Not sure what you mean.Bullshit.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/canada-s-murder-rate-lowest-since-1966-1.2674016
Just a minute!
In 1966, you could walk into a store and buy a semi-auto M1 Carbine and as many 30 round magazines as you wanted, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition............as long as you looked like you were 17 years old and had the money. No license. No training. No ID required. No background check. No waiting period.
Nothing.
As long as you were 17 years old, it was as easy as buying a Mars bar.
I am trying to point out that violence predates gun control.
We tried having little or no control on fire arms and guess what? It doesn't work either.
That many people who "don't like guns" do want to ban them.
The question for rational people is whether guns are or are not a net social good, with all that implies.
The answer is almost certainly neither yes nor no, but rather more or less.
It seems fairly self-evident to me that limiting the ammunition capacity of guns available to the civilian populace, for example, retains the value of guns whilst making mass shootings more difficult and less effective.
As I have said before, I also approve of ammunition control. I think every gun owner should be limited to keeping 20 rounds of ammunition for each calibre of gun she owns. Plenty for hunting and self defence. If you want to shoot more, buy it at the range and shoot it there. If social order decays to the point of revolution or chaos, larger quantities of ammo will be available.
Most people believe in some sort of gun control.
ON the extreme are the people who want to ban them and the people who want no controls whatsoever.