Rising gun violence in Toronto has become a topic of national discussion in recent months. The conversation is of particular interest to me because, at the start of this year, I completed a report on knife crime in London (link). These two phenomena share a number of properties. First, both are increases in weapon crime occurring in each country's largest metropolitan centre. Second, in both London and Toronto there were a series of crime incidents that drew attention to each city's respective crime. Third, both represent increases after several years of falling crime (below: a comparison of gun homicide in Toronto from 2010 to 2017and knife crime in London from 2010 2017. Note that knife-crime encompasses all knife incidents).
What I aim to show with these diagrams is not that crime fell and rose in the same way, but rather that the similar U shape of the data may partially explain why there was such a public outcry in both cities. In this article I shall examine and discuss the issue of gun violence in Toronto, drawing on my experience researching knife-crime in London.
Evaluating the data
1. What does the data say?
I have yet to work on a policing issue where the data clearly tells anything. Toronto's shooting data is no different, but I'll work with the data the best I can. Toronto's Police Public Safety Data Portal (link) does indicate that gun homicide is up ~40% compared to the same time last year (26 in 2017 deaths vs 37 in 2018, as of August 27th). It also shows that gun violence seems to have been on a gradual upward trend over the past few years (fig. 3 gives longer term whole-year data).
Shooting data has only been recorded since 2014, which makes it challenging to infer trends in any meaningful way (link). Recorded incidents rose rapidly from 2014-2016, but could just be that this was the time it took for the Toronto Police to properly implement recording of the crime-type (the fact that more shootings were counted in 2014 than 2015 while the gun homicide count was essentially identical supports this hypothesis.).
The year-to-date data on shootings between 2016 and 2018 does not look alarming in the sense that there does not seem to be a drastic increase. Statistics Canada data rates the severity of crime in Toronto as one of the lowest in Canada compared to other large metropolitan centres , at least as of 2017 (link), with a crime severity rating of 48.7 compared to the national average of 72.9 (examples of other cities: Vancouver has a crime severity rating of 88.2, Calgary, with a rating of 81.8). However, given inevitable differences in recording practices between cities, such comparative data should be taken with caution.
2. Percent increase vs. Absolute increase
It is important to attend to the absolute increase in violence as well as the relative increase. Drawing on figure 3, if we compare gun homicide in 2013 (22 deaths) to 2017 (39 deaths) there has been a 77% increase in gun homicide in five years. This sounds far more frightening than the absolute increase, which goes from approximately 0.8 deaths/100,000 people to 1.4 deaths/100,000 people (rounded up, based on a 2.8 million population estimate for Toronto). The risk to the average Torontonian has not changed significantly.
The numbers are more concerning if the deaths are highly concentrated within a single population. If twenty of the people who died in 2017 were all members of a particular group (e.g. they all lived in the same neighborhood, they were all the same race, etc.), then people in that group may be at greater risk. Though the data I have found is ill-suited to confirming this hypothesis, it would be unsurprising if deaths were concentrated in minority populations (e.g. along the lines of this article: link).
3. Relevant comparisons
The above statistics need to be contextualized to have any significant meaning. Gun homicide can be compared to something like traffic fatalities, which killed approximately 2.2 people/100,000 in Toronto in 2017 (62 deaths, data retrieved September 13th, 2018, link). In relative terms, you are more than 50% more likely to die due to a traffic incident than a gun incident in Toronto. The gun homicide rate in Toronto is notably higher than the Canadian national average of 0.45/100,000 (2014 data, link), but is less than half the national average in the USA (approximately 3.9/100,000 in 2016, link). In the UK, which has much stricter gun regulations than Canada, the national average is only 0.04 gun homicides/100,000 (link), or less than 1/10th Canada’s gun homicide rate and 1/35th Toronto’s rate. In 2016 there were 12 gun homicides in London, or 0.15/100,000 (~8 million population, link). I should also repeat my caution that comparing data across boarders can be quite problematic.
Note: due to the time it took to write this article, data collection was somewhat spread out.
Discussion
What conclusions can be drawn from the preceding information? Some of my speculations are as follows.
1. Insufficient data to identify a trend
The data that I have found seems insufficient to conclude whether gun-crime is increasing at an alarming rate. Gun homicide has risen over the last few years, but the numbers are so low that it is difficult to distinguish trends from isolated incidents of violence. Consider that the double-homicide committed in July constitutes more than 5% of all shooting homicides in Toronto this year. That being said, the fact that the UK has a gun homicide rate of 0.04 suggests that tighter gun regulation would dramatically reduce gun violence in Canada and in Toronto.
2. Too much focus on the ‘gun’ in gun crime
Based on my research for the knife crime report that I did for the Greater London Authority, it should not be assumed that it is useful to focus on the implement used in a crime. I would suggest placing the burden of proof on those who advocate the effectiveness of targeting guns over broader issues such as the causes of homicide and assault in general. On this it is worth noting that assault has also risen between 2014 and 2017, but only by about 15% (link, data retrieved September 9th, 2018). Focusing on the ‘gun’ dimension of the problem may cause policy-makers to neglect non-policing dimensions of the issue, such as socioeconomic causes. Further, it is worth keeping in mind that cracking down on guns may displace crime, in both physical and behavioral space. If enforcement is increased in specific communities, crime may be displaced to their neighbors. Increased gun regulation may cause more crimes to be committed with knives. Failing to consider these kinds of consequences can cause us to over-estimate the effectiveness of interventions.
3. Moral Panic
Big numbers make good headlines, and gun-crime is a sensational issue. I am inclined to think that the alarm over gun crime seems to be something of a moral panic, which can be defined as ‘a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular individual or group who is/are claimed to be responsible for creating the threat in the first place’ (link). Without context, the numbers are meaningless. Consider this UK article: Revealed: one person killed or seriously injured by guns every three days in London. The ‘shocking’ 2016 statistic whereby 12 people were killed (and 89 seriously injured) yields a gun homicide rate of only 0.15/100,000. Compare this to 2013 in Toronto, the lowest year for gun homicide, where nearly twice as many people (22) were killed in a city less than half the size of London for a gun homicide rate of 0.79/100,000. My point: in both cities what is focused on is the relative change over time, rather than what constitutes an acceptable level of gun violence.
How good has Toronto’s response been?
Having reviewed the data, what can we make of Toronto’s response to rising gun crime? I will first explain what principles I think ought to guide their response, and then examine the actual measures they are implementing.
1. What constitutes a good response?
A. Proportionate
The response ought to be proportionate to the problem. It must be acknowledged that it is not easy to define what constitutes a ‘proportional response’. For my purposes, I am just looking for evidence that some level of opportunity-cost consideration has occurred.
B. Calming
I don’t expect for policy makers to concur with my assessment that the problem has been potentially overblown, but they should refrain from over-moralization and generally engage with the issue in a rational and calm manner.
C. Targeted
As previously noted, it seems highly probable to me that gun-crime will be concentrated in specific communities and locales. Particularity for an issue like this, where the number of people impacted is so small, dispersed action is unlikely to be effective. I would want to see evidence that careful thought has gone into discerning potential causes for the rise in gun crime, and that policy interventions explicitly target those causes.
D. To the benefit of affected communities
Tying back to moral panics, it is important that consideration is given to ensuring that the few are not sacrificed to the many. If gun-crime is concentrated within specific communities, there is a decent chance that both victims and perpetrators are members of the same community. Prevention and enforcement should be to the benefit of such communities, rather than their suppression.
2. Toronto’s policy response
Toronto has announced a number of different policy responses to gun-violence. I shall only be doing a surface-level examination of these policy proposals.
A. Deploying 200 more officers to priority areas
According to this article, 200 officers are being deployed for 8 weeks (started mid July) to key locations when gun violence is most likely to occur (estimated cost of $3 million). This initiate may have made citizens feel safer, but I find it highly improbable that this will meaningfully deter gun crime. 200 additional officers in a city the size of Toronto is not that many, even if officers are concentrated in high-risk zones. It is explicitly stated that the intervention will aim to be intelligence led, rather than saturating the target neighborhoods with officers.
Proportionate: 3/5 – This action seems more political than strategic.
Calming: 3/5 – The action may make people feel that the situation is under control, but it may also alienate targeted communities.
Targeted: 2/5 – The analytical depth of the action seems quite shallow. This is contingent on the level of intelligence that the police have on potential shooters,
Beneficial: 2/5 – There seems to be a significant risk that this action will have a detrimental affect on targeted communities
B. Calling for a handgun ban
The City of Toronto has called for a ban on handguns in Toronto, which is currently under consideration by the Federal government (link).
Proportionate: 4/5 – Should hand guns be banned in Toronto because of the rise in gun homicide? Perhaps not. Will banning hand-guns significantly reduce the number of gun-deaths? Probably, though this is contingent on the details of the ban and its enforcement (particularity in regards to boarder controls). It certainly does not seem an unworthy ambition to reduce gun-crime to UK levels.
Calming 4/5 – It certainly seems that fear of guns should be somewhat alleviated by their ban.
Targeted: 3/5 – As much as I am inclined to support a hand-gun ban, I have not seen evidence that there has been a thorough exploration of whether the majority of gun homicides are committed with legal guns purchased in Canada. This should be explored further.
Beneficial: 4/5 – A handgun ban seems likely to disproportionately benefit affected communities while causing little harm.
C. Funding 16 community initiatives
The municipal, provincial, and federal governments have collectively committed approximately $15 million to 16 different new and ongoing projects related to gun-violence. Almost all of these programs are focused on supporting youth and young adults, particularly those who are under-employed and those who have had contact with the justice system – link.
Proportionate: 3/5 – Though I quite support helping at-risk youth, and it is probable that this will have a long-term positive affect on gun-crime, I would prefer that the action seem less reactionary. What I would want to see evidence of is a central strategic approach. That may exist, but there is not much evidence of it from what I’ve seen.
Calming: 4/5 – I do appreciate that this is a longer-term approach.
Targeted: ?/5 – Though under-employed youth and young adults in contact with the justice system are almost certainly the key perpetrators (and victims) of gun violence in Toronto, it seems to me that there could still be more refinement in program targeting.
Beneficial 4/5 – Assuming the programs are correctly targeted, they seem quite beneficial to the target community.
Summary
In short: gun crime is going up in Toronto, but it is not clear that the increase is really that alarming. There are certainly cities where the problem is much worse. However, despite viewing the public and political reaction as disproportionate, I do find merit to some of the measures being implemented. I would prefer that they displayed more strategic thinking, but, based on my experience in politics thus far, there is rarely time for strategic thinking in the political arena.
Comments