[This is the original as sent to me by Mr Gary Mauser _except_as_follows_: 1. Reformatting has been done. 2. Some tables have been moved into the text where the original suggested they should appear. 3. Some tables had headings changed (from "firearm" to "gun" and from "percentage" to "%-age") to preserve alignment of columns.] Is there a need for armed self defense in Canada? by Gary A. Mauser Institute of Canadian Urban Research Studies Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. CANADA V5A 1S6 Abstract The use of firearms for self defense is strongly discouraged in Canada. This discouragement takes the form of restrictive firearms laws as well as limited legal grounds for self defense in any form. Nevertheless, lethal force may still be used legally in Canada to defend oneself, and occasionally private citizens resort to its use. In this paper, I present the results of a nationwide survey on the Canadian public's attitudes towards the use of firearms in self defense and estimate the frequency that firearms are used for defending oneself in Canada. Canadians report using a firearm to defend themselves or their families over 60,000 times per year between 1985 and 1990. Approximately half of these incidents involve threats by dangerous animals and half involve people. It is unknown how many lives are saved annually by firearms owners in Canada. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Law and Society Association in Calgary, Alberta, 12-14 April 1994. file: CSD.Calgary 30-4-94 Self defense is a troublesome right. On the one hand, it would seem obvious that all people have -- or should have -- the inherent right to use physical force to defend themselves from assault. Not surprisingly, the criminal codes of many countries includes self defense as a legitimate justification for the use of deadly force. On the other hand, the right of self defense threatens our faith in the rule of law. It is too easy for revenge or even aggression to be confused with legitimate self defense. The intensity of this debate increases when the use of firearms in self defense is considered. The right to defend oneself strikes at the heart of the rule of law. A legal system is only possible if the state enjoys a monopoly of force. If individuals can appeal to force to decide on their own who shall live and who shall die, there can be no pretense to the rule of law. However, the state's monopoly on force entails the obligation to keep its citizens secure from violence. Whenever individuals are threatened with immediate aggression, and when the police are unable to protect them, the state's monopoly on the use of force must give way. The individual's right of survival reasserts itself. No right could be more basic and more important than that of the individual's right to use force, even deadly force, to repel an aggressor. But precisely when does the state's monopoly on force give way? When can individuals use weapons to defend themselves? There are complex legal and moral problems involved in drawing these distinctions, and different political jurisdictions may deal with these issues quite differently. In the US, there is a lively debate over armed self defense. Both the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association have campaigned vigourously in support of an armed public, while Handgun Control Inc. and the National Coalition to Ban Handguns have enveighed against public ownership of firearms. Police organizations are divided over the advisability of citizens arming themselves for self defense. While the National Association of Chiefs of Police strongly opposes civilian gun ownership, both the National Police Officers Association of America and the American Federation of Police support civilians arming themselves for self defense. Canadians typically view this debate as one that is restricted to the United States. The prevailing attitude is that there is no need for self defense in Canada; our superiour social system and/or legal system have obviated these problems. Many Canadians prefer to believe that problems of violent crime are limited to the rather tumultuous republic to the South of them. Thus, it should come as no surprize that exceptionally few Canadian organizations argue that citizens have the right to defend themselves with weapons1. Any organizations that make such an argument are soon marginalized and excluded from the national consensus. Not only do the police actively discourage self defense in general, but armed self defense is widely considered illegal.2 Moreover, there are surprisingly few organized groups that officially support self defense, even in principle, or that teach self defense in any form.3 Talk show hosts discuss "violence against women" for hours without once mentioning the possibility that women might use physical force to defend themselves against those who seek to assault or rape them. The question of the defensive use of firearms has been relatively ignored by academics. In the US, only a few studies have examined the frequency with which citizens use firearms to defend themselves or their families [Cook 1991; Kleck 1988, 1991]. In Canada, the topic has been almost completely ignored. No studies have been published to my knowledge that have attempted to estimate the frequency with which firearms are used in self defense in Canada, however a few studies have investigated attitudes towards the use of firearms in self defense [Mauser 1990; Mauser and Margolis 1992], and one unpublished study has been circulated [Mauser 1993]. But how different are Canada and the United States with respect to the defensive use of firearms? If there are little differences, then the assumption of Canadian moral superiority would be unjustified. The first section of the paper, the examination of public attitudes towards firearms and self defense, draws upon and expands previous work [Mauser 1990; Mauser and Margolis 1992; Mauser 1993]. The second part of this paper estimates the frequency with which Canadians use firearms in self defense and compares these rates with those in the United States. The approach taken is based upon that used by Professor Kleck so that the results are comparable with similar studies of self defensive uses of firearms in the United States [Kleck, 1988; Kleck 1991]. The legislation Self defense must be distinguished from all other reasons for using force against criminals, such as vigilantism or revenge. Self defense entails those acts intended to protect one's physical safety or property, or to protect the safety or property of others, while vigilantism and revenge involve retribution, or an attempt to punish an offender. The use of force to defend oneself is legal under some conditions, but neither vigilantism nor revenge are ever legal. Certainly, elements of vengeance might be mixed with a concern with self defense in a given incident, but logically, retribution is not necessarily involved in self defense. Despite disavowals by police officials, the Canadian criminal code does include the right of citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves [sections 34, 35, and 37]. It is a right however that is severely circumscribed by more conditions than are typically found in the United States. In Canada, the key provision in the criminal code [ 34] is that, no one may use "more force than is necessary" and then only when "he believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." In section 35, the code goes on to require that one must show that "he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it [the assault] as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself ... arose." Moreover, the right to use physical force to defend non-family members is more limited than it is in many US states, as are the Canadians' rights to repulse trespassers on his or her own property, or to use force to stop the commission of serious or violent crimes [Viz. sections 24, 40, and 41]. Recent firearms legislation now requires firearms to not only be unloaded when stored in one's residence, but all firearms must also be under lock and key [CCC, Section 86 [3].4 Moreover, many municipalities have regulations that make it an offense to discharge a firearm within city limits [Municipal Code]. Presumably, if someone were to use a firearm in defending him or herself, charges could be laid on a number of possible violations -- from unsafe storage to homicide -- and he or she would have to prove in court that the firearm had been used in self defense. Methods This paper is based primarily upon two surveys of the general publics in the United States and in Canada undertaken simultaneously in the early spring of 1990 [Mauser & Margolis 1992]. These surveys were conducted under my direction by the Center for Social and Urban Research at the University of Pittsburgh and funded by a grant from the International Council for Canadian Studies (ICCS). Representative samples of adult residents, 18 years of age or older, were drawn using stratified random sampling methods to ensure adequate representation from both countries. Random digit dialing methods were used to generate unlisted telephone numbers.5 Professional interviewers completed 393 telephone interviews in all Canadian provinces (including 93 interviews of residents in Quebec conducted in French) and 344 in the United States during the period of March 20 through April 10, 1990. The target population in Canada included all 10 provinces, but not the Yukon nor the Northwest Territories; in the United States, the target population included the District of Columbia and all states except Hawaii and Alaska. Interviews averaged approximately 12 minutes, and the response rate was 60 percent for Canada and 56% for the United States. This joint Canadian-American study replicated questions included in relevant American and Canadian surveys to facilitate comparison. However, strict replication was not always possible due to occasional legal differences between the two countries. In such cases, I attempted to make the fewest possible changes in the wording that would preserve equivalence. Where differences in wordings exist, they are noted. The key questions in this study about defensive gun use were based upon those used in the 1991 Hart Poll. Respondents in both Canada and the US were first asked: "Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired?" If the respondent answered, "yes," he or she was then asked, "Was this to protect against an animal or a person [or both]." The identical question was used in the 1981 Hart Poll except that Hart asked about the defensive use of handguns only rather than all firearms. As with the Hart Poll, all Rs were asked these questions without screening for gun ownership or for privious victimization. This point is important because some Rs may not have firearms now, but have used firearms defensively before they sold their firearms. Similarly with screening for victimhood: Rs may not report being a victim because they do not consider themselves a victim, having successfully frightened off the attacker with a firearm.6 A variety of basically similar questions have been asked of probability samples of the general adult population in the United States.7 The formulation adoped in this paper is superior in several ways. First, it asks about defensive use of all types of guns, not just handguns. Second, it is more precise because it asks about a specific time period rather than the vague "have you ever used a gun." Third, it asks about firearms use by anyone in the family, not just the respondent. Fourth, it asks about the self defense of people as well as the protection of property. Fifth, it excludes the defensive uses of firearms as part of military and police duties. Finally, it distinguishes between defensive uses against animal threats and human threats. As with victim surveys, this question does not permit an assessment of the legal or moral nature of the reported 'defensive' gun use. One must rely upon the honesty of the Rs as to the defensive character of the reported act. This moral ambiguity is important to note. Even if some violent encounters are morally unambiguous, many assaults and homicides are more accurately characterized as mutual combat than as a guiltless victim defending himself against an immoral aggressor. In both victim surveys and self defense surveys, whoever is viewed as the 'victim' may depend only upon who one is interviewing. Firearms ownership and attitudes in Canada and in the United States Before examining firearms use in Canada and the US, it is important to compare the ownership and use of firearms in the two countries. Table 1 shows that fewer Canadians have firearms than Americans. Estimates range between 23% and 34% of Canadian households have one or more firearms, while 46% of households in the US are estimated to do so. Canadians have almost as many rifles and shotguns but have much fewer handguns. Estimates range between 16% and 23% of Canadian households have one or more rifles, while between 24% and 32% of households in the US have one or more rifles. Concerning shotguns, estimates range between 15% and 19% of Canadian households have one or more shotguns, while between 24% and 33% of households in the US do so. The differences are most striking with respect to handguns. Estimates range between 3% and 7% of Canadian households have one or more handguns, while between 25% and 27% of households in the US do so. For the most part, Canadians own firearms for the same reasons that Americans do. Large majorities of respondents in both countries cited "hunting" as the main reason for owning firearms. As well, Canadians and Americans are equally likely to cite "target shooting" and "part of a gun collection." as their primary reason for firearms ownership. The principal difference has to do with handguns. Canadians are much less likely [5%] than Americans [22%] to volunteer "self defense" as their main reason for owning a firearm. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 1. Households with firearms in Canada and the United States. Gallup ICCS ICCS Angus Reid USA USA Canada Canada (1991) (1990) (1990) (1991) Rifle 24% 32% 29% 16% Shotgun 24% 33% 19% 15% Handgun 25% 27% 7% 3% Firearm 46% 46% 34% 23% N 1,010 343 393 2,341 NB: These estimates are based upon telephone surveys and refer to the percentage of households in the country that own each type of firearm. Table 2. Main reason reported for owning a firearm (ICCS 1990) Canada USA Hunting 71% 51% Target Shooting 5 9 Part of Collection 7 10 Self-Defense at Home 4 15 Other 13 15 100% 100% NB. The question: "Please indicate, from the following list, the most important reason you have a gun in your household. " ------------------------------------------------------------------ In my survey of the Canadian and American publics, I included several questions that had not been asked in nationwide surveys of Canadians before. The first of these questions concerned Canadians beliefs about their "right to bear arms." Table 3 shows that more than half of Canadians assert that, as Canadians, they "have a right to own a gun." Interestingly, the belief in this "right" is widespread among Canadians: majorities of most educational, income, regional, and age categories assert that, as Canadians, they have this right. As might be expected, firearms owners feel particularly strongly about their asserted right. Differences between the two countries are larger among people who do not own a firearm: in Canada a majority of non-owners do not believe that they have a right to own a firearm, while in the USA, strong majorities of all citizens, including non-gun owners, believe Americans have the right to bear arms. Interestingly, this belief in "the right to own a gun" conflicts with the opinions of most Canadian jurists, who assert that firearms ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right (Friedland 1984). There is however a school of thought that, because of the Magna Carta, Canadians have the same rights as English subjects to firearms ownership [Kopel, 1992; Blackstone, 1979]. Whatever the legal opinions are, a majority of Canadians believe that they have a right to bear arms. This belief is particularly strong outside of Central Canada: Westerners, as well as people living in the Maritimes, are more likely to have grown up with firearms than people in Central Canada (Mauser 1990; Stenning and Moyer 1981). Are Canadians simply confused by too much American television, or do Canadians resemble Americans more than Canadian nationalists suppose? According to this brief look at the available surveys, Canadians and American would seem to express the same basic attitudes towards firearms, with the exception of handguns. It appears that the two countries do not differ as much as implied by the "cultural heritage" argument. Nonetheless, the data suggest that the publics in both countries have complex feelings about firearms. Large majorities in both countries simultaneously support "moderate" firearms legislation while supporting the use of firearms in self defense. Reports of previous surveys have tended to focus upon only part of the story, namely attitudes in support of firearms restrictions. These reports have exaggerated the differences between the Canadian and American publics, fostering the false impression that the Canadian public strongly opposes the private ownership of firearms. Another question that elicits strong agreement from both Canadians and Americans concerns public evaluations of the effectiveness of gun-control legislation. Large majorities in both countries--79 percent (Canada) and 86 percent (USA) -- agree that "gun-control laws affect only law-abiding citizens, criminals will always be able to find firearms." See table 4. While this question is somewhat loaded, the high level of agreement, and the low percentage of respondents who express "no opinion," suggest that the public perceives a clear distinction between the use of firearms by "criminals" and by "law-abiding citizens." ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 3. "Do you believe that you, as a citizen, have a right to own a gun?" (ICCS 1990) Canada (1990) USA (1990) Total Firearm Non-gun Total Firearm Non Sample Owners Owners Sample Owners Owners Yes 56% 80% 45% 86% 96% 75% No 44 20 55 14 4 25 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N (386) (121) (260) (339) (160) (170) Note. The question in the Canadian survey was, "Do you believe that you, as a Canadian resident, have a right to own a gun, or not?" Table 4. "Gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens, criminals will always be able to find firearms. Do you agree or disagree?" ICCS Caddell ICCS Canada (1990) USA (1978) USA (1990) Agree 79% 78% 86% Disagree 20 13 13 No opinion 1 10 1 100% 100% 100% N=393 N=1500 N=344 The Caddell survey refers to a nationwide survey conducted by Pat Caddell for the Center for the Study and Prevention of Handgun Violence [viz, Wright et al, 1983, chap 7]. ------------------------------------------------------------------ But what about self defense? Americans, it is claimed, believe that people have the right to defend themselves with firearms if necessary, while Canadians, in contrast, prefer to trust the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to protect them from violence (Friedland 1984: 132-134). Unfortunately, questions about the use of firearms in self defense are rarely found in surveys, for pollsters prefer to ask about the criminal use of firearms. This is particularly true in Canada where almost all surveys have been conducted by the proponents of stricter firearms legislation. Nevertheless, a few questions can be found. For example, a series of highly publicized shootouts between retail store owners and holdup men in both countries a few years ago motivated Gallup to investigate public reaction to the use of firearms by store owners and to include a small number of identical questions in nationwide surveys of both the USA and Canada on this topic. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 5. "In the past year there have been a number of incidents involving firearms used by retail store owners. Do you feel that incidents like these -- taking the law into one's own hands, often called 'vigilantism' -- are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified because of the circumstances or are never justified?" Gallup Gallup USA (1985) Canada (1987) Always 8 8 Sometimes 72 68 Never 17 21 No opinion 3 3 100% 100% Table 6. "In the past year there have been a number of incidents involving firearms used by retail store owners. Do you feel that incidents like these -- taking the law into one's own hands, often called 'vigilantism' -- are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified because of the circumstances or are never justified?" ICCS ICCS USA (1990) Canada (1990) Always 11% 7% Usually justified 26 16 Sometimes justified 44 45 Rarely justified 13 20 Never justified 5 11 No opinion 3 3 100% 100% N = 393 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The similarities between the Canadian and American publics are eye-catching. (See table 5.) Over three-quarters of the public in both countries reported that they thought the use of firearms by retail store owners was at least "sometimes justified." On this subject also, Canadians do not seem to differ very much from their American neighbors. To probe the attitudes of the respondents further on the issue of retail store owners using firearms, I included a variation of a question that Gallup had asked about the propriety "of taking the law into one's own hands, often called 'vigilantism'." Although this wording had been used by Gallup, I thought that his phrasing, which emphasized 'vigilantism,' an illegal act of retribution which excluded the possibility of legitimate self defense, was unnecessarily biased. To examine the impact of Gallup's wording, I rephrased the question to read "defending oneself with a firearm," and randomly split the sample, asking one-half of the respondents the question with the "vigilantism" wording, and the other half with the "self defense" wording. An inspection of Tables 5,6 and 7 show that Americans are more likely than Canadians to approve of either self defense or vigilantism, but the change of wording had a greater effect in the USA than in Canada. Clearly, more Americans than Canadians distinguish between "vigilantism" and "self defense," finding the latter a far more attractive alternative. Perhaps because Americans are more likely to have occasion to use firearms to defend themselves, they realize that not all defensive use of firearms is vigilantism, while Canadians are unclear about the differences between the two alternatives.8 In any case, however, in both countries the most frequent response was that retail store owners were "sometimes" justified in using firearms for these purposes. Following up on Gallup's questions about firearms used by retail store owners, I included several questions about the public's views of using handguns for self defense. One of the issues involved in these incidents was the possible illegality of the store owners' firearms. In Canada it is often impossible to get permission from the police to keep a handgun for self protection. Nevertheless, Mauser and Kennedy had found that a majority of British Columbians and Albertans supported of the use of firearms on the part of store owners, so I decided to ask the national samples about making such use into public policy. Table 8 shows that Americans are much more supportive than Canadians of storeowners having firearms to protect themselves. While a huge majority of Americans support storeowners arming themselves (80%), Canadians as a whole come out slightly against such uses, 51 to 44 percent. However, support for the use of firearms for self defense is more common among residents of the western provinces than among the Canadian population in general. Canadians are not so supportive of allowing homeowners to have handguns. See Table 9. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 7. "In the past year there have been a number of incidents involving firearms used by retain store owners. Do you feel that incidents like these -- defending oneself with a firearm* -- are often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified because of the circumstances or are never justified?" (ICCS 1990) USA (1990) Canada (1990) self vigil- self vigil- defense antism defense antism Always 16% 8% 8% 5% Usually 30 23 18 15 Sometimes 41 46 47 43 Rarely 11 15 19 23 Never 2 8 8 15 100% 100% 100% 100% *An alternative formulation was randomly substituted for "defending oneself with a firearm" in one-half of the interviews, "taking the law into one's own hands, often called 'vigilantism.'" Table 8. "Do you favor or oppose store owners, or owners of small businesses, being licensed to have a small handgun to use if necessary in the event of an armed robbery?" Mauser Kennedy ICCS ICCS B.C. Alberta USA Canada (1988) (1987) (1990) (1990) oppose 36 36% 17% 51% favor 58 57 80% 44% no opinion 2 7 3 5 100% 100% 100% 100% N=405 N=1045 N=344 N=393 Note: The Alberta data were originally collected through the Alberta Survey, directed by Professor Kennedy of the Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, and made available through through the Inter-University Consortium. Table 9 "Do you favor or oppose home owners being licensed to have a small handgun to use if necessary in the event of an armed robbery?" Mauser DMI ICCS ICCS B.C. USA USA Canada (1988) (1978) (1990) (1990) oppose 59% 69% 24% 56% favor 40 29 73 41% no opinion 2 3 3 3 100% 100% 100% 100% N=405 N=1500 N=344 N=393 Note: the wording used in the DMI survey differed from the other questions, "Would you favor or oppose a law giving the police the power to decide who may or may not own a firearm?" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Our analysis thus far indicates that respectable majorities in both countries express support for the legitimate use of firearms. Many Americans and Canadians share some of the beliefs of the pro-firearms position in the United States: for example, a majority of Canadians as well as Americans believe that as citizens, they "have the right to own a gun." Moreover, majorities in both countries believe that, under certain circumstances, the use of firearms in self defense is justifiable. In short, citizens appear simultaneously to want to enjoy their freedom to bear arms and to want government protection from harm that such arms--in the wrong hands-- could cause. An important question then arises about whether these attitudes are held generally, or if the public is divided into distinct camps. To summarize, this review of public opinion in the US and Canada reveals striking similarities and a few important differences. The general public in both countries share much the same [if complex] attitudes towards firearms and the use of firearms in self defense. Majorities in both countries support 'moderate' firearms legislation and simultaneously support the use of firearms in self defense. In Canada, the public is more supportive of stricter legislation, particularly concerning handguns, and is less supportive of the 'right to bear arms.' Despite these differences, the Canadian public is more supportive of responsible firearms ownership than has been portrayed by Canadian nationalists. The use of firearms in self defense This section compares how often Canadians and Americans use firearms to defend themselves or their family. Unfortunately, it is exceptionally difficult to answer this question directly, as there are few relevant official records that are readily available.9 Public opinion surveys are the best data available to estimate the use of firearms in self defense. In order to facilitate comparison, the identical question was asked in both Canada and the US. In the ICCS study, respondents were asked a series of questions to investigate their use of firearms in self defense. First, respondents were asked, "Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, ever used a gun for self-protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired?" If the respondent answered, "yes," a follow up question was asked, "Was this to protect against an animal or a person [or both]." ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 10. Comparison of firearms use in Canada and the US. USA Canada BC Hart [1981] ICCS [1990] ICCS [1990] Mauser [1988] Animal 2% 0.3% 1.5% 2% Person 3% 3.5% 1.3% 1.5% Both 1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% Total 6% 4.4% 3.1% 4% Source: Kleck [1988]; Mauser [1990]; Mauser and Margolis [1992] Note: SFU Excel file, "CDN firearms 23/10" Table 11. Use of a firearm in self protection in the past 5 years in Canada. %-age Per household Per household Per 100,000 persons per year per year Animal 1.5% 151,192 30,238 140 Person 1.3% 131,033 26,207 121 Both 0.3% 30,238 6,048 28 Total 3.1% 312,463 62,493 289 Source: Survey of Canadian general public conducted in 1990. [Mauser and Margolis 1992]. NB #1: The wording of the question asked was, "Aside from military service or police work, in the past 5 years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, ever used a gun for self-protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired?" NB #2: There were 10,079,442 households in Canada in 1990. [Statistics Canada]. NB#3: The Canadian population age 15 or over was 21,604,305 in 1991. [Statistics Canada]. ------------------------------------------------------------------ As shown in Table 10 approximately 3.1% of the Canadian adult population report that someone in their household used a firearm, at least once, in self defense in the past 5 years. Over half of these incidents [1.8%] involved protection against animals -- most likely bears; but almost as many [1.6%] involved the use of firearms to defend against other people. These estimates are consistent with the results of an earlier study I conducted of British Columbia, where I estimated that firearms were somewhat more likely to be used in self defense against animals, and about as likely to be used against human threats. Thankfully, these are small percentages. However, when it is realized that there were over 10 million households in Canada in 1990, these percentages imply that there were approximately 312,463 Canadian households where at least one person reports having used a firearm to protect themselves or their family between 1985 and 1990. Calculating the typical 5% confidence limits for a sample of this size gives an estimate ranging from 296,840 to 328,086. Dividing these figures by 5, one finds that firearms were used 62,493 times each year during this time period [between 59,368 and 65,617]. Half of these incidents involved a defense against human threats. Thus, there were approximately 32,255 incidents each year between 1985 and 1990 where a Canadian reported using a firearm to defend him or herself against a human threat. [See Table 11]. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 12. Use of a firearm in self protection in the past 5 years in the US. %-age Per household Per household Per 100,000 persons per year per year Animal 0.3% 268,068 53,614 29 Person 3.5% 3,216,819 643,364 348 Both 0.3% 268,068 53,614 29 Total 4.4% 4,021,024 804,205 434 Source: Survey of general public in the US conducted in 1990. [Mauser and Margolis 1992]. NB #1: The wording of the question asked was, "Aside from military service or police work, in the past 5 years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, ever used a gun for self-protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired?" NB #2: There were 91,947,410 households in the US in 1990. US Bureau of the Census NB#3: The US population age 18 or over was 186,532,400 in 1990. Table 13. Firearms misuse in 1987. U S Canada %-age frequency %-age frequency woundings Homicide with firearms 59% 11,857 36% 187-231 1,050 Suicide with firearms 59% 18,525 33% 1,129-1,186 213 Accidents with firearms 1% 1,400 <1% 99-99 1,436 Total firearms deaths 31,782 1,415-1,516 2,699 Armed Robbery with firearms 33% 96,249 26% 5,960 Assault with firearms 21% 179,568 28% 13,036 Rape unknown unknown 6% 1,342 Total firearms crimes 275,817 20,338 Source: Actual crimes as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. FBI. 1987; Canadian Crime Statistics, Statistics Canada, 1987. Vital Statistics, Vol. III. Statistics Canada. 1987. Note #1. 1987 is the most recent year that all of the accidental death and suicide statistics are available for both countries. Note #2: It is very difficult to compare Canadian and American crime statistics. With a few notable exceptions, the definitions of violent crimes are not identical. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter are equivalent to 'homicide.' However, 'violent crime' in the United States includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault but does not include 'abduction,' or 'other sexual offenses,' as does the Canadian category of 'violent crime.' To approximate, 'aggravated assault,' I aggregated all categories of 'assaults' with 'attempted murder,' but excluding 'assault level 1' and the 'sexual assaults.' To approximate the 'forcible rape' category in the US, I aggregated all Canadian sexual assaults. Note #3. The percentages allocated to firearms are estimated from totals smaller than the total frequencies because of missing information. It is impossible to get these frequencies by multiplying these percentages with the raw total frequencies Table 14. Comparison of actual violent crimes in Canada and the United States [1987] United States Canada per 100,000 frequency per 100,000 frequency Murder 9 20,096 3 642 Armed robbery 120 291,664 46 11,732 Robbery 213 517,704 88 22,523 Forcible rape 37 91,111 87 22,369 Aggravated assault 351 855,088 182 46,557 Violent crime total 610 1,484,000 856 219,381 Burglary [B&E] 1,330 3,236,184 1,421 364,144 Suicide 13 31,398 14 3,594 population US 243,400,000 Canada 25,617,300 Sources: Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. FBI. 1987; Canadian Crime Statistics, Statistics Canada, 1987. Vital Statistics, Vol. III. Statistics Canada. 1987. Note #1. At the time I began this analysis, 1987 was the most recent year that all of the accidental death and suicide statistics were available for both countries in the SFU Library. Note #2: It is very difficult to compare Canadian and American crime statistics. With a few notable exceptions, the definitions of violent crimes are not identical. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter are equivalent to 'homicide.' However, 'violent crime' in the United States includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault but does not include 'abduction,' or 'other sexual offenses,' as does the Canadian category of 'violent crime.' To approximate, 'aggravated assault,' I aggregated all categories of 'assaults' with 'attempted murder,' but excluding 'assault level 1' and the 'sexual assaults.' To approximate the 'forcible rape' category in the US, I aggregated all Canadian sexual assaults. ------------------------------------------------------------------ If it assumed conservatively that only one person in a household used a firearm only once between 1985 and 1990, then there were 289 defensive uses of a firearm per 100,000 population on average during this time period, and 149 of these involved a human threat. Another way to pose this, is to compare it with the number of firearms owners in Canada. Since there are approximately half as many households with firearms in Canada as in the US, and firearms are reported used defensively about half as frequently, this means that Canadian firearms owners report using a firearm in self defense almost as often as do American firearms owners. Firearms are reported used to protect against animal attack over 180,000 times between 1985 and 1990 and over 160,000 times against dangerous people. Although the survey wasn't designed to assess regional differences, the threat of animals is probably more important in western Canada [British Columbia and the prairie provinces] than in central Canada [Ontario and Quebec]. Limited confirmation for this hypothesis can be found by examining the results of an earlier study conducted in British Columbia, a large western Canadian province, in 1990 [Mauser 1990]. This earlier study found slightly more defensive uses of firearms over all and a much higher incidence of uses against animals -- 2.5% for BC compared with 1.8% for all of Canada. [See Table 11]. Table 12 shows the frequency with which firearms are used in self defense in the United States. The results of my survey of the United States are consistent with earlier estimates. Kleck estimated that between 600,000 and 960,000 Americans used firearms defensively against human threats each year during this time period. [Kleck 1991, pp 104-111]. Compared with Americans, Canadians use firearms more frequently against dangerous animals [1.8% to 0.6%], but less frequently against dangerous people [1.6% to 3.8%]. In other words, Canadians report using firearms to defend against human threats 32,255 times annually, while Americans report using firearms 696,978 times annually against human threats. Another way to put this in perspective is to compare the frequency of defensive use of firearms with the frequency that firearms are misused. As may be seen in Table 13, there were a total of 1,516 firearms deaths in Canada [1,186 of these being suicides] and an estimated total of 20,338 firearms crimes that did not involve death in 1987.10 Since Canadians report using firearms defensively more that 62,000 times annually, if only one life was saved out of every 40 reported uses of a firearm, more lives would be saved annually than were lost through criminal violence. Conclusions The survey results reported here show that firearms are used in Canada more often than many may believe in the defense of people and property. Canadians use firearms defensively almost as frequently than in the United States, but these uses tend to be disporportionately against animal threats and not against human threats as in the U.S. Of necessity, these estimates are only approximate, given the small sample size and the small incidence rates. Moreover, these are retrospective estimates, and Rs are notoriously unable to recall exactly past events, even important or traumatic events. However, the available evidence suggests that Rs are more likely to forget incidents than to telescope time, claiming that long-ago incidents occurred more recently [Kleck 1991, p 109-110]. These conclusions should be considered quite tentative. Despite the use of two independent samples to estimate the frequency of that firearms are used in self defense, more research is needed before it will be possible to reach a firm conclusion. Further research must be conducted into what Rs meant when they reported they had "used" a firearm in defense. It is unknown how often the firearm was fired, or how often the firearm was 'displayed' in order to discourage a potential attack but not fired. Presumably, animals would be less likely than humans to be intimidated by the simple display of a firearm, but animals might back down for many reasons when faced with an armed person. It is even possible that some Rs may have included the carrying or having the firearm available in case of an attack as an example of "use." The only way to answer these questions would be to ask this question in a larger sample survey study. This study should be replicated with a larger sample size. It would be particularly valuable to study what victims [and those who have avoided being victims] do to defend themselves in repelling aggression in assaults, either sexual assaults or armed robberies, and how effective these efforts are. Despite the small numbers, it would be helpful for policy makers to know the frequency that firearms, knives, clubs, or noxious sprays are used in personal self defense in Canada. Moreover, court data would be valuable as well. Before one could say with any certainty that firearms are useful [or are not useful] against human threats, court data would need to be collected and analyzed to examine the frequency that firearms are used in cases of justifiable homicide. Despite the limitations of this study, these data are the best data currently available and they suggest that firearms are used in Canada to save lives. The results suggest that if only one life were saved out of every 40 reported uses of a firearm, more lives would be saved annually than were lost through criminal violence. Canadian policy makers would be well advised to realize that firearms are used in self defense in Canada almost as often as they are in the United States. If these results are confirmed in further research, then restrictive legislation that had been designed to save lives may actually cost Canadian lives by rendering it difficult to obtain a firearm when one is needed. References Blackstone, William. 1979. Commentaries Upon the Laws of England. Vol I. [Originally published 1765 - 1769]. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. p. 139 Bureau of the Census. 1991. U.S. Population by Age, Sex, and Households, 1990. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Cook, Philip J. 1991. "The technology of personal violence." In Crime and Justice, A Review of Research. Vol 14: 1-71. [ed] Michael Tonry. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1988. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. 1987. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Friedland, Martin L. 1984. A Century of Criminal Justice. (Toronto: Carswell). Kleck, Gary. 1988. "Crime control through the private use of armed force." Social Problems 35: 1-21. Kleck, Gary. 1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York, New York, Aldine de Gruyter. Kopel, David B. 1992. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy. Buffalo, New York, Prometheus Books. Mauser, Gary. 1990. "A comparison of Canadian and American attitudes towards firearms." Canadian Journal of Criminology 32[4]: 573-589. Mauser, Gary. 1993. Firearms and Self Defense: the Canadian Case. Presented to the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Phoenix AZ 27 - 30 October 1993. Mauser, Gary and Michael Margolis. 1992. "The politics of gun control: comparing Canadian and American patterns." Government and Policy 10: 189-209. Statistics Canada. 1988. Canadian Crime Statistics. 1987. 85-205. Queen's Printer. Ottawa, Ontario. Statistics Canada. 1993. Vital Statistics, Vol. III, 1987. 84-206. Queen's Printer. Ottawa, Ontario, Stenning, P.C. and S. Moyer. 1981. Firearms Ownership and Use in Canada: A Report of Survey Findings. (Toronto: Centre of Criminology, Univ. of Toronto). Endnotes 1. There is only one national group in Canada, the National Firearms Association, that supports the use of firearms in self defense, and only an occasional feminist group. 2. The Canadian Criminal Code prohibits the ownership of a wide variety of weapons, eg, Mace, pepper sprays, knives, nunchakus, as well as tightly restricting carrying firearms. As well, it is illegal to carry anything that is intended to be be used as a weapon [Sections 87, 88, 89, 90(c) and Orders-in-Council SOR/74/297 74-05-07, SOR/78-277 78-03-28, inter alia]. 3. Almost all martial arts groups deemphasize the use of their training for self defense, but a few feminist groups in Canada teach martial arts explicitly as a means of self defense. Other feminist groups encourage the carrying of "non-violent" alternatives such as spray dyes, whistles, or sirens to frighten off attackers. One group even advocates carrying a noxious spray in order to spray upon oneself -- to make oneself unattractive to a potential rapist! 4. Handguns require two locks: not only must a handgun be locked in a "container" that "cannot readily be broken open," but it must also "be rendered inoperable by a secure locking device" [Regulations Respecting the Storage, Display, Handling and Transportation of Certain Firearms, 6, JUS-92-193-02]. 5. The specific RDD method used involved a modified Mitofsky-Waksberg cluster sampling approach and was conducted by Survey Sampling Inc. 6. These points are contentious. See Cook for an opposing view [Cook 1991, pp 54-56]. 7. See Kleck for an expanded discussion of the differences among these questions [Kleck 1988 and 1991. 8. This result is consistent with Mauser's [1990] earlier findings that similar changes in wording had little effect upon the opinions expressed by residents of British Columbia. 9. The most relevent official records are those kept by courts concerning the use of firearms in incidents where people are charged with illegal use of a firearm. If the court eventually finds that the firearm was legitimately used in self defense, the court drops or stays the charges. The most important of these charges involves homicide. To my knowledge, there are no published studies of justifiable homicide by Canadian residents or citizens. 10. This year was selected as it was the most recent year that the SFU Library had all of these statistics are available for both countries. Since conducting this analysis, I have been able to look at more recent statistics but I have not had the time to update this analysis. However, an 'eyeball' analysis suggests that no fundamental changes have taken place since 1987.