The following is an article of mine that was published on the op-ed page of The Toronto Star on December 28, 1994. Stricter Gun Control Will Make Crime Worse by Karen Selick Like Justice Minister Allan Rock, I am a lawyer from an urban background. I have never owned a gun. I don't hunt or target shoot. Like Mr. Rock, I have spent some time over the past few months informing myself about guns and crime. Unlike Mr. Rock, I believe that Canada does not need stricter gun controls. In fact, I think stricter controls will sacrifice more lives than they save, and will increase crime rather than reduce it. Surveys of convicted felons in the United States show that criminals are concerned about their own safety when they commit a crime. Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot." This attitude is borne out in international comparisons of home burglaries. In Britain, 59 percent of attempted burglaries were committed while someone was at home. In the United States, only 9 percent were. The difference, of course, is that strict gun control in Britain makes it very unlikely that the occupants could pose any threat to the burglar. In the U.S., burglars know that many homeowners are armed. Even the strongest advocates of gun control are unlikely to post a sign in their windows proclaiming "This house is a gun- free zone." Doing so would make them the prime target for burglary in their neighbourhood. Thus, unarmed households benefit from the deterrent effect created by their armed neighbours. The criminal doesn't know for sure which households are armed, so the whole business of burglary appears risky. The proposed restrictions on gun ownership for law-abiding citizens serves notice on criminals that more and more households will eventually be "gun-free zones." It will reduce the risk, and thereby increase the incidence, of burglary in occupied premises. Other studies from the U.S. show that victims of attempted robbery and assault are less likely to be injured if they defend themselves with a gun than if they offer no resistance, and the robbery or assault is much less likely to succeed. Professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University has conducted surveys which show that Canadians use firearms approximately 62,000 times each year for defensive purposes, against either animals or other people. If even one percent of those incidents result in the saving of a life, this is still more than double the approximately 250 lives lost in gun-related murders each year. Restricting access to guns by law-abiding citizens will almost certainly result in a number of deaths or injuries that would otherwise have been prevented. Unfortunately, these might- have-beens will never show up as hard statistics to permit a proper cost-benefit analysis of gun control. Gun restrictions are not the answer to domestic violence, either. Impulsive murders by previously non-violent individuals who just happen to have a gun handy are rare. Studies done in Detroit and Kansas City show that in "90 percent of the cases of domestic homicide, police had responded at least once to a disturbance call at the home during the two-year period prior to the fatal incident, and in over half (54 percent) of the cases, they had been called five or more times." Battered spouses (of both sexes) should be looking for solutions at the first warning sign of violence. Charges can be laid for minor assaults, and gun prohibitions can then be placed against the specific individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for violence, without affecting the rights of others who are law-abiding. This can already be done under existing Criminal Code provisions. The notion that universal gun registration will protect police officers called to domestic disputes is also an illusion. Many people who keep illegal weapons may also keep one registered gun, just to make it look like they are complying with the law. Police officers will still have to assume, when they are called on such incidents, that there may be additional weapons in the home that are not shown in the register. If police let down their guard in reliance upon the register, they will be in greater danger than before. Criminals will continue to have access to guns no matter what laws we enact. Someone who is bent on committing a serious crime like armed robbery or murder isn't going to be stopped by the pesky little thought that his gun might be illegal. There are already many illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. Smuggling more in will not be difficult. We have had "zero tolerance" of drug smuggling for years but drugs are readily available. Vast quantities of alcohol and cigarettes are still being smuggled. You can pack a lot of firepower into the same space occupied by a couple of bottles of liquor. Like Mr. Rock, I don't want to live in a society where I have to be armed for self-defence. However, none of us would now be facing that possibility if it were not for earlier government policies that have created a class of armed criminals. The prohibition of hallucinogenic drugs makes it possible for a certain reckless element of society to earn exorbitant incomes from the black market. These people face armed policemen daily in the "war on drugs." It should not surprise anyone when individuals whose country has declared war on them decide they'd better arm themselves. Before we enact any further prohibitions on legal property, we should re-examine the harm that past prohibitions have already caused. The way out of our current predicament may be to prohibit fewer things, not more. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karen Selick Reynolds O'Brien Kline & Selick P.O. Box 1327, Belleville, Ont. Canada K8N 5J1 Phone:(613)966-3031 Fax:(613)966-2390 E-mail: kselick@connect.reach.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~