SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

8888 UNIVERSITY DRIVE

BURNABY , BRITISH COLUMBIA

CANADA V5A 1S6

 

February 28, 2005

 

Garry Breitkreuz, MP                                                                              

Yorkton - Melville

House of Commons

Ottawa , Ontario

K1A 0A6

 

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz: 

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to analyze the Statistics Canada tables on Victims of Robberies, Robbery by Type of Weapon Present, Victims of Assaults with a Weapon, and Assault Level II by Type of Weapon Present provided to you by the Library of Parliament. 

I now have had a chance to analyze these four reports for 2003. Two of the reports deal with armed robberies, and two with armed assault. For each type of crime, one of the reports analyzed incidents and the other examined victims. By coordinating the reports of incidents with the victims for both armed robberies and armed assaults, I was able uncover some interesting results. 

To summarize, violent crimes involving firearms result in fewer injuries (and less serious injuries) than do violent crimes involving other kinds of weapons. This pattern is the same for armed robberies and for armed assaults.

Armed assaults

Table 1 (See link below) shows that 48% of assaults involving firearms result in the victims being injured, while 53% of assaults involving knives result in injuries, and 76% of assaults involving clubs or other blunt weapons result in injuries.  More importantly, only 6% of assaults involving firearms result in a victim receiving a serious injury, as opposed to 11% and 14% of assaults involving knives or clubs.

http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/injuriesinassault2003.xls

Armed robberies

Table 2 (See link below) shows that 12% of robberies involving firearms result in a victim being injured, while 17% of robberies involving knives result in injuries, and 47% of robberies involving clubs result in injuries.  As with assaults, serious injuries are fewer as well when firearms are involved. Only 2% of robberies involving firearms result in serious injuries, while 3% of robberies involving knives, and 9% of robberies involving clubs or other blunt instruments.

http://www.cssa-cila.org/garryb/publications/injuriesinrobbery2003.xls

I’d speculate that the primary reason firearms cause fewer injuries is that both assailants and victims alike see firearms as more frightening. Thus, victims comply more readily when threatened with a firearm, and assailants expect them to comply more readily, than when other types weapons are used. Assailants appear to feel that they must injure their victims in order to ensure compliance when weapons other than firearms are involved. Thus, the ready compliance of victims when threatened with firearms means that criminal violence involving firearms causes fewer injuries.

Ironically, if we could somehow magically remove firearms entirely from criminals, thereby forcing assailants to use other types of weapons instead, we would only increase the number of victims and even increase the number of serious injuries they receive.

As I’m certain you will agree, these results have important implications for public policy.

First, they offer further support to the argument that the firearm registry is misguided. Firearm violence is not qualitatively worse than criminal violence involving other weapons. Even if we grant that firearm laws might have reduced criminal violence involving firearms, that has not reduced violent crime, nor has it caused fewer injuries to victims. The essential problem is criminal violence, not firearm violence.

Second, there would appear to be little reason to push for harsher penalties for violent crimes involving firearms. Other types of weapons are more likely than firearms to cause injuries and to cause more serious injuries to victims than do firearms.

It would seem more reasonable for Parliament to impose harsher penalties for assailants who uses any kind of weapon, not just a firearm, in committing a violent crime.

It is important to note that these reports from Statistics Canada only include injuries, no deaths. By definition, attacks or robberies that resulted in homicides are excluded. Thus, strictly speaking, we do not know if attacks or robberies involving firearms resulted in more or fewer deaths than did attacks with other types of weapons. However, given that firearm violence resulted in fewer serious injuries than did violence involving other weapons, it would appear unlikely that firearm violence would produce more deaths.  To answer this question, I am conducting further analysis of weapon use in violent crime including homicide and attempted homicide. Additional tables have been requested from Statistics Canada.

Respectfully yours,

[Original signed by]

Gary A. Mauser, Ph D

Professor

Institute for Urban Canadian Research Studies

Faculty of Business Administration

Simon Fraser University

www.sfu.ca/~mauser/

Voice: 604-291-3652

Fax: 604-936-9141