Okay. More guns are not the solution to gun violence. While you will not see anybody commit an armed robbery of a gun shop, you cannot say throwing more weapons into the mix will even things out. That's a little extreme, and there is no strong evidence to back this claim.
However. You cannot say guns are the cause of most violence either. I do not understand how people can keep drawing these connections when we have seven billion people in this world, and ENORMOUS statistics to gage from. Look up the countries with highest gun ownership. Yeah, The United States is front and center. Now look lup countries with highest homicide rates. The United States is not a blip.
The correlation seems to be with the country's development, because of ALL the countries in this world, we cannot draw connections between their gun laws and the times their inhabitants decide to go and kill people.
Additionally, after the UK and Australia decided to ban guns, their violent crime levels rose. It was astonishing. I do believe this could be coincidental, because there is not enough evidence, and no dramatic change in the homicide rate. It did not drop substantially, either. Granted, their rates are lower than the United States', as they have always been, even when they did allow guns. Their rates have began to decline lately, as it has in EVERY developed country. Look at it separately, look at it together. Is the world changing, or is the country changing?
I wish everyone would get a little more statistical about this. You can find the REAL trends.
You are citing extreme examples in the United States, where gun laws were broken. I think Sandy Hook was the only one where that weapon was registered at all, (a requirement or you can be arrested) and it wasn't his. That's quite illegal, before a single shot was fired. In countries when guns are banned, people still own them illegally. Perhaps that contributes to the incredible handgun street crime in the UK? Look it up, if you'd like. It's growing enormously, and the only reason it's not reaching more papers is because it hasn't resulted in many fatalities.
While I do not support this (as I think it would elevate conflict), I do understand why people would say "well if the bad guys get a gun, I want a gun!" But do you see how banning something is ineffective in removing it entirely? It only removes it from those who follow the rules.
I admit I'm not exactly as familiar with Canada, but it is fortunate in the regard that its citizens are overall less prone to violence. Look up violent acts that have NOTHING to do with firearms, and the rates are very low compared to the rest of the world. That's not at all related to a ban on guns. Thank the culture, or the society, or the upbringing, etc. Now, I believe if Canada were to enact personal gun laws, those rates would still stay low as well.
I am in the middle ground, but I insist people look at the figures properly. No spinning. If you want to remove guns, you have to be able to get them all, and not just leave them in the hands of criminals. And you can't use tweaked numbers as a reason to remove them. Let's play fair and clean. Both sides.