NOT a CCW thread

[220swifty]

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.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

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.

[BeeGuy]

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

[expmler]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

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

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.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

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

Poor.

I'm all for CCW and the right to self defence.

Criminals don't do legal things. If I can stop myself or another from being a victim I will. Problem is, w/o a firearm, I may at one point die to save myself or another.

I'll still do the right thing though. Regardless.

It is foolish to think that police can stop crime against you. When seconds count, they are minutes away. Also it has been ruled that police have no duty to protect any one person.

A firearm makes the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable person equal with their attacker, and on even ground.

How many rapes, violent assaults, deaths, home invasions, have gone on with no opposition?

CCW and carrying a firearm for defence is about JUSTICE vs a limp wristed "justice system".

Justice says if you step outside of the bounds of the law, you take your own life into your own or others hands. You open yourself up.

If you want to live, don't commit violent crime.

Bee guy, pretty dang simple.

[wildwoods]

This is exactly what I had in mind in a previous thread. Class them all the same.

[CaberTosser]

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

[rugatika]

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

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by rugatika

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

Laughable/

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

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

[3blade]

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.

[Heavy]

Originally Posted by 3blade

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.

Coming from a small farming community in Northern Ontario with a family History in North America (Canada and The USA) dating back to the 1600s. Ancestors brought to this country as Mercenaries from Scotland and Ireland by England. Hessian mercenaries brought to the USA by the English I take extreme exception to your view of this countries division and history! Ontario is judged by the polotics of Toronto and other Urban centers not an accurate reflection of rural Ontario with out this history in warfare and the use of firearms you would still be in Europe possibly living in Tyranny.
Instead of dividing this into an East VS. West thing we would be better served searching out the like minded there is enough problems with Unity in this country with out searching out more opponents.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by Heavy

Coming from a small farming community in Northern Ontario with a family History in North America (Canada and The USA) dating back to the 1600s. Ancestors brought to this country as Mercenaries from Scotland and Ireland by England. Hessian mercenaries brought to the USA by the English I take extreme exception to your view of this countries division and history! Ontario is judged by the polotics of Toronto and other Urban centers not an accurate reflection of rural Ontario with out this history in warfare and the use of firearms you would still be in Europe possibly living in Tyranny.
Instead of dividing this into an East VS. West thing we would be better served searching out the like minded there is enough problems with Unity in this country with out searching out more opponents.

Its West vs East on a lot of things here bud, don't see it changing anytime soon.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Heavy

Coming from a small farming community in Northern Ontario with a family History in North America (Canada and The USA) dating back to the 1600s. Ancestors brought to this country as Mercenaries from Scotland and Ireland by England. Hessian mercenaries brought to the USA by the English I take extreme exception to your view of this countries division and history! Ontario is judged by the polotics of Toronto and other Urban centers not an accurate reflection of rural Ontario with out this history in warfare and the use of firearms you would still be in Europe possibly living in Tyranny.
Instead of dividing this into an East VS. West thing we would be better served searching out the like minded there is enough problems with Unity in this country with out searching out more opponents.

Careful. My ancestors come from both sides of the Atlantic, and fought wars with and without firearms.

I didn't mean it as anything personal or strictly an east vs west thing; though there certainly is a element of that involved in any political discussion, as you admitted, due to eastern urban population numbers. more an example of the monstrous historical and cultural gap between the two groups. British nanny state vs new world freedom. Oil vs water. Fish gunner vs red frog. Just ain't gonna change either side anytime soon.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

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

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?

[flyguyd]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

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?

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 .

[TomCanuck]

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.

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

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?

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.

[Ryry4]

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

[MrDave]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

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?

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 ...

[expmler]

Originally Posted by MrDave

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 ...

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.

[curtz]

Originally Posted by expmler

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.

lmao

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by MrDave

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 ...

[Burglecut83]

Originally Posted by MrDave

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 ...

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

[Fordpilot83]

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

[norwestalta]

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.

[JohninAB]

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.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

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.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

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.

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.

[220swifty]

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.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

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.

x2

in all honesty, I'm more concerned with startling a moose in the woods then a bear.