Liberalism Causes Homicide
Liberals like to blame gun owners for everything from
gang wars to random mass murders. The
truth is liberals themselves are responsible for these symptoms of societal
Another election, another Liberal threat to ban guns. Two years ago Paul Martin promised to ban
handguns. Now, the Liberals seem to have
temporarily lost interest in handguns.
Instead they want to ban semi-automatic rifles. Fifteen years ago Liberals told us we needed
to register all guns, license all gun owners, and ban short barreled handguns
and military style rifles. (These measures
became law when Bill C-68 passed.) Eighteen
years ago the Mulroney government folded under pressure from the Liberals and
banned converted autos and high capacity magazines. Thirty years ago Pierre Trudeau banned full
autos and instituted the FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) system.
Although the focus of their attacks on gun owners has
changed over the years, there is a consistent principle that underlies all of
these measures. Simply stated, liberals
believe that any society with easily obtainable firearms will suffer from a
high homicide rate. Any laws that make
guns more difficult to obtain legally will therefore cause the murder rate to
drop. Let us examine this theory to see
how it stands up against historical trends.
The three graphs shown here represent the homicide rates in Canada from 1930 to 2006, the US from 1930 to 2004, and England from 1946
to 2006. Look closely and you will see
all three have a similar key characteristic.
Murder rates were low throughout the middle part of the twentieth
century and remained that way until some time between 1964 and 1967. At that point all three graphs begin curving
sharply upward. By 1980 homicide rates
were two to three times higher than they had been fifteen years earlier.
If the gun-controllers are correct, then a person viewing
these graphs would be forced to conclude that the 1950’s were a period of
strict gun control. By the same
reasoning, the mid sixties must have been a time when governments suddenly relaxed
restrictions on private gun ownership, causing the murder rate to spiral out of
control. This analysis has only one
problem – the truth is the exact opposite.
Gun controls were much less restrictive in Canada, the US
and Great Britain
fifty years ago than they are today.
Americans could buy handguns from mail order ads in ‘Popular Mechanics’
magazine. In this country, full autos (machine guns)
could be legally purchased by anyone without a criminal record. Converted
autos were an unregulated, over the counter purchase. Most high schools had small bore rifle ranges
in their basements. War surplus firearms
were flooding into the country at bargain basement prices. There was no such thing as a firearms
license. There were no safe storage
laws. There was no restriction on magazine
capacity. There were no government
mandated safety courses. A gun could be
purchased at any hardware store as easily as a hammer or a saw. Eaton’s and Simpson’s sold them mail order
through their catalogues. In today’s
terms, there was almost no gun control at all.
How could the murder rate have been so low? Even more surprising, from a gun control
perspective, was the complete absence of random mass murders. (The first such massacre I can find any
reference to was the ‘Texas Tower’ shooting in 1966.) 
The late sixties were a period of increasing gun control
everywhere. The British were first with
the Criminal Justice Act of 1967. This
legislation required anyone wishing to purchase a shotgun to obtain a police
permit. The following year the US instituted
GCA 68, which prohibited mail order sales of firearms. Canada passed C-150 in 1969. This law essentially eliminated handgun carry
permits. None of these laws had the
slightest effect on the rising tide of death.
Clearly, something happened in the period 1964 – 1967. Some trend started then that continued until
the late seventies, when it leveled off.
What could it have been? 
Anyone over the age of fifty can answer that question
without hesitation. These were the years
when modern liberal values began displacing traditional conservative beliefs.
And what have forty years of liberal values given us? No fault divorce, broken families, single
mothers, teenage pregnancy, partial birth abortion, gratuitous sex and violence
on TV and in the movies, an epidemic of drug use, out of control immigration,
rejection of religious values, plunging birth rates, ethnic gangs, illiterate
high school graduates, a toothless criminal justice system, and hardly
surprisingly, an increase in violent crime.
Fifty years ago, when these countries had strong social
controls but little gun control, homicide rates were low and mass murders were
unheard of. Now, we have strong gun
control but little social control.
Homicide rates are high, and mass murders occur with sickening
regularity in all Western nations. (In
the past few years there have been mass shootings in Italy,
France, Germany, Finland,
Canada, and the US. The media here tends to report only the North
It is bad enough that liberals have turned most of the
Western world into a stinking cesspool of socialism. They then have the unmitigated gall to turn
around and blame gun owners for the mess they have created.
John Orth January 2009
course, there were mass murders prior to this 1966 date. The 1929 St. Valentines Day Massacre,
where Al Capone’s gang massacred several members of a rival gang was a
mass murder. But the Texas Tower
shooting was an entirely new category of mass murder, a random mass murder,
something that (to the best of my knowledge) had never been seen before. A random mass murder is
essentially a suicide, but it is a suicide in which the perpetrator
decides to take as many people with him as he can.
traditional reason given for this explosion of violence in the mid sixties
is a demographic one – the first baby boomers were entering their
twenties. Since most crimes of
violence are caused my young men, this spike in homicide rates is said to
come from the large number of boomers just reaching the age where they
could get into serious mischief.
There are three problems with this explanation. First, it does not account for the
sudden appearance of an entirely new phenomenon at exactly the same time –
the random mass murder. Second, the
Canadian fertility rate between 1921 and 1930 averaged 3.30 live births
per woman. This is not a great deal
less than the 3.80 recorded between
1951 and 1960, the peak boom years.
My mother (born 1919) was one of nine children who reached maturity in the 1930’s
and 1940’s. Why was there no
explosion of violence in this period?
Baby boomers were not the first large generation to come of age,
but they were the first to come of age under a liberal values regime.
Finally, there were simply not
enough boomers to cause the striking increase in homicide rates that we
homicide rate tripled between 1959 and 1974. If this huge increase was caused
entirely by baby boomers reaching maturity, then the boom generation would
clearly have needed to be three times as large as the preceding generation (the
so called silent generation, born between 1930 and 1945). In fact, Canada’s birth rate in the period
1931 – 1940 was 2.82 live births per woman, which means the baby boom
generation was only about 35% larger than the silent generation. To account for the homicide increase purely
on the basis of numbers, it would have needed to be 300% larger.
Figures for birth rates were
obtained from the book “The changing position of women in family and society”
by Eugen Lupri page 49 Google Books January 23, 2009.
for the Canadian Homicide rate graph 1930 - 1960 were obtained from
Observations on a One Way Street: The Canadian Firearm Control Debate
published by the Shooting Organizations of Canada.
for the Canadian Homicide rate graph 1961 – 2006 were obtained from
Homicide in Canada 2007 by Geoffrey Li, Statistics Canada.
for the England
and Wales Homicide rate graph 1946 – 1997 were obtained from the House of
Commons Library Research Paper 99/56 May 1999 by Patsy Richards.
for the England
and Wales Homicide rate graph 1998 – 2006 were obtained from Homicides,
Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006/2007, Home Office Statistical
Bulletin, January 2008.
Page18. These figures
required conversion from offences currently recorded as homicides to
offences initially recorded as homicides the match the old way of
measuring homicide rate.
for US homicide rates from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm