Volume 22, No. 1 - 2001 

[Table of Contents]

The Storage of Household Long Guns: The Situation in Quebec

Michel Lavoie, Lise Cardinal, Antoine Chapdelaine and Danielle St-Laurent

Abstract

This survey on the storage of household firearms in Quebec was conducted in 1994. At that time, 35% (175/504) of survey participants who kept long guns in their homes had failed to comply with Canadian firearm storage regulations. In most cases (85%; n = 149), this was because at least one stored long gun was found to be both operable and accessible. Thirty-seven per cent of participants stated that no one, including themselves, had used their firearm(s) in the 12 months preceding the survey. These findings point to two possible ways of dealing with long guns kept in the home: render these weapons inoperable or inaccessible, which would increase the level of compliance with the regulations, and dispose of those no longer in use. The results of this survey have never been published before, and constitute the only information of this kind with respect to Quebec.

Key words: firearms; home; storage; survey

Introduction

Between 1989 and 1997, an average of 1,252 firearm-related deaths were reported each year in Canada. Of these, 80% were suicides, 15% were homicides, 4% were "accidents" and, in 1% of cases, the cause was unknown.¹ Approximately one third of these deaths (30%) occurred in Quebec.² Most firearm-related deaths (at least three in four) in Quebec were linked to the discharge of long guns (shotguns and rifles) or, more rarely, handguns (pistols or revolvers).³ A Quebec study of 425 cases of firearm-related suicide occurring between September 1 and September 31, 1996 indicated that 30% of the victims were not the owners of the gun and that in most cases the gun had not been safely stored.⁴

In 1992, Canada had the sixth highest rate of firearm-related deaths (rate per 100,000 inhabitants, adjusted for age) among 26 countries deemed to have a high gross national product (World Bank classification). That year, Canada's rate of firearm-related deaths was 4.31, compared to 14.24 in the United States, which had the highest rate, and 0.05 in Japan, which had the lowest.⁵ In 1993, the direct and indirect costs associated with firearm-related deaths and injuries in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion.⁶

Case-control studies conducted in the United States have shown that the presence of a firearm in the home increased the risk of firearm-related death for household members and relations: the members of households where firearms were kept had a 4.7-time greater risk of committing suicide⁷ and a 2.7-time greater risk of being the victim of a homicide⁸ than those living in households where no firearms were kept. The risk of suicide increased ninefold (9.0) in cases where the firearm was stored loaded (compared to homes without firearms), or threefold (3.0) when the weapon was kept under lock and key or rendered inoperable.⁷ Members of households in which there were firearms were also 22 times more likely to die from firearm-related injuries (suicide, homicide or accident) than they were to kill an intruder in self-defence using a firearm.⁹

Many experts believe that an important factor in reducing the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries is to reduce the accessibility of firearms by reducing the number of firearms in the home or by storing household firearms more safely.^10,11 In Canada, the Firearms Act contains provisions pertaining to both these strategies.¹² Provisions determining the rules governing firearm storage have been in place since January 1993.¹³ These provisions stipulate that firearms must be stored unloaded, rendered inoperable or inaccessible and, preferably stored separately from the ammunition.¹³

This paper examines the results of a 1994 survey on household firearm storage practices in Quebec¹⁴ in the context of Canadian firearm storage regulations.¹³ These results provide an estimate of the level of compliance with firearms regulations shortly after these regulations came into force. They have never been published before and constitute the only available information on the situation in Quebec.

Methodology

The target population was composed of Quebec residents who were 18 years of age or older and who owned at least one firearm that they stored at home as of September 1, 1994. The total survey population comprised 515 firearm owners drawn from a random sample of 4,654 households selected from Quebec telephone directories. These households were selected to reflect the demographics of the various administrative regions in Quebec. Only 17% (n = 792) of the households were found to include an adult who owned a firearm.

Each gun owner in these households was invited to participate in the survey. A total of 524 firearm owners agreed to take part, although nine of them ultimately chose to terminate their participation before the survey was completed. This represents a participation rate of 65% (515/792). Ninety-eight percent (n = 504) of participants indicated that they kept at least one long gun (shotgun or rifle) in their home, but only 7% (n = 36) indicated that they owned a handgun (pistol or revolver). Only the results pertaining to the 504 owners of long guns are presented here. The maximum margin of error for a sample of this size (n = 504) is plus or minus 4.4 %, based on an alpha threshold of 0.05.

The data were collected between September 1 and 13, 1994, or approximately one and a half years after the firearm storage regulations¹³ of the Canadian Firearms Act came into force¹² (January 1, 1993). Data collection was entrusted to a well-known professional polling firm, Le Groupe Léger & Léger Inc. The data were obtained directly from long gun owners by means of telephone interviews conducted by professional, bilingual interviewers using a pre-tested, standardized questionnaire that appeared on a computer screen. The data were recorded as the interview proceeded, with each interview lasting approximately 12 minutes.

The goal was to describe the state of long gun storage in the context of Canadian firearm storage regulations.¹³ These regulations stipulate that firearm storage must meet the three following criteria to be deemed safe: the firearm must be stored unloaded (first criterion); it must be rendered inoperable or inaccessible (second criterion); and the ammunition must be securely stored (third criterion). A long gun is considered to be unloaded (first criterion) if there is no ammunition in the cartridge magazine. It is rendered inoperable (second criterion) by means of a secure locking device or by the removal of a part which is essential to its operation, such as the bolt. In order to be inaccessible (second criterion), a firearm must be stored in a securely locked place that cannot readily be broken open or into. This can be a room, a receptacle or a container. The ammunition (third criterion) must be stored separately from the firearm, or together with the firearm, provided that the place in which it is stored is inaccessible (securely locked and not readily broken into). In the latter case, the place can be a container or a receptacle but not a room.

Long gun storage practices were described by asking each participant about a single weapon. This was done for practical and methodological reasons, as several questions must be asked to evaluate the storage conditions for a single weapon. In cases where a participant indicated that he/she kept more than one firearm at home, one firearm was selected at random using a software program that made the selection from the list of firearms declared by the participant.

Participants were asked to respond to a series of questions specifically designed to determine whether the firearm was equipped with a secure locking device; whether any of its parts had been removed; whether it was being stored in a container, a receptacle or a room; whether the place of storage was locked and whether it could readily be broken open or into; whether the ammunition was stored with the weapon or in a separate place; and, finally, whether the weapon was stored loaded.

Each participant's answers were analyzed during the interview using a special software program to determine whether storage practices complied with the three criteria stipulated in the regulations. Then, each participant was placed into one of two categories: compliers (firearm storage complies with all three criteria) or non-compliers (firearm storage does not comply with at least one of the three criteria). In other words, the first group supposedly comprised those who stored their firearms securely, while the second group comprised those who failed to meet the safe storage criteria.

Findings

The majority of the participants were between the ages of 35 and 54 (53%). There were nine times as many men (n = 465) as women (n = 50). In 96% of cases, the language spoken was French, and nine times out of ten the participant was not the sole occupant of the household. A greater percentage of participants were from rural areas (60%) than from urban centres (40%). The majority of participants (64%) indicated that they had completed 12 years or less of schooling.

On average, participants kept 2.7 long guns in their homes. Thirty-two per cent owned only one gun, 29% owned two, 18% owned three, and 21% owned four or more. The three most popular long guns were, in decreasing order, 12-calibre shotguns (55%), .22-calibre rifles (42%), and .410-calibre shotguns (24%). In 22% of cases, participants indicated that other persons had access to their firearms. Thirty-seven per cent of respondents indicated that no one, not even themselves, had used their firearms in the 12-month period preceding the survey.

Hunting was the most frequently mentioned reason (87%) for owning a long gun (Table 1). A small percentage of participants owned a firearm for self-protection (3%) or to hunt predators or other pests (1%). At the time of the survey, 91% of participants stated that they had received training in the handling of firearms and 53% were aware of the existence of an act governing the storage of firearms in Canada.

The study findings show that, at the time of the survey, 65% of participants (n = 329) had at least one long gun that was securely stored in their home ( in accordance with the three criteria). Specifically, almost all participants indicated that the weapon for which they were providing information was stored unloaded (99.6%; first criterion) and that the ammunition for this weapon was also securely stored (91%; third criterion). Seventy per cent of the gun owners surveyed stated that their weapon had been rendered inoperable or inaccessible (second criterion).

On the other hand, the results also show that 35% of participants (n = 175) had failed to comply with at least one of the three criteria of safe storage. The likelihood of non-compliance was greatest (Table 2) among participants whose spoken language was French (p < 0.05); those who owned at least one weapon that was accessible to others (p < 0.05); and those who were not aware that there is a law governing firearm storage in Canada (p < 0.05). However, the other variables considered were not associated with firearm storage practices (p < 0.05). These included age (18-34; 35-54; 55+); gender (male, female); place of residence (rural, urban); years of schooling (<= 12, > 13); family income (< $40,000, >= $40,000); living alone (yes, no); the presence of children under the age of 18 (yes, no); the number of firearms owned (1, 2, 3, 4+); the reasons for owning firearms (hunting, target practice, gun collecting); the calibre of weapon (12, .22, .410); weapon(s) not used during the past 12 months (yes, no); and prior training in the handling of firearms (yes, no).

Figure 1 represents the survey findings with respect to the 175 non-compliers. Eighty-five percent (n = 149) did not comply with Canadian firearm storage regulations by having at least one stored long gun which was both operable (not equipped with a secure locking device and comprising all of its parts) and accessible (stored in an unlocked place or a locked place that could readily be broken open or into).

The 149 non-compliers who kept at least one long gun that was operable and accessible (non-compliance with the second criterion of firearm storage) were questioned more closely. Each of the non-compliers (n = 149) was asked the following question: "If you were to improve the conditions under which your firearms are stored, what would be your first step?" (A list of options was read out, but the respondent was asked to choose only one). The two options most frequently mentioned by non-compliers were to render the firearm inoperable, that is equip it with a secure locking device or remove a part needed to discharge the weapon (40%; n = 60); and to ensure that the weapon is inaccessible, in other words, store it in a place that is locked and cannot readily be broken into (24%; n = 36).

The non-compliers were then asked the following questions: "Why is your firearm stored in an operable condition and in a place where it is accessible? What would prompt you to render your weapon both inoperable and inaccessible?" (No answers to this question were suggested and only one answer was recorded for each non-complier). In each case, the storage condition at issue was clearly defined to ensure that the respondent fully understood the questions (operable/inoperable; accessible/inaccessible).

Operable firearm

In explaining why their long guns were operable, the 149 non-compliers stated that they had taken other safety precautions (19%; n = 28) and that their weapon was safely hidden away (7%; n = 10). Negligence was also invoked as an explanation by a number of non-compliers (7%; n = 10). It should be noted that 15% (n = 22) of non-compliers could offer no particular reason to explain why their weapons were stored at home in an operable condition. The presence of children was most frequently invoked by non-compliers as a reason that would prompt them to render their long guns inoperable (28%; n = 42). An equal percentage of respondents (28%; n = 42) saw no particular reason to render their firearms inoperable.

Accessible firearms

A significant percentage of the 149 non-compliers indicated that they left their firearms in an accessible place either through negligence or force of habit (13%; n = 19), or because they felt the firearms were well hidden (9%; n = 13). Not having any other suitable place to store a gun was also mentioned by a number of non-compliers (8%; n = 12). It is important to note that 15% (n = 22) of non-compliers could offer no particular reason why their firearms were left in an accessible place. Again, the presence of children was most frequently invoked by non-compliers as a reason that would prompt them to make their long guns inaccessible (26%; n = 39). However, a significant percentage of non-compliers (35%; n = 52) saw no particular reason to make their firearm inaccessible.

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Several aspects of this survey must be emphasized:

The results of this survey on long gun storage are subject to three types of bias. The first is that firearm storage practices constitute a form of reported behaviour. Some participants may deliberately have indicated that their firearms were stored more securely than they in fact were, which would lead the researchers to underestimate the number of non-compliers.

The second bias is linked to the voluntary aspect of participation in the survey. It may be that those who chose to participate were, on average, more likely to comply with firearm storage regulations than those who refused to take part, which would also cause the researchers to underestimate the number of non-compliers.

The third bias concerns the fact that participants were questioned about a single long gun. In cases where several firearms were being stored at home, it is possible that the firearm selected as the subject of the questionnaire may have been stored under different conditions than the other weapons. If storage regulations were being adhered to solely in the case of the selected firearm, this too would lead researchers to underestimate the number of non-compliers; if the opposite were true, there would be no bias.

Conditions of storage

Based on the results of this survey, at least 35% of persons who store one or more long gun at home fail to comply with Canadian firearm storage regulations.¹³ It should be remembered that 89% (n = 156) of non-compliers stated that they were not the sole occupants of their household (in 59% of cases the other occupants were children < 18 years old), and 29% (n = 51) stated that their gun was accessible to others, usually a spouse (70%) or a child (40%).

The results of the survey lead us to estimate that at least 6% of Quebec homes contain at least one long gun that is improperly stored. This estimate was calculated by multiplying the percentage of Quebec households where at least one firearm is stored by an adult (17%) by the percentage of non-compliers among study subjects (35%).

The study did not link storage practices with firearms training as the same number of compliers and non-compliers had been trained. This is likely due to the fact that most of the participants had never received adequate instruction on the storage of firearms. In fact, at the time of the survey (1994), 91% of participants indicated having received training in the use of firearms in the past. However, before the Canadian firearm storage regulations came into effect (January 1993), the safe storage of long guns was not part of the firearms training courses. When the regulations came into effect, this deficiency was remedied, but the "enriched" training was only required for new gun owners, which likely affected only a small proportion of the study participants since it was carried out in 1994.

To our knowledge, there is no basis for comparison of firearm storage practices in Quebec and elsewhere. However, a survey conducted in 1999 with 282 long gun owners from all 10 provinces is somewhat interesting.¹⁷ Methodological differences, however, make it rather risky to draw comparisons between the two surveys (Appendix 1). The study populations are not truly comparable, the criteria used to evaluate long gun storage conditions are considerably different, and the survey questions did not relate to the same number of weapons.

The main results of the 1999 survey are nonetheless presented by way of indication: 99% of the participants in that study stated that all the long guns they kept at home were stored unloaded; 83% indicated that all the long guns they kept at home were either kept under lock and key or had been rendered inoperable; and 98% of participants indicated that the ammunition for their firearms was stored securely, either in a separate place, or with the weapon, but in a locked compartment. Approximately 17% of participants had failed to comply with at least one storage criterion. Interestingly, similar results are observed in the 1994 survey if the 1999 storage criteria are applied (results not presented).

Courses of action

The study findings suggest some possible methods of increasing the level of compliance with Canadian firearm storage regulations.¹³ In 85% of cases where the owner of a long gun had failed to comply with federal regulations (149/175), the weapon in question was both operable and accessible. To increase the level of compliance, an important goal should be to encourage the owners of long guns to render them inoperable (e.g. by use of a locking device) or inaccessible (e.g. by storing them in a securely locked place). These two measures are the ones most frequently identified by the non-compliers as a way of improving security. The survey findings also show that to persuade non-compliers to take these measures, they must be made aware of the fact that they will be protecting their children, as well as the children of neighbours and relations.

Study results indicate that reducing the number of firearms stored at home is another possible solution. More than a third (37%) of participants indicated that their gun(s) had not been used by themselves or by anyone else during the 12-month period preceding the survey. It should be noted that these percentages were even higher among non-compliers than compliers. It would seem important, therefore, to encourage those who own guns that they do not use to dispose of these weapons.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Michel Lemieux and Pierre Duchesnay of the Léger & Léger polling firm in Quebec City who oversaw the data collection. This survey would not have been possible without the support of the Comité intersectoriel sur la violence familiale et l'entreposage sécuritaire des armes à feu au Québec (CCAAF), the Canadian Firearms Centre at the Department of Justice, and the regional public health branches of Quebec City and Montérégie.

References

1.    Hung CK Firearm statistics, Updated tables and special tabulations. Ottawa: Department of Justice, March 2000. Statistics Canada: catalogue 84-208.

2.    Bureau du coroner du Québec. Décès par arme à feu, 1990-1998. Quebec: September 1999.

3.    Tennina S. Enquête descriptive des décès par arme à feu, 1990-1993. Quebec: Bureau du Coroner du Québec, October 1994.

4.    Saint-Laurent D, Tennina, S. Résultats de l'enquête portant sur les personnes décédées par suicide au Québec entre le 1^er septembre et le 31 décembre 1996. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux and the Bureau du coroner du Québec. Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2000.

5.    Krug Étienne G, Powell KE, Dahlberg LL. Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries. Int J Epidemiol, 1998;27:214- 221. Drawn from Table 1: p. 216.

6.    Miller TR, Cohen MA. Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons. Accid Anal and Prev. 1997;29(3):329-41.

7.    Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G. et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New Eng J Med  1993;327(7):470.

8.    Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. New Eng J Med 1993;329(15):1084-1091.

9.    Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Lee RK Banton JG. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care 1998;45(2):263-267.

10.    Cukier W. Firearms regulation: Canada in the international context. Chronic Dis Can 1998;19(1):29-40.

11.    Kellermann AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, Banton J. The epidemiologic basis for the prevention of firearm injuries. Annu Rev Public Health 1991;12:17-40:30-31.

12.    Acts of the Parliament of Canada, Chapter 39, An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons, Bill C-68, assented to December 5, 1995. p. 137.

13.    Department of Justice. Consolidated Regulations Pertaining to Part III of the Criminal Code: "Firearms and Offensive Weapons." Criminal and Social Policy Sector, Ottawa: October 1993. p. 25-29.

14.    Le Groupe Léger & Léger Inc., Lavoie, M. and Chapdelaine. A. Enquête sur l'entreposage des armes à feu gardées à domicile au Québec. October 31, 1994. 44 p.

15.    Ludwig J, Cook PH, Smith TW. The gender gap in reporting household gun ownership. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1715-18.

16.    Azrael D, Miller M, Hemenway D. Are household firearms stored safely? It depends on whom you ask. Pediatrics 2000;103 (3):1-6.

17.    Angus Reid Group. Safe storage knowledge and practice: overview of findings. For the Canadian Firearms Centre. July 23, 1999. 5 p.

18.    Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman C. et al. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides. JAMA 1991; 2666 (21):2989-2995

Author References

Michel Lavoie, Lise Cardinal and Antoine Chapdelaine, Direction de la santé publique de Québec, and Institut national de santé publique du Québec (Québec)

Danielle St-Laurent, Institut national de santé publique du Québec (Québec)

Correspondance: Dr. Michel Lavoie, Direction de la santé publique de Québec, 2400 d'Estimauville, Beauport (Québec) G1E 7G9; Fax: (418) 666-2776; E-mail: lavoie.michel@ssss.gouv.qc.ca

[Previous] [Table of Contents] [Next]