I created this infographic for a letter I sent out to MPs who voted for C-71 on its Second Reading in the House, in an attempt to show them how mis-focused the bill is and to provide context as to the unaddressed area of need for legislative attention.

I thought I'd make it available here for others to use in crafting their own letters, faxes or emails if interested.

My intent was to provide a graphical portrayal of the context of shooting homicides against the overall background of violent crime, particularly the part that licensed gun owners would have played in that. It starts in the first two bar graphs with an overall 2016 look at Violent Crime in Canada. These data derive from the following two tables:

Crimes, by type of violation, and by province and territory (

https://bit.ly/2qTUSRk )

Table 6: Police-reported crime for selected offences, Canada, 2015 and 2016 (

https://bit.ly/2F7ZCrP )

From there, the look tightens in on homicides, broken down by method. The data in the third bar graph derive from:

Homicides by method (

https://bit.ly/2JfDNcb )

From this point forward though, the available data become curiously sparse and you're forced to read closely, at times between the lines. The information's kinda-sorta there, but not in an easily-used format. In the section titled 'Increase in gang‑related homicides in 2016' on the page linked below, there's a notation that 141 gang-related homicides occurred in 2016. For the fourth bar graph, the simple math 223-141=82 is being made.

Homicide in Canada, 2016 (

https://bit.ly/2vAInQv )

For the final bar graph, a fair bit more interpretation is required. The RCMP does not actually record or report the firearm licensure status of gun homicide convicts. They do, however, report how many revocations occurred, and for what reasons. At the page linked below, Table 9 provides the the total # of firearms revocations per year, and in Table 10 the reasons for revocations in 2016. The figure for ‘Violent behaviour’ in Table 10 - 92, divided by the total number of 2106 revocations in Table 9 - 2223 , gives a rate of 4.1%. This, applied to the ‘non-gang-related’ figure of 82 from the fourth bar graph gives a value 3.36, which I simply rounded up to 4 to represent the number of gang unrelated Canadians who committed murder with a firearm in 2016 using a firearm licensed to them. The remaining statistic - unlicensed gun murderers - is simply 82-4=78.

2016 Commissioner of Firearms report (

https://bit.ly/2HE10rD )

.

.

.

Here's a link to the graph pictured below:

https://tinyurl.com/y9jozky8
And, in case a clean copy might be desired, here's a link to a copy without the notations and markups:

https://tinyurl.com/ycgokxxr
.

.

.

Limitations

-----------

Now, the astute reader will of course pick up on the assumptions I'm making here as I went through my interpolating, extrapolating, and reading between the lines. So, in the interest of disclosure I go through these below.

First, there's no breakdown of the figure of 141 gang-related homicides as to type. My assumption therefore is a worst-case that 100% of homicides by gangs in 2016 were committed by gun, but the reality is of course that stabbings, beatings, strangulations and other modalities likely figure in there. But, my thought was, there's little harm going with an upper-bound approach, knowing that the reality is probably somewhat less. Better to be overstate, was my thinking, rather than be called out on understating.

Second, the 'Homicides by method' table provides data where a firearm was present at the scene. It may not necessarily have been the actual instrument of death, this statistic simply reports that it was present. So again, the true figures are probably somewhere south of this, but it's what we've got to work with. Again, no value in understating, so going with an upper-bound presentation is reasonable.

Third, the 'Violent behaviour' figure of 92 in Table 10 of the 2016 Commissioner of Firearms report likely isn't *all* homicides. I had no way of eyeballing that so, again, the assumption is worst-case and upper-bound.

Fourth, I'm not clear if your PAL is revoked when you’re charged then restored when you’re acquitted, or if it's suspended when charged and fully revoked on conviction. So again I assumed the worst case here - revocation on charge - in my calculations.

Fifth (last one, I promise), I'm clearly making the assumption that that there are no common elements between ‘gang members committing homicides’ and ‘licensed gun owners’. Probably reasonable, but it’s still an assumption that I felt I should report.