”Post mortem examinations by the Edmonton Medical Examiner have determined that all four deceased died as a result of gunshot injuries. It has been determined that three of the deceased sustained multiple firearm related injuries while the fourth succumbed from what appears to be a single, fatal, self-inflicted injury. Investigators remain confident that the person responsible for all four deaths is among the four deceased. In consultation with the Medical Examiner this is now being classified as a triple murder-suicide.” (RCMP “K” Division Media and Communications Services news release, July 29th, 2009)
On July 26th, Slave Lake police received a call suggesting that a homicide had taken place on a property located in rural Alberta. Upon responding to the call, the RCMP Emergency Response Team entered the property and found four deceased persons.
The RCMP, through their investigation and with help from the Serious Crimes Unit, concluded that Ian Jeffrey Paget, 58, shot dead his estranged wife, his daughter, and his nine year old granddaughter. After shooting his family members to death, he turned the gun on himself, committing suicide.
This tragic story highlights one of the arguments I have made repeatedly during my time as a Peace Fellow with the Advocacy Project: guns are more lethal than any other type of weapon.
Firearms are designed to kill, and are able to eliminate many people instantly. According to Statistic Canada’s most recent data, between 1961 and 2003, firearms were the weapon of choice in the majority of homicide-suicides in Canada.
A firearm in the home increases the risk of death at the hands of a violent perpetrator; Ian Jeffrey Paget was able to eliminate his entire family, including himself, in a matter of seconds.
DV Logo
Statistics Canada found that three-quarters of all homicide-suicides in Canada between 1961 and 2003 involved family members, and over half of these cases were committed by male spouses or ex-spouses; ninety-seven percent of the victims were female.
According to a report released by the Alberta “K” RCMP Division in January (the same division to investigate the Paget homicide-suicide), fifty-three homicides were investigated by their Serious Crimes Unit in 2008. Of these fifty-three homicides, fourteen (or twenty-six percent) were the result of domestic violence and six involved intimate partner relationships. Additionally, fifteen of the fifty-three homicides were committed with a firearm, accounting for over a quarter of the total.
In 2006 (a report was not submitted for 2007), twelve of thirty-six homicides (thirty-three percent) resulted from domestic violence, and firearms contributed to twelve (thirty-three percent) of the total number of homicides. In 2005, thirty-one of the forty-nine homicides (sixty-three percent) investigated were attributed to domestic violence, and eleven of the forty-nine homicides were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent).
These statistics illustrate the need for gun control not only to reduce and prevent domestic violence, but violence in general. Many weapons are used to domestically abuse and assault people, but none are more lethal than firearms.
Tags: Disarming Domestic Violence, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA
Soulchaser, I would assume you understand how difficult it would be to gather such statistics. Does this mean it doesn’t happen? I would assume you also know that the answer to that question is no. It’s becoming harder and harder for me to understand why pro gun advocates try to defend crimes involving guns by pointing out other acts of violence using weapons like knives. It’s as if you’re trying to divert the blame to something else, to make the seriousness of the problem seem less.
I’m not suggesting you’ve said domestic violence against men isn’t as awful. I am suggesting, however, that you’re taking a vary narrow approach in focussing on firearms used in domestic violence (0.01% of cases according to Statistics Canada) and overlooking the other 99.9% of cases of domestic violence.
If anything, you’re the one that doesn’t understand the severity of the problem. That being, for every incident involving a firearm there are one-thousand incidents that involve knives, fists, etc.
I don’t disagree that firearms are used in cases of domestic violence. However having failed to provide any statistics that show how many of those firearms are owned by licensed gun owners you’ve failed to establish a causative link between firearms control legislation and domestic violence.
If anything, crime and domestic violence rates have been dropping since long before the current regime of firearms legislation was passed in Canada. Handguns, often blamed for most “gun violence” have been tracked in Canada since the mid-1930′s yet criminals seem to obtain them quite easily. Of course, it’s hardly an impossible task to smuggle them across the world’s longest undefended border.
Again, I fail to see a causative relationship between stricter gun laws and domestic violence rates. If you have evidence one exists I would be happy to review it.
Otherwise I believe that money spent harassing people who aren’t part of the problem would be better spent helping shelters like Interim Place not have to give women 2nd and 3rd hand clothes when they leave abusive relationships.
Rafael, One suggestion I’ve made during my time here is that other countries that use this legislation as good practice in designing their own make it a priority to gather more empirical data. I think that from the beginning, information should have been kept on the reason for firearms seizures, license revokations, etc. That way, the effectiveness of the legislation (or lack thereof, if that is the case) can be clearly deduced and the government would be held accountable for their decisions. From the data that is out there, it is clear that the Firearms Act is working; however, I don’t pretend to think that there shouldn’t be more.
Elizabeth,
That information is available.
The RCMP, now responsible for the Canadian Firearms Center, has both the 2006 and 2007 Commissioner of Firearms Reports online.
The 2007 Report lists exactly 1,758 Firearms License revocations. Of those only 4 percent, or 70 license revocations, were due to domestic violence. At the end of 2007 there were 1,877,880 individuals licenses to own firearms in Canada. So, 0.0037% of firearms license owners had their licenses revoked as the result of domestic violence.
In 2006, there were 1,908,011 licensed firearms owners. Also in 2006, a total of 2,084 licenses were revoked.
While the 2007 report breaks down revocations into “violence” and “domestic violence” percentages the 2006 report lists only “violence”. If we – for lack of better numbers – assume the same proportion of domestic violence vs. violence revokations for 2006 as there were in 2007 that suggests 90-100 licenses were revoked. Or some 0.0049% of firearms owners lost their licenses due to cases of domestic violence.
In it’s report titled “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile” Statistics Canada includes a breakdown of the weapons used during incidents of domestic violence in table 1.10 on page 24 of the report. In 2006 weapons were used in 2,534 of 38,573 reported cases. Firearms were used in 34 assaults on women, and 6 assaults on men. Statistics Canada also includes a percentage breakdown in the table – firearms are listed as 0%.
In reality they were used in 0.1% of cases.
The rate of “violence”, domestic violence being a subset of that, has been on a steady decline since the mid 1970′s. The current firearms act was not put in place until the late 90′s and still hasn’t fully come into force.
It has, however, been extremely costly, alienated a large percentage of the population, made criminals of some 5 million or so individuals that failed to obtain licenses as the firearms act required, and generally been a failure at registering firearms with some 5-10 million guns simply “disappearing” when the registry came into effect.
I would suggest that if foreign governments are going to use the Canadian Firearms Act in developing their own firearms control legislations it should be to use it as a roadmap on what not to do.
Rafael-I don’t think that the information gathered which you speak of is enough. There are no details on how many licenses were denied based on spousal worries or histories of abuse. There are no records on how often the registry was used specifically in responding to domestic disputes. These things would be really helpful. And again, I don’t think one can place a cost on safety.
Elizabeth:
If you have proof the NRA funds pro gun candidates and organizations then PRODUCE IT.
IIRC Tony Bernardo with the Canadian Shooting Sports Association is on record saying the CSSA receives NO FUNDING from the NRA, and the only money they recieve from Americans is from those who wish to purchase memberships in the CSSA.
I’m going to quote you for a second…
“eleven of the forty-nine homicides [In 2005] were a result of firearms (twenty-two percent)”
So only 22% homicides were related in any way to firearms, but you think this is plenty of justification to take them away from people? What about the other 78%? Should we outlaw kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Fists? Obviously these items are a bigger threat than firearms, since they resulted in 3 times as many deaths.
To quote you again…
“These statistics illustrate the need for gun control not only to reduce and prevent domestic violence, but violence in general.”
I’m sorry but that’s completely untrue. Guns are not the cause of any of this violence. The cause is that people want to be violent. A victim will be just as dead if their attacker uses a knife or a hammer.
Consider this: try to imagine how many guns are legally owned by citizens of this country. Now try to guess how many of those guns have ever been used in a crime. Or how many of those gun owners have ever committed a violent crime. The percentage is extraordinarily small. As in far less than 1%. But still you support punishing all of those LEGAL gun owners for the misdeeds of a few criminals. You’re ignoring all other factors in those domestic violence cases and focusing only on one thing because it happens to be one thing that you don’t like. Did you even consider the possibility of mental illness or psychological conditions? What about financial or marital problems? You need to address what caused the crime, not the manner in which the crime was committed.
Stop trying to punish me for something someone else did.
Michael-Only 22%? Really? That’s a pretty big percentage. The problem with the pro gun community is that you paint yourselves as the victim…you’re not the victim, Michael. The people who make up that ‘only 22%’ are the victims.
Soulchaser-As it would be illegal for the NRA, being a US organization, to support Canadian candidates directly, one cannot find information when looking at campaign contribution records. However, by donating to the Canadian National Firearms Association, the NRA can bypass this. In addition, oftentimes the NRA financially supports pro gun advocacy in countries outside of the US by contributing to fundraisers and media relations, etc.
The comment period for this entry is now closed.
Do I think that it’s necessary to carry a gun in your bag or under the seat of your car when you’re running errands? No. Absolutely not. The United States and Canada, moreorless, are very peaceful places, and law enforcement does a good job of protecting people who need protection. When I walk by myself at night do I keep my cellphone in my hand as a precaution? Of course. Do I think to myself “Gosh, I would be so much safer if only I had a gun?” No way. In fact, I think the opposite.
Elizabeth
let me get this straight you would rather carrie a cell phone that take 3 seconds to dail 911 anouther 4 seconds to ring at least 3 seconds to scream help and then anywere from 5 min to an hour for the cops to figure out where you are and the get to you?
so at the min your looking at 6 minets for a cop to get to you and thats if hes/shes around the corner
most likly it will be around half an hour
Insted of a small hand gun that you can use in under 3 seconds with practic?
and guess what you just made the world a safer place by shooting your attacker because chances are thats one less bad guy.
looks like a win win to me