Last month, Cam wrote about a report from Canada saying that most so-called crime guns up that way come from within the country. This is, undoubtedly, good news for Americans, since the report dispels the claim that Canadian violence is fueled by American guns.
However, what's behind those numbers?
Look, the numbers look good for our side, but intellectual honesty means we should be open to listening to how the numbers are derived, even if it turns out that they're pretty much BS. We don't want to be like the anti-gunners who dismiss any information they find inconvenient and blindly accept every study that backs their point, no matter how flawed.
When someone looks, we should listen, and Dean Weingarten looked.
CTV News recently published an article about “crime guns” traced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Careful analysis of the information provided shows the article is as much about spin as enlightenment.
Statistics Canada previously reported in 2023 that, where newly collected data were available, 92% of firearm-related violent-crime incidents did not involve the recovery of a firearm. That finding, however, was based on data reported for only 9.2% of firearm-related violent-crime incidents, from police services covering approximately 24% of Canada’s population.
Separately, Canada’s federal briefing notes, using primarily 2020 data, estimated that about 20% of firearms seized by police were submitted for tracing. Because the two figures come from different datasets and distinguish between firearms “recovered” and “seized,” they cannot be combined into a precise national tracing funnel. They nevertheless demonstrate that traced guns are a selected subset of firearms encountered by police.
Of the ones sent in for tracing, the sample in the CTV News article excluded most of the traces done in Ontario and Quebec. Of those, the definition of a “crime gun” is broad and includes many non-violent crimes.
Ontario and Quebec Create a Major Data Gap
Ontario and Quebec have their own firearm tracing systems. Information from those systems was not included in the article. Information from the most populated parts of Canada was not included. The sample for the CTV News article was not representative of all Canadian firearm traces.
So the numbers, while accurate for what they are, paint a very different picture from the reality on the ground, especially as the two most populated provinces have their own tracing system and were excluded from the sample provided.
Why should we care?
Because, as Weingarten points out, these numbers are part of a larger effort to pave the road for a handgun ban in Canada. They've already banned modern sporting rifles, but with a handgun ban on top of it, Canadians will be largely defenseless in the face of numerous threats, even as the country has been really safe historically. Less so these days, of course, but that came about after the assault on firearms began. It's likely a response to that effort, rather than the effort being any reasonable reaction to the crime surge. I mean, how can it be?
So, what Weingarten contends is that this is a case of lying with statistics. The numbers are accurate for what they are, but the books are cooked to create a predetermined outcome. In this case, it's all part of an effort to demonize handguns so they can be banned.
Without any Second Amendment to protect gun owners up there, it's likely they can make it happen, if not now, then at some point in the not-too-distant future. That's bad news for Canada, though too few up that way recognize that.
I'm not completely sure Weingarten is right, at least about this particular report being part of that, but I'll agree the numbers are suspect. Still, this claim will be handy to have around when the Canucks start blaming us for their violent crime problems. Their own government says it's not us, after all, and I suspect that even if we'd had more complete numbers, we'd find out that we're not the problem.
When he filmed Bowling for Columbine, notorious anti-gunner Michael Moore pointed out that Canada had more guns per capita than the United States, as I recall. He probably shouldn't have since it undermined his point, but that little tidbit has stuck in my head for ages since I saw that drek. The reason it's relevant now is that if there were more guns per capita there than here, why would they need to import so many?
However, again, intellectual honesty means we need to listen when someone can show how the numbers presented are bogus, and we do know there's a jihad against handguns there, so Weingarten isn't off-base in that regard, at a minimum.
