The use and possession of all firearms (except by police, licenced hunters and the military) should be completely outlawed.
Arguments for:

• There is no need for anyone to have a gun; they are designed to kill and nothing else.
• If we only allow the police and military to have firearms, it will be easier to prevent gun-related crimes; suicides and accidental deaths from gun accidents.
• Citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime, since this is the task of the government.

Arguments against:

• The proper course for a democratic society is to interfere as little as possible in the activities of its citizens. Banning something because a small minority abuse it is overcontrolling behaviour. Banning something because a vocal minority think it is "wrong" or "unnecessary" is a form of Nanny State, not a democracy.
• The current rules prevent casual access to firearms and yet we still have problems. More laws won't work any better.
• Guns are necessary for legitimate uses in rural communities as well as for recreational activities.
• Citizens have a right to protect themselves, and banning gun ownership would interfere with this right. (Technically, no, citizens do not really have this right - just the right to use reasonable force. And with the current storage rules, preparing to defend yourself at home could take so long, it might as well not be an option. As for "taking it to the streets" - already illegal!)
• Gun ownership protects citizens from the excesses of government, and provides the possibility of revolution, if necessary.
• An armed populace act as a deterrent for criminals.
• It is pointless to outlaw firearm ownership because criminals will always have access to guns through the black market and smuggling from other countries, as is the case with illegal drugs. 84% of all firearms-related crimes happen with illegally obtained weapons; the other 16% - murder-suicide etc. - are unpredictable).
• Will feed organized crime, as illegal weapons become another source of income for these organizations, like illegal drugs.
• Minorities or groups facing violence and persecution such as women, need guns for self protection.

Arguments for:

• The government has no right to control anyone's use of firearms.
• In the past, totalitarian regimes passed gun control legislation as a first step of their reign of terror. Having the right to bear arms prevents citizens from such regimes, and other possible governmental threats.

Arguments against:

• Will increase violent crime.
• Criminals will have easy access to weapons, which they can use against innocent citizens.
• Some form of control limits the access of those in impulsive situations; even some US states have 24-hour waits, etc.
• Some form of ammunition purchase restrictions limits the options of those who obtain illegal firearms.
• The rules on storage reduce the likelihood of accidents by children playing with found guns; which has been a cause of several deaths each year.
• Guns should be traceable if necessary.

Arguments for:

• The majority of legal gun owners are law abiding, so registration of firearms (other than handguns) adds little of social value relative to the high cost.
• 84% of gun crimes are committed by people who obtain them illegally. (The other 16% are usually passion crimes that are unpredictable). Harrassing the innocent and legitimate owners does not have an effect on those who own guns illegally.
• Many illegal guns are smuggled in from the USA. Highly restrictive local purchase policies don't do much to reduce this availablity.
• Ontario and Quebec already have strict provincial firearm registration systems and separate provincial police forces. The federal gun registry compromises provincial rights and jurisdictions.
• Is a step on the way to the confiscation of all guns in Canada.
• The system is full of errors and is not reliable, therefore it is a waste of money. The cost of the system has been criminally exorbitant.
• The vast majority of crimes are committed with (smuggled/illegal) handguns. Registering long rifles is a waste of resources.
• Police work is no safer; just because a house is not listed as "having guns" does not mean the police can assume it has no guns.
• Police assume the worst of innocent people - if a house is listed as "having guns" the police may act as if they are threatened (SWAT team, etc.) even if circumstances do not warrant.
• Ownership and training requirements are onerous enough that they effectively are a back-door ban on ownership.

Arguments against:

• Police departments have reported that the registry is proving useful in making their work safer and by helping to reduce gun smuggling from the United States. (Yeah right -what else are they going to say about it, eh?)
• Is expensive, but makes guns traceable.
• Ensures gun owners are trained in safe firearm use (training is mandatory to obtain a registration.

Since there is a lack of gun control in the world today, everyday men, women, and children are killed by these harmful weapons. Therefore guns should be banned, new laws should be created and higher consequences should be made for people carrying one with them. Besides police officers nobody needs to carry guns, therefore why not ban them entirely except for police use.
!!!!!!---- gunlaw.......................
!!!!-ppl pleas think what you doing by shoting and killing anicent people not hero ya. And all the ppl they have to particepate for gun bundent and to make new law about gun and gunester.