Unravelling Canada's Gun Control: Are Measures in Sync with Research and Primed for Progress?
November 9, 2023
After analyzing the efficacy of gun control laws in my last piece, I’ve concluded that only specific types of gun control legislation and programs tackling gun crime work. But how do Canada’s gun control measures fare in comparison to the research? Overall, my position is that in comparison, the Canadian Government has introduced effective measures to combat gun crime. But I also believe that more can be done through the following actions: focusing on the flows of guns from the US to Canada through bilateral agreements, targeting the border, reducing the current stock of guns, targeting the root causes of gun crime.
Having arrived at this conclusion, my goal here is to systematically evaluate Canada’s gun control legislation to demonstrate how I’ve arrived at this position, while allowing you to understand the research and derive conclusions for yourselves.
Summation of Effective Gun Control Legislation
Commonalities in gun control efficacy indicated that general permit requirements for the purchase of firearms and strict permit requirements for concealed firearms reduced gun violence. These requirements had a distinct impact among Black and Latino populations who saw lower homicide rates. In other studies, with similar findings the researchers suggested that bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics seemingly reduced the rates of homicide and robbery. In combination with permit requirements, background checks had some effect as they can screen out potentially dangerous people.
Bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines can decrease the number of deaths in mass shootings and street crime. This is likely because criminals will substitute their guns with lower capacity and less fatal guns. The result is an increase in injuries but less deaths given the reduced lethality of the gun used. So, although the ban reduces the most extreme consequences of gun crime, it increases the more moderate (injury based) effects of gun crime. It was also found that limits on gun magazine capacity is effective, but it was most impactful in combination with bans on assault weapons.
As a policing method, hot spot policing was found to be effective, leading to a significant increase in the number of guns seized and a decrease in gun crime in the targeted area. They found that in areas not deemed as hot spots, gun crime levels remained stable. Though effective, a caveat is hot spot policing can lead to discriminatory policing practices where the end justifies the means.
Although the research and arguments for self-storage were questionable, gun accidents were found to be rare among preadolescent children. And based on the research, what seemed to clearly not have an impact were harsher penalties such as a wider scope of gun offences and longer prison sentences.
A gap in the research is what policies and approaches reduce suicide and accidental shootings. Most of the research is focused on gun-related homicides and mass shootings. Current gun control legislation and policing approaches are unlikely to reduce these occurrences.
Understanding Canada’s Gun Legislation
Although we’re evaluating Canada’s gun legislation using American-based studies, we must understand that Canada’s gun rights legislation is not comparable to the US. Canada doesn’t have gun rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This means that Canadians don’t have an inherent right (or even a debatable one) to own guns. So, all rights are in actuality privileges insofar as the government allows. Another difference is that gun control is holistically federally regulated meaning that provinces and municipalities comply with federal regulations on guns. What’s more, Canada has neither castle laws nor stand-your-ground laws that allow people to exercise their right to self-defense using a gun. Although the Criminal Code does speak to defence in the context of the threat of force and a reasonable perception of danger, the use of a gun isn’t mentioned. These fundamental differences from the US mean that there is overarching harmony in the nation with respect to gun laws, whereas in the US, legal dissonance is rife given that state power allows for state-to-state gun law variances.
In comparison to the US, Canada’s approach to gun control has been strict. Guns are federally regulated through the Firearms Act and partially the Criminal Code. The Firearms Act largely speaks to a range of gun permits through licensing, registration and authorizations related to individual ownership, transportation, and imports and exports. The Criminal Code largely speaks to the consequences for violating or not adhering to the Firearms Act.
There are three categories of firearms in Canada:
- Restricted: handguns, certain rifles and semi-automatics;
- Prohibited: certain handguns, fully automatic rifles, and sawed-off rifles; and,
- Non-restricted: standard hunting rifles and shotguns.
In recent years the Government of Canada has made adjustments to gun control to make it more stringent. What currently governs guns in Canada is former Bill C-71, An Act to Amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, which received Royal Assent in 2019. The Act impacts all firearm owners and users in an effort to prioritize public safety by ensuring gun misusers can’t access them, strengthening gun safety measures, and giving police broader powers to solve gun related crimes. To that effect, the key elements the Act implemented were lifetime background checks (reviewing the applicant’s entire history as opposed to just the past five years), authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms (a license being required to transport guns to and from gun ranges, or after a purchase), and requiring businesses to keep point-of-sale records for non-restricted firearms for minimum 20 years.
In 2020, the Canadian Government banned 1,500 models of military-grade assault weapons and expanded background checks following a mass shooting in Nova Scotia. In May 2022, the Canadian Government announced the introduction of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments. According to the Government’s press release, this bill puts forward “some of the strongest gun control measures in over 40 years.” Most notably, the new measures included the following: a national freeze on handguns (which came into force in October, 2022); removing gun licenses from people involved in crime or domestic violence; battling gun trafficking (by empowering law enforcement to investigate gun crimes, and strengthening border security); increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment on indictment from 1 to 14 years (for weapons smuggling, trafficking); and creating a “red flag” law that requires people considered at risk endangering themselves or others to surrender their guns to law enforcement. The Government also indicated that it would require long-gun magazines to be permanently changed so that they can’t hold more than five rounds, while further banning the sale and transfer of large capacity magazines under the criminal code. One of the most prominent aspects of the bill is that it establishes a new technical definition for assault style weapons that are illegal in Canada. In addition, the Government promised a $250 million investment through the Building Safer Communities Fund to help communities across the country prevent gun and gang violence by tackling its root causes.
Recognizing current legislation and the newly proposed legislation (which completed its third reading in senate on June 21, 2023), the question becomes, how does this measure up to our findings on gun control law, and should more be done?
Evaluating Canada’s Gun Control Legislation
Gun Permits and Background Checks
One of the policies Canada has utilized is gun permits through licenses, registration, and authorizations related to ownership, transportation, imports, and exports. Canada also uses background checks to understand the applicant’s lifetime history. Canada further requires permits for the transportation of guns, and businesses to keep point-of-sale records for non-restricted firearms for a minimum of 20 years. Across a number of studies, the research on effective gun control measures indicated that general permit requirements for the purchase of firearms, and strict permit requirements for concealed firearms were effective. Notably—although the evidence was weaker—it was found that background checks were also effective.
In comparing Canada’s laws to the research, it would seem that Canada’s background check system and the host of permit related requirements that span across the supply and demand sides for guns is a holistic approach. Based on the literature the potential results realized in Canadian society through the use of permits should be reduced rates of gun related homicides—with significantly lower homicide rates among Black and white populations and decreases in gun-driven robberies. With respect to background checks, reviewing an applicant’s entire history could allow the reviewing party to understand the potential dangers of the applicant, such as a history of alcoholism, prison offences, or mental illness.
If we look at the timelines of these gun control laws, we see that less stringent forms of background checks and permits have been in place for several years. Adjustments were made in 2019, largely entering into force in 2022, which made these laws stricter, meaning the impact of these adjustments can’t be fully measured yet. However, data on gun related homicides has shown yearly increases from 134 deaths in 2013 to 297 deaths in 2021. Since the number of gun related homicides has increased while background checks and permits were already in place, we might assume that the proportion of Black and white homicides has as well. So, we must question if it is indeed effective in the Canadian context. On the other hand, we can argue that should there not have been permit and background check requirements that homicides would be much higher. So, although there is an increase, it can’t simply be said that background checks and permits are useless. It could be the case that illegal gun flows have increased. Nonetheless, because the newly restrictive measures came into force in 2022, it may be the case that gun related homicides by effect decreases in the short-to-long-term.
Safe Storage and the Proposition for a “Red Flag” Law
Canada has safe storage laws and, although not in effect, to bolster the commitment to preventing self-harm Canada has proposed a “red flag” law which requires people considered at risk to endangering themselves or others to surrender their guns to law enforcement. This would be particularly helpful for preventing suicide, which in Canada, made up 75% of gun related deaths in 2020 (and an average of 80% since 1995). In particular, safe storage is important for preventing people who live with gun owners but are not owners themselves from committing suicides. It also can reduce gun thefts and accidental shootings by preadolescent children. Combined with Canada’s newly introduced measures of removing gun licenses from people involved in crime or domestic violence, this presents as a strong gun policy on permit related requirements.
Banning Assault Weapons and Proposed Capacity Limits
Beginning in October 2022, the Canadian Government banned 1,500 models of military-grade assault weapons. In addition, a national freeze on handguns was imposed, and propositions were made for limits on gun magazine capacities (virtually making large capacity magazines illegal), and permanently altering long-gun magazines so that they can’t hold more than five rounds. The government further proposed a ban of the sale and transfer of large capacity magazines under the Criminal Code. In relation to the literature, researchers found that a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines can lower the number of deaths in mass shootings and street crime. As noted above, this is likely because criminals will substitute their guns with lower capacity and less fatal guns. Again, the likely result will be an increase in injuries as a result of a shooting and less deaths. In comparison to the literature, the current ban on assault weapons may lower net gun related deaths and assault weapon related deaths. It may also lower mass shootings deaths. Layering the proposed limits for gun magazine capacity, the ban of the sale and transfer of large capacity magazines, and permanently altering guns to not hold large capacity magazines, it’s likely that Canada will see an added reduction in gun related crime and deaths. Taken together we can conclude that this is a strong gun control policy.
The impact for Canada’s policies is potentially greater than the results of the study given that the government uses a multipronged approach that targets handguns (the most widely used weapon in street crime), assault weapons, and magazine capacity. The totality of these effects will need to be measured; but with reference to the research, it would seem that there would be a net reduction in gun related deaths. This is because it may prevent guns from leaking into the streets through less gun thefts (because there are less guns to steal) and less illegal sales. Though this may be the benefit Canada reaps, we will have to consider what impact it will have on demand of illegal firearms coming from the US. This brings us to the next point of consideration: hot spot policing.
Hot Spot Policing
From the literature, we know that hot spot policing works. The results showed that guns seized increased by 65%, and gun crime decreased by 49% in the targeted area, while in areas not deemed as hot spots, gun crime levels remained stable. Nonetheless, Canada has not explicitly mentioned a commitment to using this as a practice.
If we look closer, some of the new measures introduced in 2022 included “empowering law enforcement to investigate gun crimes” and strengthening border security. On the surface, this doesn’t present as hot spot policing; however, it increases the discretionary powers of the police through intentional vagueness which can allow hot spot policing as a tactic, among other approaches. Certainly, this can be effective, particularly at the border where guns are smuggled into Canada. Determining border hot spots and expanding checks of trucks, cargo, and even cars could yield greater returns in guns seized and subsequently a reduction in violent crime. My caveat and concern is how this is done, meaning as long as it doesn’t reasonably encroach on the section 7 and 8 rights of Canadian citizens, or alienate foreign visitors, this approach could be effective, legal, and justified. A careful determination of what behaviours, vehicles, and people are deemed suspicious enough to target them at the border is essential to not engage in discrimination.
Likewise, hot spot policing of high crime neighbourhoods would have to function within similar boundaries given that Canada has used this approach in the past to target predominantly Black neighbourhoods through blitzes, raids, carding, out-of-sight driving offences, and more. Indeed, law enforcement officials would argue that although Black people were most impacted by these approaches, it’s because these communities had high levels of crime and just happened to be Black. Some would argue the opposite. Being so, should this approach be used, it will be important to consider the impact on the community. Here I mean, how do we ensure the larger community (largely made up of non-gun offenders) feel safer with the police than without them? How do we ensure that they don’t feel targeted and aren’t traumatized when blitzes lead to raids? Certainly, there will be times when neutralizing and arresting of a threat outweighs the immediate trauma that may be caused given that the existing harm being caused is crippling the community. But also understanding how it can perpetuate mistrust should also be considered if empowering the police to investigate gun crimes leads to hot spot policing.
Increased Prison Terms
With respect to prison, Canada has increased the maximum prison indictment to 14 years, up from 10 years. Based on the research, what clearly didn’t have an impact were harsher penalties such as a wider scope of gun offences and longer prison sentences. In part, this is because many offenders didn’t look at prison as a deterring mechanism given that their personal benefits for possessing a gun outweighed the costs.
All considered, there are some key takeaways with respect to prison. When speaking about the length of prison sentences, we must question the intention of lawmakers. Writ large, the intention is not to rehabilitate offenders to make them moral and law-abiding citizens of value. Some may parade this idea, but the reality is it doesn’t have a positive effect on offenders. So, after years of research, it can’t be the case that increasing the prison sentence is done with the intention to improve an offender’s life. The intention must then be to improve the lives of community members where the offender came from through prevention and incapacitation (completely removing them from the community for several years). In part, this may make the community safer, especially if governments are under the impression that the re-offense rate is high for offenders that spend short periods (up to 4 years) in prison. Although I’m not a strong supporter of the tough on crime approach, I do understand that actions and crimes have consequences that the overwhelming majority are aware of. I also understand that failing to remove a gun offender has a negative impact on the physical and psychological safety of the community, and that it’s unlikely that gun offenders won’t carry illegal guns or engage in crime if they thoroughly believe that their tie to it is what makes them money or keeps them alive. In this regard, their removal would produce immediate effects on the community. So, it’s likely that because of the makeup of our society and certain types of gun crime (mass shootings for example), incapacitation through prison may be the only reliable societal remedy for the unconscionable actions of some. The issue is that we seek to make prison a long-term solution for most gun offenders by raising the maximum sentence. So, what is needed, isn’t increased punitive measures, but methods that target the root of gun and street violence.
Room for improvement?
In considering whether there is room for improvement, there are a few things to consider. The first is that the government has already begun to take steps to address gun crime. However, in 2022 gun crime hit a record 4,741 incidents, which doubled 2015 levels. If we contextualize this with the historical facts that Canada has long had requirements around background checks and gun permits (which are statistically sound approaches), we need to question why gun crime increased. Part of this answer may be because the market for illegal firearms remains strong. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has said that 1/3 of Canadian guns used in crimes were illegally exported from the US between 2017 and 2021. In Ontario alone, 90% of all crime-related handguns traced by police in 2022 came from the US, with Texas as the leading source state. On the municipal level, in 2022, the Toronto Police Service said 85% of the city’s gun crime guns are from the US. So, although Canada uses gun control approaches based on evidence, it has largely limited legal owners and not addressed the fact that a significant portion of gun crime on the national level (and the majority on some provincial and municipal levels) is strongly related to illegal guns. This would suggest that a real approach to reducing gun crime would focus on the flows of guns from the US to Canada through bilateral agreements and targeting the border.
Based on the research, I do think believe that the Canadian government has introduced effective measures to address gun crime. However, I also believe that because gun crime has increased in recent years, it’s necessary to further our gun control restrictions with an emphasis on the illicit market. Bill C-21 attempts to do this. But earlier this year the government also desired to have even stricter legislation. However, the amendment package was withdrawn in February after it garnered backlash for the definition provided of assault weapons, which would have prohibited hundreds of gun models, including some commonly used for sport and hunting. During the same period, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said that the goal of the bill is to ensure that the government is “shrinking the ground… underneath criminals’ feet who may try to use an AR15-style gun” to commit mass shootings. Despite the arguments over assault weapons (specifically in relation to mass shootings), it’s important to understand that assault weapons in the Canadian context address a smaller percentage of shootings that take place. This is because 60% of crime in urban areas involve a handgun according to 2020 data from Stats Canada. In rural environments, a rifle or shotgun was more commonly used, but this was 39% to 46% of the time. What this means is that the best form of gun control would involve bans or restrictions on handguns. The thing is, I don’t believe this is realistic or will happen. I say this because the government has attempted to place limits on guns that are less connected to gun crime but faced significant backlash because of its use for hunting and sport. These guns used for hunting and sport tend to be rifles and shotguns which fall into the non-restricted category. In fact, most handguns fall into the restricted category, and the government has estimated that there are over 900,000 registered in Canada.
In many cases these handguns are collected or used for sport. So, a ban on handguns would impact these registered owners who are mostly law-abiding gun owners. What we see is that Canada is doing a delicate dance that aims to respect law-abiding gun owners but reduce illegal gun ownership. This is important to consider because 1/3 of guns used in crimes were traced to the US, which means 2/3 of guns (the majority) originated elsewhere. The origination of these other guns is likely Canada considering that in 2022, the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre indicated that half of the crime guns traced were legally imported, thus likely purchased legally by Canadians and either sold on to street criminals or stolen from their homes. So, improvements will have to take the form of bans on the type of handguns most likely to be sold on the street, and tracing mechanisms to monitor how many guns are stolen or sold by legal owners illegally. With that being said, clearly more attention needs to be directed towards the border if 33% (25,000) guns were traced from the US between 2017 and 2021.
Another area for improvement is the application area for Canada’s gun control laws and efforts. Nothing is being done to reduce the current stock. Also, Bill C-21 applies to prospective guns. It doesn’t have a retroactive effect which would force people to relinquish ownership of their guns through buyback programs. Transparently, I’m not sure if this is a good or bad thing considering that the bulk of these people are law-abiding citizens. So, it again raises questions around if it’s right to impose restrictions around currently owned guns. The problem is, if we look at the 1994 crime bill, we’ll see that before the bill came into force, gun ownership increased. People rushed to the markets to buy more guns knowing that they wouldn’t be able to purchase them once the policy came into force. This could be the case in Canada, which could lead to a short-term increase in gun violence as potentially 2/3 of these Canadian owned and originated guns will continue to leak onto the streets. So, if safety is truly an overarching desire gun control laws, it might be the case that the Government will have to apply to retroactive gun ownership if it can’t control how they get onto the streets.
The final and possibly most important step I would consider is allocating more funds to addressing the root causes of gun crime. Currently $250 million has been allocated towards this, but when considered how this will be broken up across provinces and municipalities, and subsequently to not-for-profits and agencies that engage in this kind of work, it likely won’t be enough to make a meaningful and sustained impact on gun crime. For example, the Regional Municipality of York will receive $7.3 million split over the years from 2023 – 2026. London will receive just under $2.8 million from 2023 – 2026, Hamilton will receive $4 million from 2022 – 2026, Winnipeg will receive about $4 million from 2023 – 2026, and Toronto will receive $12.3 million over the same period. More will need to be done in this area, but we also have to recognize that resources are finite.
The reality of all of this is that if gun crime is increasing, regardless of whether current legislation adheres to the gun reduction research, something is missing. To an extent, Bill C-21 seeks to address some of these gaps, but any approach that truly aims to reduce gun crime will focus on bilateral relations with US, the border, and addressing the root causes of gun violence.
What are your thoughts?