Lessons from Canada and Vermont

by Timothy Page

Canada has long tried to reduce violent crime by restricting certain knives. Switchblades, butterfly knives, gravity knives, and push daggers are prohibited under the Criminal Code. Carrying any knife with the intent to harm someone is already illegal. More recently, provinces such as Manitoba introduced rules requiring photo ID, age checks, and secure storage for longer blades like machetes. Despite these measures, stabbings remain a stubborn and serious problem.

According to Statistics Canada data, in 2024 there were about 250 stabbing homicides compared with 286 shooting deaths. Stabbings are the second-most common method of killing in the country. In British Columbia and Quebec that year, more people died from knife attacks than from gunshots. Over the five years from 2020 to 2024, more women were killed by stabbing than by shooting. Knives are especially common in attacks against women and in intimate-partner violence. Hospitalizations for injuries from sharp objects have also climbed slowly since 2016.

These numbers matter because most of the knives used in attacks are ordinary ones—kitchen knives, utility blades, and other everyday tools that cannot realistically be banned. Criminals do not need exotic weapons. When one type of weapon becomes harder to get, people who are determined to hurt others often switch to something else. An analysis of Canadian homicide trends from the 1970s and 1980s showed that as firearm killings fell during periods of tighter gun controls, stabbing deaths rose. The net reduction in total homicides was smaller than the drop in gun deaths alone would suggest.

The same pattern appears in the United Kingdom, which maintains some of the world’s strictest controls on both guns and knives. Firearms homicides there are rare, yet sharp instruments still account for roughly 40 to 46 percent of all homicides in England and Wales. Poisoning, while a smaller share of homicides, features more prominently among the remaining methods and is the second-most common method of suicide after hanging, making up about 20 percent of suicides in recent years. Office for National Statistics figures and related studies show that when access to certain lethal means is tightly limited, the underlying drive to harm does not disappear; people simply turn to whatever remains available.

Clearance rates for violent crime have declined in recent years in Canada as well, and many cases go unsolved. Bail practices and enforcement priorities also play a large role. Focusing mainly on the design of a blade does little to address the people who choose to use violence or the broader conditions that make violence more common.

Vermont offers a useful contrast. The state has some of the most relaxed knife laws in the United States. There is no statewide limit on blade length for ordinary knives. People can carry folding knives, fixed blades, or other common designs both openly and concealed without needing a special permit. In 2025 the state went further by fully repealing its remaining restrictions on automatic knives, also known as switchblades. Under Act 64, these knives became legal to own, buy, sell, and carry regardless of blade length. Before that change, switchblades with blades of three inches or longer had been restricted.

That places Vermont well ahead of many other jurisdictions. A handful of states still ban civilian possession of automatic knives outright or limit them to law enforcement. Minnesota, New Mexico, and Washington maintain broad prohibitions. California allows switchblades only if the blade is under two inches. Connecticut keeps a tight 1.5-inch limit on many automatic models. New York continues to treat switchblades as restricted weapons with only narrow exceptions. Even some otherwise moderate states impose blade-length caps for concealed carry—often three or four inches—or treat certain fixed blades and double-edged knives as “dangerous weapons” that require extra scrutiny. Vermont also avoids many of the location-based or type-based hurdles found elsewhere. Texas, for example, treats blades longer than 5.5 inches as “location-restricted” and bars them from schools, bars, and certain public buildings. Several states still single out butterfly knives, gravity knives, or disguised knives for special bans or heavier penalties. Vermont does not. Common knife types remain legal, and the main limits that do exist apply mainly to schools, courts, and situations involving clear criminal intent.

The practical result is that an adult in Vermont can carry a wider range of knives with fewer legal complications than in a large share of the country. While a few Western and Southern states such as Arizona, Kansas, and Montana offer similarly broad freedom, Vermont’s combination of no general length limit, full legalization of automatics, and open-or-concealed carry puts it among the more permissive jurisdictions in 2026. At the same time, Vermont records low rates of violent crime. In 2024 its violent crime rate was roughly 219 offences per 100,000 people, well below the national U.S. average and among the lower rates in the country. Crime statistics for the state show modest numbers of homicides and aggravated assaults. Easy access to knives has not produced a wave of knife violence.

The difference points to a simple conclusion. The presence of knives does not by itself drive high rates of violent crime. Culture, social conditions, the likelihood of being caught and punished, and the behaviour of a relatively small number of high-rate offenders matter far more. Canada’s experience shows that layering more rules on specific knife designs has not produced lasting drops in stabbings. The United Kingdom’s strict controls on guns and knives have likewise shifted the mix of methods rather than eliminating the underlying problem. Vermont shows that liberal access can coexist with low violence when other factors are favourable.

Policymakers who want fewer stabbings would do better to concentrate on swift and certain consequences for people who commit violent acts, better support for at-risk young people, and realistic efforts to reduce the conditions that breed serious violence. Treating the knife as the main problem has repeatedly failed to deliver the safety gains that were promised.