grahamf

Not really. He's simply stating that due to Canadian laws it is much more difficult for ANYONE to get a hold of ranged weapons, not just sane law-abiding citizens.

And just think for a moment what would happen if this scenario happeneed while EVERYONE had guns. The shooter would still be able to shoot about five people or so (more, depending on how tightly packed everyone is) before people would realize what happened and be able to pull out their guns and turn off the safety (unless they always leave the safety off and risk shooting off their nuts all the time). And they would shoot at the shooter, with a percentage of the bullets passing through the shooter and into the innocent people situated right behind the shooter.

unless you assume everyone can immediately recognize a potential shooter and ignore the emotional and legal resistance to shooting him before he attacks. but then that person may be no better, but just begging for an excuse to shoot someone.

besides, how many shootings happen where the shooter had to use or even capable of using illegal methods to obtain a gun? As far as I've seen generally shootings seem to happen by people purchasing a gun legally or 'borrowing" it from friends/family that do not properly store/secure their weapons. not very many shooters actually have the ability or luck needed to obtain a gun from online or a dealer or whatever. If the argument that shooters can still obtain guns when they are outlawed is true, then shouldn't there be more attacs using high powered weaponry such as machine guns or even bazookas? in countries such as Canada access to weaponry is significantly limited, so that potential shooters would more likely be caught obtaining illegal weapons or use less effective methods such as knives.