Matt Z wrote:
This is only valid if one accepts the idea that the gun control measures being proposed would actually make us any safer.
Supporters of gun control will argue that it does. Opponents will often argue that gun control actually increases crime. ... In fact, there's little evidence that gun control has any effect at all on crime (positive or negative).
International data shows an enormous correlation between restricted access to firearms and a reduced homicide rate. In the developed world, nations that more carefully restrict firearms enjoy a much higher degree of safety from homicide, and the US occupies a decidedly opposite position on the spectrum. That doesn't necessarily mean that gun control works, and I think it asks a far more interesting question: is it that gun control effectively reigns in violence in a nation, or that a nation that has effectively reigned in violence is more likely to implement gun control measures? Assuming the former, you'd then have to ask which forms of gun control are effective, as there are so many approaches. The buyback in Australia is lauded as a huge success (caveat: 22 million people, effectively no borders) meanwhile the long gun registry in Canada is considered an unmitigated disaster.
Personally I don't have a horse in this race. On one hand, a not insignificant number of gun crimes in Canada are committed with firearms obtained from the US and smuggled up the reserves. On the other hand, I love visiting ranges in America. I think the Canadian system, despite some of it's flaws, represents a good middle ground in that mandatory education is required to purchase a gun, but I could still buy a handgun if I wanted to, and our ranges are pretty good too. But even if it were a one-size-fits-all solution, it'd mean a fundamental change to the fabric of your nation, and TBH you guys would be better served by laying off the sweets.