NOT a CCW thread

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

You poor sad unread man . The list of rifle men slaughterd by stoneage man is long and glorious . However im not going to list it for you think plains indian ,zulu, moari , gurka.

Nobody had guns in the stone age.

[elkhunter11]

Nobody had guns in the stone age.

Don't even bother trying to use common sense in a debate with him, he is oblivious to common sense.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

No the Canadian majority are not happy with our firearms laws, just our police, and some idiots with influence over our government. The Canadians that actually have some common sense would like to see serious changes in our firearms laws.

Oh firearms owners are some how a majority ...who knew. Best case 7% actual 3 % so as a wise man once said " its the other voters you have to convince" and with a cavalcade of no heart ,bunngle, ex m plr, RF and such with there smooth use of the lanuage that day will never come .... thankfully in canda we realy dont have much to fear, unless we go looking.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

Nobody had guns in the stone age.

Correct but people still live that way to day. Its a level of tech. Not the time period. The zulu slaughterd full line infantry with a cyclic rate of 3rds per man per min. formed in square to a total of 1000-1800 rds per min slaughterd to a man by sticks and spears. Learn some and get back to us . ...or join the polish cav .

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Correct but people still live that way to day. Its a level of tech. Not the time period. The zulu slaughterd full line infantry with a cyclic rate of 3rds per man per min. formed in square to a total of 1000-1800 rds per min slaughterd to a man by sticks and spears. Learn some and get back to us . ...or join the polish cav .

Poor tactics will make any weapon ineffective.

[Redfrog]

"and with a cavalcade of no heart ,bunngle, ex m plr, RF and such with there smooth use of the lanuage that day will never come .... thankfully in canda we realy dont have much to fear, unless we go looking."


Typical!! Bring out the insults but whine about being insulted.

And since English seems to be your second language, let me help with my smooth skills.

Language has a "g", otherwise it means nothing. You're in Canada now. Show enough respect to at least capitalize it and spell it correctly.

Realy. Really?? Dont has one of those airborn commas in it to denote a second word like so "don't". It's a contraction for do not.

Oh and the Zulus with the pointy sticks were fighting the Brits, correct?

Learn some and get back to us, or not.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

Poor tactics will make any weapon ineffective.

Thats not the discussion. the tactics were of no concern you asked I answered. 25000 zulu ignored 1000rds per ie walked thru lead with no fear and little cover armed with spears and sticks . This is a coomon out come at many first encounters. Fire arms project fear to the uninitiated. Those with out fear understand mind over matter . When you dont matter you wont mind .

[BeeGuy]

If you guys can't present a level headed discussion on the subject to people who already own firearms, how do you plan to engage the rest of Canadians who have no need or familiarity with them?

Choosing your spokespeople more deliberately may be a good first step.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

"and with a cavalcade of no heart ,bunngle, ex m plr, RF and such with there smooth use of the lanuage that day will never come .... thankfully in canda we realy dont have much to fear, unless we go looking."


Typical!! Bring out the insults but whine about being insulted.

And since English seems to be your second language, let me help with my smooth skills.

Language has a "g", otherwise it means nothing. You're in Canada now. Show enough respect to at least capitalize it and spell it correctly.

Realy. Really?? Dont has one of those airborn commas in it to denote a second word like so "don't". It's a contraction for do not.

Oh and the Zulus with the pointy sticks were fighting the Brits, correct?

Learn some and get back to us, or not.

What insult ?? Oh your history match exmplers ...the dutch ,the french, Iiirc the Portuguese and yes finally the brits. You know the guys that burnt down the white house, the guy that pushed a foreign invader from canadas shores. Yea those guys oh ya and saved the world from speaking french.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

If you guys can't present a level headed discussion on the subject to people who already own firearms, how do you plan to engage the rest of Canadians who have no need or familiarity with them?

Choosing your spokespeople more deliberately may be a good first step.

I did. The fact that we disagree does not make it less than level headed.

There are goofballs on both sides. They tend to squawk the loudest.

Immovable object, meet unstoppable force. Time to call it a night.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Thats not the discussion. the tactics were of no concern you asked I answered. 25000 zulu ignored 1000rds per ie walked thru lead with no fear and little cover armed with spears and sticks . This is a coomon out come at many first encounters. Fire arms project fear to the uninitiated. Those with out fear understand mind over matter . When you dont matter you wont mind .

I also asked why your highly trained mate would need to carry a firearm to provide security in a peaceful country where no one has guns on the street.

Could he not provide security by the same means that you recommend we use.

Why do police in this peaceful country carry side arms when they have many other means of protection.

Do they wear bullet proof vests because they fear being shot by other police officers, who else carries guns in public.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by 3blade

I did. The fact that we disagree does not make it less than level headed.

There are goofballs on both sides. They tend to squawk the loudest.

Immovable object, meet unstoppable force. Time to call it a night.

See what seems to miss many is were on the same side the ones that want rid of gins is the other side . The fact I like the idea of no ccw or higher levels of training does not an anti make ..simply a realist . Those that want the US system should perhas go live in those places for a while (as I have ) then come back look round and see why were not like that .

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

I also asked why your highly trained mate would need to carry a firearm to provide security in a peaceful country where no one has guns on the street.

Could he not provide security by the same means that you recommend we use.

Why do police in this peaceful country carry side arms when they have many other means of protection.

Do they wear bullet proof vests because they fear being shot by other police officers, who else carries guns in public.

I will not discuss my friend further it is none of your buisness. The 5w's of his ccw is not up for discussion . Sorry .
The police are there to enter the 1% of harms way this great country isolates the general public from. So they kik down doors, they enter conflict they are the pointy end of the stick . See the difference. We dont expect our citizens to engage conflict ie peaceful folk to the 99th% the ploice deal with the other 1% equiped to deal with conflict.

[Big Daddy Badger]

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.

My main concern with the ideas expressed above are that I have no confidence that individuals who do not have a firm understanding of their rights with respect to self defense as they stand now... (as evidenced in the text above)... cannot be trusted to act appropriately if given even further latitude.

Besides.. it takes more than target practice to make someone an effective shooter of men.
Most folks can't do it without considerable conditioning... no matter how sure they are in advance...when the time comes they disappoint themselves.

I do not object to open carry where and when appropriate if an individual is suitable trained and that training remains ongoing.
I do not object to any licensed person carrying a sidearm in the back country or on their property for protection of life or for pest control.
I do not feel that an ATT should be required to go to any range in Canada or for that matter if someone wishes to visit a country friend and shoot tin cans in his field.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

I will not discuss my friend further it is none of your buisness. The 5w's of his ccw is not up for discussion . Sorry .
The police are there to enter the 1% of harms way this great country isolates the general public from. So they kik down doors, they enter conflict they are the pointy end of the stick . See the difference. We dont expect our citizens to engage conflict ie peaceful folk to the 99th% the ploice deal with the other 1% equiped to deal with conflict.

It is you who have said over and over guns are not needed to resolve a conflict if I encounter a member of the 1% on the street because there are many other ways.

Why do the police need guns to deal with that same 1%, why can't they deal with them the same way you expect me to.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

See what seems to miss many is were on the same side the ones that want rid of gins is the other side . The fact I like the idea of no ccw or higher levels of training does not an anti make ..simply a realist . Those that want the US system should perhas go live in those places for a while (as I have ) then come back look round and see why were not like that .

How did you make it out of the U.S. alive with all of those people carrying guns in public.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by bobalong

You suggest that you don have the rational or control to approach or confront someone with a firearm, this does NOT mean that everyone is like that


These posts of yours have so many contradictions in them, it is not clear what you are even trying to say???

Actually I think his narrative tells us that he isn't either.

He committed to an action but failed to follow-through.

I'm sure that he is convinced that it is because he recognized the kid but I expect that the reality is that he stopped before that happened....and that is the difference between lying to yourself and knowing what you are truly capable of.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

My main concern with the ideas expressed above are that I have no confidence that individuals who do not have a firm understanding of their rights with respect to self defense as they stand now... (as evidenced in the text above)... cannot be trusted to act appropriately if given even further latitude.

Besides.. it takes more than target practice to make someone an effective shooter of men.
Most folks can't do it without considerable conditioning... no matter how sure they are in advance...when the time comes they disappoint themselves.

I do not object to open carry where and when appropriate if an individual is suitable trained and that training remains ongoing.
I do not object to any licensed person carrying a sidearm in the back country or on their property for protection of life or for pest control.
I do not feel that an ATT should be required to go to any range in Canada or for that matter if someone wishes to visit a country friend and shoot tin cans in his field.

Pretty much where I stand as well.

Take a look at the common sense poll. It is abundantly clear that the majority of people on the forum feel that common sense is lacking in most of society.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

It is you who have said over and over guns are not needed to resolve a conflict if I encounter a member of the 1% on the street because there are many other ways.

Why do the police need guns to deal with that same 1%, why can't they deal with them the same way you expect me to.

Oh get me a worthy opponent . TRAINING thats what seperates those that can from those that cant .. I cant even walk on a lease in opperation with out training . They have a engagment standard. You are not expected to enter conflict . Unless behind your front door. You are not sworn to protect you have no burden out side your front door. so now your addmiting the 1% is that correct . do your wear a helmet when you drive It would increase your rate of survival in event of a crash

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Pretty much where I stand as well.

Take a look at the common sense poll. It is abundantly clear that the majority of people on the forum feel that common sense is lacking in most of society.

For some reason people think that a gun on their hip will solve their problems but the fact is... most of em might as well be packing a banana for all the good it will do them.

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

If you guys can't present a level headed discussion on the subject to people who already own firearms, how do you plan to engage the rest of Canadians who have no need or familiarity with them?

Choosing your spokespeople more deliberately may be a good first step.

I kinda hate that I am agreeing with you in a thread if this nature.


This is why I started a thread with the intention of taking the CCW out of the handgun legislation discussion. It's not realistic to be pushing for it now, so why do we let it invariably dominate the conversation when handguns come up?

It always, without fail, turns into what we have gotten into here. Two or three members getting into a ridiculous circular debate using wild hypotheticals and barely relatable history.

If you are against firearms currently classed 'restricted' having the same storage, transport, and usage regulations as a 'Non-restricted', please explain in a clear, concise manner, why you feel that way.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

How did you make it out of the U.S. alive with all of those people carrying guns in public.

In my time in GA albany recived the "murder capital " award so I guess livong a little over an hour away I got lucky. Rugs posted a good one I just rememberd the us has 600 accidental shootings per annum just less thsn canadas total homicides ??? The shoot more people on accident than are shot in canada. ??? Which part dont you get ..??

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Oh get me a worthy opponent . TRAINING thats what seperates those that can from those that cant .. I cant even walk on a lease in opperation with out training . They have a engagment standard. You are not expected to enter conflict . Unless behind your front door. You are not sworn to protect you have no burden out side your front door. so now your addmiting the 1% is that correct . do your wear a helmet when you drive It would increase your rate of survival in event of a crash

Did the police that tazed the guy to death in the airport have training, did they act appropriately.

So you admit there are times when the only way to resolve a conflict is with a gun, but when the average citizen is faced with that same situation that option should be taken away.

As far as the 1% goes that's all it takes to be dead.

I do wear a helmet when I drive my sled, play hockey, ride my motorcycle and wear my seat belt when I drive my truck. If I did choose to wear a helmet while driving my truck no one would stop me.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

In my time in GA albany recived the "murder capital " award so I guess livong a little over an hour away I got lucky. Rugs posted a good one I just rememberd the us has 600 accidental shootings per annum just less thsn canadas total homicides ??? The shoot more people on accident than are shot in canada. ??? Which part dont you get ..??

More lives are saved by using guns in self defense in the U.S. than in Canada.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

In my time in GA albany recived the "murder capital " award so I guess livong a little over an hour away I got lucky. Rugs posted a good one I just rememberd the us has 600 accidental shootings per annum just less thsn canadas total homicides ??? The shoot more people on accident than are shot in canada. ??? Which part dont you get ..??

With that logic, I live 1.5 hours from Edmonton and haven't gotten stabbed, there for Edmonton doesn't have a murder problem.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

For some reason people think that a gun on their hip will solve their problems but the fact is... most of em might as well be packing a banana for all the good it will do them.

It would be as dangerous as a banana to the rest of the public as well.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

More lives are saved by using guns in self defense in the U.S. than in Canada.

No there is not , because we dont need saved very often in a population of 30mill. A shooting in canada makes national news. In the us it rates behind the sports head lines in that city. Us 30000 shooting deaths vs on avaverage less than 1000 total homicides in canada how clear can it be ÷the us total by ten for correct population comparison its 3X more than total killings in canada . How can that system be better????
Sorry big V The ignorance blinds me. your idea is great ,yes in a rural setting as a tool firearms have a place beside the wrench. In the home with stringent storage requirements as posted by CT . you have a good working idea however when we throw the bungler and exempler who equate protection with firearms I can't get on side. Mental evaluation.... oh but then I might not pass

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

With that logic, I live 1.5 hours from Edmonton and haven't gotten stabbed, there for Edmonton doesn't have a murder problem.

No that is me replying to exempler. His logic, my answer. Does edmonton have a stabbing problem ?? How many are talking one a week , one a day ..five on fridays ?? Thats not a problem thats a good story ...

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

No that is me replying to exempler. His logic, my answer. Does edmonton have a stabbing problem ?? How many are talking one a week , one a day ..five on fridays ?? Thats not a problem thats a good story ...

So being deemed the murder capital of Canada is not an issue, just a good story?

[Gust]

Originally Posted by expmler

More lives are saved by using guns in self defense in the U.S. than in Canada.

You need to post facts too; please prove your point. I'm not saying you're wrong but facts/findings/reports are really good in important discussions like this one (newspapers are ok but they are agenda based).