NOT a CCW thread
 

After participating in the thread that was running until it got locked last night, it is pretty clear there is a division between members on CCW in Canada. I know where I stand, but understand the division too.

That had me thinking today, how does this forum view handguns as a defensive tool, in places other than the urban public. Let's say, for example, a bill was introduced tomorrow that allowed handgun owners to essentially use them as they would a non-restricted, and store them as they see fit at home. It would also make it legal to use a firearm on your own property for defense of life and livelyhood.

Discuss, without getting this one locked too.

With a training program giving an out line of engagement an range time along those lines , sounds doable with a little tweaking.

I could see rural folk appreciating the option to carry on their own land as they see fit. I find it curious that they could have a .300 Win Mag slung over their sholder 24/7 with no issues from law enforcement, but if they go and put a vastly less powerful, shorter range, less accurate firearm on their hip all of a sudden its a criminal offense. That's logical :thinking-006:

I think it is all good in certain circumstances.

You need to be very specific about those.

I don' think anyone needs a pistol whose purpose is to shoot another person.

Pretty cut and dry.


I think that idea is one of the greater issues holding back all firearms "rights" or privilege or whatever you want to call it.

It is a huge step from being a firearms enthusiast, to thinking you need to use your piece against another person.

I like the idea of looser transport laws, and the ability to wilderness carry.

Oh, IBTL

Pretty much been demonstrated that the negatives of allowing handgun use anywhere are mostly in the minds of liberals.

It is logical actually.

Do you use a pistol to shoot coyotes? or the neighbour's dog harassing livestock?

No, you don't.

What would be the purpose of carrying a pistol?

Shooting a larger target at closer range, right?

Laughable/

How has that line of reasoning been working out for you?

Despite its daily repetition, that mantra hasn't accomplished anything.

Close range , called in why not? Maybe i want to shoot gophers with it. Why should it matter as long as im legal and using it responsibly .

I would love it. I live in the Peace region and mountain bike some pretty remote areas and run the gravel roads in the winter. I am always alone and there isn't another home for several miles. I see a lot of bear scat where I bike and i do worry I may startle a sow and cubs.

I am very bear aware and whistle the whole time I mountain bike. If I could holster a revolver, I would in a hearbeat.

More than once I have thought about buying an antique SA revolver I could carry legally.

A couple of points.

1) Pistols have always been traditionally a defensive carry weapon. you give up range to save weight and gain portability.

2) Gun control is a polarized debate. Almost pointless to bring it up, as it brings out the extreme views for the most part.

Didn't see the ccw thread.

Regarding your current question, the issue is "armed defence". A very condensed version of related history:
defending oneself was strongly discouraged in England. You are a subject and better not think any more of it. The USA fought against the English, and established a nation based on freedom. Canada fought with the English, and English liberalism persists in eastern Canada, and some urban centers. Western Canada was settled mostly by European immigrants who were largely escaping some type of tyranny, and had much stronger hunting and combat traditions. Native cultures obviously took self defense pretty seriously. Thus the divide in opinion, and unlikely the two will ever agree.

Personally I don't see the difference, if its legal to discharge a firearm, why does it matter what type or caliber one shoots with? But logic rarely dominates emotion in this discussion.

Dispatching injured/sick livestock
Shooting badgers and other vermin that offer close range opportunity
Checking/fixing fences or any other job that gets you away from the truck/tractor/quad, especially in bear country.

The list goes on...

If you want to use the reduced range of a pistol as a mark against it for sport hunting, where would you classify archery? Many people successfully hunt to the south of us with a scoped revolver. Something I would love the opportunity to try, without traveling to do. The 460 S&W wasn't designed with human targets in mind.

I'd love to see that happen. Let trappers carry them and lift the ban on hunting with a handgun also.

How about the poor kid who was decapitated on the bus.....

How about when your horse your riding needs euthanasing...
Oh right you don't have a clue about our arguments, you just think you know it all. You certainly need to get some outdoors experience, dude. If you can't see the need for carrying a sidearm, its only because you are extremely narrow minded.
IMHO
Get off the computer and gain some experience ...

Only criminals carry a pistol for the purpose of killing another person.

Law abiding citizens want to carry a pistol to defend themselves against criminals.

Don't be too hard on BeeGuy.

He told me himself in another thread that his entire body is registered as a deadly weapon with the police.

He just can't understand the need for us mortals to use a gun for self defence.

:happy0180:

Beeguy is a dangerous man. Wouldn't mess with him. He is a registered weapon. I used to have a buddy who had his feet registered as a legal weapon, I actually saw the card he carried. I also saw him get beat up too many times to count from grade 11 till about age 24. He has a one track mind. The train came off the rails long ago... no point reasoning with him he is not a reasonable man neither is his buddy fishgunner

I dont understand why law abiding people who have an rpal, passport, psych evaluation cant carry a pistol. Criminals will always have weapons. Look at the guy recently taken hostage here in medicine hat, where would he be if he could carry? I know when if i was at work in the patch and my wife could carry id feel alot better about where and when she goes out. Even just it being legal would discourage alot of creeps n muggers

I really don't know way this is a issue. The bguys and the fish gunners don't have to carry a gun if they don't want to. The criminals are already packing so what's the big deal if the law abiding citizen packs.
I don't think a lot of these guys have been on a farm. A pistol is just another tool to ensure a working man can make it home to his family at the end of the day. I do agree with the chances are slim getting mauled or attacked but it does happen. I prefer to be prepared.

lmao

These sound plenty close range:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...010-state-says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Mitchell

I can understand the convenience of a handgun for ranchers checking stock and fences, or riders who's horse went lame on the trail, but equality under the law means that if you allow rural people to own and use handguns you MUST allow everyone else the same rights/privileges.

Agreed.

So what's the problem?

I have been in some very remote places in areas of high bear concentrations and never felt overly worried as long as I had bear spray which is proven more effective than a handgun. Areas where we were dropped off by helicopter with only a two way radio and a hour wait for a helicopter if needed.

Thing that concerns me with all this need a sidearm for bear protection etc is that poor old smokey be minding his own business 80 yards away and the lead will start flying cause someone felt threatened.

If you are that scared of going out in the woods and running into a bear that you think you need to be armed then maybe, the woods ain't the spot for you.

And what if Smokey decides to break the door down of you cabin of stick his head into your tent?

There's a difference between being scared and prepared.

me, I have no problems with this. I feel current gun laws are a tad bit too restrictive in some ways and far to lenient in others. Well, after re-reading the OP, he clearly states that the law was not intended for the urban public. The legislation would be shot down as it promotes laws via class.

at the same time, those who feel the need that they should have ccw rights for defense need to consider that instead of focusing on this issue which will never gain traction in Canada, they should focus this energy into maybe helping develop a nation and society where ccw is unnecessary.

As far as I understand things, the only time the use of a firearm for self defense is applicable is if you're being shot at. Something that doesn't happen to the majority of Canadians who are not serving in the RCMP, police services or military. So by rights you can use a firearm in defense of home and livelyhood, if someone was shooting at your home. Something about responding with 'like force' or some other such legalese wording.

By the same logic we shouldn't have house insurance or smoke detectors. Each person should be allowed to decide for themselves. What else do you want to decide on behalf of everyone?

Next.

Bears, or to fire a few rounds to signal a search party, or to hunt survival food, or whatever...

My point in this thread is why so much paranoia and distrust for the handgun? What makes a man hiking with a 44 mag, or checking cattle with a single six more dangerous than the hiker with a 12 ga or the farmer with a 10/22?

Perhaps this is why we are facing such an uphill battle with regards to handguns. I am even guilty of bringing them up as defensive tools, and not sporting arms, when they are very useful for both.

Maybe it time to take a new angle on this debate.