why do you assume what my assumptions are? i have already spoken my piece(no pun) on this
because of what you said above - I haven't read any earlier posts of your on the matter but logical conclusion from your post above would be that you see canada as an example/proof that free access to guns is not the reason for what's going on in the US. For that to be a logical conclusion in itself, one would have to make the assumption that free access to guns is indeed the only factor (or non-factor) in the picture, otherwise your previous statement - giving Canada as an example - would be illogical.
To which I replied that one cannot disregard the different circumstances in which free-er gun access is applied, and merely treat it as being isolated from the environment in question because it is the combo of factor+environment, and not just factor in itself, that ultimately determine the final effect.
In short, if my assumption was wrong, giving canada as an example would have made no logical sense as you'd know there are other factors to be considered and not just gun access alone. If my assumption was correct, giving Canada as an example is just plain wrong because it disregards the role of those other factors. Either way, giving Canada as an example for "proof" that what's going on in the US has nothing to do with gun access is just plain wrong and/or illogical, no matter how one spins it.
which brings me to one other issue here - there may be a lot of guns/capita in canada but those guns are, IIRC, primarily hunting rifles and such and not the type of guns one would find usually at the center of debate here in the US - automatic handguns, rifles, etc (or semiautomatic ones, which are very easily modifiable to fully automatic with a trip to Home Depot. Now, I am not an expert on mass shootings in public places but am pretty sure no one would be dumb enough to go there armed with 4-5 ft long hunting rifle and try to kill on a mass scale with just about the most impractical weapon for that purpose. And, as unfortnate experience has taught us here, these are not the type of weapons usually used in the mass shootings that have taken place for decades now in the US.
So, when we keep giving canada for example in these discussions - and let's face it's a pretty popular one - one should keep in mind that there is a difference between types of weapons. They may be often classified under the same name - gun - but there is quite a big diff in how dangerous such weapons can be from one type to another, as well as their intended purpose. For instance, one doesn't buy a hunting rifle so much for self-defense and fear of being attacked by a gang of criminals but to satisfy a hobby.
So, just looking at mere numbers and saying that gun ownership in canada is as widespread as it is in the US, doesn't tell the whole story, nowhere near that, in fact.
... thanks to some 3rd world battlefields, that's one race we ain't winning ... yet 
Buy on AliExpress.com
Unless you count some sort of gang land drive by bull shit. 
