Opinion: Handguns and Elections - Shooting For Success

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

Appearing on the front page of the Toronto Star and Toronto's Metro newspaper July 30th 2008, was a feature explaining the Tory position on gun control - specifically relating to handguns. According to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, the crime rate in Canada is "unacceptable" - specifically in regards to handgun violence - and therefore must be addressed.

Moreover, Nicholson insists that the Conservative Party is the only platform concerned with protecting Canadian citizens from such crime.

In promising new and tougher laws to combat handgun violence, Nicholson surely captivated front page readers all day - his words pleasing concerned Toronto natives. However (and unfortunately) Nicholson's theories are not supported by facts. His words are empty and his arguments are baseless; unless of course we consider the politics of fear to be worthwhile front page material.

But before I explain my position I would like to first state that I have absolutely no bias toward any one Canadian party. I believe the Liberals to be spineless and led by a quick tempered twit. I believe the NDP's to be a party based on impractical solutions to very real problems, and led by a thickheaded twit. And I believe the Conservatives to be a puppet arm of big business, and led a by an insincere twit. I know not who the best of these half inept, half evil parties are; but I do know that the words of Nicholson are ones we ought to instantly dismiss, and here's why.

His intention was to secure pro-Tory votes, not to secure Canadian citizens (not that election time is upon us or anything). Mind you, my first goal should be to prove that his argument - that handguns are a serious threat to Canadian safety - is without merit, and then to prove this second one. So here goes.

Last year there were a total of 594 murders in Canada, down from 606 in 2006. 594 murders among 33,390,141 people (as of July 2007). That means that in 2007 there was a 0.0017% chance that you would be murdered in Canada. Among those murders, 17% were committed by handguns. In total, 31.4% of all Canadian murders were committed by firearm, meaning that 14.4% were committed by other gun types. Knives, on (in?) the other hand, were used in 34.5% of all murders - perhaps the Tories should take action against steak and or chef knives.

So is this all hype, or are the Tories concerned about a legitimate threat facing Canadian citizens?

Well, in 2006, there were 921 murders in New York City, a city with a reported population of 19,306,183 - and those homicide numbers are significantly deflated compared to the numbers in the years prior to 1994, which is when Rudy Guiliani took the reigns as mayor and began his crackdown on crime (homicides levels since 1998, through Guiliani and Bloomberg years, have totaled fewer than 1000 murders each year; but I digress).

In other words, total homicides in the country of Canada, which is nearly twice the size of New York City in population, had roughly one third less murders (36% fewer to be exact).

What I'm getting at here is that, to say the least, the threat that handguns pose to Canadian citizens is not worthy of front page attention. So why was it on the front page? (and to address my second premise)

Politics, of course. The justice minister released this information in order to plant the seed of positive public regard. It has been studied before, and the conclusions of those studies have proven that it should be no surprise to us that the Harper administration has decided to take action against violent gun crimes - and specifically handgun crimes - as this topic has throughout history has been an easy way for political parties to gain public support.

In a research paper directed toward proving that very point - that politicians fight guns in order to shore up public support - written by Julian V. Roberts and Nicole Crutcher titled Public Attitudes to Sentencing in Canada, the authors explain this idea clearly:

"For many politicians, mandatory sentences represent a convenient, expeditious, and popular response to a specific crime problem. Since polls repeatedly show that the public believes sentencing to be excessively lenient, any reform that promises greater severity is perceived to be consistent with public opinion. For example, an Australian prime minister stated several years ago that he was "not surprised at the overwhelming support that Australians have shown for the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws." He was referring, however, not to a scientific survey using a representative sample but simply to a tabloid newspaper initiative in which interested readers had been asked to express their opinions on the issue."

Nicholson's release which plastered the front pages of Greater Toronto Area newspapers was aimed, much like in Australia, at generating 'overwhelming support' for the Conservative Party as we head toward an election (although a date hasn't been set, as noted in another Toronto Star article on the same day, the rhetoric being used by both Liberal and NDP party leaders indicates that one will happen soon).

What I'm saying is that Nicholson's did not make that statement because it was of primary concern, he released it because it is a primary way to gain public support. Handguns are not a true threat to our well being of Canadian citizens and thus should not be drawing national attention. Instead, such releases ought to be seen through and described as the political pandering campaign that it is.

If anything, handguns are a real problem in but the few cities that Canada has, in which case local authorities ought to be tackling the issue, much like Guiliani and Bloomberg did in NYC - this is not a federal issue.

Another point worth refuting is Nicholson's claim that the Conservative Party is the only political group in Canada that cares to protect Canadian citizens. Quite the contrary, the Liberal Party supported the motion to increase mandatory sentences for people who illegally posses handguns. If anything, I would imagine that the Liberals, NDP's, and Bloc Quebecois were a little reluctant to support such measures because handgun violence is so, so close to a non-issue and clearly something that the vast, vast majority of Canadian citizens need not worry about.

I said it once already, but I'd like to say it again - Nicholson's intention was to secure pro-Tory votes, not to secure Canadian citizens; and for that, we should be ashamed of our Justice Minister and the Tory party.

What do you think? Are Nicholson's claims legitimate? Should Canadians be concerned about handgun crimes? Was Nicholson's primary intention to save Canadian lives or to shore up Canadian support?

Thanks for reading.

GRMM