%) of the 38 cases, the firearms concerned had been unlocked but concealed at the time Of the theft; and, in the remaining 16(42%) cases, the firearms concerned had been unlocked and exposed at the time of the theft. •

The following is a breakdown of the types of firearms involved in the 38 theft occurrences reported in April of 1975.

Table 1.39 : Types of Firearms Reported Stolen in Firearms Thefts Reported to Police in Selected Urban . .711risdictions, April 1975

Firearm Type Number of Firearms % of Total

Long Gun 33 48% anc4un 14 21% acsimile 21 31% (e.g. airgun, starter's pistol)

Source: Ministry of the Solicitor General, Ottawa, Mar ch 1976. - 76 -

As can be seen from Table1.39, almost half of the firearms stolen in the theft incidents reported in April of 1975 were long guns. The study also revealed that 40% of firearms thefts were from private residences, 20% were from retail stores, 20% were from hotels, apartment blocks and rooming houses, 10% were from motor vehicles, and 10% were from other locations (e.g. business premises, warehouses, public utility offices, etc.)

Offensive Weapon Offences

In this survey, the highest number of firearms-related occurrences was in the category of 'offensive weapon offences'. !This category includes the following Criminal Code offences: - possession of an unregistered restricted weapon - possession of a restricted weapon outside a dwelling - possession of an offensive weapon - carrying a concealed weapon '- dangerous use of 'a firearm

Within the offensive weapon offences category, the 'dangerous use of a firearm' offence accounted for over half of the total offences reported in both months. In April of 1975, there were a total of 97 firearms involved in the 86 offensive weapon occurrences reported. It is interesting to note that almost one third (29, or 30%) of the firearms involved in these occurrences were facsimiles; that is, starter's pistols, air guns and imitations. A total of 34 (35%) weapons involved in these offences were long guns and 29 (30%) were handguns. It is noteworthy . that -there were 34 weapons (29 handguns, 5 sawed-off firearms) involved in these occurrences which, under the provisions of the Criminal Code, are required to be registered with the police. Although registration information was only available in 16 (47%) cases, 15 of these firearms had not been registered. - 77 -

The relationship, if any, between the offender and the victim was identified in only 49(57%) of the 86 offensive weapon offences reported in 1975. In the remaining cases, this type of information was not available because the offender. was not apprehended, it was not indicated in police réports, or because a specific victim was not involved in the occurrence. Of the 49 cases in which such information was available, 20 (40%) involved a clearly identified previous victim-offender relationship involving a family member, friend, lover or business acquaintance. In others (e.g. the 3 incidents involving criminal transactions) some such previous relationship may have existed, but was not clearly identified.

- Wilful Damage Involving Firearms

The involvement of firearms in this category represents less than 2% of the total wilful damage occurrences reported during.the two months under consideration. However, there was a 19% increase in wilful damage involving firearms from April 1974 to April 1975, while total wilful damage occurrences increased 13% during this period. Although it was only possible to determine weapon type in 22 of the 44 wilful damage occurrences involving firearms reported in April of 1975, 20 of the 22 fire- arms were determined to be airguns.

Homicide, Wounding

As noted previously in Table 1.37, th g numbers of firearms occurrences reported in these categories are not sufficient to use as a.-base for making any general statement about these two phenomena. - 78 -

The results of the police occurrence study are of some value in describing firearms-related occurrences in six municipalities during a specified period. It is unfortunate that there were many other variables that could not be reported due to the fact that some necessary information was unavailable or only partially available and some information was of questionable reliability as it had been reported by a suspect or a victim.

It is clear that if complete and accurate information about the abuse of firearms in Canada is to be realized, further studies of this type will be required.

I. APPENDIX A ESTIMATES OF 1974 FIREARMS OWNERS

VIII ilk ale IMO 111101 11111 41111111 PO OM IMO MI MO 110 us sue au

TOUE OF EMMAUS OF 1974 FIREARIS MIMS

name= - 1971 PCISKATICN raIRV IIEWRIUSFLAND PRINCE meta =min 19359. &COMA NEW 9 0I404IC3 GOENEC ONTAItIO SIZE Intal % With Wo. With 1bta1 1 With No. With total % With No. With %teal t Illth No. With Total % With No. tilth 50011 1 With No. With No. taus Glut al,. Cana tin. Guts Mau tin. Gunn Cum No. CMn. tau. No. Guns Gsm.

- ' 500.000 à over - - - - - - - , ... 757,142 15.0 118.176 125,749 18.0 148,635 100.000 - 499,999 - - - . - 52,160 29.0 15,126 - - - 136,372 16.0 21.120 403,543 17.3 ' 69,613 30,000 - 99,999 22,367 19.0 4,344 - - 1,109 50.0. 4,555 ;2,097 12.5 16.928 132,497 22.2 30,072 255,505 24.6 62,814 10,000 - 29.999 8,044 41.0 3,296 1.757 19.0 1,854 22,191 44.5 9,875 12.436 44.0 5,472 117,731 32.4. 44,031 172,572 34.7 59.882 5,000 - 9,999 10,597 21.8. 2,309 15.0 18,040 21.8. 3,933. 7.169 21.8. 1,563 41,315 21.8. 10,533 89,243 29.5 25,134. under 5,000 23,354 31.3. 2,310 1,334 31.3° 411 . 16,111 31.3. 5,794 22,415 31.3' 7,035 123,546 31.3. 38,670 119,358 31.3 37,399 TOTAL MOAN 64,852 26.5 17.251 11,091 20.5 2,272 120,011 32.7 19,293 94,167 32.9 30,991 1.146,308 19.6 263,107 1,865,971 21.7 403,972 TCdAG 111PAG 45,674 41.0 18,706 16,807 19.0 3,193 95,411 46.1 40,934 • 63,133 44.0 20,131 259,619 44.5 115,450 362,169 44.5 151,174 GMNDICRAG 110,476 32.6 35,967 27,891 19.6 3.465 204,422 3115 80.227 158. 100 37.4 59,129 1,605,747 23.6 34,257 2,228,160 25.4 565,151

Mad HMS PCPULATICti (.cE 15 166,800 • lo 64) 38,100 273,200 215,100 2,082,000 2,709,700 - 1971 - 1

ADMIT !WE ['CPU:IV/MI (ACE 15 70 64) 179.500 40,200 209,330 211,600 2,212,400 2,921,700 10 - 1974 - 0 it mower .2.0 4.3 9.9 67.7 4.3 4.1

MIMI NO. cr GUN Gene tap. cr teusocirs wrru A GUN - 1974 38,485 5,864 84,950 51.612 402,619 610,928

AVEANZ W. cr 1.52 1.38 1.33 • 1-37 1.33 1.24 mrsilicuseticin • AGE 15 AM) OVIMI

»MUM AU. OF 0111 (10019) 153. (6 FIRES WE 15 AM) OVER INUMEEMIDS 58,697 8,092 112.984 87,244 543,538 757,551 AT LEAST CUE CIZi

NEAR NO. (5 11v OWNERS 48,491 6,978 98,962 75.463 473,078 681,240

National average for grow .1re, In abeence of specific information.

SCMICFR: 1. Stati.tica Canada Catalogue 93-702, Vol. II - Part. 1 (Bulletin 2.2-2), 1971 Conan. of Canada. Household* household. by Sim. he 19 73. 2. Esnellan Dully Newspaper inbliehere Aneociation. Canadian/garters Data Manual, 1966. (- 3. Statistics Caned* Catalogue 91-512. 9cpu1t1.r, 1921-1971. 4. Statistic. Caned% Catalogue 91-202. .."7I ti6.PIEE Eatineted Jul. 1, 1974.

FE2b111Cfle- 1971 Pommun 093094 7.X0920. 8031109CCIII04IA CAMP 1621111CDA " 704221 8 8E091825TTERRI7O0209 - ChteDit 612E 'Dotal % With No. With Total: 1 With »a. With Total 8 With No. With Total % With No. With Total % With No. With Total 1 With No. With Gnu No. Guns Chns No. Guns Gust No. Guns Guns lb. 0111 Guns No. Guns Guns lb. Guns Guns

' 500,000 8 over - - - - - • - - - 300,246 23.0 69,057 - - - 1,913,637 17.5 335,868 100,000 - 499,999 163,597 26.0 47,535 80,894 34.9 27,909 256.338 33.5 85.873 57,059 12.0 6,847 - - - 1,149,965 23.5 269,222 30,000- 95,999 9,471 35.0 3,314 9,984 36.0 3,594 12,551 27.0 3,391 31,545 41.0 12.933 - - 535,622 26.5 141,990 10,000 - 29,999 11,057 33.0 3,649 21,543 34.0 7,325 22,457 44.7 10,036 72,075 41.6 29.963 3,245 40.6 1,317 473,103 37.4 176,722 5,000 - 9,999 8,261 21.8* 1,801 7,964 21.8. 1,736 13.217 21.8. 2,881 22,103 21.8. 4,818 1,589 40.6 645 226,493 24.6 55,653 under 5,000 17,339 31.3* 5,427 28,464 31.3' 8,909 .48,617 31.3* 15,217 38,634 31.3e 12,092 2,627 40.6 1,067 444,259 31.4 139,298 10156 UMW 209,725 27.0 56,726 148,849 33.2 49,472 353,185 33.2 117,398 521,659 26.1 135,730 7,461 40.6 3,029 4,743,279 23.6 1,119,453 1078L 11611. 78,997 35.0 27,649 118,995 38.0 45,218 111,758 53.0 59,232 146,644 40.9 59,391 5,226 40.6 2,122 1,298,023 43.2 561,200 MAID 2017't 208,722 29.2 84,375 267,844 35.4 94,690 464,943 38.0 176,430 668,303 29.2 195,121 12,687 40.6 5,151 6,041,302 27.0 1,440,453

REMIT !WE Pcemarce; (nGe 15 20 64) 348,400 327,600 564,700 789,200 17,260 • 7,532,000 - 1971 -

NM= 18%LE PoPutealcu (nr£ 15 TO 64) 363,700 330,800 613,200 886,900 18,400 8,095,400 CO - 1974 - IZ) INOteSC '4.4 '1.0 •11.4 •12.4 '7.0 v7.5

11000534 90. CF CUMIS 073. CF =EMIR= wrat RV - 1974 87,988 95,637 191,820 219,16 5:512 1,806,702

812.M10E 20. CF MUESAUMEICIII) 1.20 1.24 1.22 1.19 1.79 1.27 N/E 15 AND CNER

• reucumua. OE 0U2 CIINERS CF HUES ME 15 NV OVER IN 25300I0605 men 105,586 118,590 234,070 260,986 . 7,110 2,294,512 AT IMMT ONE CUN

HEIN M. CF (111 0.8991> 96,787 107,114 212,920 2404.51 6,312 2,050,607

• tlationat average fur gnaup size, in absenue of specific inforretica.

* Provincial t average for rural households, in absence of special infounation.

MI Mg MI at Mil fa* ati al Me fle Ole IIINJ UM lan - 81 -

METHODOLOGY OF ESTIMATING 1974 FIREARMS OWNERS

These estimates employed Canadian census data for 1971 and market research findings of a study conducted in 1966. From the census data, the number of households within seven categories (6 urban size groups and 1 rural) was determined for each of the Provinces, and for Canada as a whole. Market research data were used to determine the percentage of households containing a gun in 77 cities across Canada, which were considered broadly representative of most urban size groups in the Provinces. It was assumed that the great majority of handgun stock would be found in households which also possessed long guns. The percentages derived from the market research data were then applied to the total numbrs of households derived from the census data, to provide an estimate of the number of households in Canada in which there was at least one gun in 1971. Since the market research data did not cover rural areas, the figures for the most northerly urban populations were used as indicators of rural figures. It was assumed that the great majority of firearms are owned by males between the ages of 15-64 years, and the percentage increase of males in this age group between 1971 and 1974 was therefoi.e used to estimate the percentage increase in gun-owning households. Since 1971 an estimate of the minimum number of gun-owners in Canada in 1974 was thus derived. An estimate

Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Markets Data Manual, 1966. 82

of the maximum number of gun owners was then calculated by multiplying the number of gun-households by the average number of males between the ages of 15 and 64 years per household in Canada. From the minimum 'and maximum estimates, a mean aVerage estimate of the number of gun owners in Canada was reached. APPENDIX B GUN OWNERSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

. T7 • - 83 - GUN OWNERSHIP SURVE,y_ QUFSTIONN

_ Cw.acla SUPPLC MC NTARY SURVEY OUESTIONNAIHE [Cod 101 N114 s.,,,,,,c, whrn ‘.n.f.r ■■•• Owbel Nu 2n,....i ra.r.•ty ChM 3 T1771 Amerrrnt N0 41 1 HROpibr No Ce•rn Senarn• / 5 LE] 6[11:1 1 h

The Solicitor General's Depanittent of the Federal Government has asked 15. rn TER IV E WER cllecx inm.. Statistics Canada to provide statistics on gun ownership and gun use in Canada These statistics will assist, if required. in setting up an efficient and convenient If 'yes' in 13 or 14 1 0 go to 16 licensing system Tut owners and users throughout the country. Otherwise 2 0 go to 14 Your answers to the follossins questions will be used, along with those of survey. to form other Canadians in the sarnple these statistics. and accordingly 16. WHAT KINDS OF FIREARMS DID-. USE DURING THIS PERIL, the strictest confidence. will be held in MUI) all Lind, reported DID... USE ANY OTHER KIND(S) OF FIREARMS DURING NW 10. DOES... PERSONALLY OWN A FIREARM OF ANY KIND OTHER THAN lefalk all other hinds reported A PELLET GUN? 0 Shotgun Yes' 0 No2 0 go to 14 Rine 2 0 1 1. WHAT KINDS OF FIREARMS DOES... OWN? Handgun Math all hinds 'fixated 0 DOES-. OWN ANY OTHER KIND(S) OF FIREARMS? Other (Specify 4 0 Math all other limit repotted In NOTES) For each Lind given ask: HOW MANY DOES... OWN? 17. TFIE LAST TIME... USED A FIREARM DURING THIS PERIOD, repeat Limit How man WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON? Math one reason only. Shotgun 1 0 . . LI REASONS Rifle 2 0 Sponing: LLLi t Target Handgun Hunting 20 Other (Spree 40 a In NOT£S) Protection 0 12. FOR WHAT REASONS DOES.- OWN TEIIS/THESE Othe, (Specify 10 7 in NOTES) repeat each Lind of firearm mentioned in II

man all /futons eeponed 18. HAS-. EVEF1 HAD INSTRUCTION IN THE CARE AND SAFE REASONS • MAHOUND OF FIREARMS? Shotgun Rifle Handgun Other Sporting: Yeti 0 Nei 0 Co to 20 1 Is0 10 Target "0 0 210 Hunting 220 »0 2'0 19. WHAT KIND OF INSTRUCTION WAS THIS? JO 340 Protection 20 no 4,0 Formal' 0 Other 2 0 Collection -0 .0 "0

Other (Specify J I0 320 SIO In NOTES) 340

Gm...a BIRO HUHT1 The following questions concern usc of a firearm. • 20. DID... HAVE A 105 CANADIAN MIGRATORY PERMIT, SOLD EN THE POST OFFICE? or the purpose of this survey, 'Use" of a dream will mean to have carried or .ave had physical control or a &cum with the inient to fire it regardless of Yes1.0 No2 0 • hether or not it was fired. Use does not include the cleaning , maintaining storage of firearms. As well, it waS noir include use of Government owned rearms of Canadian Armed Forces personnel, Police personnel and staff of 21. Peen my": astodiai institution'. Proxy 1 0 70 Non•prozy 3. DID.- USE ANY OF 'THE FIREARMS IAENTIONED ABOVE AT ANYTIME nuntNa THE LAST 22 MONTHS? 22. TYPE: Yes° 0 NI O Telephone

4. Up.- USE A FIREARM OF AN! KIND AT ANYTIME DURING THE Perron ni LAST 12 MONTHS TFIAT HE/-IE DID NOT OWN? ,

Yeti 0 Nr:0

\ II QF5 0' $ee 0.11t roe N011t• II- 1111111111111111111 _WWI 111_111111111111 L IL11111111111111111 paAriÇ4.$ air vina 414.1 Ill 11.0401 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Coordination Division I. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Psychiatric Association Task Force 8. Clinical Aspects of the Violent Individual. July 1974.

"The Armed Citizen And Not a Scratch", American Rifleman 1970, vol. 118, no. 6, p.16. Bakal, Carl. The right to bear arms. New York: McGraw-Hill 1966.

Banitt, Rivka; Katznelson, Shoshana; and Streit, Schlomit. "The situational aspects of violence - a research model", Israel Studies in Criminology 1970, vol. 1, pp.241 - 248.

Benenson, Mark K. "A controlled look at gun controls".. --- New York Law Forum 1968, vol. 14, no. 4. The Berkeley International Liberation School. Beat the heat: a radiCal survival handbook. Ramparts Press, 1972. Berkowitz, L. "Impulse, Aggression and the Gun", Psychology Today September 1968, pp.19-22.

Berkowitz, L. "The'Weapons Effect', Demand Characteristics and the Myth of the Compliant Subject", Journal of. Personality and Social Psycholoay 1971, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 332-338.

Berkowitz, L. and LePage,A. "Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1967, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.202-207. Berkowitz, L. and Macaulay, J. "The Contagion of Criminal Violence", in Sussman, J. (ed.) Crime and Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bessick, Elmer. "Gun control statutes and domestic violence", Cleveland State Law Review 1970, vol. 19, no.3, pp.556-557.

Block, R. and Zimring, F.E.. Homicide in Chicuo 1965-1970. Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School (Chicago, Illinois) July 1971.

Boudouris, James."Methods of homicide", Police 1971 (Springfield, s Illinois), vol.16, no.2, pp.5-8.

Burrard, Gerald. The identification of firearms and forensic ballistics. Third edition. New York: Barnes, 1962. 1

-2-

Albert P. "An analysis Cardarelli, of police killed by criminal action: 1961-1963", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 1968 (Philadelphia, I/ Pennsylvania), vol. 59, no. 3, pp.447-453.

Cater, D. and Strickland, S. T.V. Violence and the Child. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975. Cavan, Ruth S. Suicide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928. I/

Cavan, Ruth S. "The Wish Never to Have Been Born", The American Journal of Sociology January 1932, vol.XXXVII pp. 547-559. - Chicago Crime Commission. Annual report, 1970: crime trends, 1971. Chicago,1971. 11

Clark, Ramsey. "Guns, the violent killers", in Crime in America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Cline, V. (ed.) Where Do You Draw the Line? - An Exploration Into Media Violence, Pornography and Censorship. Brigham Young University Press, 1975.

Colorado Legislative Council, Committee on Criminal Justice. Report: Part I. Denver, 1971. (Research publication no.172).

Columbus (Ohio) Police Department. Facts about Gun Control. Columbus, 1973. Compton, Lynn D. "California Peace Officers, D.A.'s, adopt gun control legislative policy", American Criminal Law Quarterly 1969, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 253-260.

Congressional Quarterly. King's Murder,Riots Spark Demand for Gun Control. April 12, 1968, p.805.

Congressional Quarterly. 1973 Effort Will Renew Old Conflict. Vol. 31,no.10, March 10, 1973, pp.523-529.

Congressional Quarterly Service. Crime and justice in America. Second edition. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1968. 11 Correctional Association of New York. One hundred and twenty- fourth annual report-1968. Albany, 1969 (New York State Legislative Document 1969, no. 97). 11 Cottin, Jonathan. "Washington pressures - National Rifle Association", C.P.R. National Journal April 2, 1970, pp. 946-952.

Council of Europe. iConsultative Assembly. Report on the control of the sale and possession of firearms in order to combat violence. Strasbourg, 1972.

Crysdale, S. and Beattie, C. Sociology Canada. Toronto: Butterworth and Co., 1973.

Dahlgren, K.G. On Suicide and Attempted Suicide. Lund, Sweden: Lindstadts, 1945.

Daniels, David N.; Guile, Marshall F.; Ochberg, Frank M. (eds.) Violence and the struggle for existence. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970.

Danto, B.L. "A step toward Control of violence by firearms", Police Law Quarterly 1974, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.44-47.

Danto, B. "More suicides thàn statistics show?", Royal Oak Michigan Daily Tribune August 26, 1968, p. 19.

Deutsch, A. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and ' 'Destructive Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.

Dimaio, V.J.M. "Accidental Deaths Due to Dropping of Handguns", Office of the Medical Examiner, Dallas, Texas in Forensic Science Gazette 1972, vol. 3, no. 5, pp.1-2. Douglas, Jack D. The Social Means of Suicide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Doyle, Vincent A. The Second Amendment as a - limitation on federal firearms legislation. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, 1968. Dublin, Louis I. Suicide: A Sociological and Statistical Study. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1963.

DuPerron, W. "Issues on Gun Control", Canadian Police Chief, July 1975, vol. 64, no. 3, pp.17-20, 37-39 and 43.

'Edwards, S. "Murder and Gun Control", U.S. Court of Appeals, Six Circuit, Federal Building, Detroit, Michigan. American Journal of Psychiatry 1972, vol. 128, no. 7, pp.811-814. 4

Erskine, H.G. "Polls, gun control", Public Opinion Quarterly Fall, 1972, vol. 36, pp.455-469.

Etzioni, A. "Domestic Disarmament", Human Behaviour June 1975 pp. 13-14.

Etzioni, A. and Remp, R. Technological Shortcuts to Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973.

Faegin, J.R. "Home Defence and the Police", American Behavioural Scientist May-August 1970, vol. 13, nos. 5 and 6, pp. 797-814.

Farell, J. "Most Iowa Sheriffs Agree: 'Outlaws Would Have Guns'", American Rifleman 1970, vol. 118, no. 7, p. 45.

Freedman, David J. and Stenning,Philip C. Private SQcurity and the Law in Canada. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1975. (Not yet published).

Friedland, Martin L. "Gun Control: The Options", Criminal Law Quarterly December 1975, vol. 18, no. 1.

Gastil, R. "Homicide and a.regional culture of violence", American Sociological Review 1971, vol. 36, no. 3.

Gibbs, J. "Review of J. Douglas' ,The Social Means of Suicide", American Journal of Sociology September, 1968, vol. 74, pp. 201-204.

Gibbs, J. "Suicide" in Contemporary Social Problems (Merton, R. and Nisbet, R. eds.) New «York: Harcourt, Brace and World, pp. 222-261.

Giddens, Anthony (ed.) The Sociology of Suicide. London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd., , 1971.

Glaser, D. and O'Leary, V. The Violent Offender. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966.

Glasgow Working Party. "The Carrying of Offensive Weapons", British Journal of Criminology 1970, vol. 10, no. 3, pp.225-269.

Glassen, Harold W. "Firearms: a matter of distinction", Trial Magazine January/February 1972, pp.52 and 54.

Goldfarb Consultants Limited. National Attitudes Towards Crime and Gun Control. Toronto 1976.

Goldenberg, - S. "Gun makers link arms to fight controls", Financial Post August 11, 1973, vol. 67, B. Great Britain Home Department. The control of firearms in Great Britain; a consultative document. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1973. Greenland, Cyril. Murder Followed By Suicide in Ontario 1966-70. Hamilton: School of Social Work, McMaster University, 1975.

Greenwood, C. "Contriolling Violent Crime", New Society 1973, vol. 24, no. 556, pp. 491-493.

Greenwood, Colin. Firearms control; a study of armed crime and firearms control in England and Wales. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972.

Greenwood, Colin. Tactics in the police use of firearms. Todmorde, Lancashire, England: H. Leah, 1969.

Grundeman, Arnold. "Constitutional limitations on federal firearms control", Washburn Law Journal 1969, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.238-247. "Gun Control: the grand jury reports; excerpts from report", Canadian Forum May-June 1974, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 66.

Gundolf, H. The weapon phenomenon and the drug phenomenon; a contribution to the psychology of aggression and dependence. Hamburg, 1971.

"Gun is law", Economist June 3, 1972, vol. 243, p. 46. "Gun Law Interpretation Stiffened", N.C.C.D. News 1969, vol. 48, no. 1, p. 2.

"Gun Law in London", Economist February 24, 1973, vol. 246, p. 16.

Gunn, J. Violence. London: Praeger, 1973.

Harries, K. "Geography of Crime and Justice", in Sussman, J. Ceci.) Crime and Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974. Harvard Law School. Center for Criminal Justice . "And nobody can •et ou out": the im•act of a mandator prison sentence for the illegal carrying of a firearm on the use of firearms and on the administration of criminal justice in Boston. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.

Hatcher, Julien S. Firearms investigation and evidence. Planterville, South Carolina: Small-Arms Technical Publishing Co., 1943.

Henry, Andrew F. and Short, James F. Suicide and Homicide. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1954.

"Hinds and others V The Queen, Director of Public Prosecutions V. Jackson, Attorney General of Jamaica (intervener)", All England Law Reports February 17, 1976, pp. 353-381. 1

6 - 11 Honolulu (Hawaii). Law Enforcement Planning Office. Gun control; a report on a county priority. Honolulu, 1974.

"The impact of state constitutional right to bear arms provisions on state gun control legislation", University of Chicago Law Review 1970, vol.' 38, no. 1, pp. 185-210.

.Interpol. Sale, Possession and Transport of Firea .rms. Thirty- seventh General Assembly Session, 1968.

Jeffries, Fern. Private Policing: An Examination of In-House Security Operations. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1975. (Not yet published).

Keating, Kenneth and others. "Violence Symposium", New York Law Forum 1968, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.687-882. • King, D.P. "Firearms and Crime", Division of Corrections, Madison, Wisconsin. Criminologist 1973, vol. 8, no. 48, pp. 50-58.

Koffler, B.C. "Zip Guns Crude Conversions: Identifying Characteristics and Problems", Centre of Criminology, Ottawa University, Ottawa Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 1970, vol. 61, no. 1, pp.115-125.

Kotz; A. and Hair, H. Firearms, Violence and Civil Disorders. Stanford Research Institute, 1968.

Krema, Vaclav "Jack". The identification and registration of firearms. Springfield, Illinois: C.C. Thomas, 1971.

Krug, Alan S. Crime in Wisconsin: a statistical abstract of Wisconsin crime data; Riverside Connecticut: National Shooting Sports Foundation, 1968.

Krug, Alan S. Does firearms registration work? Riverside, Connecticut: National Shooting Sports Foundation, 1968.

Krug, Alan S. Firearms registration costs vs. benefits: a survey of state law enforcement agencies on firearms regis- tration. Riverside, Connecticut: National Shooting Sports Foundation, 1970.

Krug, Alan S. Model firearms legislation. Riverside, Connecticut: II - National Shooting Sports Foundation, 1970. Kruijt, C.S. Suicide: Sociological and Statistical Investigations. 11 Door: Van Gorcun and Company, 1960.

Kukla, Robert J. Gun Control. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1973.

Lamkin, B. Threat of Gun Control. Minneapolis: T.S. Denison and Co.,-Inc., 1972: : ■••• 7 •■••■

Lindsay, John V.; Dodds, R. Harcourt; Dempsey, Robert R.; Mackell, Thomas J.; Ludwig, Frederick J.; Lefkowitz, Louis J. "Symposium: civil disorders", Brooklyn Law Review, vol. 35, no. 3, pp.349-546.

"London Robberies Up 12% in First Half Year of 1970", Security Gazette 1970, vol. 12, no. 9, p.357. Louisiana. Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal 1 Justice Commission. Louisiana crime control: new directions- a summary report,1968-1970. Baton Rouge, 1970.

Lystad, M. Violence at Home - an annotated bibliography. N.I.M.H., 1974. Massachusetts Council on Crime and Correction. A Shooting Gallery Called America. Boston, 1974.

Massachusetts. Special commission on firearms, - paroles and related Matters. Second Report, 1965, Senate no. 1085.

McCawley, E. Sh.nguns and Shooting. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrant, 1965.

McLennan, B. N. and Clark, J.S. Crime in Urban Society. New York: Dunellen Publishing Co., 1965. • Meerloo, J.A.M. Suicide and Mass Suicide. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1962. Middle Atlantic States Conference of Correction. Proceedings of the 18th National Institute on Crime and Delinquency, June 6-9, 1971. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Philadelphia Association on Probation, Parole and Correction, 1972. Millard, John T. A handbook on the primary identification of revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Springfield, Illinois: C.C. Thomas, 1974. Morris, N. and Hawkins, G. The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Murphy, Patrick V. "Cooperation in the Criminal Justice System", Crime and Delinquency 1972, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.42-48. Murphy, Patrick V. "Our Disgraceful System of Combating Crime", Reader's Digest February 1974, vol. 104, no. 622, pp,169, 170, 172 and 174-176. -8

National Shooting Sports Foundation. Fact pack on firearms ownership. Riverside, Connecticut: National Shooting Sports Foùndation, 1968.

National Shooting Sports Foundation. Fact pack II on firearms ownership. Riverside, Connecticut: National Shooting Sports Foundation, 1970.

Newton, G. and Zimring, F. Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

New York (City). Criminal Justice Co-ordinating Council. The case for federal firearms control. New York, 1973.

New York State Bar Association. Committee on federal.legislation. Federal firearms controls. Albany, 1971.

New York (State). Senate. Select Committee on Crime. Gun Control in New York, a report by Senator Ralph J. Marino. Albany, 1974. 1 New York (State). State Investigation Commission. Report by the New York State Commission of Investigation concerning pistol licensing laws and procedures in New York State. November,1964 1

New York (State): Temporary State Commission of Investigation. Report concerning the availability, illegal possession and use of handguns in New York State. New York, 1974.

"No Guns Allowed on Campus", N.C.C.D. News 1969, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 11-12.

Page, M. and Scheidt, R. "The Elusive Weapons Effect: Demand Awareness, Evaluation Apprehension, and Slightly Sophisticated Subjects", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1971, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 304-318.

"Pistol regulations in the 50 States, better Check the aun laws in each State first", Law Officer 1973, vol. 6, no. 5, pp.45-47. . . . President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice: the Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1970). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 1 -Reichert, Irving F. "Shoot-out in Kensington High Street: the British response to a London bank robbery", California State Bar Journal 1973, vol. 48, no. 2, pp.144-150.

Rotenberg, L.A. and Sadoff, R.L. "On Guns -- history, dynamics and control'', Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 1970, vol. 16, nos. 1,2,3 and 4, pp. 82-87. Rotenberg, L.A. and Sadoff, R.L. "Who Should Have a Gun. Some Preliminary Psychiatric Thoughts", Unit in Law and Psychiatry, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Journal of Psychiatry 1968, Vol. 125, no. 6, pp. 841-843.

Rubin, S. "Cops, Guns and Homicides", in Endleman, S. (ed.) Violence in the Street. Chicago, Illinois: Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1968.

Sacks, Harvey. The Search for Help: No one to turn to. Michigan: University Microfilms Ltd., 1966.

Schmid, C.F. and van Arsdol, D. "Completed and Attempted Suicides: A Comparative Analysis", Americar o21._.cal_..}ew 1955, vol. 20, pp.273-283.

Seitz, Steven Thomas. "Firearms, homicides,and gun Control effectiveness", Law and Society Review 1972, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 595-613.

Senate of Canada. Bill S-14, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (control of weapons and firearms). First Reading, Tuesday, 26th March, 1974. Serr, Harold A. "Gun control act gets results", Police Chief 1969, vol. 37, no. 1, pp.30-32.

Shearing, Clifford D. and Farnell, Margaret B. A Study of Contract Security Agencies in Ontario: A Pilot Study Report. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1975. (Not yet published).

Sherrill, Robert. The Saturday night special. New York: Charterhouse, 1973.

Shewry, K.M. "Automated Data Processing and Police Records- Firearm Registration", Police Research Bulletin (Great Britain) July 1968, no. 7, pp. 15-21. Shneidman, E.S. and Farberow, N.L. (eds.) Clues to Suicide. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.

Shneidman, E.S. and Farberow, N.L. (eds.) The Cry for Help. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.

"Should we worry about gun laws?", Economist May 12, 1973, vol. 247, p. 21.

Simpson, G. "Methodological Problems in Determining the Aetiology of Suicide", American Sociological Review 1950, vol. 15, pp.658-663. •

- 10 -

. or snyder, J.M. "D.C. Crime Increases Despite 1968 Gun Law", American Rifleman 1970, vol. 118, no. 2, p. 40.

Snyder, J.M. "Crime Rises Under Rigid Gun Control. Rate Soars in N.J. Other 'Tough' States F.B.I. Figures Reveal", American Rifleman 1969, vol. 117, no. 10, pp.54-55. 111 South Dakota: State Legislative Research Council. Gun Control in South Dakota including a review of federal and other state legislation. Pierre, South Dakota: State Legislative Research II Council, 1968.

Stengel, E. and Cook, N. Attempted Suicide: Its Social Significance" and Effects. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Stengel, E. Suicide and Attempted Suicide. London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964.

Stenning, Philip C. and Cornish, Mary F. The Legal Regulation and Control of Private Policing and Security in Canada: A Working Paper. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1974.

Tamm, Q. "Violence in America - A Law Enforcement Perspective", Police Chief January 1971, pp.34-35 and 41-44.

Tanay, E. "Psychiatric Aspects of .Homicide Prevention", fllerican Journal of Psychiatry 1972, vol. 128, no. 7, pp. 815-818.

Thornburgh, R.L. "Support the police by handgun control", American Bar Association Journal 1973, vol. 59, pp.404-406.

United States Conference of Mayors. 'Do mandatory prison sentences for handgun offences curb violent crime?' Technical Report: One by Matthew G. Yeager, 1976.

United States Congress. Senate. Judj.ciary Committee. Juvenile Delinquency: interstate traffic in mail-order firearms. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1964. (88th Congress, 2nd Session, Part 15).

United States Congress. Senate. Judiciary Committee. Interstate traffic in mail-order firearms. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1964. (88th Congress, 2nd Session, Report No. 1340). 1 United States National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. A national strategy to reduce crime. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Commission statement on assassination. Washington, D.C., 1969. - 11 - I. United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Commission statement on firearms and violence. Washington, D.C.,1969.

United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence. "The offender and his victim" Crimes of Violence vol. 11, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969 , United States National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. To establish justice, to insure domestic tranqui- lity.Final report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.

United States Treasury Department. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division. State Laws and Local Ordinance relevant to title 18, U.S.C., Chapter 44, 1972. Washington, D.C. 1972.

Von Hentig, H. "The firearms maniac and his psychological structure". Neue Polizei 1969, vol. 23, no. 9, pp.178-179.

Wenk, E.; Robinson, J. and Smith, G. "Can Violence Be Predicted?", Crime and Delinquency October, 1972.

West, D.J. Murder Followed by Suicide. London: Heinemann Educa- tional Books Ltd., 1965.

White, C.A. "Gun Control: is More needed?", Canada and the World October,1974, vol. 40, pp. 3-4.

Wicker, W. B. "Constitutional Law - Search and Seizure - Warrantless Inspection in Enforcement of Federal Gun Control Act is Constitutional Under the Fourth Amendment", I. Mississippi Law Journal 1972, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 562-567.

Wilkins, J.L. "Producing Suicides", American Behavioural Scientist November/December 1970, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 185-201.

Wilkins, J.L. "A follow-up study of suicide prevention center callers", American Journal of Psychiatry August,1970, vol. 127, no.2 Wilkins, J.L. "Experience in suicide prevention: calls for help in Chicago", Illinois Medical Journal March,1970, pp. 257-261.

.Wilkins, J.L. "Suicide prevention centers: comparisons of clients in several cities", Comprehensive Psychiatry 10,November, pp.443-451

Wilson, J.V. "Deadly Force", Police Chief 1972, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 44-46.

Wisconsin, Assembly. Committee on State Affairs. Report on I. gun control legislation and "stop and frisk" laws. Madison, Wisconsin, 1968. - 12 - IF Wolfgang, M. Violent Behaviour. Cambridge, England: W. Heffer and Sons, 1969. 11 Wolfgang, M. and Ferracuti, F. The Subculture of Violence. London, Tavistock„ 1967.

Zimring, F. "Control: hard choices", Trial Magazine January/ February,1972, pp. 53, 57.

Zimring, F. "Firearms and federal law: the Gun Control Act of 1968", Journal of Legal Studies 1975, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.133-198.

Zimring, F. "Games with guns and statistics", Wisconsin Law Review 1968, vol. 4, pp. 1113-1126.

Zimring, F. "Is Gun Control likely to reduce violent killings?", I University of Chicago Law Review 34, 1967, pp. 721:737.

Zimring, F. "The medium is the message: firearm calibre as a determinant of death from assault", Journal of Legal Studies 1, 1972, pp. 97-123. Official Canadian Publications

Department of Justice and Solicitor General, Canada (Peace and Security). Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Gun Control Legislation (Bill C-83). Ottawa, 1975. Department of Justice and Solicitor General, Canada (Peace and Security). Revised and Updated Questions and Answers on Gun Control. Ottawa, August 30, 1976.

Statistics Canada, Census Division. Catalogue 91-512. (1921-1971).

Statistics Canada, Census Division. Catalogue 93-702. (1971)

Statistics Canada, Census Division. Catalogue 91-202 (1972-1974).

. Statistics Canada, External Trade Division. Catalogue 63-007.

• Statistics Canada, External Trade Division. 1968 Retail Commodity Survey. Statistics Canada, Judicial Division. Murder Statistics, Catalogue 85-209. (1970-1974). Statistics Canada, Judicial Division , Ten Year Firearm Study, 1961-1974. (Revised February, 1976). Statistics Canada, Vital Statistics Division. Causes of Death, Catalogue 84-203. ilii11101111 9/118111 etè ray,

DATE DUE

litt---e5

ees

, CJ SEP Ot.:i

5 1 tei . 1r 10 OCT tim

1 . 1 DEC 1+

LOWE-MARTIN CO. INC. 1169-5RG

their control NV Firearms : working 8059 in Canada F5 papers. 1978 a••■••••:;. ..renum

'

ilittg MI Of 3 -st! `Y- `reee‘) 110 14:1 2 1993

B181.10Telkt:4 ■.;î MINISTÈRE DU SOLtiLlii.t.i: (.;iNiKAk