Hubris in the North: The Canadian Firearms Registry

1. Hubris in the North:The Canadian Firearms Registry Professor Gary A. Mauser Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

2. Hubris in the North:The Canadian Firearms Registry An invited keynote presentation: In the Right Hands - an international firearm safety seminar, Christchurch, New Zealand, 21-23 February 2006

3. Hubris in the North • How should firearms be regulated? • My presentation is a cautionary tale: • The ideal is the enemy of the practical. • Hubris leads to failure.

4. Hubris in the North • My presentation compares: • The Canadian federal approach • Failed because of hubris • The provincial approach • Consultative and effective

5. Hubris in the North Hubris is a theme in Greek tragedy • Those who suffer from hubris are punished by the gods. • Hubris = Arrogance coupled with ignorance The false pride that goes before a fall

6. Hubris in the North Firearms ownership in Canada - Historically • Canadians have owned firearms for centuries • Many early settlers were retired British soldiers • The Canadian militia has repulsed invasions.

7. Hubris in the North • Current Reasons for Owning a Firearm • Hunting 73% • Target shooting 13% • Pest control 8% • Protection 6% • Source: GPC Research, 2001

8. Hubris in the North Percentage of households with firearms 1976 35% 1992 27% 1998 21% 2001 17% NB. Based upon survey reports

9. Hubris in the North Two kinds of Canadian firearms laws Federal - the criminal code 1934 - handguns registered 1977 - police permit required 1998 - firearms registry Provincial - hunting regulations 1960s-1970s - hunter safety training

10. Hubris in the North The stated goals of the federal firearm registry: • To cut firearms violence • To reduce domestic violence • To cut total homicide • To reduce overall rates of violent crime • To improve public safety • Allan Rock, Justice Minister, addresses to Parliament, Hansard, Feb 16 and June 13, 1995

11. Hubris in the North The assumptions behind universal firearm registration: • Registration restricts the availability of firearms • Reduced availability will cut total criminal violence and domestic abuse • Reduced firearm availability will cut total suicides

12. Hubris in the North The “weapon instrumentality” hypothesis: • The availability of firearms precipitates violence • Triggers pull fingers • Availability increases the likelihood of death or serious injury • In assault • In robbery • In suicide

13. Evaluating the firearm registry • Has the firearm registry been successful: • In reducing the suicide rate? • In reducing the homicide rate? • In reducing violent crime?

14. Trends in suicide methods Firearm registry imposed 

15. Trends in homicide rates Firearm registry imposed 

16. Trends in homicide methods Firearm registry imposed 

17. Weapon instrumentality hypothesis Problems with the instrumentality hypothesis: • Confuses deadliness of instrument with intentions of assailant • Many alternative weapons available • Assaults involving firearms cause fewer injuries, and less serious injuries

18. Injuries caused during assault

19. Trends in firearms used in homicide Firearm registry imposed 

20. Trends in spousal homicide Firearm registry imposed 

21. Gang-related homicides Firearm registry imposed 

22. Trends in violent crime Firearms registry imposed 

23. Summary Evaluation • The firearm registry has cost at least $2 billion ($C) to date. • Since 1998: • Homicide rates have increased 3% • Domestic homicides have increased by 3% • Gang-related homicides have increased five fold • Violent crime rates have decreased by 4% • Suicide rates have decreased by 2%

24. What went wrong ? The Canadian government made two fundamental mistakes: • Relying upon public health advocates • Ignoring the experience of other countries with firearm registration.

25. Problems with public health studies • Public health studies on guns and violence: • are unscientific and moralistic • greatly exaggerate the dangers of ordinary gun owners • Public health advocates are radicals in sheep’s clothing

26. Advocacy not science Public health studies are adversarial, not scientific • “The [Public Health] Association [of Australia]… actively undertakes advocacy for public health policy…” • “The [Canadian Public Health] Association's mission is to … advocate for the improvement …”

27. Sagecraft not science Public health studies on guns and violence ignore basic scientific rules • Ad hominem arguments • Disconfirming studies ignored • Results over-interpreted • False citations of prior research • Papers often published without proper peer review Public health only uses the trappings of science

28. Public health research misleading • Rely upon misleading measures like ‘gun deaths’ to evaluate public safety • Cost-benefit studies are conducted but any benefits are ignored • Public health research oversimplifies the epidemiological model

29. Firearms as a ‘disease vector’ • In epidemiological research a “disease vector” may act as: • a disease hazard • a “protectorant” • a cause • a preventative • Infection depends in part upon the susceptibilities of particular hosts

30. Firearms as a ‘disease vector’ Public health researchers oversimplify the epidemiological model by: • Ignoring that firearms might act as: • protectorants or • as preventatives. • Ignoring the susceptibilities of particular hosts, or users.

31. A few egregious examples • A few egregious examples among many • Chapman’s arguments • Gabor’s literature review • Kellermann et al (1993) case-control study

32. Chapman • Chapman’s approach is advocacy not science • Championed various causes: • Anti tobacco • Anti firearms • Right to die • He violates the basic scientific approach • Ignores disconfirming studies • Over-interprets results of studies

33. Chapman and firearms • Falsely frames the debate as: • Science vs. gun lobby • Uses ad hominem arguments, e.g., • He dismisses Professor Kleck’s research because • Kleck is cited by the gun lobby • Ignores disconfirming studies

34. Chapman • He selectively reports research on ‘displacement’ • Research question: Does limiting one suicide method cause a reduction in total suicides? • Chapman only cites supporting studies • Ignores disconfirming studies • This is not science, it is advocacy

35. Public health research not scientific • An example of a published literature review that deliberately misrepresented research results • Thomas Gabor • Canadian public health researcher

36. Public health research • Gabor’s research question: • Is firearm availability associated with total suicide rate? • Thomas Gabor misrepresented the results of his review of research studies • This is a crucial paper -- it was cited approvingly by: • Canadian Department of Justice • Lord Cullen’s inquiry into the Dunblane shootings

37. Gabor’s literature review • Gabor surveyed 15 studies • He claimed 8 were supportive of association, but… • 7 of the studies cited as supportive were irrelevant • These studies did not measure association or • firearms availability

38. Gabor’s literature review • Gabor made other errors: • 3 studies that he characterized as supportive were not statistically significant • some of the studies were both irrelevant and not statistically significant • 3 important studies were omitted • Including 1 that was legitimately supportive of this claim

39. Gary Kleck’s re-analysis

40. Case-control studies • The misuse of case-control • Case-control is a legitimate method as used in epidemiology • But it is misused in studies of guns and violence

41. Problems with case-control studies • Legitimate method when it’s used to identify potential risk factors (i.e., hypotheses) • Risk factors so identified should be subjected to clinical trials • This step is typically ignored in firearms research

42. Problems with case-control studies • An example of methodological errors made in case-control studies • Kellermann et al (1993) • Critically important that subjects in experimental and control groups be equivalent • Matching is unable to do this adequately (random assignment much preferable) • Nonparticipation rates are often high

43. Problems with case-control studies • Kellermann et al (1993) • Investigated gun ownership as a risk factor for becoming a murder victim • Cases: homes where an adult had been murdered in his own home • Controls: households in same neighbourhood with matching demographics • Note: controls not matched on attitudes or habits or employment or drug or alcohol use

44. Problems with case-control studies • High nonparticipation rate • Previous research suggests that respondents who agree to participate are healthier than those who refuse • Controls were less likely to admit gun ownership than proxies • If gun ownership is underestimated in the control group, the odds ratio is exaggerated

45. Problems with case-control studies • Sample not randomly selected • Limited to only 3 urban counties • Kellermann over-interpreted his findings • Falsely claimed his odds ratio of 2.7 was a ‘strong’ result • Despite methodological failings, this study is widely believed by public health advocates

46. Public health is advocacy • Problems with public health research into guns and violence: • Over- simplifies epidemiological model • Violates basic scientific principles • Practises advocacy, not science

47. Hubris in the North In contrast to the federal registry, now consider provincial firearms laws

48. Hubris in the North Provincial firearms laws • Firearms included in hunting regulations • The provinces are responsible for training hunters

49. Hubris in the North Provincial hunter safety training • For example, the province of British Columbia • Gun clubs had demanded mandatory training • Voluntary provincial course offered in 1969 • Mandatory course required in 1974

50. Hubris in the North Provincial hunter safety training “The goal of the CORE Program is to ensure that prospective hunters meet acceptable standards of knowledge and skill for safe and ethical participation in hunting recreation.”