There is evidence that gun laws do not have any effect
Douglas R. Murray (department of Sociology, U. of Wisconsin) published
a report based on evidence in 1975 (the Journal of Social Problems)
called "Handguns, Gun Control laws, and Firearms Violence).
Mr. Murray concludes: "the data have indicated that
gun laws have no effect on either handgun ownership or on crime rates,
suggesting that this type of legislation is totally irrelevant to its
stated purpose. Therefore a return to a basic theory of firearms control
legislation seems in order. As stated, the primary reason for the existence
of these laws is to control access to guns so that guns are less likely
to be used in acts of violence. Thus far, the relationships between
gun laws and crime rates is non-existent."
And Dr. Caillin Langmann did a similar data analysis on
Canadian firearms crime rates and attempted to correlate any changes
in the Canadian crime rates to the introduction of firearm legislation
between 1974 and 2008. Dr. Langmann used three different methodologies
to account for variables and correlate data and gun laws. Mr. Langmann
came to the conclusion that Canadian gun laws restricting access to
firearms had no impact on the firearms crime rate (either positive or
Bottom lin, gun laws do not work to change criminal behavior.
The folks who claim that gun laws stop criminal behavior are simply
The folks who claim that firearms change the morals, values, and give
folks criminal intent are also lying.
Some RFOA members may be asking why there has been no
newsletter for over 6 months. One explanation is that Section 91 of
the Criminal Code has NOT been amended. Possession of a firearm is still
a criminal code offence subject to a 4 year prison term. The debate
over the gun registry has been a diversion from the criminal liability
associated with the gun license.
If you have not noticed already the theme of teh RFOA newsletters is
about what happens to a gun owner when their gun license expires - they
have to give up their guns or face criminal charges.
Another issue is that when the laws (or regulations) are changed there
is uncertainty as to what will actually be enforced - the actions of
the C.F.O. Ontario, and the Courts in Quebec are an example of this.
It has taken six months and we still do not know if the protected personal
and private information on Quebec gun owners will be handed over to
the province of Quebec - despite privacy laws.
I have come to the conclusion that the anti-gun owner
movement is not public, but has its roots in the Federal Civil Service
- people who have built an empire keeping track of law abiding Canadian.
These same folks are working against those Politicians who support gun
owners so they can keep their bureaucratic empires intact.
The debate is NOT OVER until the criminal sanctions
against possession of a firearm is struck from the criminal code.