An Outline of a Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Firearms Owners Licence and Universal Firearms Registry Presented to: The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario. 15 May 1995 Professor Gary A. Mauser, Ph.D. Faculty of Business Administration and Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies Simon Fraser University British Columbia, CANADA As a Canadian, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the Justice Committee. I am a university professor and a certified instructor in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. The BC Wildlife Federation has asked me to represent them before this Committee. I will confine my comments to those few points where I have some expertise. In my capacity as a university professor, I have conducted several empirical studies on issues related to firearms legislation. My research has been published in reputable academic journals or presented to academic conferences, such as the American Society of Criminology or the Canadian Association for Law and Society. Unfortunately, the "great Canadian gun control debate" tends to generate more heat than light. Too many articles on firearms have serious methodological flaws that renders their conclusions invalid. This is particularly for many of the studies appearing in medical magazines. Since more people are accidentally killed in Canada by MD's than firearms, I would think the medical community might be better advised to concentrate on trying to solve problems a little closer to home than firearms laws. In introducing legislation, particularly legislation as radical as Bill C-68, it is important to evaluate the potential costs and the benefits. I am disappointed that the Justice Department has not presented any better evidence in support of universal firearms registration. Opinions abound, but neither the Justice Minister nor the Chiefs of Police have been able to present very believable estimates of either the costs or benefits of their proposed registration scheme. Despite the Auditor General's report, the Justice Department did not conduct a thorough evaluation of the present gun control laws prior to introducing Bill C-68. This is particularly curious because, by international standards, Canada does not have a "firearms" problem. Despite having proportionately almost as many gun owners as the US, Canada has a homicide rate comparable with Europe. While I do not have the resources of the government, I still think it would be valuable for me to outline -- very briefly -- the potential costs and the benefits of the government's proposed universal firearms registry. First, I will evaluate the costs of the proposed firearms legislation. In as far as possible, my estimates are based upon the government's own figures. Second, in order to estimate the value of the proposed legislation in Canada, I will review a few studies that have been conducted of the firearms registration systems already in place in other Commonwealth countries. How much will universal firearms registration cost? I will limit my presentation to examining the costs -- for Canadian taxpayers -- of three aspects of universal firearms registration required in: [a] the cost for issuing "Firearms Licences," to firearms owners, [b] the cost of registering currently owned firearms, and [c] the cost of re-registering firearms when sold/transferred to a new owner. The government proposes that firearms owners be charged for these newly required permits and licences so that the full cost of the system will not be an onerous burden upon the Canadian taxpayer. Unfortunately, it is necessary to keep costs low enough so that firearms owners will readily comply. This makes it very difficult for the government to keep its pledge to ensure full cost recovery. By anyone's reckoning, the implementation of universal firearms registration will tax the resources that the police now have. In 1993, there were about 76,368 police in Canada with a total budget of $5.8 billion. Annually, the police deal with about 3 million "known" violations of the criminal code per year; charges are layed in a fraction of these. In addition, the police register about 83,000 handguns for law-abiding target shooters and issue around 50,000 FAC's annually.1 Bill C-68 would require the police to issue firearms licences to between 3 and 5 million firearms owners, and to register between 7 and 20 million firearms. Clearly, firearms registration would represent a sizeable addition to the police workload. In my Fraser Institute paper I focused uniquely upon the costs of universal firearms registration.2 This presentation expands my earlier analysis to include the costs of issuing Firearms Licences and the costs of processing firearms sales and transfers between individuals. I think I can show that, even when the charges that Mr. Rock announced in his testimony to the Justice Committee are factored in, Canadian taxpayers will still be hit with a bill for at least $750 million dollars and possibly more than $1 billion over the next five years. I have tried to be conservative in my estimates and not to exaggerate the costs entailed in this proposed registration scheme. I have also tried to respect, in so far as possible, the assumptions made by Mr. Rock in his presentation to this committee.3 My calculations do not include any other costs involved with Bill C-68, such as system development, enhanced customs procedures, implementation, or public education. These additional costs must be added to the cost of the total package. Mr. Rock places these additional costs at about $100 million over the next five years. Number of Firearms Owners to be Licenced = 3.0 - 5.0 million owners Angus Reid's estimate 23% households 3.0 million owners Corrected Reid estimate 28% households 3.75 million Mauser & Margolis estimate 31% households 5.0 million * 1.0 million owners have Firearms Acquisition Certificates [FAC's] * 2.75 - 4.0 million owners do not have an FAC Firearms Licence charge: $10 - $60 Government cost of issuing licence: $125 [BC: $55 - $125; Toronto: $185] * Net cost to taxpayer: $115 - $65 per firearm * Total cost to taxpayer: 195 million - $575 million Number of Currently Owned Firearms to be Registered = 7 - 20 million firearms Angus Reid's estimate 7 million firearms 1977 Justice Department 7 million firearms 1% growth rate 8.5 million firearms Corrected Reid estimate 8 million firearms Mauser & Margolis estimate 13.3 million firearms I/E estimates 20 million firearms * 1.2 million Restricted Firearms * 5.8 - 18.8 million Non-Restricted Firearms Registration Charge: [$10/10 firearms] $3.5 per firearm [est.] Government cost of registration: $82 per firearm * Net cost to taxpayer: $78 per firearm * Total cost to taxpayer: $546 million - $780 million Number of sales or exchanges of firearms = 510,000 to 1,000,000 Department of Justice estimate: 510,000 sales/exchanges Mauser estimate: 1,000,000 sales/exchanges Explanation of how the number of firearms sales/exchanges was estimated: - 83,000 [55,000 for the first time] handguns registered annually - retailers report that long guns are sold about 10 times as often - [est.] 830,000 [550,000 first time] long guns sold annually - an unknown number of long guns are sold outside of retail stores Registration charge: $15 per firearm Government cost of registration: $50 - $82 per firearm * Net cost to taxpayer: $35 - $67 per firearm * Total cost to taxpayer: $17 million - $67 million Total Deficit: $758 million - $1.422 billion In summary, according to my estimates, registering "field and stream" firearms will cost Canadian taxpayers at least $750 million dollars and possibly more than $1 billion over the next five years. This is over and above the proposed charges to firearms owners. Since the cost of screening firearms owners will be higher in urban areas than in rural areas, rural Canadians will end up subsidizing urban Canadians. The costs of firearms registration will cause some people to quit hunting, and it will cause others to hunt illegally. Since hunters contribute over $1 billion to the Canadian economy, any decrease in the number of people who go hunting, will drain money out of the economy in rural Canada in order to feed it to Ottawa. At this point the true costs are unknown. To the extent that the Justice Department has underestimated the costs, the provinces and the municipal governments will be forced to bear the new financial burden. If the provincial or the municipal governments are unable or unwilling to raise taxes to cover the costs of firearms registration, police departments will be forced to take officers off the streets, where they are fighting criminal violence, in order to process the new paperwork required for law-abiding firearms owners. What are the benefits of universal firearms registration? In this section, I will briefly review a few of the studies that have been done in the other Commonwealth countries evaluating universal firearms registration. In brief, these studies show that the police have not found firearms registration to be very useful. As may be seen in the accompanying graphs, registration only hits the responsible firearms owners but does not have an appreciable effect on criminals. No official studies have been presented that support the usefulness of firearms registration to the police in solving crimes. The available reports support the contrary. The police in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand have had firearms registration for a number of years, but the police report that they have not found firearms registration to be cost effective. The New Zealand government discontinued firearms registration in 1983 after the New Zealand Police recommended its termination.4 Studies in two Australian states have also recommended the termination of universal firearms registration.5 The state of Victoria found that, even after decades, only 60% of the firearms stock had been registered.6 Each of these reports state clearly that the police find that registration diverts scarce resources away from other, more important duties. In the UK, a study for the Home Office found that despite decades of strict firearms registration, armed robbery continues to increase and armed robbers found firearms to be readily available.7 Importantly, this study reports that police records were not very useful in identifying the firearms recovered by police in armed robberies. Another study explains why. The Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory found that 11% of the firearms involved in crime had been stolen and another 18% of these were old or souvenirs. This gives a total of 29% of the firearms involved in crime were registered. The bulk of the guns used in crime apparently had been smuggled into the country.8 In summary, a review of studies conducted in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand found that the police have not found firearms registration to be cost effective. The New Zealand government discontinued firearms registration after the New Zealand Police recommended its termination. Registration only hits the responsible firearms owners but does not have an appreciable effect on criminals. Conclusions In summary, according to my estimates, registering "field and stream" firearms will cost Canadian taxpayers at least $750 million dollars and possibly more than $1 billion over the next five years. This is over and above the proposed charges to firearms owners. Since the cost of screening firearms owners will be higher in urban areas than in rural areas, rural Canadians will end up subsidizing urban Canadians. The costs of firearms registration will cause some people to quit hunting, and it will cause others to hunt illegally. Since hunters contribute over $1 billion to the Canadian economy, any decrease in the number of people who go hunting, will drain out of the local economy in rural Canada to feed it to Ottawa. At this point the true costs are unknown. To the extent that the Justice Department has underestimated the costs, the provinces and the municipal governments will be forced to bear the new financial burden. If the provincial or the municipal governments are unable or unwilling to raise taxes to cover the costs of firearms registration, police departments will be forced to take officers off the streets, where they are fighting criminal violence, in order to process the new paperwork required for law-abiding firearms owners. Despite the costs, would firearms registration be worthwhile? A review of the available studies conducted in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand found that the police have not found firearms registration to be cost effective. The New Zealand government discontinued firearms registration after the New Zealand Police recommended its termination. Registration only hits the responsible firearms owners but does not have an appreciable effect on criminals. Since it is unlikely that the federal government will increase its support to the provinces sufficiently to pay for the full cost of firearms registration, police departments will be forced to take officers off the streets in order to process the new paperwork required for law-abiding firearms owners. Thus, it is likely that Bill C-68 will probably cost lives rather than save lives. Professor Gary A. Mauser, Ph.D. Faculty of Business Administration and Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies Simon Fraser University British Columbia, CANADA Professor Gary A. Mauser, Ph.D. Education Ph. D., University of California, Irvine (1970), Psychology Areas: Social Psychology, Multivariate Statistics, Survey Research B.A., University of California, Berkeley (1964), Psychology Publications Three books, several chapters in edited collections, and numerous articles in marketing and social science journals. Selected Recent Publications Mauser, Gary. Gun Control is not Crime Control, Fraser Forum, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC, March 1995. Mauser, Gary. "Do Canadians Need Firearms for Self Defense?," Presented to the Canadian Law Society meetings, Calgary, Alberta, May 1994. Mauser, Gary. "Firearms and Self Defense: the Canadian Case," presented to the American Society of Criminology, 27 October 1993. Mauser, Gary and Richard Holmes, "An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearms Legislation," Evaluation Review, Vol. 16, pp. 603-617, 1992. Mauser, Gary and Michael Margolis, "The Politics of Gun Control: Comparing Canadian and American Patterns," Government and Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 189-209, 1992. Mauser, Gary and David Kopel. "Sorry, Wrong Number. Why Media Polls on Gun Control Are so Often Unreliable," Political Communication, Vol. 92, pp. 69-92, June 1992. Mauser, Gary. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, by Gary Kleck. Review for the Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 3, No 1 (March 1992). pp. 147-159. Mauser, Gary. 1990. "A Comparison of Canadian and American Attitudes Towards Firearms." Canadian Journal of Criminology Vol. 32(4): 573-589. 1 Juristat, Vol. 15, No 8, Police Personnel and Expenditures in Canada - 1993; Juristat, Vol. 15, No 3, Youth Court Statistics 1993-94; Juristat, Vol. 14, No 14, Canadian Crime Statistics,1993. Annual Firearms Report of the RCMP, 1993 2 Mauser, Gary. Gun Control is not Crime Control, Fraser Forum, 1995. 3 "Financial Framework for Bill C-68," Department of Justice, 24 April 1995. 4 "Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983," New Zealand National Police, 1983. 5 Report of the Victoria Police, Inspector A. Newgreen, 28 February 1987; Final Report of the South Australian Deregulation Task Force, R. D. Bakewell, October 1985 6 Op cit, Newgreen report. 7 Armed Robbery, A Study in London, by Shona Morrison and Ian O'Donnell, Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford, Occasional Paper No. 15, 1994. 8 Firearms Control: An Examination of the Effects of the Present Legislation, A.S.H. Maybanks, Unpublished MA thesis, University of Exeter, 1992.