Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Figure 1:
Flow diagram of studies selected for inclusion in the review.
Tables
Bill Description Relevant dates C-51 Mandatory FACs required criminal record checks of all firearm purchasers and record-keeping systems
New definitions for prohibited and restricted firearms
Mandatory minimum sentences (1–14 yr consecutive sentence for use of firearm to commit indictable offence) and increased penalties for firearm homicides
Granted search and seizure powers
Aug. 5, 1977: Bill received royal assent
Jan. 1, 1978: All provisions came into effect except requirements for FACs
Jan. 1, 1979: Requirements for FACs came into effectC-17 Changes to the FAC system:
Expanded application form and screening check
Required psychological questionnaire, photo identification, 2 references, spousal endorsement, 28-day waiting period, safety training
New definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons
New prohibitions and restrictions on many military and high-firepower guns and ammunition
New Criminal Code offences and increased penalties for firearm-related crimes
Clearly defined regulations for safe storage, handling and transportation of firearms
Dec. 5, 1991: Bill received royal assent
1992–1994: All provisions came into effect
Jan. 1, 1994: Requirements for FAC applicant safety training and psychological questionnaire completion came into effectC-68 Creation of the Firearms Act, to take administrative and regulatory aspects of the licensing and registration system out of the Criminal Code
FAC system replaced with 2 new licensing systems (POLs and PALs), which required expanded screening of applicants
Registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles
Increased penalties for certain serious crimes using firearms
Authorization requirement for transportation of restricted or prohibited firearms
Dec. 5, 1995: Bill received royal assent
January 1996: Provisions requiring increased penalties for serious firearms crimes came into effect
Dec. 1, 1998: The Firearms Act came into effect
March 1998: Government passed the Firearms Act regulations
Jan. 1, 2001: Requirements for POLs/PALs came into effect
Jan. 1, 2003: Requirements for registration of all firearms including nonrestricted rifles and shotguns came into effectNote: FAC = Firearm Acquisition Certificate, PAL = Possession and Acquisition Licence, POL = Possession Only Licence.
Study (year) Location Population Period Law(s) Outcomes Statistical methods Sproule and Kennett (1988) (24) Canada All 1972–1982 Bill C-51 Homicide Analysis of variance Mundt (1990) (25) Canada; United States All 1971–1988 Bill C-51 Homicide, suicide, accidental death Visual inspection Rich et al. (1990) (26) Toronto; San Diego Males 1973–1983 Bill C-51 Suicide t tests, time series analysis Mauser and Holmes (1992) (27) Canada (excluding Newfoundland and Labrador, and 3 territories) All 1968–1988 Bill C-51 Homicide Pooled cross-section time series model Leenaars et al.* (1993,1994, 1996,1997, 2001, 2003) (18)– (23) Canada All 1969–1985 Bill C-51 Homicide, suicide t tests, simple linear regression, multiple regression, interrupted time series Carrington and Moyer (1994a) (28) Ontario All 1965–1989 Bill C-51 Suicide t tests, time series analysis Carrington and Moyer (1994b) (29) Canada All 1965–1989 Bill C-51 Suicide Interrupted time series Leenaars and Lester (1997) (30) Canada All 1969–1985 Bill C-51 Accidental death t tests, simple linear regression, multiple regression Bridges (2004) (31) Canada All 1984–1998 Bill C-17 Homicide, suicide t tests, simple linear regression Caron (2004) (32) Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Que. All 1986–1996 Bill C-17 Suicide χ2 and likelihood ratio tests Cheung and Dewa (2005) (33) Canada Age 15–19 years 1979–1999 Bill C-17 Suicide Time series models Caron et al. (2008) (34) Quebec All 1987–2001 Bill C-17 Suicide Linear regression, interrupted time series analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient analyses, multivariate analysis Gagne et al. (2010) (35) Quebec Males 1981–2006 Bill C-17 Suicide Joinpoint analysis, Poisson regression analysis Blais et al. (2011) (36) Canada All 1974–2004 Bill C-51, Bill C-17, Bill C-68 Homicide Multiple time series analysis Langmann (2012) (37) Canada All 1974–2008 Bill C-51, Bill C-17, Bill C-68 Homicide Interrupted time series Poisson regression, ARIMA, Joinpoint analysis Linteau and Blais (2013) (39) Quebec All 1974–2006 Bill C-68 Homicide Extreme bounds analysis McPhedran and Mauser (2013) (38) Canada All 1974–2009 Bill C-68 Homicide, domestic homicide ARIMA, Zivot–Andrews structural breakpoint test Langmann (2020) (40) Canada All 1981–2016 Bill C-17, Bill C-68 Homicide, suicide Difference in differences analysis, negative binomial regression Note: ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average.
↵* Data from multiple reports investigating the same legislation, population and outcome were collated.
Bill Study Entire population Males Females All Younger* Older† Bill C-51 Sproule and Kennett (1988) (24) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Mundt (1990) (25) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Mauser and Holmes (1992) (27) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Leenaars and Lester (1994, 1996,1997, 2001) (19)– (22) Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial‡ Beneficial Blais et al. (2011) (36) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Langmann (2012) (37) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Bill C-17 Bridges (2004) (31) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Blais et al. (2011) (36) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Langmann (2012) (37) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Langmann (2020) (40) Not assessed Ineffectual Ineffectual§ Ineffectual Ineffectual Bill C-68 Blais et al. (2011) (36) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Langmann (2012) (37) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Linteau and Blais (2013) (39) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed McPhedran and Mauser (2013) (38) Not assessed Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Ineffectual Langmann (2020) (40) Not assessed Ineffectual Ineffectual§ Ineffectual Ineffectual Bill Study Entire population Males Females All Younger* Older† Bill C-51 Mundt (1990) (25) Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Rich et al. (1990) (26) Not assessed Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Carrington and Moyer (1994a) (28) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Carrington and Moyer (1994b) (29) Beneficial Not assessed Beneficial‡ Ineffectual Not assessed Leenaars et al. (1993, 1996,1997, 2003) (18), (20), (21), (23) Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial§ Beneficial Bill C-17 Bridges (2004) (31) Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Caron (2004) (32) Beneficial Beneficial Not assessed Not assessed Beneficial Cheung and Dewa (2005) (33) Not assessed Not assessed Beneficial¶ Not assessed Beneficial¶ Caron and colleagues (2008) (34) Ineffectual Ineffectual Not assessed Not assessed Ineffectual Gagné and colleagues (2010) (35) Not assessed Beneficial Beneficial Ineffectual§ Not assessed Langmann (2020) (40) Not assessed Ineffectual Ineffectual‡ Beneficial Beneficial Bill C-68 Langmann (2020) (40) Not assessed Ineffectual Harmful‡ Ineffectual Ineffectual
In this issue
Article tools
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.