The Great Gun Control Debate

[Remius]

I see no issues with surpressors for legal firearms.

If someone is trying to stay quiet to kill someone, they'll do it quietly with or without a surpressor.

I found an interesting article (blog) on silencers, their origin (hunting groundhog if you can believe that) and how they became illegal (thanks to the US no less). Lol.

 

[Lightguns]

Apparently, the rest of the world is not watching enough Tom Cruise and Pierce Bronson movies!  Silencers over the counter, the horror! :sarcasm:

 

[The_Falcon]

Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?

An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?

Just asking?

There are several states that allow one to purchase belt fed machine guns, and as far I know, there haven't been any rampages involving them.  Perhaps it has something to do with the cost to acquire said firearms (legally or illegally), which sell for $10,000-20,000+ through legal channels.  There is also the problem of acquiring linked ammunition to use with them (also quite expensive).  While you will find those out there who want said firearms, I think you will find most of the "Patriot/III%" types and even criminals aren't looking to acquire these firearms, since most are well aware of how impractical they are (bulky, heavy, not concealable, hard to get ammunition, require more maintenance than rifles and handguns, and spare parts are harder to come by), outside of a warzone. 

 

[ballz]

If someone is trying to stay quiet to kill someone, they'll do it quietly with or without a surpressor.

Well, anyone that wants to murder someone wouldn't really consider all the trouble of going on YouTube and learning how to make one (for 10 minutes and $20 of material) would they?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well there are laws about that, so you know the law to prevent you from building a suppressor will stop you when the laws prohibiting murder won't.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I haven't posted here in a long time, I have just been lurking but I felt I would comment on this. To start I was when I was younger and before I did research I was supportive of gun control. However after doing research and owning several firearms I have come to the following conclusions.

The reason why gun control should be reversed is simply put it doesn't effect its target. The whole reason to have gun control is to try to prevent criminals from getting firearms and reducing crime. It has been proven that this doesn't work. There have been many studies that show gun control has no effect on crime rates based on different countries with them. Russia has a high amount of crime and it has some very restrictive gun laws. Switzerland and Norway have very lax gun laws and they have very low crime rates.
Simply put crime rates are not affected by gun control and in come cases cause them to increase (crime rates have gone up in the UK since they have changed there laws). The reason why they do not affect crime is simple, only law abiding citizens follow the law. Making a new law has no effect if they don't follow them in the first place (eg. murder is already illegal, robbery is already illegal etc.).

As to the firearm suicide comments in regards to storage (I don't call them 'safe' storage requirements), yes the rates of firearm suicide have decreased, but the rates of suicide have increased in other areas to make up for the loss.

And as to prohibiting different firearms based on things like being fully automatic, barrel length etc. There is no point. The fact is criminals already have access to these items, they know they are not allowed to own them in the first place (how many criminals do you think have gun licences) but they still acquire them for there purposes. For many years civilians were allowed to own and acquire fully automatic firearms in Canada (up until 1978 then you were grandfathered). There is still many fully automatic firearms in civilian hands, guess how much crimes are committed with them. Fully automatic firearms are not even shot much even if you have the option (just costs so much for ammo). Fully automatic is mainly only useful for two things, suppressing fire and room clearing otherwise it is just wasting ammo. I feel you can do just as much damage with a semi-automatic (if not more as your magazine doesn't empty instantly). Bolt actions are the same way, if you are taking accurate shots then you can do much more damage then someone that is just 'spraying and praying'.

There should be no need to justify owning something. We are a society of wants not needs. People do not need cars, or TVs, or computers etc. but we WANT them. You do not actually need much to survive.

And in regards to licencing I am still a bit uncertain on where I stand on this. There are two ways I would like to see this, either have one class of firearms (so you can buy every firearm with this one licence) with one licence that never expires (but can be taken away if you commit a crime) and you have to be crime free to acquire the licence. Or have a database that has the names of all the people that have been convicted and when you go to buy a firearm they look up your name and if nothing comes up you are good to go.

 

[Remius]

Somebody has suggested the one license approach or the two classes of firearms.  Legal and Illegal.  it's not a bad idea actually. 

Treat it like a driver's license.  Write the test, pass and renew your stickers every two years.  Fees pay for whatever database you create to keep bad guys from getting legal firearms.  Decriminalise simple violations and punish repeat offenders by removing or suspending their license.  Use fines and such to enforce the rules.  Got caught not storing your rifle properly, 50$ for a first offence.  Second offence is doubles.  Three offences and they force you to re-write your exam.  4th offense is suspension for year, keep it up and you get a permanent ban.

Or something like that. 

 

[ballz]

Decriminalise simple violations and punish repeat offenders by removing or suspending their license.  Use fines and such to enforce the rules.  Got caught not storing your rifle properly, 50$ for a first offence.  Second offence is doubles.  Three offences and they force you to re-write your exam.  4th offense is suspension for year, keep it up and you get a permanent ban.

Or something like that.

I would go much heavier on the offenses (not criminal though). Being negligent in how you store your firearm is about the only way a responsible firearm owner can negatively affect public safety. It is very hard to "catch" someone who leaves the house with their shotgun in their closet loaded, ready, and safety "off," until their 10 year old comes home from school and accidentally shoots himself or his friend who he was showing his dad's awesome shotgun to.

If you get caught once, it can be safely assumed you've probably been doing it for a while. The consequences for such a violation should be severe. Society is allowing you the freedom to own a firearm, you are being trusted to store that firearm in a safe manner. Any violation of that trust could lead society back down the road to where we are now... responsible, law-abiding adults, unfairly mistrusted by society to purchase a firearm and bring it home without the RCMP tracking their every movement.

EDIT: But in saying that, I disagree with the license and renewing every 2 years type of thing you are talking about. I don't even have to renew my PAL every 2 years now, why would I support doing it more often? I also disagree with charging me a fee for crime control. I already pay that fee through my taxes. My owning a firearm does not make me anymore liable for firearm-related crimes that I didn't commit anymore than someone who doesn't own a firearm, so why should I have to pay more money than they do?

 

[Remius]

I would go much heavier on the offenses (not criminal though). Being negligent in how you store your firearm is about the only way a responsible firearm owner can negatively affect public safety. It is very hard to "catch" someone who leaves the house with their shotgun in their closet loaded, ready, and safety "off," until their 10 year old comes home from school and accidentally shoots himself or his friend who he was showing his dad's awesome shotgun to.

If you get caught once, it can be safely assumed you've probably been doing it for a while. The consequences for such a violation should be severe. Society is allowing you the freedom to own a firearm, you are being trusted to store that firearm in a safe manner. Any violation of that trust could lead society back down the road to where we are now... responsible, law-abiding adults, unfairly mistrusted by society to purchase a firearm and bring it home without the RCMP tracking their every movement.

Sure.  I was using those numbers more as an example.  The scale could vary based on the offense violation.  I think the key thing though is removing the "criminal" part. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

Absolutely.  IF someone offends with a firearm, throw a very heavy book at them with a brick inside it.  Till then, let's give the majority of gun owners the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Remius]

ballz:  Sure.  Keep it at 5 years then.  But fees wouldn't go to crime prevention, it would go to administration of whatever by-laws are in place, fire arms education etc etc.  The point is to have your fees and or fines directed to the right place including compensation for thsoe who might be affected by things like reclassifiactions for example.

You are not going to get away with no fees.  The government will get their hand in that pot one way or the other.  It would be good if the money went to the right place.

 

[ballz]

ballz:  Sure.  Keep it at 5 years then.  But fees wouldn't go to crime prevention

Well, that's not what you suggested when you said

Fees pay for whatever database you create to keep bad guys from getting legal firearms.

, it would go to administration of whatever by-laws are in place, fire arms education etc etc.  The point is to have your fees and or fines directed to the right place including compensation for thsoe who might be affected by things like reclassifiactions for example.

I agree with this. That is the point of a "user-fee." Crime prevention would be the wrong place for these fees to go to. Perhaps the user-fees could pay for "free" basic and advanced safety and/or instructional courses, or "free" youth courses. Or to subsidize ammo for "free" youth events at local ranges that are meant to support the idea of safe and responsible recreational firearm usage.

You are not going to get away with no fees.  The government will get their hand in that pot one way or the other.  It would be good if the money went to the right place.

I agree, unfortunately. Despite the fact that there never used to be fees associated with such, these types of fees/taxes/payments/etc rarely ever go away once implemented. It would be nice if it went to the right place, but like I said, the right place is not crime prevention.

 

[x_para76]

I just don't see the *harm* in being allowed to own something like a silencer. If the public wants to take away my freedom to own a silencer, they need to demonstrate that there is a significant risk involved in allowing me to own a silencer.

A law-abiding citizen should not have to justify why he wants to own something, whether he owns it in case of the zombie apocalypse, in case of a tyrannical gov't, or whether he owns it because he likes to pretend he's playing Call of Duty on the range.

The onus is on the public to justify why owning a silencer represents such a great risk to society that it is justifiable to take away a man's freedom to own one.

Unfortunately, in our "free" society we have forgotten how precious freedom is and take away other's freedom on a whim to give ourselves a warm, fuzzy, feeling.

What are your thoughts on my second question? If I have the financial ability to purchase rpg's, stingers, and any other manor of military grade hardware should I be able to?

 

[Loachman]

what have you done to convince me, aka the average Canadian, that we should have unrestricted access to firearms?

Who has suggested that the "average Canadian" should have unrestricted access to firearms? You'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who does.

Although, that worked quite well for non-restricted firearms until the late 1970s. Dozens of sporterized Lee-Enfields could be found propped up on display in any Woolworths/Woolco department store bolts in and unchained for $30.00. Nobody had a problem with that, and life in general was far more peaceful.

This is why the only real argument that I can support is strong *storage* laws. The only interest the public has in my private ownership of a rifle is how my rifle is stored, because if stored improperly it may cause harm to people other than myself.

I disagree, as storage laws have been used as a blunt instrument with which honest firearms-owning citizens can be freely bludgeoned. That applies to one Toronto resident, Mike Hargreaves (I believe) who had his collection stolen from his personal vault while he was in Florida on holiday. It took two or three days for the criminals to cut into his vault, but he was charged anyway. Others have been charged even though the firearms were not technically in storage, but being transported or in use. Most lawyers, most police, and precious few judges understand the legislation as it's so confusing and convoluted.

Negligence laws are adequate to deal with an owner who has been truly negligent in the storage of his/her firearms and had them stolen. Generally, though, the owner is doubly victimized. He/she has had expensive property stolen and then been charged by the police for being a victim. That's like Sharia rape laws.

Just to play devils advocate what about the round that goes stray into your neighbour yard ?  Can you guarentee all your rounds will stay from fire to fall on your land ?

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are legal measures that deal with this, too - negligence under the Criminal Code and civil suits. That is adequate for most things, firearms-related or not.

There would only be two types of firearms. Legal ones and illegal ones.

And what would be an "Illegal firearm", and why? You admit that you do not really know. The nature of the firearm is irrelevant. It is the intent and action of the person wielding it that counts, not the tool. Nail criminals. Focussing on inanimate objects is stupid.

Firearms are a class unto themselves.  Cars, baseball bats, knives etc.. are all involved in deaths of Canadians and in some cases like cars they cause more deaths but I think when we start comparing firearms to cars and bats we start to loose the Canadians we're trying to reach. .

Except that the Antis make the claim that "we register cars" and "we register dogs", etcetera. They've clearly polluted Drew. These claims need to be held up to the light whenever they are made. Nobody goes to jail for several years for refusing/neglecting to register a car or dog.

Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous.

Firstly, firearms are/were registered. Owners are licensed.

Many other things are dangerous, too, yet no licences or registration are required.

And refusal/failure to get the applicable licence or register any item other than a firearm will not get one a jail term.

There is no justification for treating innocent citizens worse than child molesters or drug dealers for paper "crimes". None.

If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food?

Not the same at all.

If one was to open a commercial range, there is a similarity.

The range should be inspected for safety, adequate insurance should be in place etcetera.

We are talking about private firearms ownership, though, and not commercial.

I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life?  But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice?  I think you get where I am going with this.

And, again, there are existing legal remedies that deal with negligence, including civil suits.

Nobody requires a licence to cook for friends and family, though, nor do they have to have their homes inspected or their kitchen stoves registered in order to avoid a few years in jail.

You seem very concerned about your "rights" but do you even know what that means?  Without regulation and government, we have no rights because we don't have government there to protect those rights that we do have.

If you rely on a government to protect your rights, then you truly have none.

One only has the rights that one can protect oneself.

That is the whole reason behind then US Second Amendment. It protects citizens' ability to defend themselves against a government that has descended into tyranny.

Not that governments ever descend into tyranny, right?

The government has determined that it's in their interest to regulate firearms,

The government (Liberal) that inflicted the current Firearms Act upon us did so to gain votes in urban centres. That was the only way in which it was "in their interest to regulate firearms".

Other governments have done so in order to oppress and abuse, up to and including the point of mass-murder, their populations.

Why is a permit to purchase firearms and ammunition (aka a Firearms Acquisition Certificate or FAC as we used to call it) somehow less adequate than an expensive, onerous, and above all else intrustive license/registration system?

Indeed.

Although an FAC was not needed to purchase ammunition.

Firearms owners did not object to the FAC system, because it did not criminalize them as the current system does. They did not need to continually obtain government permission to continue to own their lawfully-acquired property or go to jail.

It did not achieve anything of value, either by preventing crime, accident, or suicide, but, then, neither does the licensing regime that replaced it.

I just don't see the *harm* in being allowed to own something like a silencer or anything else. If the public wants to take away my freedom to own a silencer or anything else, they need to demonstrate that there is a significant risk involved in allowing me to own a silencer.

A law-abiding citizen should not have to justify why he wants to own something, whether he owns it in case of the zombie apocalypse, in case of a tyrannical gov't, or whether he owns it because he likes to pretend he's playing Call of Duty on the range.

The onus is on the public to justify why owning a silencer or anything else represents such a great risk to society that it is justifiable to take away a man's freedom to own one.

Unfortunately, in our "free" society we have forgotten how precious freedom is and take away other's freedom on a whim to give ourselves a warm, fuzzy, feeling.

Bingo!

Yellow bits added by me.

The reason why gun control should be reversed is simply put it doesn't effect its target.

Well, yes and no.

If the "target" is honest citizens who own firearms, as it really is, it is brilliantly effective.

If the "target" is dangerous criminals, then it is a complete waste of time and effort and money, as you said:

If The whole reason to have gun control is to try to prevent criminals from getting firearms and reducing crime. It has been proven that this doesn't work. There have been many studies that show gun control has no effect on crime rates based on different countries with them. Russia has a high amount of crime and it has some very restrictive gun laws. Switzerland and Norway have very lax gun laws and they have very low crime rates.
Simply put crime rates are not affected by gun control and in come cases cause them to increase (crime rates have gone up in the UK since they have changed there laws). The reason why they do not affect crime is simple, only law abiding citizens follow the law. Making a new law has no effect if they don't follow them in the first place (eg. murder is already illegal, robbery is already illegal etc.).

As to the firearm suicide comments in regards to storage (I don't call them 'safe' storage requirements), yes the rates of firearm suicide have decreased, but the rates of suicide have increased in other areas to make up for the loss.

And as to prohibiting different firearms based on things like being fully automatic, barrel length etc. There is no point. The fact is criminals already have access to these items, they know they are not allowed to own them in the first place (how many criminals do you think have gun licences) but they still acquire them for there purposes. For many years civilians were allowed to own and acquire fully automatic firearms in Canada (up until 1978 then you were grandfathered). There is still many fully automatic firearms in civilian hands, guess how much crimes are committed with them. Fully automatic firearms are not even shot much even if you have the option (just costs so much for ammo). Fully automatic is mainly only useful for two things, suppressing fire and room clearing otherwise it is just wasting ammo. I feel you can do just as much damage with a semi-automatic (if not more as your magazine doesn't empty instantly). Bolt actions are the same way, if you are taking accurate shots then you can do much more damage then someone that is just 'spraying and praying'.

There should be no need to justify owning something. We are a society of wants not needs. People do not need cars, or TVs, or computers etc. but we WANT them. You do not actually need much to survive.

And in regards to licencing I am still a bit uncertain on where I stand on this. There are two ways I would like to see this, either have one class of firearms (so you can buy every firearm with this one licence) with one licence that never expires (but can be taken away if you commit a crime) and you have to be crime free to acquire the licence. Or have a database that has the names of all the people that have been convicted and when you go to buy a firearm they look up your name and if nothing comes up you are good to go.

I would not normall quote a whole post of this length. I made a rare exception due to its quality.

Thank-you.

Decriminalise simple violations

Except the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate private property. That is the domain of the provinces.

It is in the Criminal Code because that is the only way that the federal government can "control" private firearms ownership. There are no non-criminal ways of dealing with Criminal Code infractions.

Mosquito - meet colour television.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Except that the Antis make the claim that "we register cars" and "we register dogs", etcetera. They've clearly polluted Drew. These claims need to be held up to the light whenever they are made. Nobody goes to jail for several years for refusing/neglecting to register a car or dog.

And refusal/failure to get the applicable license or register any item other than a firearm will not get one a jail term.

There is no justification for treating innocent citizens worse than child molesters or drug dealers for paper "crimes". None.

I never really had a problem with gun owners requiring a firearms license. I always just figured it was another way for the government to get money. never worried about it too much.

You bring up great points about how disproportionate the punishments are some of the crazy examples of people getting charged for improper storage etc..

I've always thought the whole idea that citizens should keep firearms just in case their governments become tyrannical fear mongering and an archaic rule from 200 years ago, it's 2014 after all.  That'd never happen.  The recent actions of the RCMP at High river and now this really have me examining my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Loachman]

I never really had a problem with gun owners requiring a firearms license.

I did not either, once - a long, long time ago.

The Firearms Act made the simple possession of a firearm, by anybody, a crime unless one had a licence.

Essentially, the licence is government permission to commit the crime of possessing a firearm.

Have a gun, don't have a licence, go to jail.

Have a gun, have a licence, don't go to jail.

What is the difference?

Lack of a piece of paper equals years in jail.

Nobody's been shot.

Nobody's been raped.

Nobody's been robbed.

The only difference between convicted criminal and potential one is a piece of paper rather than actual harm.

I challenge anybody to justify that.

Or blindly believe in "the rule of law".

That's a nice concept, presuming that all laws are good.

The Firearms Act is anything but.

 

[NavyShooter]

What is almost as bad is that for doing NOTHING, I as a gun owner can end up as a criminal.

Yup, nothing. 

Lets say my firearms license is good for 5 years.

Suppose I go on deployment for 6 months near the tail end of that 5 years.  Say, at 4 years, 3 months.

I get my deployment extended by 2 months....no big deal, I still have a month to get my license renewed when I get home...

I get off the plane and have a car accident on the way back from the airport...spend a month in hospital.

I get home, the RCMP are waiting for me, having already broken down the door to my house, smashed open my safe, seized all of my firearms, and they arrest me.

I have done nothing wrong....except for not renewing my license in time.

Which in my case would leave me in possession of non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms, with no license.  Which makes me a criminal. 

For doing nothing.

That's an extreme, but possible example.

Suppose instead of that scenario, you simply forget to renew your license, and it expires.  Go back to the RCMP waiting for you with the smashed down door again....

For doing nothing.

Then there's a whole pile of the provisions of the Act that made every knowledgeable firearms owner VERY leery.

Making a mistake...knowingly, or unknowingly...on a registration application is a crime. 

So, you go to register your "Lee-Enfield" rifle.

What make is it?  How many experts does it take to understand the stamps on the side of the receiver of a rifle nowadays...

Here's a couple of examples:

Can you correctly identify the make of these rifles?

If you cannot, and knowing that it's an old Lee Enfield, just write down "Lee Enfield"....doing that makes you a criminal.

Do you know the difference between a rifle that's been manufactured by BSA, and FTR'd by Lithgow...?  If you saw BSA and LITHGOW on the side of the rifle...which would you write down as the manufacturer...or would you just call it a Lee Enfield?  Knowing that if you got it wrong, you were a criminal?

I have 5 Lee Enfield rifles....and every one of them was registered as "Uncertain, Possibly Fazakerley" or "Uncertain, possibly Birmingham Small Arms" because I wanted to hedge my bets...I'm pretty good at this gun stuff, but when the laws are written so poorly that an honest mistake is punishable....well....you can tell that the laws were not written to focus on criminal misuse of firearms, but as a measure to control the legal firearms owners, and to give the government as many means to trip them up as possible.

How many Weller Soldering guns were registered?

How many blow-driers were registered?

I know of several.

The Firearms Act as written today is a poorly assembled mishmash of contradictions and is bad law.  As a firearms owner, I have to live with that bad law, and work within it to enjoy my hobby.

To segue back to my previous example....suppose we restrict cars in a similar fashion to the way we restrict guns.  You can only drive your Mustang at the race-track, and to get it there, it must be locked in the back of a trailer so that no-one can see it.  You cannot take a detour home with your trailer to get groceries, you must take a reasonably direct route. 

If you need to get your Mustang repaired, then you'll have to call the police station to get special permission to take it (in the trailer) to the mechanic.  You can take it to and from the mechanic during only a certain window of time, and if it's outside of your garage outside of that period of time, then you are subject to arrest. 

If you want to sell your Mustang, you have to call the police to verify if the buyer is actually licensed to buy it, then you have to wait a period of a week to several months (depending on the model of your Mustang) for the police to approve the sale.  And again, depending on the model of your Mustang, you may have to send it in to the police for them to inspect before it's shipped on to the buyer. 

Oh, and if your license ever expires, you lose the ability to ever own that Mustang ever again....that endorsement to your license is lost if you ever let it expire.

Can you imagine applying that set of rules to a car?  That's what I have applied to me and some of my firearms.

Cars are registered so why don't we have to register guns....yeah....if you had to put up with this stuff you'd be disgusted too.

NS

 

[x_para76]

:goodpost:

Milpoints inbound!

 

[ballz]

What are your thoughts on my second question? If I have the financial ability to purchase rpg's, stingers, and any other manor of military grade hardware should I be able to?

The short answer is that there is a line somewhere. I do not know where that line is, but it must be based off the simple principal of "how much individual freedom are we willing to give up for a certain level of collective security." In other words, every time we ban something, we are giving up some/many individual's freedom to do something in return for more security. The line should be drawn where the level of security you receive in exchange is very clear, very evident, and very real. For example, not allowing individuals to own nuclear arms is very easy to justify because the level of harm one sicko can cause to us all is not worth the freedom of allowing individuals to own a nuclear weapon.

I disagree, as storage laws have been used as a blunt instrument with which honest firearms-owning citizens can be freely bludgeoned. That applies to one Toronto resident, Mike Hargreaves (I believe) who had his collection stolen from his personal vault while he was in Florida on holiday. It took two or three days for the criminals to cut into his vault, but he was charged anyway. Others have been charged even though the firearms were not technically in storage, but being transported or in use. Most lawyers, most police, and precious few judges understand the legislation as it's so confusing and convoluted.

Negligence laws are adequate to deal with an owner who has been truly negligent in the storage of his/her firearms and had them stolen. Generally, though, the owner is doubly victimized. He/she has had expensive property stolen and then been charged by the police for being a victim. That's like Sharia rape laws.

Okay, I can buy the use of Tort law in civil court and criminal law via "criminal negligence" to deal with this stuff. However, you must agree that there should be some written / well-established guidelines on what is considered "negligent" and what is considered an adequate level of care. For example, it should be well established that Mr. Hargreaves had taken more than the adequate level of care to ensure his firearms were safe. I weep a little every time the Crown uses absolutely no discretion and drags someone through the legal process knowing full well they are not going to get a conviction.

And what would be an "Illegal firearm", and why? You admit that you do not really know. The nature of the firearm is irrelevant. It is the intent and action of the person wielding it that counts, not the tool. Nail criminals. Focussing on inanimate objects is stupid.

I do know *why* certain weapons should be illegal actually. I do not know "which" specific weaponry should be illegal, because I have no had a detailed discussion on it to really hammer it out.

The *WHY* is the easy part. Please see my answer above to X_para76 as to why some arms should be illegal.

Deciding which ones is the hard part. I suspect, given some of the reasons already stated, that I would have no problems with machine guns being legal. I think that when we start to get into things like a Carl G or an NM72, we are starting to give up a little too much security for the sake of individual freedom. A well-organized, well-funded criminal organization that can legally purchase and stockpile such weapons could probably cause so much damage in one good go that "the juice" of individual freedoms may not be worth the squeeze of "collective security."

 

[NavyShooter]

In the end, the gun control debate is not about the guns, it is, truly, about the control.

We live in a society where there are reasonable limits placed upon our freedoms, such as (to step back to the Car analogy) speed limits on the highway.  And we accept these limits for the good of the society in which we live.

But, so long as a car is road-worthy, you can drive it.

If there's a place for me to legally fire a weapon, I should be allowed to own and use it.

Is there anywhere in Canada (outside of a military range) where I can fire an M-72 or a Carl Gustav?  No. 

Are there ranges in Canada where it is safe to fire a full-auto?  Yes. 

Are there vehicles that are not allowed on the roads but are allowed in off-road or in closed track areas?  Yes....absolutely.

Because you cannot drive a hill-climbing 4X4 bigfoot on the highways and roads, does that mean they should be illegal to own or use?  Nope.

Because I cannot shoot a full-auto anywhere but a licensed, inspected, insured range, does that mean they should be illegal to own or use?  Also nope.

Sure.  Licenses to apply a reasonable measure of control and mandatory training for firearms ownership.  That's reasonable. 

If someone has proved their competence, and passed the existing back-ground check requirements for a firearms license, let them own whatever they can safely shoot.

This gives society a reasonable check on WHO owns guns, and it will let the free market decide what those guns will be.  Having some of them restricted to being fired at only a shooting range ensures that the experience will be safe(r) for all of society.  A reasonable measure of control, with a healthy dose of freedom and capitalism.

Maybe I have too simplistic a view of this?

NS