RCMP CFP Evaluation – Part 3.1


I think I’m going to break this part up into 2 or 3 sections – it’s quite big, and the noise-to-signal ratio is high.

Feel free to read along with the report:  http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

– 21 –

Finding 2:

The Canadian Firearms Program as a public safety-oriented regulatory framework, is continuing toward achieving its strategic outcome of reducing firearm-related harm.

Recently compiled statistics initiated by this evaluation, data from Statistics Canada and all of the Provincial and Territorial Coroners indicate notable decreases of firearm deaths (approximately 12%) in Canada between 2001 and 2004(1). The findings are limited to four years as several of the Coroners only provided limited data. All of the Coroners had been encouraged to provide twenty years of data and the majority came close to this or exceeded it.

Suicides were the principal cause of death (approx 79%) in 2001, which continued to decline to 76% in 2004. These were mostly inflicted using long guns. Homicides rose by 3% over the same period from 19-22%. Accidental deaths, though nominal, were on the decline. There are other social and legal changes which may have contributed to the changes in mortality rate. However, the analysis of those factors and their impacts are beyond the scope of this evaluation(2).

(1) They try to conflate “gun suicide” deaths together with “gun crime” deaths by using a total “gun deaths” number.  Yes, the number of “gun deaths” overall is down, but that is largely due to a decline in “gun suicides”.

What they do not mention is that the overall number of suicides hasn’t gone down along with gun suicides – they have stayed mostly the same, and may even be trending upward.  I guess this information is “outside the scope of this evaluation’

Further, gun homicides are almost 70% handgun related deaths – handguns which have been regulated since 1934 – I wonder why they don’t mention this little fact.  Of those accused of murder, 70% have a previous criminal record; of the victims, 50% have a previous criminal record.  These are not your average law-abiding, gun owning citizen.

(2)  And yet, this does not preclude them from using statistics that may have other “factors” that have a contributory relationship to the results.  They want you to think that the Firearms Act alone is the reason for such declines.

As for accidental deaths, they are so “nominal” that they are not even a consideration for insurance companies – who are in the business of assess “risk”.  Gun accidents have been declining for decades, and has no real relation to the Firearms Act.

Chart 1

Longguns had been used in 72% of the firearm deaths in 2001. This decreased to 69% of deaths by 2004. Handguns by comparison were used in 25% of the deaths in 2001. This increased to 26% in 2004.[14]

[14] 2004 is the last year for which the Evaluation team had obtained national data through the compilation of provincial coroner data. More recent data is available from specific provinces and territories in the Open Source statistical data section.

Again, nothing more than misleading bafflegab.  In fact, if you compare the number of “gun deaths” to the total number of gun owners (~ 2M) and the total number of guns (~7M), and factor in the evidence that most homicides are criminals killing criminals, then it becomes readily apparent that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners are not, and never were “the problem”.

As a national average, handguns are the preferred firearm for homicide; however long guns were used in approximately one-third of these instances.(1) Handgun statistics are more reflective of major urban centres. Outside of the larger urban centres, and in cities and towns where the population is 100,000 or less, the firearm of choice is mostly the long gun. Recent findings also show that the spousal homicide rates have declined significantly, particularly with respect to long guns.(2)

(1) Handguns = 66% of “gun homicides”

Long guns = 33% of “gun homicides”

However: Gun Homicides are 33% of all homicides

Therefore, Handguns = 22% of all homicides

Long guns = 11% of all homicides

(2) why is this statement tacked on to the tail end of this paragraph?  It’s just left there with little explanation to support it.

It appears to me that the intent behind this paragraph is solely to cast “long guns” in a bad light, and nothing more.

– 22 –

Chart 3

Look at the raw number of Total Firearms Spousal Homicides; $2 BILLION wasted on a “problem” that doesn’t count for more than 30 deaths in any given year…how many women’s shelters or spousal abuse programs could have been put in place for that kind of money?

And where is the actual proof that the Firearms Act had any direct effect on these figures?  Because there is none.  Spousal homicides have been steadily declining for the past 30 years.

Why don’t they show a comparison to the total number of spousal homicides by all means?  Because they don’t want you to know that, in keeping with the overall murder statistics, 70% of spousal homicides are committed with something other than a gun.

– 23 –

Chart 4

Homicide trends (per 100,000 population)[15]

The total Canadian homicide trends (red line) which include guns, knives etc – per 100,000 population are significant when compared to total gang homicides (grey line/bottom). Canadian homicides are significantly lower then the US homicide trends (blue line). Total Canadian firearm homicides, only involves firearms (orange line).

[15] Canada, USA and Gangs include all types of homicide. “Canada guns” are firearm-related homicide, only

Why is this chart being tacked on here?  In what way are the “total gang homicides” “significant”? There is no further explanation for this. This smells like a red herring to me – more misleading non-information…

– 25 –

The CFP’s policy objectives are to reduce the firearms risks to the health and personal safety of Canadians; promote responsible ownership, use and storage of firearms; and, provide police and other organizations with expertise and information vital to the prevention and investigation of firearms crime both in Canada and internationally. With respect to the CFP and firearms users in 2007 there were:

1.8 million licensed individuals;

over 7.0 million registered firearms;

*one million Possession Only Licences (POL);

*800,000 Possession and Acquisition Licences (PAL);

*6,000 Possession Licenses for Minors;

Continuous eligibility checks identified over 97,000 potential public safety issues (Firearms Interest to Police);

FIP hits led to 466 Licence Refusals and 1701 Licence Revocations;

More than 84,000 individuals took firearms safety training;

*The Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) recieved an average of 6,900 queries per day.

[*these items smell like a lot of “padding” to me…]

Again, that there are 1.8 million licensed gun owners who have registered over 7 million firearms only goes to show that the vast majority of gun owners are, and always were, “law abiding”.  The “problem” has always been criminal thugs who misuse guns for criminal purposes.

Let’s crunch a few numbers:

466/97,000 =  0.5% of licensees who come under FIP scrutiny have their licenses revoked

1701/97,000 = 1.8% of license applications that come under FIP scrutiny are refused

97,000/1.8M = 5% of legitimate gun owners come under FIP scrutiny

466/1.8M = 0.03% of legitimate gun owners who come under FIP scrutiny have their licenses revoked

1701/1.8M = 0.09% of legitimate gun owners who come under FIP scrutiny have their license applications refused

Yet again, the CFP proves that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners are not, and never have been “the problem”!  And it only cost us $2BILLION!

Universal licensing and registration of firearms create an atmosphere of accountability. Knowing that individuals and businesses are accountable for their firearms and the use of them decreases the likelihood that an individual will misuse, traffic or commit a crime with a firearm.(1) As well, continuous eligibility checks of firearms licence holders ensure that firearms are removed from people whose behaviour suggests that they might pose a threat to public safety.(2)[17]

(1) How, exactly?  Where’s the proof? I haven’t seen any so far.

(2) How do you know they got all the guns?  How will the registry work to seize unregistered guns?  How do you know these people just  didn’t get guns illegally anyway?

Simply repeating an assertion does not make it true…

%d bloggers like this: