PUBLIC POLICY

SOURCES
Number 71 / November 2003

The Failed Experiment

Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada,
Australia, England and Wales
Gary A. Mauser

Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Firearms and Criminal Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can Violent Crime Be Reduced by Stricter Gun Laws? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Notes . .

21

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

About the Author & Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

A FRASER INSTITUTE OCCASIONAL PAPER

Public Policy Sources are published periodically throughout the year by The Fraser Institute,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian economic and social research and educational organization. It has
as its objective the redirection of public attention to the role of competitive markets in providing for the well-being
of Canadians. Where markets work, the Institutes interest lies in trying to discover prospects for improvement.
Where markets do not work, its interest lies in finding the reasons. Where competitive markets have been replaced
by government control, the interest of the Institute lies in documenting objectively the nature of the improvement or deterioration resulting from government intervention. The work of the Institute is assisted by an Editorial
Advisory Board of internationally renowned economists. The Fraser Institute is a national, federally chartered
non-profit organization financed by the sale of its publications and the tax-deductible contributions of its members,
foundations, and other supporters; it receives no government funding.
For information about membership in The Fraser Institute, please contact the Development Department via mail to:
The Fraser Institute, 4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6J 3G7; via telephone: 604.688.0221 ext. 586;
via fax: 604.688.8539; via e-mail: [email protected].
In Calgary, please contact us via telephone: 403.216.7175 or, toll-free 1.866.716.7175; via fax: 403.234.9010; via email: [email protected].
In Toronto, please contact us via telephone: 416.363.6575; via fax: 416.934.1639.
To order additional copies of Public Policy Sources, any of our other publications, or a catalogue of the Institutes
publications, please contact the book sales coordinator via our toll-free order line: 1.800.665.3558, ext. 580; via
telephone: 604.688.0221, ext. 580; via fax: 604.688.8539; via e-mail:
[email protected].
For media enquiries, please contact Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications via telephone: 604.714.4582 or,
from Toronto, 416.363.6575, ext. 582; via e-mail: [email protected].
To learn more about the Institute, please visit our web site at www.fraserinstitute.ca.
Copyright 2003 The Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews.
The author of this study has worked independently and opinions expressed by him are, therefore, his own, and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the members or trustees of The Fraser Institute.
Editing and design: Kristin McCahon and Lindsey Thomas Martin
Printed and bound in Canada.
ISSN 12066257.
Date of issue: November 2003; revised May 2005.
This publication grew out of a paper originally presented to the Symposium on the Legal, Economic and Human
Rights Implications of Civilian Firearms Ownership and Regulation at the Tower of London, London, England
(May 2, 2003). This symposium was sponsored by the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. A
very early version was presented at the 6th Annual Civitas Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 2628, 2002.

Executive Summary
Widely televised firearm murders in many countries during the 20th Century have spurred politicians to introduce restrictive gun laws. The politicians then promise
that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence
and create a safer society. It is time to pause and ask if
gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence.
Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime
or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. What
makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief
that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns
and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general
may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.
In this study, I examine crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm
regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada.
The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations
is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of
criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the
new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect
on total criminal violence.
The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because the criminal
justice system there differs so drastically from those in
Europe and the Commonwealth. Not only are criminal
penalties typically more severe in the United States, often
much more severe, but also conviction and incarceration
rates are usually much higher. Perhaps the most striking
difference is that qualified citizens in the United States
can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During
the past few decades, more than 25 states in the United
States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry
concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where
citizens can get such a permit.
The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide
rates in particular, have been falling in the United States.
The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18

The Fraser Institute

of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office,

violent crime increased during the 1990s. This contrast
should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened in those countries where they introduced increasingly restrictive firearm laws.
Britain
In the past 20 years, both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearm laws; even
banning all handguns in 1997. Unfortunately, these
Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The
public is not any safer and may be less safe. Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to handgun-dense United
States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over
20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England
and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the
homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in
1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general
has increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since
1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
The firearm laws may even have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite Britains
banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime,
and firearm crime, continue to grow.
Australia

Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearm legislation in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer.
The total homicide rate, after having remained basically
flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.
The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive United States stands out against the trend in Australia.
The divergence between Australia and the United
States is even more apparent with violent crime. While

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to
increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to
rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million.
The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including
the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration
system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And
for what? There has been no visible impact on violent
crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of
the taxpayers money for no decrease in crime. For that
kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment.
Think of how many lives might have been saved.

The Canadian experiment with firearm regulation is

moving to farce. The effort to register all firearms, which
was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now
been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of
enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3
billion. Taxpayers would do well to ask for independent
cost-benefit studies on registration to see how much the
gun registry is already costing.
Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce violent crime in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The
policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure.
Criminal violence has not decreased. Instead, it continues to increase. Unfortunately, policy dictates that the
current directions will continue and, more importantly,
it will not be examined critically.
Only the United States has witnessed such a dramatic
drop in criminal violence over the past decade. Perhaps it
is time politicians in the Commonwealth reviewed their
traditional antipathy to lawfully owned firearms.
It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public.
No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from
people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we
should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and
target shooters?

Canada

In the 1990s, sweeping changes were made to the firearms laws, first in 1991 and then again in 1995. Licensing
and registration are still being phased in. The contrast
between the criminal violence rates in the United States
and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the
rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in
the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.

The Failed Experiment

The Fraser Institute

Introduction
Widely televised firearm murders in France, Germany,
and Switzerland in the past few years have spurred politicians in Europe to introduce changes in their countries
already strict gun laws to make them even more restrictive. Most of us will remember the headlines about a depressed student in Germany who ran amok and killed
several people in his school after he had been expelled.
In both France and Switzerland, angry individuals have
stormed into local councils and begun shooting legislators seemingly at random.
This is not a new story. We have seen this drama drama before, on television, from Australia, Great Britain,
Canada, and the United States, as well as other countries. First, there is a horrible eventsay, a disturbed
student shoots people in a school or a maniac goes on a
rampage in a public place. Media coverage is intense for
a few weeks. Then, the government feels it must be seen
as doing something to protect the public, so the police
are given sweeping new powers or new restrictions are introduced on owning firearms. Claims are made that the
new firearm regulations will reduce criminal violence
and create a safer society. Afterwards, the media rush
off on a new story, and the public forgets. Later, there
is another widely televised incident somewhere else and
the process starts over again. The introduction of virtually every gun law in the past half-century around the
world has followed this pattern. It is time to pause and
ask: If gun laws are expected to work to prevent criminal
violence, have they actually done so?
Politicians promise that tightening up on gun regulations will reduce criminal violence and make society
safer. Some even claim outright that gun regulations will
reduce suicide rates. But do they? Do increased restrictions upon the ownership of firearms reduce homicide
rates? Armed robbery rates? Criminal violence in general? Suicide rates? In short, do firearm regulations act to
create a safer society as claimed by their supporters?
If laws restricting the ownership of guns are supposed
to reduce violent crime, then this must be demonstrated
The Fraser Institute

to be true or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. However, criminologists admit (albeit reluctantly)
that there is very little empirical support for the claim
that laws designed to reduce general access to firearms
reduce criminal violence.1 Frequently, assertions that
they do turn out to be wishful thinking.
It is not that governments were not warned. The Cullen Commission had been presented with submissions
from a variety of sources (e.g. English researcher and
former Superintendent of Police, Colin Greenwood) arguing that increasing restrictions would not be effective
in reducing violent crime (Munday and Stevenson 1996;
Greenwood 1972). In Canada, prior to the introduction
of Bill C-68, which brought in licensing of owners and
registration of firearms, the Auditor General of Canada
warned the government that the Justice Minister had
not presented any compelling justification for additional
legislation nor had the effectiveness of previous legislation been evaluated (Auditor General of Canada 1993:
64755). I had testified before Parliament that firearm
registration was unworkable, ineffective, and outrageously expensive (Mauser 1995: 25). At that time, I
estimated that it could cost taxpayers as much as one
billion dollars (Mauser 1995: 28). The Auditor General
of Canada confirmed my prediction in 2002 (Auditor
General of Canada 1993: chap. 10). Unfortunately, both
estimates are low because they do not include costs by
other cooperating government agencies nor the cost of
enforcement. The best estimate to date of the cost to
Canadian taxpayers for licensing owners and registering
all guns is closer to 3 billion dollars (Breitkreuz 2003).
This study examines the claim that recently introduced firearm regulations, which restrict public access to
firearms, create a safer society by reducing criminal violence. The question being addressed here is not whether
gun laws cause a dropor an increasein firearms
crime. That is a distinctly different issue. At the very
least, gun laws should act to reduce gun crime.2 The
key question is: Do gun laws improve public safety? It is
5

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

important to note that, even if firearm regulations were

to cause a drop in firearms crime, other violent crimes
may increase and so render society less safe. This follows,
since firearms violence is only a fraction of criminal
violence, often only a small fraction. To test the general
claim that, by restricting access to firearms for the general public, a society can reduce criminal violence, I will
examine the trends in violent crime in a few countries
that have recently introduced general firearm legislation.
Where possible, these trends will be compared with corresponding trends in the United States.
In assessing the impact of legislative changes, it is
necessary to examine changes over time. This study will
examine crime trends in each country to see if there are
any changes after the introduction of the gun regulations.
The crime rates selected are those that are the most appropriate to evaluate public safety, the rates for homicides, violent crime, and property crime. In addition, I
will also look at the suicide rate since anti-gun activists
often claim that reduced access to firearms reduces the
temptation for vulnerable people to commit suicide.
Obviously, cross-national averages are irrelevant to
this endeavour. This paper does not address, for example,
whether the Canadian average for a particular crime rate
is higher (or lower) than the United States or England.
Such patterns speak to historical and cultural differences, not the effectiveness of recent firearm legislation.
Only changes are pertinent to the question of interest.
If the homicide rate was low before the firearm law was
passed and it continues to stay low, how can we credit
the firearm law with causing the low homicide rate?
That said, the United States provides a valuable
point of comparison with Europe and the Common-

The Failed Experiment

wealth for assessing crime rates because the criminal justice system in the United States is unique.3 Not only are
criminal penalties typically more severe in the United
States, often much more severe, but also conviction and
incarceration rates are usually much higher.4 Perhaps
the most striking difference is that the United States is
one of the few countries to encourage qualified citizens
to carry concealed handguns for self defence. During
the past few decades, while Britain and the Commonwealth were making firearm ownership increasingly difficult, more than 25 states in the United States passed
laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed
handguns. There are now 35 states where citizens can
get such a handgun permit. As a result, the number of
armed Americans in malls, on the street, and in their
cars has grown to almost 3 million men and women. As
surprising as it may seem to casual observers, these new
laws appear to have caused violent crime rates to drop,
including homicide rates. Professor John Lott has shown
how violent crime has fallen faster in those states that
have introduced concealed carry laws than in the rest of
the United States.5
The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide
rates in particular, have been falling in the United States
over the past decade.6 The drop in the American crime
rate is even more impressive when compared with the
rest of the world. In 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by
the British Home Office, violent crime increased during
the 1990s (Barclay et al. 1999). This contrast should provoke thinking people to wonder what happened in those
countries where they believed that introducing more and
more restrictive firearm laws would protect them from
criminal violence.

The Fraser Institute

Firearms and criminal violence

What makes gun control so compelling for many is the
belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of
guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in
general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.
This is a testable empirical proposition.
To examine the claim that firearm legislation will
improve public safety in general, the most appropriate
yard-stick to use would be a broad measure such as total violent crime or homicide rate. Criminal violence
involves any crime where an individual is injured and
it includes crimes committed with any weapon, not just
guns. Firearms are only involved in a fraction of violent
crime, often only a small fraction. For example, between
1% and 26% of violent crime incidents involve firearms
in the countries examined here (table 1).
Even in serious crimes, such as homicide and robbery,
where the misuse of firearms is more prevalent, firearms
are still used only in a minority of cases. Between 4%
and 14% of robbers use a firearm in Australia, Canada,
or England, while in the United States, less than half of
robbers (42%) use firearms.7 A lower percentage of gun
misuse may not be a blessing. Research shows that robbery victims are less likely to be injured in crimes where
the assailant uses a firearm.8

Gun crimes may dominate the news but violence

involving guns is not qualitatively worse than other
violence: being bludgeoned to death is not less horrific
than being shot to death. In this study, the United States
stands out in that most murders (63%) are committed
with firearms, while in Australia, Canada or England
relatively few murderers use firearms (9%31%).9 In the
Commonwealth, knives are usually preferred to guns
by murderers.10 For example, at least as many murders
are committed with knives as guns in Canada and in
Australia twice as many murders involve knives as guns
(Dauvergne 2001: 8; Mouzos 2001).
Although suicide is not a violent crime, it is often
included in the discussion of violence involving guns.
Relatively few people (between 4% and 20%) use guns
to commit suicide in the Commonwealth countries examined here. As usual, the United States is unique, with
slightly more than half of suicides involving a gun (56%).
Despite the higher percentage of gun suicides, the United States has a lower total suicide rate than either Australia or Canada (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002;
Preville 2003; NCIPC 2003).
Despite claims to the contrary, firearms are not
uniquely more lethal than alternative means to commit

Table 1: An international comparison of the use of guns in violent crime

Violent Crime

Homicide

Robbery

Suicide

Accidents

United States (2001)

26%

63%

42%

56%

1%

Canada (2001)

3%

31%

14%

20%

<1%

Australia (2001)

1% [est.]

14%

6%

12%

NA

England/Wales (00/01)

1% [est.]

9%

4%

2%

NA

Note: This table shows the percentage of each category that involved guns. For example, 26% of violent crime in the United
States in 2001 was committed using a firearm.
Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003; NCIPC 2003. Canada: Kwing Hung, March 2003; Savoie 2002. Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology 2003; Mouzos 1999, 2003; Reuter and Mouzos 2002. England and Wales: Home Office 2001;
Centre for Evidence Based Mental Health 2003.

The Fraser Institute

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

suicide. Hanging and carbon monoxide (e.g., by using

vehicle exhaust) have approximately the same lethality
as shooting (Kleck 1991: 258). It would appear obvious
that the more determined a person is to commit suicide,
the more likely he or she is to choose an effective method
for doing so. As there is no shortage of lethal alternatives
available to a person who wishes to end his or her life,
restricting access to any one methodfor example, firearms or subway trainsstill leaves available many other
methods for achieving the same end.
Accidents involving guns, despite the media coverage they seem to generate, are quite rare. Typically, guns
account for less than 1% of accidental deaths in any developed country. Perhaps this rarity is why they receive
such emotional media attention. Vehicle accidents are
far more common and pose a far greater risk to the public than do gun accidents, yet car accidents receive little
or no interest from the mainstream media. This is yet
another example that media coverage does not indicate
the seriousness of a threat.
Gun death is a red herring, as it conflates two very
different phenomena, homicide and suicide, to produce
a large and misleading number (Mauser and Stanbury
2003). It is inappropriate to use gun deaths to evaluate
gun laws for several reasons. First, guns are not involved
in the bulk of criminal violence, so gun deaths ignores
much of importance for evaluating public safety. Second, even though few people use guns to commit suicide,
suicides by gunshot constitute the lions share of gun
deaths in developed countries. For example, 80% of gun
deaths in Canada are suicides, while 76% of gun deaths
in Australia are suicides. Third, there is little support for
the claim that gun laws of any sort reduce the suicide
rate (Kleck 1997: 288; Jacobs 2002: 6).
In summary, the most appropriate measures to evaluate public safety in general are global measures such as
overall violent crime or homicide. Gun laws are certainly
intended to reduce gun crime, but the more important
question is whether gun laws can reduce overall criminal violence. Since gun crime is such a small fraction
of criminal violence, it would be extremely misleading,
particularly in Commonwealth countries, to use gun
crime or gun deaths to evaluate the impact of any legislation on public safety. Clearly, gun crime could decline
for a number of reasons while total criminal violence inThe Failed Experiment

creases simultaneously. The main body of this paper will

examine the claim that violent crime can be reduced by
focusing on reducing gun crime.

Do guns provoke murders?

Supporters of gun control like to claim that the availability of firearms somehow can provoke normal people
to become violent and even to commit murder. This is
false. This claim is analyzed at length elsewhere but a few
points should be made briefly to illustrate the groundlessness of this claim (Kleck 1991: 20506, 1997: 222
24). While it may be true that we all have evil in our
hearts, very few of us ever attempt to kill anyone. Murder
is a rare event and the typical murderer is not normal
and cannot legally own a firearm in any of the countries
discussed here.
In the developed world, the vast bulk of gun owners
are hunters or target shooters. In Canada, for example,
as table 2 shows, over two-thirds of gun owners say that
hunting is their principal reason for owning a firearm.
Gun owners are normal citizens as can be seen in table 3.
Compared to the Canadian average, gun owners tend to
be male, somewhat older, slightly less well educated, but
earning an income that is higher than average.
It is a myth that murderers are ordinary people.
Murders are usually committed by deviant people with
a history of violence. Of course, these are not the killings that make the news. According to Statistics Canada,
the typical murderer in Canada has an extensive criminal record, cannot legally possess firearms, abuses drugs
Table 2: Reasons reported for owning firearms
Hunting

73%

Target shooting

13%

Pest control

8%

Collection

6%

Protection

5%

Other

13%

Total

118%

Note: Total exceeds 100% because respondents could indicate more than one reason for owning a firearm.
Source: GPC Research 2001: figure 11.
8

The Fraser Institute

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

that legal gun owners (knowingly or unknowingly) are

providing all, or almost all, of the firearms used by violent criminals. This is false. First, on an international
level, a few countries illegally manufacture and distribute firearms presumably in order to promote terrorism.
A number of these firearms fall into the hands of ordinary criminals. Second, theft is not the primary source
of guns used in criminal violence. In Commonwealth
countries, a very small percentage of guns used in violent
crime have ever been in the registration system. For example, in England and Wales, between 13% and 16% of
guns used in homicide had ever been registered (Home
Office 2001: table 3D). In Canada, the number of registered handguns used in a homicide is estimated to be
8%.13 In Australia, the share is also quite small: only 10%
of guns used in a homicide were ever in the system.14 Nor
is theft the primary source of guns used in homicides in
the United States (Kleck 1997: 94).
To the extent that stolen guns are involved in criminal violence, one needs to examine thefts from military or police armories as well as individuals. A sizeable
proportion of the gun stock in Canada is in the hands
of the authorities and these guns are stored in large
armories that are not always as well guarded as they
should be. It is extremely difficult to estimate how many
thefts take place annually from official armories, as statistics are unavailable. Nevertheless, one can speculate
that firearms stolen from the police or military probably account for an important percentage of guns used
in crime. At the international level, one of the major
sources of guns for criminal activities is smuggling from
sources such as military depots from decaying communist countries (Landesman 2003; Polsby and Kates
1997; Rummel 1994).
In summary, I have tried to show here that it is not
reasonable to imagine firearms provoking normal people to commit homicide or any other violent crime. The
typical murderer is not normal and cannot legally own
a firearm in any of the countries discussed here. There
are so few gun crimes compared with the number of firearms in any of the countries considered here that, if guns
provoke people to kill, they are not doing a very good
job of it.

Table 3: Profile of firearm owners

and the general population
Demographic Variables

Owners of
Firearms

General
Canadian
Population

Male

88%

49%

Female

12%

51%

Gender

Age
1834

15%

33%

3554

49%

40%

Over 55

34%

27%

High School or less

51%

43%

College/Some Post Secondary

28%

28%

Completed University

19%

30%

No response

2%

1%

Education

Household Income
Under $20,000

8%

15%

$20,000 - $39,999

24%

24%

$40,000 - $59,999

25%

19%

$60,000 and over

33%

27%

No response

10%

15%

Source: GPC Research 2001: table 5.

Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

or alcohol, and is unemployed. Two-thirds of Canadian

murderers are known to have an adult criminal record,
as do over half of the victims (Dauvergne 2002). These
are not normal Canadians.
It is important to note that gun crimes are limited to
a very small number of people. In Canada, for example,
it is estimated that there are between 2.3 and 4.5 million legal gun owners.11 There are around 10,000 violent
crimes committed with guns annually.12 Even if these
crimes were committed by previously law-abiding gun
owners (and they are not), this would still represent less
than 1% of all gun owners. The same argument, a fortiori, holds for firearms; very few guns are misused. There
are between 7.9 and 15 million firearms in Canada. The
same 10,000 gun crimes represent about one-tenth of 1%
of the total gun stock.
Supporters of gun control claim that every criminal gun starts out as a legal gun. This is used to suggest

The Fraser Institute

The Failed Experiment

Can violent crime be reduced by stricter gun laws?

England and Wales

the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the
homicide rate in England and Wales has been growing
over the same time period. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990
to 15 per million in 2000 (Home Office 2001).15
Police statistics show that violent crime in general has
increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since 1996
has been more serious than in the United States (figure
2).16 The rate of violent crime has jumped from 400 per
100,000 in 1988 to almost 1,400 per 100,000 in 2000. (An
unknown amount of the recent increase may be attributed to changes in the recording rules in 1998 and 1999.)
In contrast, not only are violent crime rates lower in the
United States, they are continuing to decline (Home Office 2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003: table 1).
Property crime has also grown more serious since the
early 1980s. Although property crime rates have fallen
back somewhat in the 1990s, they are still higher in 1997,
at over 8000 per 100,000 population, than they had been
in 1982, at about 6,000 per 100,000) (figure 3). In contrast,
property crime rates are falling in the United States (Home
Office 2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2003).
Suicide rates have eased somewhat in England and
Wales (table 4). In 1989, age standardized mortality rates
for suicide of all types was 10 per 100,000 and, in 1999,
it is now 9.5 per 100,000. Similarly, suicide rates in the
United States have also declinedgoing from 12.4 to
10.7 per 100,000 populationeven as firearm ownership
has risen (McIntosh 2000).
The Home Office has also tightened up on enforcement of regulations to such an extent that the legitimate
sport-shooting community has been virtually destroyed.
For example, shotgun permits have fallen almost 30%
since 1988 (Greenwood 2001) (figure 5). The British
Home Office admits that only one firearm in 10 used in
homicide was legally held (Home Office 2001) (figure 6).
But, there is little pressure from within bureaucratic and
governmental circles to discontinue the policy of disarming responsible citizens.

Firearm policy in the United Kingdom has been driven

by sensationalized coverage of firearm murders for over
15 years. First, in August 1987, the small town of Hungerford, England, was stalked for eight hours by a deranged man, who shot people seemingly at whim. By the
time the killing was over, Michael Ryan had killed 16
people and wounded another 14, before shooting himself
(Malcolm 2002: 201). Media attention focused almost
exclusively on how such a person had managed to obtain
firearms legally, although in hindsight other matters are
more amazing. The public was not shocked that the disarmed police could do nothing to stop him nor that no
one in the town had the will or the means to resist.
Almost 10 years later, in 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton, who was known to the police
as mentally unstable, walked into a primary school with
his legally registered handguns and murdered 16 young
children and their teacher. Before killing himself, he
wounded another 10 students and three teachers (Malcolm 2002: 203). The media were outraged that citizens
in Britain could own handguns, not that the police failed
to follow the rules for granting the killer a firearm permit. According to information presented to the Cullen
Commission, Hamilton had been refused membership
in several gun clubs, which had requested the police to
revoke his permit. The police had not acted on these
complaints (Cullen 1996).
The Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 was brought
in by the Conservative government following the Hungerford incident and the Firearms (Amendment) Act of
1997, which banned all handguns, was introduced by
the Labour government following the shooting in Dunblane in 1996 (Greenwood 2001; Munday and Stevenson
1996). Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have not curbed crime (see Malcolm 2002). Police
statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a
serious crime wave. In contrast to North America, where
The Failed Experiment

10

The Fraser Institute

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Figure 1: Homicide ratesEngland and the United States (19742000 / 2001)

12
England

15
12

10
8

United States

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

98/99

United States (per 100,000 pop.)

England (per 1,000,000 pop.)

18

Sources: Home Office 2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003.

Figure 2: Violent crime ratesEngland and the United States (19882001)

Offences (per 100,000 pop.)

1,500

England & Wales

1,200

900

600
United States
300

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Sources: Home Office 2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003.

Figure 3: Property crime ratesEngland and the United States (19821997)

Offences (per 100,000 pop.)

12,000
10,000
England & Wales

8,000
6,000
4,000

United States

2,000
0

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

Sources: Home Office 2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003.

The Fraser Institute

11

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Figure 4: Suicide ratesEngland and Wales compared to the United States

14

Total Suicide Rate

(per 100,000 pop.)

12

United States

10
England & Wales

8
6
4
2
0

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Sources: NCIPC 2003; National Statistics 2003.

Figure 5: Increase in robberies compared to decline in shotgun certificates issuedEngland and Wales
Total Robberies

800

100

80

600

Shotgun Certificates

60

400

40

200

20

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Total Robberies (000s)

Shotgun Certificates (000s)

1,000

Source: Greenwood 2001.

Australia

Clearly, there is no evidence that firearm laws have

caused violent crime to fall. The firearm laws may even
have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crimeand firearm crimecontinue to
grow. The number of violent crimes involving handguns has increased from 2,600 in 1997/1998 to 3,600
in 1999/2000. Firearm crime has increased 200% in the
past decade.

The Failed Experiment

Publicity surrounding a multiple murder triggered recent

changes in Australian firearm policy. In Port Arthur,
Tasmania, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a mentally
deranged man, went on a rampage murdering anyone
he encountered. The media afterwards focused almost
exclusively on the killers use of military-style semi-automatic firearms. The police arrived, surrounded the isolated building, and began negotiations. When he tried
to escape, he was quickly captured (Bellamy 2003). In
all, he killed 35 people and seriously injured another 18.
He was tried and sentenced to life in prison (Guirguis
2003). Confusion remains over many of the details of
this incident, including how Bryant came to have the
12

The Fraser Institute

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Figure 6: Legal status of firearms used in homicidesEngland and Wales (19921998)

500

firearms not held legally

firearms held legally

Number of Firearms

400

300

200

100

Organized crime

Domestic

Robbery

Arguments

Other

Total

Circumstances of homicide

Note: Of the guns legally held, 11 were stolen from their owners, one of whom was a victim (p. 66).
Source: Home Office 2001: table 3D.

firearms he used, and whether or not the police response

was adequate. No Royal Commission has ever examined
the incident. The media focus on the type of firearms
used at Port Arthur has diverted public concern over
police procedures.
Following garish media coverage of the Tasmania
killings, in 1997 the Australian government brought in
sweeping changes to the firearm legislation. The new
controls on firearms introduced included the prohibition and confiscation of almost 600,000 semi-automatic
military style firearms from their licensed owners as
well as new licensing and registration regulations (Lawson 1999; Reuter and Mouzos 2002).
Unfortunately, these new firearm regulations do
not appear to have made the streets of Australia safer.
Consider homicide rates. Homicide involving firearms
is declining but the total homicide rates have remained
basically flat from 1995 through to 2001 (Mouzos 2001).
However, early reports show that the national homicide
rate may have begun climbing again. Mouzos (2003)
reports that homicides in 2001/02 increased by 20%
from 2000/01. She also reports that, despite the declining firearm homicides, there is an increase in multiple
victim incidents. Homicide rates remain at a historic
high. Shortly after World War II, the Australian homicide rate was around 1 per 100,000. Since then, it
has climbed until it peaked at 2.4 per 100,000 in 1988
(Graycar 2001).
The Fraser Institute

The decline in homicide rate in the United States

stands out against the flator even risinghomicide
rate in Australia (figure 7). The divergence between
Australia and the United States is even more apparent
when one considers violent crime (figure 8). While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it continues
to increase in Australia. Over the past 6 years, both assault and robbery show no signs of decreasing (Australian Institute of Criminology 2003) (figure 9). It is too
early to tell whether the gun ban has exacerbated the
problem or simply not had any effect.
Recent changes in the firearm law appear to have
had no impact upon the suicide rate (Australian Bureau
of Statistics 2001) (figure 10). Despite the new prohibitions and firearm buybacks, the suicide rate in Australia
continues to rise. This contrasts with the slight decline
in suicide rates in the United States even while the availability of firearms continues to increase.
The destruction of the confiscated firearms cost
Australian taxpayers an estimated $AUS500 million
and has had no visible impact on violent crime (Lawson
1999). The costs do not include the costs of bureaucracy,
which, as has been shown in Canada, can be considerable. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise.
Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwidejumping from 30 per 100,000 in 1996 to 50 per 100,000 in
1999 (Australian Institute of Criminology 2001; Mouzos
and Carcach 2001). The homicide rate has not declined
13

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Figure 7: Homicide ratesAustralia and the United States

10
Australia

2.0

1.5

6
United States

1.0

0.5

0.0

1989/90

1992/93

1995/96

1998/99

2001/02

United States (per 100,000 pop.)

Australia (per 100,000 pop.)

2.5

Sources: Australian Institute of Criminology 2003; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003: table 1:

Figure 8: Violent crime ratesAustralia

160
Assaults

700

140

Robberies

600

120

500

100

400

80

300

60

200

40
Sexual Assaults

100
0

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

20

Robberies (per 100,000 pop.)

Assaults & Sexual Assaults

(per 100,000 pop.)

800

2002

Sources: Australian Institute of Criminology 2003.

Figure 9: Robbery ratesAustralia and the United States

Australia

300

120

240

90

180
United States

60

30

120

60

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

United States (per 100,000 pop.)

Australia (per 100,000 pop.)

150

Sources: Australian Institute of Criminology 2003; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003: table 1.

The Failed Experiment

14

The Fraser Institute

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Figure 10: Suicide ratesAustralia and the United States

16

Australia

Age-Adjusted Suicide Rate

(per 100,000 pop.)

14
12
10

United States

8
6
4
2
0

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002; NCIPC 2003.

and the share of firearm homicide involving handguns

has doubled in the past five years (Mouzos 2001). The
proposed solution to the failure of gun regulations is banning handguns, even though, as in Great Britain and
Canada, few firearms used in homicide are legally held;
in 1999/2000 only 12 out of 65 (18%) were identified as
being misused by their legal owner (Mouzos 2001).

the type of weapon used was not a significant factor

in the murders. Nevertheless, activists used this hideous crime to launch a campaign that promoted tighter
firearm restrictions as the way to protect women from
male violence and, as a result, Canada twice introduced
sweeping changes to its firearms laws, first, in 1991,
under the Conservative government and then again,
in 1995, before the first changes had been fully implemented, under the Liberals. The 1995 Firearms Act is
still being phased in.
The Canadian government uses the falling homicide rate and the falling rate of violent crime to support the claim that these firearm laws are working to
reduce criminal violence. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has been falling as fast or faster
in the United States (figure 11), where during the same
time frame, more than 25 states have introduced less restrictive firearm laws. The homicide rate in the United
States has fallen from 10.5 per 100,000 in 1991 to 6.1 per
100,000 while the Canadian rate has fallen from 2.7 per
100,000 to 1.8.
The contrast between the rate of criminal violence in
the United States and that in Canada is much more dramatic (figure 12). Over the past decade, the Canadian
rate of violent crime has stayed basically flat while, in
the United States during the same time period, the rate
of violent crime has slid from 600 per 100,000 to 500 per
100,000 (Gannon 2001).17
Econometric studies undercut the claim that firearm
legislation caused the homicide rate in Canada to de-

Canada
As in other countries, recent changes in firearm policy
were precipitated by a media frenzy over a multiple murder. On December 6, 1989, Marc Lepine, born Gamil
Gharbi, went to the University of Montreal campus,
where he wandered around the halls of the engineering
building shooting people he encountered while shouting
hatred for feminists. In one classroom, after sending the
men from the room, he shot the remaining women. In all,
he killed 14 women and wounded another 13 students,
including four men, before he finally shot himself (Jones
1998). Even though he encountered almost one hundred
students and at least three teachers, no one tried to stop
the murderer. Most did what they were told.
An investigation by the Montreal coroner severely
criticized the police for their inadequate response (MacDonald 1990). The police did not even arrive until after
the killings were over. After taking 30 minutes to arrive
at the university campus, the police could not find the
engineering building. The coroners office stated that
The Fraser Institute

15

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

3.0

12

2.5

10

2.0

Canada

1.5

United States

1.0

0.5

0.0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

United States (per 100,000 pop.)

Canada (per 100,000 pop.)

Figure 11: Homicide ratesCanada and the United States

Sources: Kwing Hung 2003; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003: table 1.

Figure 12: Violent crime ratesCanada and the United States

1,200
Canada

Violent Crime Rate

(per 100,000 pop.)

1,000
800
600

United States

400
200
0

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Sources: Savoie 2002; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003: table 1.

cline. This is clearly seen in a study that Professor Richard Holmes and I did, where we found that firearm legislation had no significant impact on the homicide rate
(Mauser and Holmes 1992) (figure 13). In this study,
we analyzed the effect of six independent variables on
the homicide rate for each province from 1968 through
1988. The length of the horizontal lines indicate the
strength of the independent variables. Lines that extend
to the right are positively associated with the homicide
rate, while those that extend to the left are negatively associated. Any T-ratio over 1.65 is statistically significant.
As hypothesized, the 1977 Firearm Law is negatively associated with the Canadian homicide rate, although not
significantly. The other independent variables are all in
the expected direction, and significant.
The Failed Experiment

Nor does firearm legislation operate to reduce other

violent crimes. Professor Dennis Maki and I have shown
that Canadian gun laws may even have caused an increase in armed robbery (Mauser and Maki 2003). In
this study, we looked at the impact of nine independent
variables upon three related dependent variables: (a)
armed robbery, (b) armed robberies involving firearms,
and (c) total robberies for each province from 1974
through 1992. We analyzed each of the dependent variables separately (figure 14). As in figure 13, the length
of the horizontal lines indicate the strength of the independent variables. Lines that extend to the right are
positively associated with the dependent variable, while
those that extend to the left are negatively associated.
Any T-ratio over 1.65 is statistically significant. The
16

The Fraser Institute

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Figure 13: Evaluating the 1977 Canadian Firearms LawHomicide

1977 Firearm Law
Percent Native Indian
Percent Immigrants
T-ratio
Coefficient

Percent Young Men

Unemployment Rate
Clearance Rate
Time
Constant
-4

-2

10

12

Sources: Mauser and Holmes 1992.

Figures 14: Evaluating the 1977 Canadian Firearms LawRobbery

Constant

Percent Non-Perm Res.

Total Robberies
Armed Robberies
Robberies with Firearms

Percent Intra. Immig.

UI weeks

Police/Pop

Clearance Rate

Percent Intl. Immig.

Unemp. Rate

Percent Young Men

Percent Natives

Gun Law
-3

-2

-1

Sources: Mauser and Maki 2003.

The Fraser Institute

17

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

results of all three analyses are quite similar. The power

of econometric analysis is that the model accounts for
the most important other factors as co-variates. Professor Maki and I found that once we factored out the effects of the other variables, the Canadian gun law still
had a significant effect. Unfortunately, this effect was
positive, that is to say, the gun law acted to increase
criminal violence. Nearly identical trends are seen in
property crime rates, which are declining both in Canada and in the United States (figure 15).
Suicide rates have been stable in Canada at the same
time they have been declining in the United States (figure 16). Despite a drop in suicide involving firearms, no
impact can be seen in the total Canadian suicide rate,

which recently has begun to increase again (Preville

2003). The lack of linkage is one of the points obscured
by the misleading factoid of gun death. By creating this
pseudo-scientific amalgam of suicide, homicide, and accidental deaths, anti-gun activists impede a serious understanding of the link between government policy and
the misuse of firearms.
The Canadian experiment with firearm regulation is
moving towards farce. Although it was originally claimed
that this experiment would cost only CDN$2 million,
the Auditor General reported that the effort to register
all firearms has now topped CDN1$ billion. The final
costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are
included, estimates now reach CDN3$ billion.

Figure 15: Property crime ratesCanada and the United States

Offences (per 100,000 pop.)

7,000
6,000
5,000
Canada
4,000
United States

3,000
2,000
1,000
0

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Sources: Savoie 2002; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2003: table 1.

Figure 16: Total suicide rate and rate of suicide via firearmsCanada
Suicide Rate (per 100,000 pop.)

15

Total Suicide Rate

12

3
Rate of Suicide via Firearms
0

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

Source: Preville 2003.

The Failed Experiment

18

The Fraser Institute

Conclusion
This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the
public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada,
and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public
has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting
up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable
improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with
other academic research, that most gun laws do not have
any measurable effect on crime (Kleck 1997: 377; Jacobs
2002). As I have argued elsewhere (Mauser 2001a),

perance movement was an attempt to impose rural

values upon urban residents, firearm registration may
be seen as an attempt by urbanites to impose their
cultural values upon the rest of society.
The demonization of average people who happen to own a gun lays the foundation for a massive
increase in governmental intrusiveness in the lives
of ordinary citizens. Firearm registration and owner
licensing threatens long-standing Canadian liberties
and freedoms. The type of gun control Canada has
enacted is not consistent with many democratic principles and the protection of civil liberties. Nevertheless, Canada is spearheading a move in the United
Nations to impose a similar regime of draconian restrictions around the world.

the history of gun control in both Canada and the

Commonwealth demonstrates the slippery slope of
accepting even the most benign appearing gun control measures. At each stage, the government either
restricted access to firearms or prohibited and confiscated arbitrary types of ordinary firearms. In Canada,
registration has been shown to mean eventual confiscation. As well, police search powers have been increased. The expansion of the states search and seizure powers should be taken very seriously by all civil
libertarians concerned about the erosion of Canadians individual rights. Canadas democratic institutions may also have been damaged by the transfer of
what many would consider legislative powers to both
the police and cabinet under firearm legislation.
Firearm registration also violates the basic rules
of policing set forth in the 1820s by Sir Robert Peel,
the founder of the first professional police force, the
British Bobbies. In order for laws to be enforced effectively, the police must have the support of citizens
being policed. However, experience in several countries shows that passive resistance to firearms registration is widespread. Instead of seeing gun control
as a policy response to violent crime, it is more useful
to view it as the product of conflict between urban
and rural cultures (Kleck 1996). Much as the temThe Fraser Institute

Disarming the public greatly increases cynicism about

government among much of the population and it diminishes their willingness to comply with other, future
regulations that might even be more sensible. The sense
of alienation grows with the severity of the restrictions
and with the ineffectiveness of their result. Unfortunately, policy dictates that the current directions will
continue and, more important, will not be examined
critically. This last is a guarantee of the increase of that
future alienation.
It will only worsen as the mass media become slowly
aware that their bias towards the banning of guns has
been misdirected and begin shifting their attention to
the large quantities of money that have been wasted in
pursuit of a dream of social engineering that was doomed
from the start.
Only the United States has witnessed a dramatic
drop in criminal violence over the past decade. The justice system in the United States differs in many ways
from those in the Commonwealth but one of the important reasons for the drop in violent crime may be that
responsible citizens are increasingly carrying concealed
handguns (Lott 2000). In contrast, authorities in the
19

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Commonwealth insist upon a monopoly of force. If the

goal is deterring criminal violence, perhaps it is time for
Commonwealth countries to encourage more individual
self-reliance.
Gun laws may not reduce violent crime but criminal violence causes gun lawsat least, well-publicized
crimes do. The only winner in this drama is bureaucracy.
The rest of us lose liberty as well as safety. It is an illusion
that further tinkering with the law will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us
from people who decide to commit violent crimes. There

The Failed Experiment

have always been criminals, and there have always been

deranged people. Murder has been illegal for thousands
of years: we need only remember the saga of Cain and
Abel. The mass media find gun crimes more newsworthy
but multiple civilian murders by arson have historically
claimed more lives than incidents involving firearms.
The truth is we live in a dangerous world and the government cannot protect us, if for no other reason than the
police cannot be everywhere. We must ultimately rely
upon ourselves and it is only right we have the necessary
tools to do so.

20

The Fraser Institute

Notes
1 Perhaps the best known are Gary Kleck (1997: 377)
and Colin Greenwood (1972: 240) but similar statements have been made by James B. Jacobs (2002) and
Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos (2002) in their presentation to the American Society of Criminology.
2 There is little evidence that gun laws are effective.
For example, Joyce Malcolm (2002) convincingly
demonstrates that English gun laws have backfired
and are actually causing both gun crime and violent
crime to increase.
3 For a more thorough discussion of the differences
among a wide variety of countries, including the
United States, see Kopel 1992.
4 These points have been made most tellingly by Patrick
Langan and David Farrington (1998), who compare the
criminal justice systems of the United States with that
of England and Wales. Marie Gannon (2001) also compares crime rates in the United States and Canada.
5 See John Lott 2000, 2003. Despite being subjected
to severe empirical scrutiny by critics, his basic assertions still stand.
6 These trends are easily seen in the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data on the website of the federal Bureau
of Investigation (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).
7 It is important to remember that the United States
has long been a violent country. Some observers believe this is due to long standing problems of racism
and poverty. As mentioned earlier, the question
under study in this paper is the effectiveness of recent
firearm legislation, not basic historic or cultural differences among countries.
8 Gary Kleck (1997: 238) speculates that one reason
for this might be that the assailant armed with a
firearm can command compliance from his victim
without first injuring him.
9 The United States is not the most violent country
in the developed world. That distinction belongs to
Russia, which has a murder rate two to three times
higher than that of the United States, despite having
The Fraser Institute

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

21

draconian gun laws that are very strictly enforced

(Miron 2001: 624).
Jamaica is a glaring exception: despite draconian
firearm laws, firearms are used in about two-thirds of
all homicides and over half of all robberies (Edwards
1999: 30).
The Canadian Justice Centre officially claims there are
2.3 million gun owners in Canada; my best estimate
(2001b) is that there are 4.5 million gun owners.
This estimate is based upon a recent report from Statistics Canada and an earlier special request to Statistics
Canada. Jose Savoie (2002) reports there are almost
4,000 violent crimes that involved a firearm but this does
not include any assaults that might have used a firearm.
Handguns are the most common type of firearm used in
homicide in Canada, and up until recently, the only type
of firearm that was registered (Dauvergne 2001: 10).
Only 11 of the 117 homicides committed with a firearm between 1997 and 1999 involved a firearm legally held by the perpetrator (Mouzos 2000: 4).
According to police statistics published by the Scottish Executive (2001), the homicide rate in Scotland
has also increased during this same time period,
going from 16 per million population to 21 per million population.
Recent survey data show a decline in violent crime
but this is not reflected in police data (Simmons et
al. 2002).
The comparison here shows the official statistics from
both countries. Gannon (2001) constructs indices of
violent crime that are more directly comparable. In
her analysis, the trends in violent crime in the two
countries resemble each other more closely, but her
data also show that violent crime in Canada is increasing while it is decreasing in the United States.
This study is consistent with almost all other research
on Canadian firearm legislation. The only studies
that have found an impact have been funded by the
Canadian Department of Justice.
The Failed Experiment

References
Auditor General of Canada (1993). Report of the Auditor General of Canada, 1993. Ottawa: Queens Printer.
Auditor General of Canada (2002). Report of the Auditor General of Canada, 2002. Ottawa: Queens Printer. Digital
document available at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002). Special ArticleSuicide. Year Book Australia, 2001: Health. Digital
document available from http://www.abs.gov.au/.
Australian Institute of Criminology (2001). Australian Crime, Facts and Figures, 2000. Canberra, ACT: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Australian Institute of Criminology (2003). Australian Crime, Facts and Figures, 2002. Canberra, ACT: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Barclay, G., C. Tavare, and A. Siddique (2001). International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1999. Issue
6/01 (May). Digital document available from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/.
Bellamy, Patrick (2003). Martin Bryant. Digital document available at http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant.
Breitkreuz, Garry (2003). Enforcing the Firearms Act Could Easily Cost Another Billion Dollars. Press release (March
24). Digital document available from http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns81.htm.
Centre for Evidence Based Mental Health (2003). Suicide Method Statistics. Digital document available from http://
cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/cebmh/elmh/nelmh/suicide/statistics/methods.html. Oxford: National Electronic Library
for Health/Mental Health, University of Oxford.
Cullen Commission (1996). Tribunals of Inquiry. Incident at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996 before the
Hon. Lord Cullen, Glasgow, Scotland. Available from http://www.open.gov.uk/.
Dauvergne, Mia (2001). Homicide in Canada, 2001. Juristat 22, 7.
Edwards, D. T. (1999). The Prevalence of Firearm Related Offenses in Jamaica. M.Sc. diss., Royal Military College of Science, Cranfield Security Centre, Shrivenham, UK.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003). Uniform Crime Reports, Table 1: Index of Crime, United States, 19822001.
Digital document available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm.
Francis, Diane (2002). Gun Registry Just a Fourth-Rate Policy: Liberals Spend $1B to Avoid Being Politically Incorrect. National Post (December 19): FP3.
Gannon, Maire (2001). Crime Comparisons between Canada and the United States. Juristat 21, 11 (December).
GPC Research (2001). Fall 2001 Estimate of Firearms in Canada, Report on Findings. Submitted to the Canadian
Firearms Centre.
Graycar, A. (2001). Crime in Twentieth Century Australia. In Year Book Australia, 2001, (ABS cat. no. 1301.0;
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001): 47795. Digital document available at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/
other/centenary/.
Greenwood, Colin (1972). Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Greenwood, Colin (2001). Labours Gun Plan. Shooting Times and Country Magazine April 12): 8.
Guirguis, Peter (2003). Crime Analysis: Port Arthur Massacre. Digital document available at www.boredofstudies.cjb.net.
Home Office (2001). Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 2000. Norich, England: Queens Printer.
Hung, Kwing (2003). Firearm Statistics, Updated Tables, March 2003. Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario.
The Failed Experiment

22

The Fraser Institute

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

Jacobs, James B. (2002). Can Gun Control Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Adam (1998). Case Study: The Montreal Massacre. Digital document available at: http://www.lbduk.org/dv_
and_bias_in_the_media_Canada%20white%20ribbon.htm.
Kleck, Gary (1991). Point Blank. Berlin: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kleck, Gary (1996). Crime, Culture Conflict and Sources of Support for Gun Control: A Multi-level Application
of the General Social Surveys. American Behavioral Scientist 39, 4: 387404.
Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Berlin: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kopel, David (1992). The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy. New York: Prometheus Books.
Landesman, Peter (2003). Arms and the Man. The New York Times Magazine (August 17). Available at http:/
www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/magazine.
Langan, Patrick A., and David P. Farrington (1998). Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales,
198196. NJC 169294 (October). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice.
Lawson, James B. (1999). New National Gun LawsAre They Cost Effective? Institute of Public Affairs Review 51,
4 (December): 2728.
Lott, John, Jr. (2000). More Guns, Less Crime. 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lott, John, Jr. (2003). The Bias against Guns. Washington, DC: Regnery.
MacDonald, Don (1990). Killer Lepine Had 60 Shells Left: Report on Montreal Massacre. Edmonton Journal
(May 15): A1.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee (2002). Guns and Violence: The English Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mauser, Gary (1995). Gun Control is not Crime Control. Critical Issues Bulletin. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute.
Mauser, Gary (2001a). Misfire: Firearm Registration in Canada. Public Policy Source 48. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser
Institute.
Mauser, Gary (2001b). The Case of the Missing Canadian Gun Owners. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, Georgia (November 2001).
Mauser, Gary, and Richard Holmes (1992). An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearms Legislation. Evaluation
Review 16, 6 (December): 60317.
Mauser, Gary, and Dennis Maki (2003). An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearm Legislation: Robbery Involving a Firearm. Applied Economics 35 (March): 42336.
Mauser, Gary, and William Stanbury (2003). Can the Canadian Firearms Registry Reduce Gun Deaths? Fraser
Forum (July): 2627.
Miron, Jeff (2001). Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 44:
61534.
Mouzos, Jenny (1999). Firearm-Related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends and
Issues 116 (May). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mouzos, Jenny (2000). The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide. Trends and Issues 151
(May). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mouzos, Jenny (2001). Homicide in Australia, 19992000. Trends and Issues 187 (February). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mouzos, Jenny (2003). Homicide in Australia 20012002. Research and Public Policy Issues 46. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Mouzos, Jenny, and C. Carcach (2001). Weapon Involvement in Armed Robbery. Research and Public Policy Issues 38.
Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Munday, R.A.I., and J.A. Stevenson (1996). Guns and Violence. Winston Salem, NC: Piedmont Publishing.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Center for Disease Control [NCIPC] 2003. Mortality (Fatal
Injury) Reports. Digital documents available at http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html.
The Fraser Institute

23

The Failed Experiment

PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES, NUMBER 71

National Statistics (2003). Trends in Mortality from Suicide, 19891999. National Statistics Online, United Kingdom (26 April). Digital document available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk.
Polsby, Daniel, and Don B. Kates (1997). Of Holocausts and Gun Control. Washington University Law Quarterly
75, 3 (Fall): 1237.
Preville, Emmanuel (2003). Suicides in Canada. Special study for Gary Breitkreuz, MP, Economics Division, Parliamentary Research Branch (20 January). Digital document available at http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/suicidesincanada.htm.
Reuter, Peter, and Jenny Mouzos (2002). Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns. Paper presented to the
American Society of Criminology, Chicago.
Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Savoie, Josee (2002). Crime Statistics in Canada, 2001. Juristat 22, 6, Statistics Canada Cat. 85-002-XPE (July).
Scottish Executive (2001). Homicides in Scotland in 2000Statistics Published. Criminal Justice Division, Justice
Department. Digital document available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00205-01.asp.
Scottish Executive (2003). Homicides in Scotland in 2001Statistics Published (28 November). Criminal Justice Division, Justice Department.
Simmons, Jon, et al. (2002). Crime in England and Wales, 2001/2002 (July). London: The Home Office.

The Failed Experiment

24

The Fraser Institute

About the Author & Acknowledgments

About the author
Gary A. Mauser is a Full Professor in the Institute for Urban Canadian Research Studies and the Faculty of Business
Administration at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. He earned his Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of California at Irvine. He has published numerous scholarly articles on survey research
analysis, guns and violence, and evaluating firearm legislation. His recent papers are Misfire: Firearm Registration
in Canada (Fraser Institute Public Policy Source 48); Canadian Attitudes toward Gun Control: The Real Story, with
H. Taylor Buckner, published by the Mackenzie Institute; An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearm Legislation:
Robbery Involving a Firearm, with Dennis Maki, published in Applied Economics, and Armed Self Defense: the Canadian Case, published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. He has served as an expert witness for the Supreme Court
of Canada, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and has testified before Canadian parliamentary committees on proposed
firearm legislation. For more information, see his web page, www.sfu.ca/~mauser.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Peter Allen, Barry Cooper, Steve Easton, C.B. Kates, Kristin McCahon, and Lindsey Thomas
Martin for their critical comments on earlier drafts. The paper is better because of their contributions. Special thanks
are due to Dennis Maki and Dick Holmes for their help with the econometric analyses cited here. And finally, I wish
to thank Jenny Mouzos, of the Australian Institute for Criminology, for graciously making the Australian crime data
available. I remain responsible for how the data has been interpreted and, of course, for any and all errors or omissions that may remain.

The Fraser Institute

25

The Failed Experiment