Canadian Gun Control Laws - Analysis - Case Study Example

Canadian Gun Control Laws- An Analysis College Professor Name Subject Some feedback on your paper: The main suggestion I have is that you should specify the economic model first before conducting your analysis. It would also be beneficial to expand on the model in more detail and reference some academic papers that have considered the economics of gun control. Then apply this model and the theories you have considered in the papers to Canada. Secondly, I think you should try to separate the history of gun control from the analysis - this should be easier when you specify the model at the top and work it through. In general try to improve on the structure of the paper in line with Prof Barbers specifications. Abstract As per Mauser (2007), there exist no solid proof that there had been a solid fall either in suicide rates or violent crime rates after the introduction of 1995 Gun Control regime. Present research demonstrates that the restrictive gun control laws in Canada have had no appreciable effect on gun-related crimes. Further, statistical evidence shows there does not exist any correlation between the gun-control laws and gun-related deaths. The main aim of this research essay is to research whether gun- control legislation has reduced the gun-related death rates in Canada or if not, what is the future course of action by the Canadian government in this arena? Introduction Traditionally, strict gun control laws are in existence in Canada as compared to its neighbour USA and Canada is also reporting lower number of criminal gun related violence but a higher rate of suicides than USA. Canada’s urban provinces have a lower number of gun ownership but higher numbers of criminal violence as compared to rural areas. Canada’s low figures of criminal violence can be attributed to its recent gun control legislations. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights, individuals have lesser rights as compared to American Bills of Rights. The Canadian Liberal government, in 1995, enacted the Firearms Act which stiffened gun-related laws in various ways, most contentiously by establishing a national registry for mandatory registration of all firearms. Thereafter, the Firearms Act was strongly criticized by the major opposition parties in Canada and it remained as a core issue in every subsequent federal election in Canada, as gun control has become a highly contentious issue. Canadian gun control includes various regulatory provisions that controlled the ownership, use, transfer, sale and registration of guns and criminal laws enacted to book those who wantonly or unintentionally abused guns or firearms. It is significant to explore how economic, social, political, legal, constitutional and cultural issues that contoured the gun legislation in Canada. According to Martin Friedland (1970), a history of Canada with its economic, social, political setting could be drafted on the history of Canadian gun-control legislation. (Brown, 2012, p, 1). This research essay will look into the history of gun control laws of Canada, how it has changed or transformed over the years and try to find out whether gun control laws in Canada have really reduced the gun- related crimes and deaths applying an appropriate economic model related to the issue. Economic Model Economic model offers a rational, conceptual template to assist in organizing the findings of an analyst. The economic model assists the researcher to segregate and sort out intricate chains of effects and causes and sway between the various interacting elements in a particular field of study. By employing an economic model, a researcher can test, at least, rationally, thereby creating varied scenarios, endeavoring to assess the impact of substitute policy options or evaluating the logical integrity of arguments offered in a research. Some kinds of economic models are really helpful for showing visually the spirit of economic findings. (Cohen, 2010, p.2). Economic Model: By applying economic analysis, this research essay will establish three variables: Whether gun- control legislation has reduced the gun-related death rates in Canada? Whether benefits reaped from the gun- control laws outweighs the cost spent on registration, licensing, etc.? Whether abolition of registration of non-restricted guns yielded any positive impacts on gun control deaths? For answering the economic analysis question, whether gun-control legislation has reduced the gun-related death rates? Graph 1 will throw some light on the subject. Graph 1 demonstrates that the gun murder rate was the lowest possible between 1930 and 1960 and despite the stricter gun control regime in Canada, the gun-related deaths never reached above those levels. It is to be noted that C-68 and C-17 which are aimed at stricter gun control regimes were introduced at the juncture when the gun murder rate in Canada was already declining. Immediately, after passing over the above bills, the gun murder rate in Canada has stabilized and has not fallen much further. Thus, from the above graph, we can come to a conclusion that there does not exist any correlation between the gun-control laws and gun-related deaths. (Toutant 2013). Graph 1- Gun Murders in Canada between 1930 and 2010 For answering the economic analysis question, whether abolition of registration of non-restricted guns yielded any positive impacts on gun control deaths, table 1 will throw some light on the subject. Table 1 Canadian Police Reported Crime for selected offences-2011 & 2012 Types of Offence 2011 Number 2011 Rate 2012 Number 2012 Rate % of change in rate 2011 to 2012 Firearms –use of , discharge, pointing 1944 6 2040 6 4 Source: http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/ Despite the strong gun control laws, offenses relating firearms have, in fact, increased in the year 2012 as compared to the 2011 figures. This demonstrates the absolute failure of gun control initiatives of Canadian government as it spent a whooping amount of $2 bn on gun registration in Canada, which motivated the Canadian Federal government to scratch the registration of long gun registry in Canada. Present research demonstrates that the restrictive gun control laws in Canada have had no appreciable effect on gun-related crimes since its implementation in 1977. Despite the stricter gun control laws, the gun-related crimes have increased swiftly in Canada as compared to USA. Between 1977 and 1996, it soared by 70%, which is 100% high as compared to all other Canadian Criminal Code offences combined together. It has been found that the crumble in social controls is supposed to have more sway on violent crime instead of existence or non-existence of the gun-control laws. Thus, the above demonstrates that abolition of registration of non-restricted guns has never yielded any positive impacts on gun control deaths in Canada. (Smithies 2014). For answering the economic analysis question, whether benefits reaped from the gun-control laws outweighs the cost spent on registration, licensing, etc, for gun collection, target shooting and wildlife hunting, Canadians possess firearms, and they use the firearms in the recreational and inoffensive sport activities that generate huge economic benefits to the Canadian economy. On competition based tourism, Canadian target shooters spend about $ 40 to 100 mn per annum. Wildlife hunting is the major recreational activity practiced by in excess of 20% of Canadians, and Canadians use the firearms in the wildlife hunting and spends about $6 bn dollars, and it is estimated that wildlife hunting offers nearly 33,000 job opportunities to the Canadian economy. Thus, as usage of firearms in wildlife hunting offers around $6 bn dollars and about 33,000 jobs to the Canadian economy, the benefits derived from liberal gun control laws will definitely outweigh the costs spends on the registration of firearms in Canada. (Smithies 2014). Citizens who use guns for recreational objectives can be presumed to exploit a utility function which includes the applicable form of recreation as one of the products ,or goods. Recreation is thus engendered by correlating guns and other shopped inputs with recreational time spent. A demand function is generated by maximization of the utility function subjet to time and income constraints, which can be described by the following differential equation from a dynamic economic model (Zhang,2005,p.92). (1) where income generated, and employment opportunities created due to guns used for the recreational purpose is being denonted by Gr , P is employment created due to recreational activities due to using of guns,Y is income , Fg is the anticipated value of the punishment for owning a gun ( which may be zero) and T is the time budget for recreational activities. It has been assumed that Fg has negative impacts on Gr. Thus , in Canadian case , Gr is equal to $6 bn dollars and about 33,000 jobs ( where Canadian economy is enjoying due to its liberal gun control regime) and P is the price paid by the Canadian citizens for the purchase of guns , Y refers to the income levels of user who use the gun for recreational purposes, and T relates to the time spent towards gun-related sports activities by the gun owners in Canada as described in the preceding paragrah. (McDonald,1995,p.2). Empirical studies by Wright , Rossi & Daly (1983) and Kleck (1991) which dealt with whether there is any cooreation between gun-related crimes, and gun availability have demonstrated that the gun crime rates never fell down despite stricter gun control laws were in force as what has happened in Canada as seen preceeding paragraphs.(Wright , Rossi & Daly, 1983,p.9). Kleck ,Gary & Patterson (1993) discovered that gun control law never corelated with lower rates of crime. However , Kleck,Gray & Patterson found there is a corelation between gun control laws and gun related crimes in the following cases.(Kleck, Gary & Patterson , 1993,p.7). If there is a prohibition on owning of the gun by the mentally retarded person If there is a need for the gun dealer to obtain a license from the federal and local government There has been a decline in robbery rates if there is a ban on handgun Polsby and Brennen (1995) study demonstrated that some researchers found a relation between lower crime rates with that of gun control laws whereas other researhers did not find the same. (Polsby and Brennen ,1995,p.4). ………………………………………………… (2) Where C2 denotes gun-related crimes , Gr denotes gun control laws , Gs denotes registraton for guns , Gc denotes cost incurred for gun registration. Thus , in the above equation , C2 being the gun-related crimes have no direct impact on Gr (gun control laws ), Gs (registraton for guns) , Gc ( cost incurred for gun registration). The equation (2 ) hold true in the case of Canada where the introduction of C-68 and C-17 (gun control laws) have no effect in reducing the gun-related crimes. Thus , the present research demonstrates that the restrictive gun control laws in Canada have had no appreciable effect on gun-related crimes since its implementation in 1977 as demonstrated by the above differential equation. Whether Canadian Gun Control Laws have really minimized the gun- related crimes in Canada – An analysis In an attempt to forbid the arming of Aboriginal Peoples access to guns, Canadian legislators enacted gun laws frequently and this is intended to disarm specific racial, ethnic or political groups that are considered as perilous. Thus, Canadian legislators have enacted gun control laws, mainly to forbid the possession of guns by the Aboriginal Peoples, Irish laborers, alleged Bolsheviks and immigrants. Thus, fear has kindled the enactment of Canadian’s firearm and gun control laws. Rural peoples in Canada used firearms, mainly to kill pernicious animals, to kill pests, to safeguard the property and to hunt for food. When the Canadian government enacted gun control law, recreational hunters, farmers and target shooters vehemently opposed the initiatives by the Canadian government to control firearms. (Brown, 2012, p, 8). Earlier Canadian governments vehemently resisted the use of revolvers by its citizens. Both American and British made revolvers flooded the Canadian market immediately after Confederation. By 1870s, inexpensive revolvers were possessed by many urban residents in Canada, and this resulted in the increase in the number of shooting, lootings, accidents and suicides. Abuse of revolvers and guns by younger generation made the Canadian government to ban the possession and carrying the firearms, mandated the retailers to maintain records, and barred the selling of firearms to those under the age of sixteen. For several reasons, the Canadian legislators did not enact stricter or harsher firearms control laws as the politicians doubted the capability of implementation such norms by the law enforcement officials. (Brown, 2012, p, 9). The period from 1890 to the start of the Great War, gun ownership had been ascribed to masculinity as owning guns in Canada had meant to portray them as real males. Canadian government at that time was of the opinion that Canada could assist Britain in its future war only if Canadian citizens were trained as marksmen. Many politicians and other pro-gun advocates strongly recommended for laws to be enacted to stop the new immigrants from buying and employing the guns and Ottawa enacted new regulations controlling the use of handguns during this time. To prevent the untrustworthy individuals to use guns also shaped the Canadian government gun control policy up to Second World War period from that of Great War period. At the start of the Second World War in 1914, the majority of Canadian worried about the possession of the gun by enemy aliens and hence, introduced temporary gun control laws impacting new immigrants from Austria, Germany and Hungary. Thus, Canadian Parliament passed gun control law, mainly to control the gun ownership by alien enemies and also mandated that all the Canadians should get a firearm license or permit for possession of the gun. (Brown, 2012, p, 10). Due to decrease of subversive activity, again, there had been large-scale availability of guns, which had become a vexing issue to the Canadians. Public fear increased when the guns had been used by criminals and large -scale use of the gun by youth population also aggravated the fear. Despite the calls for regulating the gun culture in 1920s, the Canadian did nothing. However, the commencement of Great Depression ignited new concerns about public mayhem that resulted in introduction of harsher firearm laws. The introduction of a handgun registry symbolized a major demarcation point in the relative records of gun control both in USA and in Canada. The introduction of handgun registry also mirrored the Canadian’s government increasing buoyancy that it could control successfully at least one type of guns. However, during the Second World War, Ottawa introduced registry for all types of firearms, and this had facilitated the tracking the gun ownership without much hassle. (Brown, 2012, p, 10). Immediately, after the end of the Second World War until 1980, Canadian government introduced harsher norms for gun ownership, which was fiercely opposed by gun collectors, hunters, and target shooters. At that time, pro-gun control advocates insisted that firearms like shotguns, hunting rifles were probably hazardous guns, which needed stricter regulations. Due to strong resistance from firearm owners, the Prime Minster of Liberal Government Pierre Trudeau in 1976 was unable to introduce the gun-control laws. However, a gun-control law was introduced in 1977, which banned the criminal use of arms. In December 1989, there was a massacre of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, which again paved the way for raising voices for stricter gun control regime in Canada. (Brown, 2012, p, 11). The Montreal Massacre forced the passage of modest gun control laws by the Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservative government much to the dismay of gun owners who were strong protagonists of the Conservatives. (Brown, 2012, p, 12). Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Liberal Party passed the Firearms Act 1995 which paved the ways for national registration of all types of guns. (Brown, 2012, p, 12). The introduction of above law surprised the critics as Canada had a harsher firearm’s regime at that time. Through provincial hunting regulations, the safe handling of long guns, shotguns and rifles was controlled and since 1934, the handguns in Canada had been registered. Wide ranges of fire arms were prohibited, and police verification was made compulsory for the purchase of all firearms in Canada during 1977. Large number of semiautomatic rifles and large capacity of magazines were barred or restricted during 1991. (Carter, 2012, p.132). Firearms Act 1995 which was introduced by the Liberal Party met with stiff opposition from various opposite parties in Canada. The major opposition parties’ namely New Democrats, Reforms and Conservatives were joined together and opposed the 1995 Act. Quebec Party was the only opposition party which supported the Liberal Party for the enactment of 1995 Act. In 2000, six provincial governments of Canada (including Ontario) approached the Supreme Court of Canada to annul the 1995 Act which was rejected by the Supreme Court Constitutional Bench. It was claimed that at the time of introduction firearm registration that it would cost taxpayers C$85 mn (US $ 55 mn). At the start of 2007, the governmental expenditure rose to C$ 2 bn. Further , as per Mauser (2007), there exist no solid proof that there had been a solid fall either in suicide rates or violent crime rates after the introduction of 1995 Gun Control regime. (Carter, 2012, p.132). As per Canadian gun right observers, gun regulations are enacted during periods of political instability and fear in Canada. During 1930s, Canadian government was more worried about American rumrunners and labour unrest. Due to this, in 1934, it enacted firearm laws that made the handgun registration mandatory. For aliens and for the British subjects, there were separate gun permits. Asians were barred to own firearms in 1941 in Canada and there was confiscation of their firearms. At the fag end of 1960s and at the start of 1970s, terrorism dominated in Quebec and in 1969, another firearm regulation was enacted that ushered the forbidding of use of other types of “prohibited weapons “ and “ restricted weapons” for the first time in the gun-control regime of Canada. Further, RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) was accorded power to exercise any “reasonable norms” to attach, exploit, carry or ownership of “restricted weapons” or ammunitions desirable for the safety of other persons. The use of handguns was made stringent as separate permissions were needed each time when handguns were taken out to target ranges, gun shows and to gun smiths. A citizen is allowed to buy a restricted weapon only if the police offer a positive opinion on them. The use of “prohibited weapons” like silencers, wholly automatic firearms, nunchakus, switchblades, shotguns and rifles were made available only with much more norms as compared to restricted weapons. (Carter, 2012, p.132). Prohibited weapon sale and purchase had been banned, and the Canadian government authorised itself to prohibit or bar mainly through Order-in-Council “method for any gun, which is not commonly used in Canada for sporting or hunting purposes. Order-in-Council refers to decisions made by the cabinet level and hence, there is no necessary to get the approval from the parliament. (Carter, 2012, p.132). Again in 1977, the Canadian government made sweeping changes in the gun-control laws and under the amendment, a new permit was needed to buy shotguns and ordinary rifles through a Firearm Acquisition Certificate (FAC). Unsafe storage of firearms was declared as a crime. (Carter, 2012, p.133). Police has the power to refuse to issue FAC to anyone on the pretext of self-protection. As per present law on the subject, an applicant has to provide two references and a photograph and inflicted a statutory 28-day waiting period and has to undergo safety training before getting FAC from the police. (Carter, 2012, p.133). In 1993, the Liberals introduced new gun legislation in Canada, and it proscribed almost half of all the handguns registered in Canada. Licensing to own guns became compulsory in 2001 and by 2003, all the long guns had to be registered mandatorily. Any person who has not renewed his gun license is subject to arrest, and their guns will be impounded. (Carter, 2012, p.133). Canada’s gun control policy has been restrained in character footed upon the conviction that ownership of perilous guns or weapons is a privilege and not a constitutional right. As per Gallup polls (1968), about 86% of Canadians answered that they would prefer a law that needs a police permit to possess a gun as contrasted to 68% Americans in favour of same. In an interview convened in 1976-77, about 72% of the Canadians extended their support to forbid civilian possession of handguns and only 36% Americans favored the same. After 1976, the Canadians need to undergo a thorough investigation by the police to decide about their sanity and crime-free position of a gun license applicant. Macleans –Decima poll conducted in March 1989 exposed that only just 3% of Canadians possessed a handgun as compared to 24% owned by Americans. (Lispel, 2013). In R v. Nur, the Ontario Court of Appeal annulled some minimum sentencing for crimes related to handgun viewing it as unconstitutional. It is to be noted that RCMP is maintaining a central database on Canadian Firearms Registry and presently, all the three types of firearms namely prohibited, non-restricted and restricted must be registered with RCMP. A gun owner should have a license to have a gun and guns should have a certificate for registering with the RCMP. The long-run registry registers the non-restricted firearms like shotguns and hunting guns. Bill C-19 was introduced, which put an end to the Long-Gun Registry Act and was successfully passed in April 2012. The above bill scratched the law that warranted all non-restricted firearms to be registered and directed that all registry record should be destroyed except records maintained in Quebec. Repealing of the Long-Gun Registry means that there is no need to register the long guns owned by the Canadians which falls under non-restricted firearms. However, prohibited and restricted firearms are still requiring to be registered with RCMP. Despite the fact that the owners of the long-guns need not to register, they are still obligated to get a license to purchase or own them and to purchase ammunition for their long guns. Further, the long gun owners have to clear background verification and to get passed in the firearms’ safety training courses and to adhere with safe transportation and storage needs. According to Conservatives, they are not in favour of long-gun registry since they regard it as unfairly prejudiced the interest of law-abiding Canadians, and it has not minimised the crime. Conservatives are of the opinion that the long-run registry is a waste expenditure of taxpayer money, and the dollars would be better expended on booking the real culprits. Most contentious issue in the Bill C-19 is that it requires the destruction of records in the long gun registry pertaining the details of the non-restricted guns as the records include the data about the spot of the guns held. It is to be noted that as of September 25, 2011, about 7.1 million non-restricted firearms were recorded in the firearm registry out of an aggregate of 7.8 million registered firearms. It is to be noted that despite the abolition of long-gun registry, Quebec provincial government decided to create its own registry as the federal registry is being destroyed and the Quebec National Assembly by passing a resolution requested the federal government of Canada to handover registry records of non-restricted arms pertaining to Quebec. According to Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2003, it costed about $6.6 bn per annum to the Canadian exchequer towards meeting the expenses of gun injury and death As per Small Arms Survey (2006), there was a significant reduction in gun death and injury due to Canada’s strict gun control laws and postulated that there has been significant reduction in gun deaths and gun injuries since 1993 with annual savings of about C$1.4 bn per annum. According to the Institut national de santé publique du Quebec, due to introduction of stricter Firearms Act in 1998, there was a considerable fall in an average of 50 fewer homicides and 250 fewer suicides per year in Canada, which equals to one less death per day. According to Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (2011), the Canadian gun control laws facilitated significant fall in the number of homicides by using guns of about 5 to 10% during a year reckoning upon the province. The fall in gun crime rates was specifically observable in homicides carried over with non-restricted rifles and shotguns. (CMAJ, 2003). Table -2 Details of the Fire Arms Registered in Canada as of September 2013 Restricted Firearms Prohibited Firearms Total Firearms 638,152 188,379 826,531 Table -3 List of Valid Gun Licenses issued in Canada as of September 2013 Possession License Possession & Acquisition license Minor License Total Licenses issue 602,429 13,31,815 8,687 19,42,931 According to Auditor General of Canada, it would cost about $1 bn for setting up Canada’s entire system to issue the license to all gun owners and to record all firearms in Canada for over a period of 10 years. The above costs will include to carryout extra enforcement initiatives (NWEST), additional expenses to be incurred by Correctional Services of Canada for enhanced imprisonment under the Firearms Act and fund allocation to the provinces to manage the system which is estimated at $ 180 mn over a period of 10 years. (CMAJ, 2003). About 66% of the aggregate firearm control expenses were spent for screening and licensing 2 million gun owners. According to RCMP, about 20% of their workload comprised time and resources spent on registration of long-gun in Canada. (CMAJ, 2003). Bill C-17 (the Firearms Program) was said to be intensely faulty, especially as it was applicable only to just 25% of all firearm owners in Canada. In the last one decade, the net firearm control initiatives amounted to $64.1 mn per annum, and it is extended to all types of gun owners and to varieties of all types of firearms. (CMAJ, 2003). There were about 1.8 mn licensed firearm owners in Canada as of December 2011 and once in every five years, they have to renew their license. It is to be noted that in the majority of cases, the owners have to register their firearms only once. As of date, in excess of 7.8 million firearms, including about 7.1 mn rifles and shotguns which are under the non-restricted category have been registered in Canada. The categories of firearms that is being registered now are the guns which are purchased , transferred , sold , inherited, traded or modified to the point that if it impacts their taxonomy. In the last five years , there has been a net increase on an average basis of about 150,000 guns of various types that is being registered to the Canadian registration system per annum which signifying a 2% increase on year-to-year basis, with the non-restricted ‘long’ guns encompassing just over 130,000 of that. (RCMP, 2013). As per RCMP, Bill 17-C that curtained the provision of that all non-restricted firearms to be registered would save about $1.195 and $4.03 mn per annum. According to the Canadian Police associations, the savings will be just equivalent to the expenses incurred on the investigation of the couple of intricate murder cases. (RCMP, 2013). According to RCMP, the abolition of long guns in the registry will have a direct impact on police investigations’ expenses pertaining to guns, as valid information in the trial will not be available any longer. Police will find it difficult to trace the guns to their origin or source, and this will make their investigation prejudiced. Abolition of long-gun registry will also lessen the RCMP’s ability to initiate preventive steps, when meddling in suicide phone calls, domestic violence or when carrying out prohibition orders. (RCMP, 2013). Since 2006, the Canadian government has refunded or relinquished fees connected to license registration and renewals on annual basis, and it had costed about $ 15 mn in the year 2009 alone which soared to $21 mn in 2011 in lost revenue, which is analogues to the 33% of the present overhead. (RCMP, 2013). In 1995, gun-related injuries and death were projected to cost about $ 6.6 bn per annum including the costs of the fatality’s families lost revenues and suffering and pain. As per the Institut national de santé publique du Quebec , there has been around 300 deaths under Firearms Act, including the long gun registry related death, which has been being prevented per annum and there has been saving around $400 mn per annum excluding the expenses relating to the fatalities’ families lost revenues ,sufferings, and pains . (RCMP, 2013). Conclusion To conclude, gun control legislations do not connote lesser deaths or crime rates. Every citizen has the right to defend themselves with a gun when his life is at peril or at menace by a criminal using a gun. Hence, Canadian government should give more emphasis to the use of the gun for self defense while making new gun control laws. (Toutant 2013). Further, Canadian target shooter spends about $ 40 to 100 mn per annum. Wildlife hunting is the major recreational activity practiced by in excess of 20% of Canadians, and Canadians use the firearms in the wildlife hunting and spend about $6 bn dollars, and it is estimated that wildlife hunting offers nearly 33,000 job opportunities to the Canadian economy. In view of the above, it is recommended that Canada should have more liberalized gun control policies in the near future as the owning and possession of a gun are considered to be the traits and customs of the Canadian life. References Brown, R B. (2012). Arming and Disarming. A History of Gun Control in Canada. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Carter, G L. (2012). Guns in American Society. New York: ABC-CLIO CMAJ. (2003). Reasonable Control: Gun Registration in Canada. CMAJ, Vol.168 (4). Cohen, S. (2010). Economic Models for Policy Making: Principles and Designs Revisited. New York: Routledge. Kleck , Gary and E.Patterson. (1993). The Impact of Gun Control and Gunownership Levels on Violence Rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, .249-287. Lispel, S M. (2013). Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions. New York: Routledge. Polsby, D & Brennen,D. (1995). Taking Aim at Gun Control. Palatine:Heartland Institute. RCMP. (2013, January 4). Canadian Firearm Program. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from< www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm> Smithies, A. (2014). Ten Myths about Gun Control. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html> Toutant, R. (2013, January 29).Gun Control does not mean Murder Control. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://mises.ca/posts/articles/gun-control-does-not-mean-murder-control/ Wright , James , P. Rossi and K. Daly. (1983). Under the Gun: Weapons , Crime and Violence in America. New York : Aldine. Zhang ,W. (2005). Differential Equations , Bifurcations and Chaos in Economics. New York : World Scientific . Read More