Mauser UN Presentation (Excellent Presentation)
Date: Jul 6, 2006 6:48 PM
FYI (copy below):
http://www.garymauser.net/MauserUN2006.html
AOL users click here

June 30, 2006
United Nations Small Arms Meeting — New York
Mauser UN Presentation

United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the
Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat
and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in All Its Aspects

Professor Mauser in New York at The UN Disarmament
Conference, made this presentation on June 30, 2006.

Mr President, distinguished delegates,

I am Professor Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University, in
British Columbia, Canada. I am representing the National
Firearms Association. For 20 years, as part of my academic
program with SFU’s Institute for Canadian Urban Research
Studies, I have studied Canadian firearms legislation. I
will briefly report on my findings.

Mr. President, Canada has gone through big changes in the
past 15 years. In the 1990s Canada introduced a program to
license firearms owners and register sporting rifles and
shotguns. Previous firearms legislation had primarily
focused on the criminal misuse of firearms as well as
controlling handguns and fully automatic firearms.

The former government insisted on introducing this costly
system despite contrary advice from the New Zealand
government and from experienced Canadian civil servants.
The new government, which has recently been elected after a
campaign where gun control was central, has now decided to
abandon the firearm registry.

“It has been demonstrated that the Canadian licensing and
registration system is not cost-effective and has not
reduced crime. Research shows that 71% of firearm licences
were found to have errors, and over 250,000 guns were
registered with the same serial numbers as stolen guns. The
Royal Canadian Mounted Police have said they have no faith
in the information: and barely more than half of the guns
(or gun owners) are included in the registry. The Auditor
General of Canada has estimated that the registry has cost
taxpayers more than one billion dollars, even though it was
originally budgeted to cost only two million dollars.
Reviewing the Canadian gun control program, she called it
the worst case of cost overrun she has ever seen.

A few statistics demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the
Canadian firearm registration system. Since 1998, when
firearms were required to be registered, the homicide rate
has increased by more than 3%. Despite the outrageous cost
of the registry, the percentage of gun homicides has
remained fixed at 27%. So with family homicides, where the
percentage involving firearms has remained at 23%. Nor did
the firearm registry change the proportion of homicide
victims who are female (32%) since 1998.

The firearm registry has not saved any lives. While gun
homicide numbers are indeed down, the proportion of domestic
homicides involving guns has not declined, nor has the
homicide rate declined. Instead it has increased. This
suggests that crime rates are driven by sociological factors
(such as the percentage of youth in the total population,
and social conditions) rather than availability of just one
method of murder.

Public opinion has reversed. In 1995, surveys showed large
majorities supporting the registry; current polls show
majorities (as high as 84%) wishing to abandon it as
ineffective.

Mr. President, the central question is whether this approach
to firearm regulation is defective in conception. To answer
this question, I examined the success of legislation in a
variety of English-speaking countries, some developed, some
semi-developed, some undeveloped – including the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland,
and Jamaica.

I could find no evidence that blanket gun regulations, even
firearm prohibitions, contributed to a reduction of criminal
violence in any of these countries. Firearm prohibitions
failed to reduce criminal violence in both Jamaica and the
Republic of Ireland. My results offer no support for those
who advocate blanket gun laws.

I conclude by asking the General Assembly to reject the
siren song of the anti-gun NGOs, Mr. President. The
campaign to impose blanket prohibitive gun regulations is
contrary to a growing body of research showing that in a
wide variety of countries, arms prohibition does not
contribute to lowering criminal violence.

There is a danger the UN will lose further trust and
credibility around the globe, and ultimately take part in
the prolongation of poverty, misery and the lack of prospect
of entire peoples, by mistakenly directing its attention
towards private gun ownership.