Would you carry?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The reason for not charging him, was likely to attract as little attention as possible, and let the incident be forgotten quickly. If that doesn't happen, and more and more people start talking about the incident, and get the attention of the authorities, charges could still result.

Bingo!

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by sikwhiskey

Pesky, why do CO's carry pistols? Has there ever been cause to arm a Conservation officer with a pistol? Human threat or animal?
Self defense laws for citizens in this country need to change.

Yeah actually... quite a few CO's have been assaulted over the years.

Whether or not they need to change self defence law is a different debate.
Most folks here agree with that in principle anyways.

How you go about changing those laws is yet another debate.

I for one do not feel that doing things that might get you added to the list of guys with licenses that could not be trusted with the responsibility that comes with ownership... is helpful.

When antis look at these things they are not going to see beyond the numbers.
They will not exclude anyone that was charged or convicted based upon the individuals stated intent being more noble than that of a hold up artist.

When guys do things like this... they run the risk that if things go sideways... all of our ownership rights could be further jeopardized than they already were...because of their actions and not despite them.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The reason for not charging him, was likely to attract as little attention as possible, and let the incident be forgotten quickly. If that doesn't happen, and more and more people start talking about the incident, and get the attention of the authorities, charges could still result.

Probably more worried that people will demand the right to carry for protection because this is proof that it works.

[sikwhiskey]

[QUOTE=pesky672;1980580]

Originally Posted by sikwhiskey

My point was that you simply cannot say that he would not have survived under any other circumstance than carrying a sidearm unlawfully. And my point was you simply cannot say that he would have survived had he not been packing a sidearm. Playing what if, or shoulda- woulda-coulda goes both ways, and doesn't mean Squat
As for the charges... that is none SO FAR.
It could be that they just haven't gotten around to it yet.I hope they do get around to it, Already destroyed the tool that saved his life, how messed up is that, reminds me of The Ian Thomson case.
I would be keeping low and thanking my lucky stars about that... not going out of my way to tempt fate and irritate the other side. I disagree, look what laying low has done for gun owners the past 25 years, high time to start pushing back while there is still some momentum. The other side", certainly isn't laying low.

Could be they'll just wait until the next time he heads out... to make their play then.

So what? He should just live in fear of the authorities coming to grab him? Those authorities are public servants who are running haywire, making their own laws as they see fit, ignoring their own publicly elected leaders, and most certainly need a good kick in the ass or fired.

[argobenny]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Probably more worried that people will demand the right to carry for protection because this is proof that it works.

yes it does and i will continue to tell the story and take my chances. what ever people think and charges or not, the side arm saved my life. compact, quick, last defence after all avoidance has expired. positive attitude, confident handling and accurate execution.

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by sns2

Though I may get flamed for stating this on a forum such as this, I think your country has gone way too far as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. I do not personally believe your founding fathers had what exists today in mind.

I think few people realize what those men had in mind when they enacted all of that. Naturally they were not specifically addressing concealed or open carry, as that was a moot point in those days. Almost everyone carried, and in any which way. But they were specifically trying to prohibit the government from preventing citizens from bearing arms as needed to protect themselves from tyranny.

I believe they would be horrified at what their country has become nowadays, but I doubt that the common (responsible, non-criminal) man defending his right to bear arms (even just for fun or personal security, setting aside the government tyranny aspect) would be anywhere close to the top of their reasons. Gun control is not the solution to crime or injury/death. It's one approach to part of the problem.

My opinion, however, is that a great part of this argument could boil down to two concepts:

a) educating and empowering people, vs babying and controlling their every move. The latter seems to be the case in too many countries now, where too many things are criminalized or prohibited. And I'm not referring to whether straightforward wrongs such as theft/assault/murder should be illegal. I'm specifically referring to all of the "gray" areas.

Too often, government or some bureacrat with a pet peeve or personal hobby horse runs around prohibiting and/or regulating this, that & the other to "protect" the population from ____ [take your pick], often enabled by criminals or irresponsible ____ [fill in the blank].

and,
b) whether government should serve the people, or the people the government.

I see two approaches to issues such as the ones being discussed in this thread. One is to allow great freedom, yet impose great responsibility when that is abused. The other is to what we effectively have, outlawing and criminalizing anything that some people abuse. The first to me means freedom, it means being empowered, it teaches people to take responsibility for their actions. The latter punishes all for the excesses/abuses of the few and coddles/fences anything that has the potential for abuse.

I believe in freedom with responsibility, and feel it's a much better approach in the long run. I also see that society in most countries is very much intrenched in the other way: big government somewhat randomly enacts piles of laws in an attempt to control everything, doing some/much good along the way, but trampling on many, and continually eating away at the freedoms most humans innately desire. And, in a display of another human trait--conformity and taking the easy way out--much of society adapts and feels comfortable with the "nanny state" approach, where we, for example, call the police on our neighbor instead of at least first trying to ask him to get his dog to pipe down.

It's a big topic, and naturally winds into many other issues and concepts. Anyways, I won't belabor or argue the details. While I am an idealist, this is as philosophical as I get.

PS: and a huge thumbs up to MK2750's post (#263). Nailed it!

[argobenny]

Originally Posted by MK2750

Just to recap;

Here in Canada we release known sex offenders and child molesters into the community with a polite warning from the RCMP. After all they have done their time and what is high likelihood to re-offend really mean anyway, lets not get paranoid and give them a second chance.

Our Royal finest drive by know drug dealers and gang members because they fear they might infringe on their right to a happy child hood. After all they are just children blowing off a little steam. Your kids can say no to drugs right?

Drivers proven at fault in the injury and/or death of other families are allowed to climb back behind the wheel and giver. Hey accidents happen, just because they were found negligent doesn't mean they won't do better next time.

People with multiple convictions of driving while impaired drive the streets after paying their dues. No danger to see here, surely they have finally hit the bottom and are well on their way to recovery.

Convicted terrorists are welcomed back to their new found home land so they can live with their radical mommies. Poor little guy just fell in with the wrong crowd and even though thousands have perished this little guy has suffered enough.

Here in Canada you can murder your children and enjoy a safe trip back to your home in Australia to get on with your life. You can murder your wife and be out in five or how about a brutal sexual murder of your own sister and be out in eight. Or my personal favorite; cut the head off a fellow commuter and enjoy day passes in as early as three years.

Yes we're a tolerant group, BUT what will not tolerate is law abiding citizens carrying hand guns in the forest to protect themselves from predators or to use as a survival tool.

MUCH MUCH too dangerous, God forbid there could be an accident!

BRILLIANT this should be bumped to the first thread, hear hear.

[SonofDixie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUIXH9DeCRU&sns=sms.
Hope that worked.

[SonofDixie]

Haven't read the whole thread. Just ****es me off most of it. Most laws are unjust. Why? Because it's crooked politicians and evil men and women who corrupt a system that governs free men. Patrick Henry had a reason to fear government the way he did. There's too many liberal women, and men (if you can call them that) who have lost all sense of manliness who think "eeekk! Guns!! Scary!!". People like that shouldn't be running a country. Just my opinion. I'm an immigrant, so can't complain too much... but sometimes you just gotta.....


Violent civil disobedience? Ever read up on the American Revolution?


Scattered post I know, result of a ****ed Son of Dixie.

[elkhunter11]

Are our firearms laws lacking in common sense? Absolutely! Do these laws need to be changed ?Absolutely! Does that justify simply ignoring the laws that you don't agree with, and then whining when you get caught doing so? Absolutely not!

[SonofDixie]

It's no specific person on here that upsets me, it's a mentality. I don't pack, and I make sure my guns are safe. I obey the law yes. ( easier on the wallet and good for my reputation at work lol). When I transport my guns I'm safe and lawful. Will I pack illegally? It'd be pretty tempting..... (don't have my rpal YET). I just, personally, don't want to get caught and have it all taken away.... that's just me. When I hear of guys who DO carry I think "dang you're risky, but more power to you" I'm NOT talking about gun slingers downtown, or gangs who think the feel of steel is cool. AND THEY DO EXIST PEOPLE. I'm talking about guys like Robert who don't let some corrupt man-cardless wimp tell him how to defend himself and save his own life. I don't CARE WHAT You defend yourself with.


I will not have a filthy system (hear me right, American or Canadian) tell me what is best for me and my home. I Will not wait and rely on the government to come and liberate my house from evil, or pull a bear off me. I WILL defend my home and my family and my life by any means necessary. Lawful or not. I will sleep like a baby in jail if I must, knowing saved myself or my family.

I obey the law. But I know what infringes the freedom that my God gave me and my mother when she gave birth to me. " I don't need a document that tells me I have a right to protect my gift of life"


Yall have a good one.

[Unregistered user]

I finally got around to the may AO issue where argobenny's Grizzly attack is documented. Way to fight sir! That's one hell of an ordeal, I don't know if many of us could keep it together the way you did. All the theories and what-ifs and shoulda coulda wouldas go down the toilet for you no doubt. I hope to hell I never experience what you did and I hope you never have to do it again, but I think we are both true to the Boy-scout motto. Happy hunting.

[Big Daddy Badger]

[QUOTE=sikwhiskey;1981501]

Originally Posted by pesky672

So what? He should just live in fear of the authorities coming to grab him? Those authorities are public servants who are running haywire, making their own laws as they see fit, ignoring their own publicly elected leaders, and most certainly need a good kick in the ass or fired.

So what... He should make it easy for them?

Geeze.. with friends like you egging him on... who needs enemies?

A lot of people who say they are pro gun really need to learn to STFU if they really mean it... because their yaps are doing more harm than good.

[Wisebuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you intend to be cruising around the wilderness in a battleship, it's a pathetically poor choice of an example to choose. Choosing such a poor example is merely an indication, that you have no reasonable examples to choose.

As for the outdoors being safe, we have over 100,000 Albertans in the woods every year with firearms, and the number of people killed in accidental shootings while protecting themselves from bears is pretty much non existent. Changing out some of those long guns for handguns, is certainly not going to change that fact.

I agree with you elkhunter but the stats are just that. Stats you don't have to browbeat him