Urban ban alone won’t solve gun violence

A recent Ekos poll suggests the majority of Canadians (69 per cent) favour a ban on firearms in urban areas. Aside from the logistics of how that might work for, say, hunters who live in cities but hunt in outlying areas, one question worth considering is: what harm would such a ban reduce?

The non-stop barrage of news about gun-related injuries and deaths in the United States can make Canada seem relatively safe. According to Statistics Canada, 2015 was the second consecutive year that the number of gun-involved homicides rose: “The rate of firearm-related homicides in 2015 increased by 14 per cent to 0.50 per 100,000 population (compared to 0.44 in 2014), and was the highest reported rate since 2010 (0.51).”

Furthermore, statistics show that handguns were used in 57 per cent of firearm-related homicides in 2015, making them the most frequently used type of firearm, but also that that percentage is down from 2014, when handguns accounted for 67 per cent of such incidents.

Comparing Canada to the U.S. in terms of gun casualties may make Canada look good. According to information compiled by the BBC, drawing from the FBI, the U.K. Home Office Homicide Index, Statistics Canada and Crime Statistics Australia, gun-related killings as a percentage of all homicides were 64 per cent in the United States (2016), but only 30.5 per cent in Canada (2015).

However, the same data show the percentages of gun-related killings for Australia were 13 per cent (201314) and England and Wales were just 4.5 per cent (201516). Clearly, we could be doing more in Canada. But is an urban gun ban a solution? Part of the problem lies in public perception. While Statistics Canada cites an uptick in gang violence as a factor in firearms-related casualties, that's only part of it. A significant factor in gun deaths is the use of firearms in suicides. (After hanging, guns are the most-used method for men attempting suicide.) According to Justice Department figures, roughly 80 per cent of firearm-related deaths in Canada are a result of suicide. Furthermore, in contrast with the United States, where the firearm used in a suicide is usually a handgun, in Canada, the data show long guns to be the weapon of choice.

What, then, would an urban gun ban do to stem such fatalities? Reducing the availability of firearms would likely decrease their use in suicide attempts, but that isn’t the only factor in reducing the risk of suicide. Improved mental-health care and community support would also help, especially as Canada’s population ages; according to Statistics Canada, persons aged 40 to 59 have the highest rates of suicide.

Canada could adopt further restrictions on firearms, as Australia and Japan have. But in considering the role guns play in Canadian life — as a tool for hunters, ranchers and sport shooters — as well as the potential risks of illegal firearms, we should also consider how best to tackle the potential danger guns pose to all Canadians.

It might be that a majority of Canadians living in metropolitan areas would barely notice they were no longer permitted to use guns in the city, but that’s not the point. Gun fatalities are not merely an urban problem — they are a societal one. A solution that looks only at a legislative remedy, without including a safety and health-centred approach, is incomplete.

(This editorial was published Dec. 11 in the Winnipeg Free Press and distributed by The Canadian Press)

“Gun fatalities are not merely an urban problem — they are a societal one.”