Canadian DSGL Member, Dr. Mike Ackermann, responds to misinformation on a medical website.

January 26, 2002

To the Alberta Center for Injury Control and Research

Dear Sir/Ms,

As a rural physician I am constantly seeking reliable sources of quality information on a wide variety of topics. My initial perusal of your site looked promising, until I happened upon your "Firearms FACTS" page at www.med.ualberta.ca/acicr/.

Unfortunately, you are apparently approaching a criminological topic from a medical perspective and as a result you are working outside your area of expertise.

First I will deal with your bullet points in turn and then I will give you the basis for a more rational approach to the firearms issue.

1) "Firearm related deaths account for nearly 10% of all injury deaths in Alberta over the past 5 years."

The actual statistics gleaned from The Alberta Vital Statistics Review and from the Statistics Canada Mortality Summary List of Causes reveal quite a different picture. I will use 1997 to illustrate my points, because it is a representative year and one which you have chosen to focus on.

In 1997 in Alberta there were:

8 accidental deaths involving firearms
22 accidental deaths arising from medical misadventure
2236 total accidental deaths

79 suicides involving firearms
401 total suicides

17 homicides involving firearms
56 total homicides

1 unspecified firearms injury leading to death

105 total firearms deaths
3534 total injuries leading to death (including 3 birth trauma)

Do you get the picture? You are nearly three times as likely to die accidentally because of a medical error as by a firearms accident. Only 2.9% of injurious death is attributable to firearms - NOT the 10% alluded to on your web site. Firearms are NOT used in 81% of suicides nor in 70% of murders. If you cared to peruse the criminological and sociological literature, you will find that the murderers and suicides all have long histories of escalating behaviour that has been inadequately addressed by the legal system. In addition, most victims of murder are involved in gang or other criminal activity.

2) "In 1997, 401 suicides were completed in Alberta. Nearly 20% of these involved the use of a firearm."

And more than 80% did not. So what? A quick read through some comparative statistics from around the world will reveal that the RATE of suicide is entirely independent of the means. Japan, for example has one of the lowest rates of legal and illegal firearms ownership and yet one of the highest suicide rates in the world. For further information, see teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Research/Observations/index.html

3) "Nationally, Alberta ranks first among the provinces in the percentage of homes with guns (39%)."

Again, so what? Statistics Canada reports that in 1997 the national average for suicides was 24.4 per 100,000 and homicides was 3.0 per 100,000. The provincial rates do NOT correlate with firearms ownership, but DO correlate well with the percentage of Aboriginal peoples in the population. For example, the national highs were in the Northwest Territories (NWT), with 87.4 suicides and 8.2 homicides per 100,000.  Compare this with Alberta's modest 26.9 and 3.4, respectively.

Obviously it is the presence of social ills, that unfortunately are disproportionately represented in our Aboriginal population, that leads to suicide and homicide and not the presence or absence of firearms.

4) "Alberta has one of the highest death rates in the country (6.2/100,000 population). That national rate is 4.6/100,000 population."

No, it doesn't. In 1997, the national average death rate per 100,000 population was 718.8. Alberta had 579.8. Only NWT and the Yukon (YK) had less, at 380.5, and 381.5, respectively. 1997 is a representative year.

I can only assume that you have made an honest oversight here, and should be more careful of what you claim to be true. At any rate, there is absolutely nothing to indicate any association or causative relationship between the mere presence of firearms and death rates.

5) "A home with a gun is 5 times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and 3 times more likely to be the scene of a murder than a home without a gun."

Ah, yes, the much vaunted but repeatedly debunked Kellerman Study. For a full treatise on the fatal flaws and outright unethical research practices represented by the Kellerman Study, may I refer you to Suter's excellent critique at:

teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html

Need I say more? Kellerman's study is, unfortunately, typical of the junk 'science' used by hoplophobic fanatics to push their agenda.

6) "In 1997 in Alberta more young people died as a result of an encounter with a firearm than died due to leukaemia."

This is not exactly true either. Again from Statistics Canada we find that in 1997 the only age groups for which the firearms deaths exceeded leukaemia deaths were:

Ages 10-20
12 firearm homicides
59 firearm suicides
67 deaths from leukaemia

Ages 20-30
32 firearm homicides
102 firearm suicides
76 deaths from leukaemia

For all other age groups, the deaths from leukaemia greatly exceeded that from firearms. In addition, as already stated above, suicide rates are NOT means dependant and should really be discounted because in the absence of firearms suicidal people just switch methods. So in reality leukaemia causes more potentially preventable deaths than firearms misadventure at all age groups.

For interest sake, here are the remaining numbers:

Age <1
2 firearms homicides
0 firearms suicides
5 deaths from leukaemia

Ages 1-10
9 firearms homicides
0 firearms suicides
32 deaths from leukaemia

Age >30
85 firearms homicides
526 firearms suicides
5235 deaths from leukaemia

All ages
140 firearms homicides
687 firearms suicides
5415 deaths from leukaemia


7) 95% of all deaths in Alberta in 1997 involving firearms were intentional."

Again, so what? If you intend to kill your self or another person you will do your best to carry this out.

You should really look at this the other way around. What you have actually said is that of all firearms deaths, only 5% were accidental.  That's a pretty good safety record, if you ask me. Compare this to accidental versus intentional automobile deaths, and you'll get the idea. Cars are far and away more dangerous to use than firearms. So are numerous other everyday objects that we take for granted. For further analysis may I suggest Sellick's detailed article:  teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

8) "Among 26 industrialized countries, Canada ranked 5th in rate of firearm related deaths among children aged less than 15 years."

For once we agree on something. Canada has, indeed, quite a high firearms related death rate compared to the other civilized nations of the world. But as Guy Smith aptly shows in his book 'Gun Facts' www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf this has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership rates. In fact the firearms death rates can be shown to correlate quite nicely with the severity of a country's gun control laws. In 1994, the US Department of Justice released a study entitled 'Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse - Research Summary' www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf. On page 18 (25 in Adobe format) there is a table that clearly shows that when inner city youth are given access to legal firearms training and ownership, their involvement in violent crime is ZERO. Apparently, a proper firearms education by a trusted adult mentor is highly protective against involvement in violence and gang activity.

9) "The rate of children killed with guns in Alberta is almost twice the national average and it is in fact comparable to the combined rates of Israel and Northern Ireland."

No, it's not.

The number of firearms deaths in Alberta in 1997 was, as mentioned above, 8 accidents, 79 suicides, 17 homicides, and 1 unspecified for a total of 105. This is from a population of 2,695,474, giving a rate of 3.8 per 100,000. The national average was 5.8 per 100,000. There is nothing to suggest that Alberta youth stray from this trend as compared to the overall population of all age groups.

It is plainly false to suggest that Alberta has a higher firearms death rate than the national average. As for international comparisons, what constitutes our death rates compared to other countries' has little to do with firearms ownership.

10) "In Alberta in 1996, more than 3 people are hospitalized each month with unintentional firearm related injuries."

For the last time, so what?! There are, on the average 500 times as many American children aged 0 to 4, and 100 times as many people of all ages killed by drowning in backyard pools as by firearms injury, and this is in the supposedly 'violent, gun infested' USA. Your statement is meaningless.


There is a huge wealth of reliable, peer reviewed, and supported primary research and review literature by well reputed members of the medical, criminological, legal, and sociological professions that clearly shows the complete failure of Draconian gun control laws such as Canada's, both historically and geographically as instruments of public safety or as means of reducing violent crime.

The recent Australian and British experiences with gun control shows that prohibiting or excessively controlling the lawful and harmless recreational and defensive uses of firearms by the ordinary citizen not only does nothing to reduce violent crime or suicide, but it in fact significantly increases the death toll due to criminal violence. These laws actually kill people. For example, in London, England, following the Dunblane gun ban firearms murders have risen by 90%. In Australia following the confiscation and destruction of some 665,000 legally owned firearms the murder rate went up over the entire country, with the worst increase seen in Victoria - a rise of 300 percent!

In every one of the USA's concealed carry states, the rates of all violence, and most especially firearms violence, dropped significantly following the institution of 'shall issue' laws that permit ordinary law-abiding citizens to become trained and then engage in defensive concealed carry of firearms. It may sound radical, but those are the facts, readily verified by anyone who chooses to do a bit of literature review.

The reasons for these phenomena are complex, but part of it is that only the law-abiding will obey firearms laws, now matter how strict. In fact the more severe the law, the more law-abiding those who obey it. The Responsible Firearms Community are not the ones committing violent crimes in the first place, and so wasting vast sums of money interfering with their harmless pastimes simply squanders scarce resources that could be better used to fight real criminals.

As mentioned above, in 1994 the US Department of Justice released a
report on urban delinquency that looked into the issue of gun ownership by inner city youth. It turns out that when these youth are given proper firearms safety and handling training and are encouraged to practice with lawfully acquired firearms under the guidance of adult coaches, their involvement with violent crime is zero. Not just a lower percentage, but ZERO. It would appear that exposure to appropriate firearms training, as opposed to the media's and the gangs' violent versions of 'gun culture' when coupled with the attention of adult mentors is highly protective against involvement in violence.

There you have it: Draconian gun laws increase both violence and firearm death tolls while appropriate laws that respect the right of ordinary citizens to learn about and use firearms safely reduces both violence and firearm death.

Despite this, the Canadian Safety Council (CFC), via its mouthpiece Mr. Emile Therien, clings obsessively to the idea that if we can just punish the law abiding enough we can reduce the criminal's use of firearms. In addition most medical organizations across the country have jumped on the 'Costs-Only Analysis' band wagon without even the pretence of taking an evidence based approach.

They use misleading and partial statistics and inflammatory emotional rhetoric to make their case, all the while ignoring the facts. For example as mentioned 100 times as many American people of all ages and 500 times as many children below 4 years of age die of drowning in backyard pools as die by gunfire. The Canadian figures are similar. 

Should we then launch a campaign to register and then ban backyard pools and water itself? Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim?

The various anti-gun organizations ignore the fact that firearms accidents began falling with the voluntary introduction of safety training put on by the shooting organizations in the '60s, long before any heavy handed government interventions. They ignore the fact that in countries where firearms are banned, guns are cheap and easy to obtain by the criminal element and suicides occur just as frequently, albeit with other means. They ignore the fact that firearms violence is simply violence, and has at its root the same causes as any violence. Guns don't cause the violence, but they can be its instrument.

A 'Cost-Only' approach ignores the 65,000 defensive uses of firearms by ordinary Canadians every year that result in saved lives and property.  3500 of these defensive uses are against human threats. In only 1% of the time is the gun actually fired. The rest of the time its mere presence is what buys the intended victim her second lease on life.

When the gun IS fired by an ordinary citizen, only in 2% of cases is an innocent bystander hurt, compared to 11% when the defensive shooter is a police officer. To the police's credit, this difference is explained by the difficulty they have entering a strange situation where the players are equally unknown to the cop. When an ordinary citizen uses a firearm defensively, there is little doubt who the bad guy is. My point is that when benefits AND costs are compared, it is plainly obvious that there is a net benefit to proper firearms training and ownership by ordinary citizens. The Swiss model is a prime example.

I find it ironic that Mr. Therien should support individual freedom, education, and responsibility as it pertains to driving and cell phone use, and drinking and driving, but he insists on State Nannyism in regards to the harmless, lawful use of firearms by ordinary, decent folk. It is interesting that 20 times as many people die while driving compared to murdered using firearms that anyone can purchase $5 million of public liability insurance as a shooter for $4.75 annually, no questions asked.

It is also interesting that some 300 times as many women die of breast cancer as there are people murdered with guns and yet breast cancer research gets 1/38th the funding as Bill C-68. To me THAT is a true public health issue.

I must whole heartedly agree with Mr. Therien when he states, "...It is counterproductive to have too many laws on the books if they cannot be enforced. Before calling for new laws, it is important to consider...can the problem be addressed through existing laws?...can the proposed legislation be realistically enforced?...can non regulatory approaches such as public education be used to address the issue?"

But I must ask Mr. Therien why the CFC applies this sensible public policy philosophy only selectively? To address his three questions in order as they pertain to the lawful use of firearms in Canada, following extensive research one can only answer, "yes, no, and yes!".

I must also ask why the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research continues to perpetuate the anti gun agenda and myths.

I look forward to your re-writing your 'Firearms Facts' page along scientific, evidence based lines.

--

M. J. Ackermann, MD (Mike)
President, St. Mary's Shooters Association
Box 3, RR 1, 4132 Sonora Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada
B0J 3C0

My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca

You will find extensive links to literature supporting my claims on the SMSA research site at:

www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/Research_Sites.html

In addition, I have appended below a bibliography of reliable information. An earnest review of this material should be done by your staff, and then we can all look forward to a rewrite of your "Firearms FACTS" site along unbiased evidence based lines.

Bibliography:

Statistical References:

1) Statistics Canada Cat. no. 84F0209XIB N o 84F0209XIB au cat. 
Mortality - Mortalité -Summary List Liste sommaire of Causes, des
causes, 1997 1997 Shelf Tables

2) 1997 Alberta Vital Statistics Review.

Printed Texts:

3) More Guns, Less Crime John R. Lott, Jr. 
2000, The University of Chicago Press
ISBN: 0-226-49364-4

E-articles and e-books:

4) Gun Facts, Version 3.1 Guy Smith 2001
www.keepandbeararms.com/images/gunfacts.pdf

5) Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse US Dept. of Justice 1994
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/urdel.pdf

6) Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions by David B. Kopel April 25, 1993
rkba.org/research/kopel/kids-gun.html

7) Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review Edgar A. Suter MD
rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html?suter

8) Crime Comparisons Between Canada and the United States
www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

9) Archive of Canadian Research Related to "Gun Control"
teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/research.html

10) A Mackenzie Institute Occasional Paper Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story Gary A. Mauser, Ph.D., Simon Fraser University, & H. Taylor Buckner, Ph.D., Concordia University (ret'd) January, 1997
teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/GUNCOVER.htm

11) Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality Sarah Thompson, M.D.
www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

12) Physicians on Guns and Violence Edgar A. Suter MD, at al
home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/guns/physiciansRkba.htm

13) Gun Control And Justice In Canada Canadian Review Article
www.nucleus.com/guncontrol/index.htm

14) THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE RKBA Webring 9/19/2001
www.gunsandcrime.org/index.html

15) BBC News Online: UK Friday, 4 January, 2002, 12:28 GMT A country in the crosshairs
news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1741000/1741336.stm

Doctors Organizations:

15) Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm

16) Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

RETURN TO TOP