What if Canada's Police Can't Keep Us Safe?
Do growing violent crime rates change the terms of the gun control debate?
Gun control is a bit of a political third rail in Canada. Even dropping vague hints that you might consider expanded gun ownership will spell the quick and complete end to your dreams of public office. Fortunately, I have no political ambitions so, Bill C-63 notwithstanding, I can say whatever I like.
So what would I like to say? Given how much genuine moral, legal, and even epistemological ambiguity surrounds the topic, “my say” might not include a lot of firm conclusions. But simply ignoring the underlying issues is a mistake. Here are two questions worth considering:
Has restricting public access to (and use of) firearms represented an historically effective tool for maintaining public safety?
Has Canada evolved in ways that could change the way we measure those public policy considerations?
The best way to answer the first question is by exploring easily-available data sources. It’s certainly true that reported violent crime rates in Canada have been consistently lower than in the US - where federal law famously protects private gun ownership. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the gun control laws that make the difference.
In fact, as I’ve demonstrated elsewhere, when comparing outcomes across dozens or even hundreds of jurisdictions, there’s no clear statistical correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower gun violence. Conversely, the claim that would-be criminals avoid areas where their victims are more likely to own guns sounds reasonable, but has yet to be conclusively proven. (Perhaps criminals are just too dumb to understand the underlying statistics.)
Nevertheless, it’s arguable that there was once a tacit understanding among Canadians: we’ll submit to marginally more intrusive government regulation in exchange for safer streets and homes.
Which brings us to the second question. Is that understanding - along with the social conditions that inspired it - still valid? Well the Toronto Police Service’s 2024 Budget Notes document gives us some data points to consider.
Assault incidents between 2015 and 2022 increased by 18.4%, with rates rising again in the first part of 2023. Auto thefts have increased by nearly 350% since 2015. And thefts over $5,000 have increased by nearly 150% over that same period.
Those scary increases must be understood within the context of deteriorating police service. The City of Toronto Auditor General recently reported that, on average, police response times for Priority One calls averaged over 22 minutes in 2023 - up more than 40% over 2012 averages. Priority One designates the must urgent emergencies the Toronto Police Services face. 22 minutes is a long time to wait when you’re facing down an armed, drug-crazed criminal.
Beyond Toronto, Statistics Canada data shows us that, across the country, firearm-related violence has increased by 25% since 2012. But the more sobering part only comes into focus when you break out the numbers based on location:
Rural Canadians are increasingly far more likely to be victims of violent crime than their urban peers - and the further north you live the worse it gets. And remember: rural Canadians can only look at the Toronto Police Services’ 22 minute response time and wistfully sigh. Most of them probably don’t measure responsiveness in minutes, but in hours or even days.
In a world where violent crime rates are growing and police forces are losing their effectiveness, is it reasonable to expect Canadians to passively submit to crime? Should we all, so to speak, leave our car fobs near the front door to avoid confronting dangerous criminals? Do governments have the moral right to expect us not to act in defense of our lives and property?
And yet there are some other questions we should ask ourselves…questions that don’t come with easy answers:
How many lives would liberalizing gun ownership place at risk from accidental bullet wounds? For context, there were 535 accidental firearm-related fatalities in the US in 2020, which represents a mortality rate of 0.16 per 100,000.
Can gun safety education programs be effective in preventing rising accident rates?
Under the pressures of a stressful emergency, how effective would poorly-trained and prepared gun owners be at making quick, safe, and correct decisions?
In other words, would the potential risks that wider gun ownership could introduce be greater than the very real costs of prohibition?
My sense is that the overwhelming culture and mindset of lawful gun owners in Canada is grounded in safety best-practices and ongoing voluntary training. But how would we ensure that that culture extended to millions of first-time owners?
Either way, I feel that this is an important conversation to have. As growing crime exerts new pressures on society, talking about this now will be more effective than waiting until the dam bursts.
Under the current laws, a legal gun owner cannot use a firearm for self defence. You would be charged. As a rural dweller I find that insane. Police response time to my property is 45 minutes minimum. If we simply allowed that change it would be a deterrent to would be criminals. They're far less likely to walk up the long secluded laneway of a rural property if they know the owner (who almost certainly owns at least one rifle or shotgun) has a right to use it for self defence. Which doesn't necessarily mean firing it. Just having it at hand. Most crime is crime of opportunity.
Sir:
Your final paragraph starts with the idea that, "... I feel that this [changes to gun ownership laws] is an important conversation to have." I absolutely do feel a resentment to the federal Liberal party for it's stupid concentration on gun laws and changes thereto. I am neither a gun owner nor do I intend to be one. The reason for my resentment is that the LPC government has been concentrating on making outlaws of law abiding gun owners and trying to implicate those law abiding citizens in all sorts of crime while that same LPC government does nothing of any use with respect to the flow, nay, the flood, of illegal weapons from the south. In "addressing" gun violence, the LPC government is more worried about people who have not committed crime than they are about the people who actually HAVE committed that crime. That makes the LPC government at best stupid and idiotic and, more likely, simply not interested in dealing in any effective way with the issue: performance as compared to effectiveness.
About half way through your essay you ask, "Do governments have the moral right to expect us not to act in defense of our lives and property?" Given the comments which I offer above, I emphatically answer that the governments do not have that moral right.
I must say, Sir, that you are tilting at considerable Canadian windmills recently: last week asking what if we cannot fix medicare and this week asking a) what if Canadian police cannot keep us safe and b) do governments have a moral right to prevent us from protecting our lives and property.
If you are not careful, someone will start asking if you are the "right" sort to be allowed to continue to make commentary - online harms and all that, you know. Keep up the good work and ask many, many more uncomfortable questions and keep tilting at any windmill you can find, Sr. Quixote!