Subject: [can.talk.guns] FAQ List [weekly posting]
Date: 19 Apr 1996 14:06:44 GMT
Summary: This posting is a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
.in can.talk.guns, including where to find more information.

Posting-Frequency: weekly
URL: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt


                        The can.talk.guns FAQ List

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

Last modified:
16 Apr 1996

This document is updated frequently.  You should be able to get the
latest version of this FAQ list from:
main:
.http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt
.ftp://ftp.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt
mirrors:
.http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Faq/ctg.txt
.http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/Faq/ctg.txt
archives: 
.ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.answers/talk-politics-guns/canadian-faq.Z
.ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/talk-politics-guns/canadian-faq

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

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

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

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

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

A. Frequently Asked Questions

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

B. Questions "anti-gunners" can't answer

C. Miscellaneous

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


======================= Frequently Asked Questions =======================

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
.Mortality 1991 - Statistics Canada - Summary List of Causes
.Accidents, Suicide; Homicide (from Juristat)
.-------------------------------------------------
.    Causes        Number   Percent
.-------------------------------------------------
.ALL CAUSES             195,568   100.00%
.ACCIDENTS                8,212     4.20%
.SUICIDE                  3,593     1.84%
.HOMICIDE                   753     0.39%
.ALL OTHER CAUSES       183,010    93.58%
 
.ACCIDENTS                8,721   100.00%
.Transport                3,882    44.51%
.Falls                    2,053    23.54%
.Poisoning                  699     8.02%
.Drowning                   390     4.47%
.Inhaling Food              341     3.91%
.Fire & Flames              318     3.65%
.Medical Misadventures      146     1.67%
.Other Firearms              62     0.71%
.Electric Current            39     0.45%
.Theraputic Drugs            33     0.38%
.Explosives                  22     0.25%
.Lightning                    5     0.06%
.Handgun                      4     0.05%
.All other accidents        727     8.34%
 
.SUICIDE                  3,593   100.00%
.Other Firearms           1,065    29.64%
.Hanging, Strangulation   1,034    28.78%
.Drugs                      502    13.97%
.Gas                        393    10.94%
.Other Solid or Liquid       46     1.28%
.Handgun                     43     1.20%
.All Other Means            510    14.19%
 
.HOMICIDE (Juristat)        753   100.00%
.Stabbings                  224    29.75%
.Beatings                   140    18.59%
.Other Firearms             135    17.93%
.Illegal Handguns           131    17.40%
.Legal Handgun (Est.)         5     0.66%
.All Other Means            118    15.67%
 
.Note:  There are numerous errors in the 1991 Mortality Tables,
.totals that don't match the range they are supposed to cover, etc.
.I took the figures for homicide from Juristat because they are
.better.  The mortality tables list about 200 fewer homicides than
.Juristat, and far fewer handgun homicides.[Prof, H. Taylor
.Buckner]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

.Canada has very strict firearm regulation yet it also has a higher
.suicide rate than the US.  (Japan has nearly no legally owned
.firearms and their suicide rate is higher than Canada's.)  [The
.Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy; Observations on a One-Way
.Street]
|
|       Until 1960, Canada's suicide rate was stable at about 1 per
|.100,000.  Between 1960 and 1980 our rate tripled and has remained
|.high. [StatCan]  (i.e. the rate was low before strict anti-gun
|.laws, then rose and remained high after increasing strict laws.)

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

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

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

.How?  If we ban pistols to prevent use in crime, the effect will
.only be to confiscate over half a billion dollars in property from
.those who legally possess roughly 1,000,000 registered pistols.

.Handguns have been required to be registered since 1934 (unlike most
.rifles and shotguns), yet their use has been increasing (even though
.the less regulated and more deadly rifles and shotguns are easier to
.procure).  From the 1960s to now, the use of handguns in homicide
.has roughly doubled (from 10% of homicides to 18%).  [StatCan]
.Shotgun and rifle use has actually dropped.  If registration works,
.why are criminals moving from firearms that need not be registered
.to ones that must?

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

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

|.A good reference for US vs. Canada is Brandon S. Centerwall,
|."Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada and the United
|.States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of Epidemiology_, 134 (11),
|.pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991. 
|
|.Abstract: As compared with Americans, Canadians in the 1970s
|..possessed one tenth as many handguns per capita.  To assess
|..whether this affected the total criminal homicide rate, the
|..mean annual criminal homicide rates of Canadian provinces
|..were compared with those of adjoining US states for the
|..period of 1976 to 1980.  NO CONSISTENT DIFFERENCES WERE
|..OBSERVED; CRIMINAL HOMICIDE RATES WERE SOMETIMES HIGHER IN
|..THE CANADIAN PROVINCE, and sometimes higher in the adjoining
|..US state.  MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN THE PREVALENCE OF HANDGUNS
|..HAVE NOT RESULTED IN DIFFERING TOTAL CRIMINAL HOMICIDE RATES
|..IN CANADIAN PROVINCES AND ADJOINING US STATES.  The similar
|..rates of criminal homicide are primarily attributable to
|..underlying similar rates of aggravated assault.  (emphasis
|..added)


4. What about military-style assault weapons?

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

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

.As for "military-style" or "paramilitary" firearms versus "domestic"
.or "hunting" rifles:  the distinction is useless.  There are rifles
.used for hunting and sport that were/are of military origin and
.there are firearms that are/were used by the military that began as
."hunting" rifles.  The designs are similar and basic.  The goal of
.each is the same:  force a piece of lead out at high speeds.  Both
."military" and "hunting" rifles are available in semi-automatic.

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

.It makes little sense to ban rifles because of their appearance
.while ignoring performance and function.

.Semiautomatics which externally resemble automatics are difficult to
.It makes little sense to ban rifles because of their appearance
.while ignoring performance and function.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

.She replied:

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

.Ms Vodrey gave more detail. She said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. 1230     130    1360   Total deaths with firearms

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


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


6. Does gun control work?

.Yes and no.  The answer depends upon what you mean by "gun
.control".  You can "control" (i.e. influence) access, but you can't
.stop it altogether.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.When it comes to the attention-grabbing, emotionally-charged mass
.murders, how is an anti-gun law going to stop someone willing to
.murder so many?  Anyone not stopped by the toughest law we have --
.the law against murder -- will not be stopped by a bunch of anti-gun
.regulations.


7. But doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada?
.
.The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause.  People buy guns
.because they are scared.  If firearms caused murder, then
.Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates similar to
.the US.

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

.This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a
.firearm, those that do, have more.  This confirms most government
.estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US,
.there are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per
.capita rates of firearm ownership).

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

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


8. What about violent crime rates?

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

.Year.US.Canada
.1962.~185.~250

.1967.~250.~390

.1972.401.507
.1973.417.534
.1974.461.564
.1975.488.597
.1976.468.596
.1977.476.583
.1978.498.591
.1979.549.621
.1980.597.648
.1981.594.666
.1982.571.686
.1983.538.686
.1984.539.715
.1985.557.751
.1986.618.808
.1987.610.856
.1988.637.898
.1989.663.947
.1990.732.1013
.1991.758.1099

.1994.716.1037

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.
9. What about the Vancouver/Seattle study?

.The study compared Vancouver and Seattle after the 1979 Canadian gun
.laws but Vancouver also had lower murder rates BEFORE the 1979 gun
.laws.  Many other factors were ignored.

.Much has been written to rebut this "study".  There is much good
.information on this in the t.p.g Usenet group's 
.``The Long List of "Gun-Control" Myths'', available from:
 .http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/rkba.faq
.ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/chan/research/rkba.faq


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

.Not likely.  We have an entirely system in Canada, and murder rates
.and Perception of murder rates have been more closely related to
.economic conditions than laws and imprisonment/execution policies,
.let alone "gun control".  As long as you had no criminal record, you
.used to be able to legally acquire machine guns in Canada, and there
.was no permit needed to buy most shotguns and rifles, yet the murder
.rate was half what it is now.

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

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

.The US has higher firearm- and non-firearm-related homicide rates.
.If "gun control" made the difference between Canadian and US murder
.rates, then our non-firearm homicide rates should be similar and
.they aren't.  The difference may be whatever cause increase the risk
.of being murdered by a stranger.  In the US (as a whole), one is
.slightly more likely to be killed by a total stranger than some
.acquaintance.  In Canada, roughly 80% of murders are "acquaintance"
.murders.

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

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

11. What about kids?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

.The 1689 English Bill of Rights specifically states that subjects of
.the Crown (citizens) in their capacity as an individual as a right
."may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions".  The
.Bill also states that disarming citizens is contrary to the law.
.The law still applies to Canadians and overrides all other laws.

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


14. What is Bill C-68?

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

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

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

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


15. What is Bill C-17?

.C-17 was introduced and passed in 1991 by the Kim Campbell
.Conservatives.  It created expanded powers for the minister of
.justice to restrict any firearm and prohibit those not "commonly
.used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes".  Other sections
.included new powers for police to search the homes of certain types
.of "gun collectors".

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

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


16. What about Bill C-51?

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


17. What is unlawful about our gun control laws?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.This is why, taking the following into account:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


21. What is "banned" in Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


22. How many people in Canada legally own firearms?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


23. Do tougher gun control laws reduce armed robberies?

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

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


24. Do mandatory jail sentences deter the armed criminal?

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

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


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

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

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

.[32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.
.[33]Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (Stats Canada)
       
26. Aren't dogs more regulated than firearms?[32]

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

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

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

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

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

.[32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.

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

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

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

28. Aren't guns more lethal on a per use basis than motor vehicles?[32]
.
.Number of motor vehicle related accidental deaths in Canada in 1991,
.3882.  Number of firearms related accidental deaths in Canada in
.1990, 66.  Canadians fire millions of rounds of ammunition every
.year while hunting, plinking, target practise, and competitive
.shooting. Target shooting is one of the safest of the outdoor
.sports.

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

.[32]Coalition For Gun Control fact sheet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


32. Isn't a gun in the home 43 times more likely to kill someone
.you know than be used against an intruder?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.It's interesting to note that Kellermann is quoted in the
.March/April 1994 issue of _Health_ (pp. 59-61)as saying  "If you've
.got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal
.your weapon....  If that were my wife, would I want her to have a
..38 special in her hand?  Yeah."

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

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


================ Questions "anti-gunners" can't answer ================


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


================================= Other =================================


Recommended reading:

|."Gun Control is not crime control" by Gary Mauser of the Canadian
|.Fraser Forum (1995). ph. (416) 363-6575.  It's about $9.
|
._Observations on a One-Way Street: The Canadian Firearm Control
.Debate,_ by the Shooting Organizations of Canada, [available from the
.Ontario Handgun Association, 2055 Dundas St E, Unit 105, Mississauga
.ON  L4X 2V9], (1994)

._The Politics of Panic: Registration Will Mean Confiscation_, by the
.Shooting Organizations of Canada, Ontario Handgun Association, (1994)
.
._Misfire: the Black Market and Gun Control_, by John C. Thompson
.(May 1995) [available from the Mackenzie Institute, P. O. Box
.338 Adelaide Station, Toronto ON  M5C 2J4]

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

._Guns: Who Should Have Them?,_David B. Kopel, ed., Prometheus
.Books, ISBN 0-87975-958-5 (1995), a book which is an excellent 
.introduction to the political issues surrounding gun ownership.
 
._The Samurai, The Mountie, And The Cowboy,_by David Kopel,
.Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-756-6, (1992)
 
._Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,_by Gary Kleck,
.Aldine de Gruyter, ISBN 0-202-30419-1 (1991)
 
._In The Gravest Extreme,_by Massad Ayoob
.[available from Police Bookshelf, P.O. Box 122, Concord, NH 03301],
.ISBN 0-936297-00-1, (1980)
 
._The Truth About Self Protection,_by Massad Ayoob, Police Bookshelf,
.ISBN 0553-23664-6, (1983)
 
._Armed and Female: Twelve Million American Women Own Guns,
.Should You?,_ by Paxton Quigley, St. Martin's Press, ISBN
.0-312-95150-7, (1993)

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

._Firing Back,_by Clayton E. Cramer, Krause Publications,
.ISBN 0-87341-344-X, (1994)
 .
._Stopping Power: Why Seventy Million Americans Own Guns,_by J. Neil
.Schulman, Synapse-Centurion Books, ISBN 1-882639-03-0, (1994)
 
._Firearms and violence: issues of public policy,_by Don B.
.Kates (ed.)  Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, San
.Francisco, California, 1984, ISBN 0884109283.  Also, Ballinger,
.Cambridge, Massachusetts, ISBN 0884109224 or 0884109232
.(paper).  Also, ISBN 1884109291 (paper).

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

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

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

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


Periodic reports:

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

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

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

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

Other FAQ lists:

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

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

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

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

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


Where to go for more information:

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

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

Credits: 

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

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


Personal note:

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

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


DISCLAIMER: 

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


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

Copyright (C) 1995,1996 Skeeter Abell-Smith
=============================================================================

--
ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca  <------------------>  Saskatoon Free-Net
  *  *  finger skeeter@skatter.usask.ca for PGP public key  *  *  
Just my $1.63 (expressed in 1996 dollars and adjusted for inflation
and appreciation).  No one else's opinions are implied.  DO NOT EAT
