Gun Control Does Not Mean Murder Control

Gun Control Does Not Mean Murder Control
Profile photo of Roger Toutant

In 2010 the RCMP gave its employees who roam about Parliament Hill Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns.  The MP5 can be configured for fully automatic operation.  Such a weapon is off limits to the average citizen, though.  Whereas the political class in Canada has reserved the right to protect itself with all available gun technology, it has intentionally deprived Canadian citizens with the same ability to protect themselves and their families via its gun control laws.

Starting in the early twentieth century, gun control has been on a tear in Canada.  Instigated by state-infatuated special interest groups and supported by the RCMP, the movement to disarm the Canadian population has been unrelenting.  Politicians have traditionally been more than happy to oblige because an armed population is a threat to their social, economic and technological ambitions.  An armed population is also able to take care of itself against gangs and criminals.  A disarmed population, on the other hand, is one that is both subservient to the will of the political class and completely dependent upon government-operated police for protection (even though, as the saying goes, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”).

The propaganda dispensed by the MSM says that gun control results in fewer gun murders.  Data from the mid-1970′s to the present day is often used to back-up the claim.  After all, it was in 1977 that Bill C-51 was passed.  Bill C-51 was the first law which required both a criminal background check and a firearms acquisition certificate in order to legally purchase and own a gun.  However, the MSM data typically fails to show the rate of gun murders prior to the 1970′s.  The following graph, which includes the rate of gun murders in Canada since 1935, helps to explain why MSM reports do not look too far back.  (Note:  The data is derived from Statscan and Firearm Control in Canada).

The graph shows that the gun murder rate was the lowest between 1930 and 1960, and that Canada has failed to return to that level in spite of all the gun control legislation that has been passed by the politicians in Ottawa.  Bills C-17 and C-68 (passed in 1990′s) were introduced at a time when the gun murder rate was already decreasing.  In fact, since those two bills were passed, the murder rate has stabilized and has not decreased much further.  It is obvious from the graph that the correlation between a decreasing gun murder rate and gun control legislation does not exist.

One could argue, albeit incorrectly, that the increasing gun murder rate of the period 1960 to 1975 was tamed by this legislation.  However, if one looks at a comparison between the normalized Canadian and U.S. homicide rates (which include gun murders) as shown in the next graph, it is easy to see the same trends occurred in both countries.  Because the U.S. was not subject to the same gun control laws as Canada, it must be concluded that the increase in the gun murder rate in Canada for that period was simply a reflection of the general increase in the rate of homicide.


In spite of the propaganda that has been parroted by the MSM, some magazines and even university professors are going public with the truth about the failure of gun control.  For example,  Dr. Caillin Langmann of McMaster University, an emergency medicine doctor, has concluded, “It appears that Canadian firearms legislation has had no significant beneficial association in regards to firearm homicide and spousal homicide by firearm.”

The unmitigated failure of gun control in Canada combined with its outrageous costs ($2 billion and counting) have prompted the federal Conservatives to scrap the long gun registry.  Not surprisingly, however, it has decided to keep the registration of handguns and the long list of prohibited guns even though the data supporting the effectiveness of any gun control is absent.  The same goes for the licensing of gun owners.  After all, the political class and the RCMP want to reserve the right to come to the doors of gun owners and ask them to turn over their weapons (if fact, this has already been done).

In conclusion, gun control does not mean fewer gun deaths.  It does mean, though, that more law abiding citizens will become victims in their own homes and businesses and that the costly iron fist of the state will further intrude upon the peace and tranquility of their lives.  The government knows it, for it is fortifying its headquarters with the Heckler & Koch MP5.


  • Jerry

    Thank you for that statement. It's impossible for a policeman to help a person out in a stituation such as you describe. I don't have a gun, don't want one and hope to heaven I should never experience such a desparate situation. But it helps everyone just the same if others who wish to have that right may do so. The criminal isn't likely to know who has that last line of defence unless he has carefully scoped out his potential victim.

  • Jason

    I am a police officer in Toronto with over 10 years on the road. I can tell you without question or reservation. That if you call 911, for anything police response is not instantaneous. Even for the highest priority call IE armed home invasion assuming the officer is less than 5 or 6 blocks away and waiting for a call. From the time that call taker at 911 picks up it will be minimum 2 + minutes before that officer is at your door.

    Count on being your own first and last line of defense for you and your family for two or more minutes versus an armed intruder. He won't be worried about gun laws. The only things gun laws actually control is law abiding people.

  • Gordon

    There is No gain to public safety with the control of law abiding citizens right to firearms, but we are easy to control because we are law abiding!
    There will never be control of the criminal use of firearms because they are criminals and could care less about laws!
    This simple fact will never be accepted by the coward politicians in control or the cowards that have gave up their right to defend themselves.
    When a person give's up there right to self defence they are no longer human and can no longer be expected to act in a humanist way.
    Most gun owner's are honest, trustworthy, caring, productive members of society that just happen to know they are the first and best line of protection for their families and themselves and will never fall for any of the BS the cowards spread!

  • Tom Dick & Harry

    Ok then Tom, why do the politicians and SS needs to have them operating on American soil? If there is enough of a threat that they think they need the protection of an automatic rifle, are they more deserving than you or me or, as you so ineloquently put it, Tom Dick and Harry? I'm sorry but to me, their lives carry no more value than the homeless bums living on the corner. The reason they can have it is simple, money. They have money, consider themselves elite, and pass laws to keep themselves safe from their constituents. This is a prime example of having your cake, and eating it to.

    • Calvin

      quite simply, they consider their own safety more important than that of the people whom they should be serving, by limiting availability of weapons to the general public, they do not reduce the danger to the public, as the PR BS states, they instead reduce the danger to themselves.

  • Tom

    I'm sorry but 'Scaled' murder rates? Please. That is the funniest thing I have ever seen. To say that Canada and the US have anywhere near the same murder rates is ludicrous. Please post real numbers, not scaled ones that make the graph fit to whatever you feel like. NO CIVILIAN needs an MP5 fully automatic sub-machine gun. NO ONE. Being a Vet myself, I can't remember a time, other than on the range, where I ever switched my C-7 to auto, and that is in the Army. Good 'ol Spray and Pray?, isn't so good. I'm all for gun rights, but there needs to be a line. Where do you stop deregulating guns? When every Tom, Dick and Harry own an RPG? When people have razorwire around their house and RPKs covering the entrances? Maybe your 10 Year old kid should be on piquet up in the tower while he does his homework, holding down the fort? When the Zombie apocolypse hits or we are under threat of invasion from a major super power (like China when they want our Natural Resources) Then I am all for it, but not this day in age.

    • Roger

      The second graph normalizes the two curves to the same maximum value to highlight the similarity between the rates of change, rather than absolute levels. The reasons for the absolute homicide rates is an issue for another article!

  • Neil

    It is very easy to own a gun in Canada as long as you don't have a criminal record, and I am sorry but a private citizen has no need of a fully automatic MP5 to protect their family, go and buy a short barreled shotgun any idiot can hit someone with double ought buck

    • Casey

      Check out the ytube videos of small, light women shooting a stockless 12 gage. Comical. And probably more dangerous to the shooter than the target.

  • Ohhh Henry

    Consider the statistics from the last couple of centuries … the governments of USA, Canada, Europe and every other country that has gun control laws have killed many times more people than have non-governmental killers. To take a small example … I would guess that in a single day in WWI the government of Newfoundland had more of its own citizens killed than have ever been murdered in the entire history of NFLD and Labrador.

    Be smart and play the odds … disarming citizens and arming governments is the most dangerous decision that any society will ever make.

  • Neil Thomasson

    Gun control arguements, both for and against, are irrelevant when discussing the murder and crime rate in Canadian society. Population density, employement opportunities, the quality of life-standards and poverty are the main issues to be researched when "graphing" nurder rates. Immigration rates should be graphed against the murder rate as should be bank profits…

    • Eric Anderson

      The same is happening here in the USA, government arms themselves and wants to disarm the public. Looking at the graphs, the comparison between Canadian and USA crime rates and the fact Canada had stricter gun laws. Its obvious that strict gun laws do not curb crime. Criminals do not obey gun laws. President Obama is trying to impliment very strict bans on so called "assault weapons" which are simply semi auto with a military type packaging. It has gotten the gun owners upset to a point of near revolt.

Profile photo of Roger Toutant

Roger Toutant has been designing electronic products for the telecommunications, consumer and industrial spaces for over 25 years. He can be reached at Check out a collection of his writing at

More in Articles


IMF Head Predicts the End of Banking and the Triumph of Cryptocurrency

Jeffrey TuckerOctober 20, 2017

Are These the “Interesting Times?”

Butler ShafferOctober 19, 2017

How Government Wrecks the Economy

Robert P. MurphyOctober 18, 2017

The Economics of Assistant Coaches’ Bribery

Gary NorthOctober 17, 2017

Garrison Keillor and the Pledge of Allegiance

Doug FrenchOctober 16, 2017

Freedom of Conscience Is the Foundation of All Freedom

Jeffrey TuckerOctober 13, 2017

The Income Tax: Root of all Evil Part 1

Frank ChodorovOctober 12, 2017

The Income Tax: Root of all Evil Part 2

Frank ChodorovOctober 11, 2017

The Income Tax: Root of all Evil Part 1

Frank ChodorovOctober 10, 2017