webpublished at http://www.theinfozone.net/salw1.html
Abstract
This paper is an invited keynote presentation to: In the Right Hands -
an international firearm safety seminar, to be held at Christchurch,
New Zealand, 21-23 February 2006. This seminar is co-hosted by the New
Zealand Police, New Zealand Mountain Safety Council, and New Zealand
Council of Licensed Firearm Owners.
This paper is a preliminary effort to evaluate the effects of the 1998
firearm registry on public safety. The Federal Government saw the
firearm registry as crucial for reducing criminal violence and for
saving lives. The government's approach to public safety relied upon an
unscientific analysis of firearms and violence that, as a result of its
acceptance of public health research, greatly exaggerated the dangers
of lawful firearm ownership. In this paper I criticize public health
research methods as being moralistic and pseudoscientific. The Federal
Government's approach to public safety is compared with a provincial
program that is more consultative.
The results show that since the firearm registry was implemented, the
number of firearm owners has significantly declined, as well as the
number of firearm crimes and the number of firearms-related deaths.
Nevertheless, public safety cannot be said to have improved because
overall criminal violence and suicide rates remain stubbornly stable.
The violent crime rate has declined by only 4% since the registry was
implemented, but the homicide rate has actually increased by more than
3%. Perhaps the most striking change is that gang-related homicides and
homicides involving handguns have increased substantially. Overall
suicide rates have declined by just 2% since the registry began.
Despite a drop in suicides involving firearms, hangings have increased
nearly cancelling out the drop in firearm suicides. No persuasive link
can be found between the firearm registry and any of these small
changes. In comparison, the provincial hunter-safety program has more
modest goals, i.e., to reduce hunting and firearm accidents, but
limited evidence suggests that it is effective in actually saving lives
Abstract
This paper is an invited keynote presentation to: In the Right Hands -
an international firearm safety seminar, to be held at Christchurch,
New Zealand, 21-23 February 2006. This seminar is co-hosted by the New
Zealand Police, New Zealand Mountain Safety Council, and New Zealand
Council of Licensed Firearm Owners.
This paper is a preliminary effort to evaluate the effects of the 1998
firearm registry on public safety. The Federal Government saw the
firearm registry as crucial for reducing criminal violence and for
saving lives. The government's approach to public safety relied upon an
unscientific analysis of firearms and violence that, as a result of its
acceptance of public health research, greatly exaggerated the dangers
of lawful firearm ownership. In this paper I criticize public health
research methods as being moralistic and pseudoscientific. The Federal
Government's approach to public safety is compared with a provincial
program that is more consultative.
The results show that since the firearm registry was implemented, the
number of firearm owners has significantly declined, as well as the
number of firearm crimes and the number of firearms-related deaths.
Nevertheless, public safety cannot be said to have improved because
overall criminal violence and suicide rates remain stubbornly stable.
The violent crime rate has declined by only 4% since the registry was
implemented, but the homicide rate has actually increased by more than
3%. Perhaps the most striking change is that gang-related homicides and
homicides involving handguns have increased substantially. Overall
suicide rates have declined by just 2% since the registry began.
Despite a drop in suicides involving firearms, hangings have increased
nearly cancelling out the drop in firearm suicides. No persuasive link
can be found between the firearm registry and any of these small
changes. In comparison, the provincial hunter-safety program has more
modest goals, i.e., to reduce hunting and firearm accidents, but
limited evidence suggests that it is effective in actually saving lives