I think that's a very good question.
First of all, I'm certainly not against tighter gun control laws; I am against laws that do nothing but criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens. Firearms are dangerous and they need to be controlled and regulated. We're very proud to live in Canada, which is a country where we have some of the strictest regulations and produce very positive public safety outcomes.
I am against laws that have no empirical tie to public safety outcomes. We live in a society with lots of dangerous regulated objects. Firearms are far from the leading weapon used in homicides. They're not even close.
If we're talking about regulating something—if we have decided that there ought to be a regulatory regime whereby people can own and use them safely—the onus is on the legislators to demonstrate that further restrictions will lead to positive public safety outcomes. In my experience and my review of the data, having studied this and written on it for the past 15 years, that's simply not the case. The legislators have failed at each turn to meet that burden.