The Federal Gun Registry: An Urgent Need for Independent, Non-partisan Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After motor vehicles, firearms are the leading instruments of injury-related death in North America (Chapdelaine, Samson, Kimberley, and Viau 1991; National Center for Health Statistics 2000). Each year in Canada, there are more than 1,000 firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional fatalities and about 10 times as many non-fatal, but often debilitating, injuries resulting from the misuse of firearms (Hung 2000). Those dying of gunshot wounds, especially homicide and unintentional death victims, are disproportionately drawn from the more youthful segment of the population. For example, more than half of all fatalities in Canada resulting from firearm accidents involve persons under the age of 25 (Chapdelaine et al. 1991). Firearms are far more lethal than other means of attack (e.g., knives, clubs, or fists), and they are the method most likely to succeed in suicide attempts (Gabor 1994). Rigorous studies have shown that the presence of firearms in the home elevates the risk that an occupant will be a victim of a gun homicide or suicide, when previous violence and other risk factors are held constant (Kellermann, Rivara, Rushforth, Banton, Reay, Francisco, Locci, Prodzinski, Hackman, and Somes 1993; Brent, Perper, Allman, Moritz, Wartella, and Zelenak 1991). These facts are consistent with an opportunity model of crime and suicide and should be sufficient to place firearms on any list of hazardous consumer products. Firearms are designed to kill, and they do so more efficiently than other consumer products. As such, it appears eminently reasonable to regulate their distribution and promote owner accountability. But should firearms also be the subject of a national effort to record the ownership and specifications of every gun owned in Canada? Complicating factors and impediments to universal registration As with any consumer product, and even the national census, one is dealing with a moving target, as the volume of the various categories of firearms is constantly shifting and, hence, requires continual readjustment. Also, firearms are geographically mobile products: people tend to take their firearms with them when they move. A comprehensive registration system must therefore track firearms as they are transported within Canada and across our national borders. There is also a growing illicit trade in firearms (Firearms Smuggling Working Group 1995), especially handguns, and an increasing number of handguns are being used in homicides and other violent crimes (Dauvergne 2002). Further complicating the development of a complete firearms registry is the fact that, unlike the decennial census and motor vehicle registration, maintaining a count of firearms and a record of their ownership is meeting with a fair amount of resistance. A significant number of gun owners have as yet failed to comply with the licensing and registration requirements established when Bill C-68 was enacted in 1995. As of 30 June 2003, the Canadian Firearms Centre reported that about 200,000 of an estimated 2.3 million gun owners did not have a valid license and about 1.6 million of an estimated 7.9 million long guns were not registered (Leblanc 2003). The resistance ranges from the passive--simply failing to comply with the licensing and registration requirements--to concerted efforts, spearheaded by certain firearm interest groups, to sabotage the system by registering en masse just before the deadline or by making deliberate errors on relevant forms in order to invalidate the system (Walton and Galloway 2002). Equally serious has been the decision of six provinces not to enforce violations of the registration provisions and the court challenge by several provinces based on the argument that the registry constitutes an encroachment upon provincial property rights (Lunman 2003). While surveys at the time Bill C-68 was tabled indicated that public support for a national registry of all firearms was strong, the lack of buy-in by more than half the provinces and from many gun owners (especially from the west and far north) creates a major public policy dilemma. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".