Gun Control

(under construction-incomplete)

Gun control is a hot button topic pretty much everywhere. Unfortunately, most of what most people believe about gun control is demonstrably wrong. Here I will outline what we do and do not know about gun control, develop the basic principles of an effective gun control regime, and outline a process for transitioning from Canada's current expensive, oppressive and ineffective system to one that will produce lower crime at lower cost while preserving more of Canadians' liberties.

What do we really know about the effects of gun control on crime?

The short answer here is, very little. The underlying reason for this is that gun control has very little effect on crime in all but the most extreme cases, since the vast majority of people remain peaceful and non violent regardless of how many or what kind of guns they may have, while a violent majority pays no attention to gun control or any other laws. As a result, any empirical work is highly sensitive to complex statistical issues which basically revolve around how to obtain data and which data points to include. For example, the former issue includes matters such as how to word questions, how to conduct surveys, and so on. The latter include how to choose the starting and ending dates for research involving trends over time, the level of analysis (nation, state/province, city, neighbourhood, etc.). These sound like obscure matters, but in reality they essentially predetermine the results of any research. Highly trained researchers are well aware of this, and as a result tend, consciously or unconsciously, to choose research methods that will produce results in accordance with their own personal biases. John Lott has done an excellent job of pointing out these weaknesses in the anti-gun literature (see his book, The war on guns, or his website, johnlott.blogspot.ca, for example). For an anti-gun critique of Lott's work, see www.armedwithreason.com.

The one thing we do know about gun control is that a lot of people favour more of it. They may not know anything about already existing laws or crime patterns, let alone the processes that lead to crime, and the subject may only become top of mind when they have just seen news about some heinous violent act, but there is no denying that a lot of people say they believe in stricter gun control, especially if they are urban residents who do not own guns. The key point here is that even if there is no demonstrable link whatsoever between legal gun ownership and crime, either positive or negative, it is neither reasonable nor sustainable in a democracy to expect that there be no restrictions whatsoever on firearms ownership. The key, then, is to find a compromise. Note that a compromise means that both sides make concessions from their ideal solutions. It does not mean "we'll take half of what you have now, because that's all we can get at the moment, and come back for the rest later". It means each side gives something. In this case, gun owners agree to some restrictions, even if they are unlikely to affect crime, to achieve the goal of legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the non gun owning majority, while anti-gun activists give up their goal of annihilating the firearms community slice by slice. Anti-gun activists are free to believe that all guns should be abolished, but those who would do so should make it clear that this is an ideological preference, bot an empirically-based approach to reducing crime.

Basic principles of an effective gun control regime

If we were guided solely by logic and the evidence, we would probably not spend much, or perhaps anything at all, on gun control. However, whatever amount we do choose to spend, surely it should not be objectionable to spend this money (or these resources) in the way that has the greatest impact on crime. So my first principle is that we should focus our spending on measures that are likely to have an impact, and abandon measures unlikely to have an impact. After all, every dollar wasted on ineffective gun controls not only does not contribute to crime reduction, it means that dollar is also not spent on other worthwhile social goals, like providing clean drinking water to First Nations reserves or helping immigrants to learn English or French so they can get better jobs and participate more fully in Canadian life. As we will see below, this principle means basically focusing on gun owners rather than guns themselves. There are far fewer gun owners than guns, since most owners have more than one, and a homicidal maniac or terrorist with a single-shot .22 rifle is much more dangerous than an aging collector with 100 machine guns.

A second key principle is that any worthwhile system must also encourage compliance. In other words, people should want to opt in, not just feel forced to. Although penalties probably need to play some role, they should not be the primary basis for ensuring compliance. Inclusion is always better than exclusion. The importance of inclusivity in addressing social issues is one of the very few points on which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and I agree, although I am a lot more consistent in applying it than he is. The main implication of this principle is that any activity that does not harm others must be allowed, provided one follows the rules governing the activity. Not necessarily easy, but possible and with reasonable and justifiable restrictions that must not be so strict as to make the possibility of getting a permit illusory. Inclusion can also be fostered by self-regulation through the existing infrastructure of highly knowledgeable firearms organizations, and through an enforcement regime that encourages counselling regarding compliance rather than laying charges at every possible opportunity.

The third principle is somewhat related to the first two, but worth stating separately: the system must be perceived as legitimate by both gun owners and non-owners. The main implication of this principle is that we cannot have a system with no rules at all, even if it is very hard, and quite probably impossible, to demonstrate that most rules have an impact worth their cost. The other key implication is that there must be some rationality to the system. Regulations that defy reason encourage contempt for the law. For example, our current firearms classification system puts many firearms that are at the lowest risk of abuse into the most restricted category (“prohibited”), out of reach of many potential owners, and incidentally discriminating against the young and most immigrants.

Who can own guns?

What guns can they own?

What can they do with them?

Not the same as in USA: legal and social background, infrastructure re background checks, etc.

Taxonomy of homicides: mental illness, crimes of passion, targeted killings, terrorism, organized crime including gangs, vengeance rampages, murder/suicide, etc. each requires different policy response and will respond differently to gun control measures, if at all

People are the best judge of whether they are in need of protection, but people are not necessarily the best judge of whether they are technically and temperamentally capable of doing so without endangering others

Transition

No " Big Bang"

Gradual but steady phase- in

First

Allow owned guns to be fired at ranges

Remove RCMP from classification process with simplified basic classification scheme (recommend, not approve any variations)

Second Allow all owned guns to be transferred to any licensed party

Second

Allow all owned guns to be used for any lawful purpose

To return to the main Essay page, please click here: http://members.shaw.ca/tallteri/essays.htm