Thank you, Chair.
Members of the committee, thank you for letting me present my research regarding Canadian firearms legislation and its association with homicide, spousal homicide, mass homicide and suicide in Canada.
I am a professor of medicine at McMaster University and an emergency physician in Hamilton, Ontario. I serve as an academic peer reviewer in the areas of firearms control, homicide, suicide, violence and gang deterrence for academic journals such as Violence and Victims, JIV, the American Journal of Public Health, Preventative Medicine, and Nature.
I would also like to agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Henry and what he just said.
I have submitted three of my peer-reviewed articles to the committee for review. I'll summarize those findings and the implications.
The first article, “Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide”, examines multiple legislative and regulatory interventions, such as whether bans of certain semi-automatic firearms and restrictions of military-appearing firearms, certain types of handguns, magazine capacity restrictions, registrations and background checks were associated with reductions in homicide and spousal homicide.
Three statistical models were used. To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearms, spousal homicide or a criminal charge of discharge of a firearm with intent. Bans of military-appearing firearms, semi-automatic rifles and handguns, short-barrelled handguns and “Saturday night specials” in the 1990s have resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates. Rather, social and economic factors were associated with higher firearm homicide rates. For instance, an older population was associated with a lower rate of homicide using a long gun, while an increase in the unemployment rate was associated with an increase in spousal homicide.
Homicide by handgun, usually used by people involved in criminality, was associated with an increase in the unemployment rate, poverty rates and immigration. As well, the overall increase in incarceration was associated with increases in homicide rates, likely reflecting an increase in crime rates overall. These results would suggest further areas to study, as well as beneficial areas to target by public policy to reduce homicide rates.
My second paper, “Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide”, expanded on the previous study by looking at homicide rates over an expanded time frame, as well as suicide. It also applied new statistical methods.
This study confirmed previous research findings that legislation and regulatory efforts such as bans had no associated effect on homicide rates. As well, the study demonstrated that while suicide rates fell in males over the age of 45 in association with firearms legislation and regulations, there was an equivalent substitution of suicide by other methods, resulting in no overall difference in the rates of suicide. Factors such as unemployment, low income and indigenous populations were associated with suicide rates.
Other studies have demonstrated agreement with my study findings that laws targeting these restricted firearms, such as handguns and semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms, have had no associated benefit on homicide rates in Canada.
As demonstrated in a recent review article I was asked to write by Preventative Medicine, “Suicide, firearms, and legislation”, nine Canadian studies were found that demonstrated a switch from suicide by firearms to other methods such as hanging, resulting in no overall changes or benefits.
Data on mass homicide in Canada was obtained from Statistics Canada between the years of 1974 and 2010. Using a definition of mass homicide as a single event with three or more victims, no associated reduction in mass homicide rates was found with bans of military-appearing firearms and semi-automatic firearms, or with background checks.
Methods that have been shown to be more effective in reducing firearm homicide involve targeting the demand side of firearms prevalence in criminal activity. As demonstrated by StatCan, a significant percentage of firearms homicide involves gangs. In 1995, as youth violence increased, a program called Operation Ceasefire was launched in Boston that involved reducing the demand for weapons by targeting gangs, specifically in terms of warnings and legal interventions, as well as working with community groups and workers to reduce youth membership in gangs.
The other arm of Operation Ceasefire involved reducing the supply of weapons by legal interventions. Braga et al. 2001, examined both aspects of Operation Ceasefire and found the demand side had significant—