PUBLICATION:
Vancouver Sun
DATE:
2003.12.31
EDITION: Final
SECTION:
Editorial
PAGE:
A9
BYLINE:
Gary A. Mauser
SOURCE:
Special to the Sun
ILLUSTRATION:
Photo: Peter Battistoni, Vancouver Sun / Simon FraserUniversity professor Gary
Mauser, seen handling an old Belgian copy of a British revolver, says it is an
illusion that restrictive gun laws protect the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do
gun laws really improve public safety?: Statistics show that violent crime in
Canada is on the rise even as we do more to restrict firearms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul
Martin's image as a fiscal conservative is already fading. In his year-end
interview with Global TV, the prime minister refused to scrap the most infamous
Chretien-era boondoggle -- the billion-dollar firearm registry.
A
study I did recently shows that not only has the registry squandered billions,
but more importantly, it hasn't had any discernable impact on violent crime.
In
The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia,
England and Wales, published by the Fraser Institute, I examine trends in
violent crime in Commonwealth countries that had recently introduced firearm
regulations.
The
widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in
total violent crime, not just gun crime. Firearms are involved in only a small
fraction of criminal violence. The real problem is criminal violence, not just
gun violence.
I
use the United States as a point of comparison for assessing crime rates because
its criminal justice system differs so dramatically from those in the
Commonwealth. Not only are criminal penalties typically more severe in the U.S.,
but also conviction and incarceration rates are usually much higher.
Perhaps
the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the U.S. can carry
concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25
states in the U.S. have passed laws that relax the rules for allowing
responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 36 states
where qualified citizens can get such a permit.
As
surprising as it may seem to some, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in
particular, have been falling in the U.S. The drop in America's crime rate is
even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of the 25
countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during
the 1990s. This contrast should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened
in those countries where they introduced more and more restrictive firearm laws.
During
the 1990s, Canada increasingly restricted firearm ownership, but the violent
crime rate in Canada increased during that period. New laws were introduced in
1991 and again in 1995. Licensing and registration are still being phased in.
How can that be while violent crime has plummeted in the U.S.? Some will say
that homicide rates have been falling in Canada. Unfortunately, homicide rates
are falling even faster in the U.S.
Given
that violent crime continues to increase, can the Canadian experiment with
firearm regulation be justified? The effort to register all firearms, which was
originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the
Auditor-General to top $1 billion. Final costs are unknown.
Gun
laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime, or gun control is no more than a
hollow promise. It's time to pause and ask: Do gun laws actually work?
At
the same time that funds seem to flow freely for gun registration, the RCMP,
Immigration, and prisons were starved for money. For a billion dollars, we could
have kept the Ports Police, which was disbanded early in the 1990's, conducted
more investigations of the Hells Angels, as well as kept better track of violent
criminals who had been released from prison.
Recent
gun laws introduced in the United Kingdom and Australia have also failed to
improve public safety. In the past 20 years, the U.K. has introduced
increasingly restrictive laws on firearm ownership, finally banning handguns in
1997. The result? Police statistics show that the homicide rate in England and
Wales jumped 50 per cent in the 1990s, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15
per million in 2000. Violent crime rates are twice as high in England and Wales
as in the U.S.
The
Australian government made similar draconian changes to its firearm laws during
the 1990s, even confiscating a large number of firearms from hunters and target
shooters. Unfortunately, this effort has not made Australia any safer. Homicide
and violent crime continue to increase in Australia, while both are decreasing
in the U.S. Robbery and armed robbery rates have doubled in Australia, while
they are decreasing south of our border. The homicide rate in Australia has
started climbing again.
Restrictive
firearm legislation has failed to reduce violent crime in Australia, Canada, or
the U.K. The policy of restricting gun ownership has been an expensive failure.
Unfortunately, policy dictates that the current directions will continue. And
more importantly, it will not be examined critically.
It
is an illusion that restrictive gun laws protect the public. Maybe we should
crack down on criminals rather than hunters. Maybe that really would save lives.
Professor Gary Mauser is with the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies at Simon Fraser University.