Right now in BC, all firearms must be licensed, and all people who carry them must also be licensed. In the US, neither guns nor shooters are required to be licensed. Which is the right path? It seems fairly clear that the approach which requires strict supervision of firearms is safer. Guns are less likely to fall into the wrong (ie. irresponsible) hands. Evidence of this includes the lesser number of (for lack of a better term) Greenboro incidents in BC. Of course evidence is not conclusive, there are a number of reasons besides stricter gun control which could contribute to this low number of Greenboro incidents. For example, the "politeness" of Canadians. The greater amount of violence and proportionally greater amount of desensitization to violence experienced by American youth. The arrogance of America. So evidence is not conclusive.
On the other hand, a very definite result of stricter gun control laws is a tightening on the reins of individual freedom. The original clause in the American Constitution was originally meant as a protection against government. If the citizens became unhappy with the way their government was representing them, as they were unhappy with the British colonial government, then they had a right to overthrow the government. In time, the clause became the right to bear arms in any circumstance, supposedly as a protection to one's self. To take away this fundamental right would be to compromise an individual's ability to protect himself from danger including danger FROM HIS OWN GOVERNMENT. Therefore, by disallowing citizens to bear arms at will, the Canadian government is effectively making it much more difficult for the Canadian people to dislodge them from their position of power. Theoretically, this should not be a problem. Governments are drawn from the populace, and are supposed to serve the population. Right? Government is the servant of the population. Should be a basic operating principle. Governments are elected in every five years, and the democratic process should ensure that the government with the most voters will win. However, this may not always happen. Government can become corrupt (some would argue that this has happened long ago). Martial law can be declared, civil liberties suspended. Of course in this case, the normal laws wouldn't apply in any case. But the point is, the right to bear arms is a protection against government, and by taking this right away, governments are making it more difficult for people to rebel against them. So the question is this, is it more important to ensure the safety of the population, or to ensure the safety of an individual's rights?
Since the link between strict gun control and safety of society is a weak link, and the link between the right to carry firearms and the ability to protect one's self is undeniable, I have to support freer gun laws. This is not to say that I support the massacre of children in schools. I believe that steps should be taken to prevent this. But tighter laws controlling guns may not be the way to go. Indeed, I hate to see any kind of behaviour forced upon people. I would rather see voluntary acquisence. The onus should be on parents to teach children moral values. Sometimes kids get out of control, or they don't have parents. In this case, the onus should be on owners of guns to store their guns more responsibly, so that they cannot fall into the wrong hands. Perhaps punishments for convicted killers should be harsher as well. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem at all with inflicting severe penalties on killers (I don't usually support capital punishment though). But to curtail the ability of a upstanding, law abiding citizen is to me, too much. Perhaps teens who commit such crimes should not be able to be let off the hook quite so easily either. Certainly kids should be given a chance to make mistakes, and work things out, and making a mistake shouldn't ruin the rest of their lives. But just as certainly, kids are quite aware that stealing, that killing, that raping are very wrong by the time they become teenagers, if not sooner. There's no reason for them to not face the normal punishments.
I would venture to say that with freer gun control, the risk of Greenboro incidents is higher, no matter what the penalty and no matter what the education. The nutballs are still out there. But I would say that they would also happen in a society which has strict gun control. And as base as it is to put a price on human life, that perhaps it is worth the price. The danger of a government getting out of control is getting greater all the time. In fact, I would suggest that governments today are not serving the people. They are serving the ability to remain in power. How much farther down this slippery slope do the governments have to tumble before we will take note of it? It may soon be too late. And at that time, we will not be able to bear arms to expel them because of these very gun control laws.