Search

A pooled cross-section time series model is used to evaluate the effect of the 1977 Canadian firearms legislation on the provincial homicide rate between 1969 and 1989. Results agree with most studies that indicate no significant effect of this legislation on homicide rates. (SLD)

William R. Tonso has chosen an issue that he knows something about to examine how sociology textbooks address controversy. Appealing for gun control is fashionable, but it is at odds with a fondness that ordinary Americans have for their firearms--one that is supported by a growing body of research on deterrence to crime. There are two sides to the issue, but Tonso shows that in a large sample of texts, the sociology establishment predictably shades, omits, and distorts the politically incorrect position that citizens should not be compelled to relinquish responsibility for the security of their families and property. (Contains 54 notes.)

The article criticizes sociologist Neil Boyd's article on the subject of firearms homicide in Canada. The argument in Boyd's paper rests upon several unsupported claims. Boyd's knowledge of Canadian homicide statistics is faulty. The typical Canadian homicide victim is male, not female, as he states. As well, the typical homicide victim is not killed with a firearm; as two-thirds of all homicides involve other implements than firearms. Firearms may be useful for self-protection even if they are not fired. Clearly this would be so if a woman deterred a rapist simply by showing him her firearm and her resolve to use it if necessarily. Such an incident would probably not be brought to the attention of the police. In the case of the woman who used a firearm to deter a potential rapist, she has nothing to gain by going to the polite, and given the official attitude towards the defensive use of firearm, much to lose by doing so. Nevertheless, the article does not recommend that anyone buy a firearm for self-protection— that is a very personal decision.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article comments on a paper on gun control and violence in Canada in the January 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology. In his article, Mundt concluded that the Canadian legislation in 1977 regulating the acquisition of firearms had little perceptible impact on crime, suicides, and accidental deaths. Aside from several figures and charts, Mundt presented no statistical analyses to support this assertion. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that the conclusions of Mundt, as far as suicide is concerned, was wrong--the firearms legislation did have an impact on suicide by firearms. The suicide rate by firearms in the 8 years prior to the legislation was increasing. For the eight-year period following the passage of the firearms legislation, the suicide rate by firearms decreases. Mundt suggested, that even if the suicide rate by firearms were to decrease, people might switch to other methods for suicide. This was not the case, since the suicide rate by all other methods did not change during this period, and neither did the total suicide rate. However, the percentage of suicides using firearms did decrease. Thus, at least as far as suicide is concerned, the firearms legislation in Canada was followed by a decreasing suicide by firearms.

Bills C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995) were enacted into law by the Government of Canada with a view to tightening controls on firearms in order to prevent homicides related to their use. The effectiveness of these laws has fuelled several debates on the political scene. Given the many limitations of assessments conducted to this day, the credibility of their results is often questioned. Using a multiple-time-series design, the purpose of this article is to assess the impact of the three most recent Canadian gun control laws, all the while overcoming the limitations identified in the scientific literature. Our results show that the enactment of Bills C-51 and C-68 was followed by a significant drop in the number of homicides committed with a firearm, a decrease of 5% to 10%, depending on the province. This reduction was most noticeable in the case of homicides committed with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. No tactical displacement was observed. Finally, results suggest that the effectiveness of these laws is due to the reduced access and availability of firearms rather than to the severity of sentences provided in the legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Suicide and suicidal behaviour are multifaceted events requiring complex solutions. Controlling the environment is a neglected solution, despite strong support for this approach from the World Health Organization (WHO).Method: To discuss this approach from a global view, this review is written by authors from various cultures: American, Australian, Canadian, Chinese, Cuban, Dutch, Indian, Irish, Japanese, Lithuanian, Native North American, Russian, and South African.Results: We examine gun control to illustrate the environmental control approach; however, the worldwide diversity of suicide methods calls for diverse responses. Further, controlling the environment encompasses more than restricting the means of suicide, which we illustrate with examples of toned-down media reports and restricted medicine availability.Conclusions: Controlling the environment may be a viable strategy for preventing suicide, although research shows that few clinicians implement such approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]