I would like to add you guys are comparing two very different societies. Even though we speak the same language and share a long undefended border, there are two distinct cultures at work. Canada is far more like the European countries in it's outlook. We were the rebellious colonies, and you stuck with the mother country. I'm not totally up to date on some of the political associations, but Canada was/is a long time member of the British commonwealth (correct me on this if I'm wrong).

Basically what I'm saying is that I think your comparison overlooks far too many other variables than the availability of guns. The population difference alone creates very different societies, even between places in the states. Painting with that broad a brush would be like saying that we need to promote machete control in Central Africa. People will simply use whatever is at hand to create mayhem if they have a mind to. We managed to kill each other quite nicely for many thousand years without firearms. Stopping violence is much more a matter of changing society rather than simply removing the tools used for violence.

Our country developed with the aid of, and along with the firearm. It might be a stretch, but I think firearms could be the American version of the samurai sword, it's part of how we identify ourselves and our history. Therefore we have such virulent fights over control and possession of the gun. Taking the firearm away from the American, (basically, the goverment taking away any right without a well thought out valid reason), would be like taking the tea from the British, or the Machete from the jungle inhabitants of Costa Rica.

Now, as to the ban and such here in the states. The assault weapon you speak of is not the full auto military version everyone thinks of, they are semi auto rifles not easily converted to fully automatic or burst. They were banned simply because of cosmetic features. Quite a lot of people use the civilian version of the M-16 style rifle for competitions or for small animal hunting, in most places these rifles in semi auto form became illegal, when any other semi automatic 5.56 rifle was still legal. Hunters liked the M-16/M-4 style rifles ability to use a short stock/short barrel because it is easier and lighter to carry when hunting, and their ability to accept many different kinds of sights and parts, which was taken away with the ban. The rifle itself is reliable, easy to use, and a good design.....there was no reason for it to be taken away other then it looked like a military rifle. There wasn't even many crimes commited with those style rifles,.22LR rifles kill way more people yearly then the civilian version of the M-16/M-4 ever did.

With the magazine part, they made companies change the capacities on their magazines which made them much more expensive and less reliable, without a real valid reason other then basically a magazine over 10 rounds looks evil. You see, it isn't the "we just want the 5 extra rounds to defend ourselfs, or we want the civilian version of the m-16/m-4 so we can play army", the reason is we had them before, they were banned unjustly, so we want them back. It is as much a case of our rights as it is the object.