Taking the USA as an example (but the logic applies to any nation, including Canada), legal action to inhibit criminal people from obtaining guns through background checks is a futile and expensive measure.
It has to be, compared to the process of reducing the total number of guns in circulation.
Consider holding the existing, or for that matter the proposed, legislation in effect.
You have some legal machinery designed to reduce the opportunity for criminals to obtain guns.
Now consider a state where there are NO guns in circulation; itís hard to imagine, but humour me: imagine the USA with absolutely ZERO pistols, rifles, shotguns, automatics and so on.
Imagine the USA where the police and armed services possess absolutely ZERO pistols, rifles, shotguns, automatics and so on.
Now, with absolutely NO guns in the USA, how on earth could a criminal possess one? Since no-one can possess a gun (because we are still imagining a USA with no guns inside its borders) then no one criminal can possess a gun.
Now relax your imagination: Allow exactly one hundred guns to exist in the USA. Thatís two guns for each state of the union. Pretty difficult for a criminal to get their hands on a gun, right?
Now relax your imagination a bit more: Allow exactly one thousand guns to exist in the USA. Thatís twenty guns for each state of the union. Still pretty difficult for a criminal to get their hands on a gun, right?
And as you relax, in easy stages, up towards 300,000,000 guns to exist in the USA. Thatís six million guns for each state of the union. Now it is pretty EASY for a criminal to get their hands on a gun, right?
The way to reduce the number of guns available to criminals is to reduce the number of guns available.
And as long as there is a gun for every household in the USA, so it will be easy for criminals to get their hands on guns Ė by theft or burglary.
A criminal who is considering taking life as an option isnít too worried about a charge of theft.
And this is true for any nation or state.
Leaving aside the issue of what is meant by ďtheir headlights can go darkĒ I ponder how it is that headlights Ė on or off, functioning or not Ė can cause a crash (or if you prefer a collision, but NEVER an accident)
There are more than enough people driving around Toronto without their headlights turned on to cause a crash. We know that they havenít turned on their headlights because all their other lights are working well Ė parking lights, rear lights, turn signals and so on.
And Toronto is a well-lit city, no matter how we complain. It is easy to drive around Toronto without headlights; the difficulty arises from other drivers not being able to see your car approach.
What about out in the country? Well the theory is that drivers spend most of their time on a straight stretch of road, so an immediate loss of headlights out in the darkest depths of the country ought to warrant no more than an immediate application of the brakes until speed is reduced to a crawl, then a careful negotiation to the shoulder of the road. And note that an oncoming vehicle is well-lit, so no excuse here for a head-on collision.
I assume, of course, that the driver behind you is keeping a safe braking-distance behind you; if you get rear-ended than that is the following driverís fault. Besides which, if the following driver is that close, you have your section of roadway illuminated by that driverís headlights.
I donít condone failing headlights; I think that functioning headlights are an essential facet of night-driving.
I donít think that headlight failure can account for a collision.
Collisions are always the result of poor driving.