Would you carry?

[stuckincity]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If an individual is really that deranged, what makes you think that he won't feel the same way if you are carrying a rifle, or a shotgun?

I'd HOPE to have the courage to drop the rifle or shotgun and tell him "If you're so tough, come here and prove it!"

Sure, I might get killed, but I also might get run over by a bus tomorrow or t-boned by some so-called "driver" and not survive.

All we can do is "play the odds" in everyday life.

[JTRED]

I would really like to be able to carry a small .22 for grouse and rabbits when I'm out hunting big game. I already have a rifle handy so I don't see the need for any more bear protection than that. But to be able to bring home/back to camp a few more grouse would be great. I'm not interested in the 40 cal minimum though, if that were one of the requirements then no I wouldn't be interested.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

yeah no one ever gets murdered, raped, or assaulted in Canada.

Well, no one I know, out of the blue just walking down the street. It's just not that dangerous out there. I haven't been threatened with violence since, oh, grade 7.

I have nothing against handguns, just not worth the expense given my assessment of the risks. I don't own one now and wouldn't even if I could carry one around.

[elkhunter11]

I'd HOPE to have the courage to drop the rifle or shotgun and tell him "If you're so tough, come here and prove it!"

And what would prevent you from doing the exact same thing, if you were carrying a sidearm instead?

[fish gunner]

How many wildlife encounters have occured in a deadly out come for a human say in the last sixty years versus firearm accidents. So no,pistols for me . Absurd imo other hunters are far more lightly to kill an other hunter than any wild animal .more guns would increase that number.

[elkhunter11]

Absurd imo other hunters are far more lightly to kill an other hunter than any wild animal

Do you really believe that?Have you ever killed a wild animal? Have you ever killed another hunter?

There are over 100,000 hunters in Alberta, yet hunting fatalities due to accidental shootings are quite uncommon in Alberta.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by openroad

No way... One guy has a run in with a bear and a bunch of alarmist what to
carry handguns in the bush... little pathetic if you ask me..

Welcome to the forum. Elkhunter was spot on noting that this isn't a reactionary opinion following this particular incident, its from the cumulative incidents. You can not carry already, feel free to continue doing so. There are those among us who prefer our rights less restricted by illogical bureaucrats.

Fly-fishermen, bowhunters, hikers with or without their young children along; all have legitimate reasons to want to protect themselves and a long gun might be somewhat burdensome. If carrying a defender style shotgun is legal, and it is neither particularly more nor less lethal than a handgun (closer to more, truth be told), then where does the big divide in morality come from? Is the small firearm too scary to put into words or something? Nonsensical claptrap, that is.

[billie]

You can carry an air pistol for grouse. My 22cal pump is more than enough.

[MtnGiant]

Hand to claw/fang battles are no biggy.

Sometimes a friendly wink works too.

I'll carry a sidearm thanks.

[oddsix]

Nope no pistol for me. Pepper is proven to work on 4 legged critters and in a pinch can be used for 2 legged predators too.

[ForwardBias]

The only way i would get behind this is if they increased the penalty for infractions.(regards to wilderness carry). I never want to see open, or concealed carry in this country. I am a pistol owner, and like the rules as is.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by ForwardBias

I am a pistol owner, and like the rules as is.

I can actually see one rule change that I don't think would impact public safety a whit. Allow handgun owners to discharge on their own property if allowed by the municipality. I can't for the life of me see the risk in an owner shooting a few rounds on his own quarter section.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Do you really believe that?Have you ever killed a wild animal? Have you ever killed another hunter?

There are over 100,000 hunters in Alberta, yet hunting fatalities due to accidental shootings are quite uncommon in Alberta.

More or less common than wild animal attacks on hunters. To answer yes, yes , no but one shot at me .
In thirty years with thousands and thousands of hours back country living and playing I have never had an attack scenario with a bear grizz or black. I have near shook hand with a blackie and have encounters under 50' with a grizz . Use the grey between the ears and 99% of bear encounters are harmless. The one % that go the other way good luck and kiss it good bye. The out come you wish for is such a small % of such an isolated encounter. The odds are in the favor of more hunting accidents not more hunters saved from bears.

[ForwardBias]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I can actually see one rule change that I don't think would impact public safety a whit. Allow handgun owners to discharge on their own property if allowed by the municipality. I can't for the life of me see the risk in an owner shooting a few rounds on his own quarter section.

Okay there is one rule i dont like. haha. Good point man.

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

Those rules have to stay or we would end up like the US.

Wow, forecasts the future, can I get in on some lottery tickets with you.

Strange but we didn't become like America when we could carry any where in this nation. (from 1867 to 1930 ish) We didn't even have a high crime rate.

If memory serves correct our first gun control measure was on sidearms but not because of crime or murder rates or a fear of becoming America.

I believe the government of the day feared ethnic uprisings and sought to disarm the masses. Chinese Canadians got the vote in 1947. Black Canadians were not accepted into the military in fighting roles until WW2. The first anti discrimination act on the books was Ontario in 1944. Segregation was the norm, Chinese businesses were not allowed to hire white women. Hmm maybe they had good reason to fear an uprising.

If Canada had identical rules to the US we still could not have the same issues as that nation. We are a different nation with a different culture. Gun laws would not make us like America.

Any how all this cherry picking of regulations and spin of the gun debate is kind of off topic. Questions was would carry. Yes!

Charter of rights and freedoms says we are all equal under the law. Present law says a geologist's or a trapper's life is worth protecting but a hunters is not. ???

[357mag]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

The out come you wish for is such a small % of such an isolated encounter.

Until the % chance of a negative encounter is 0, I'd like every opportunity to even the odds in every way I can. I think that goes to the heart of anyone with a desire to carry legally in Canada. The risk may be low, very very low. It's not 0.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

How many wildlife encounters have occured in a deadly out come for a human say in the last sixty years versus firearm accidents. So no,pistols for me . Absurd imo other hunters are far more lightly to kill an other hunter than any wild animal .more guns would increase that number.

The short guns are very scary.

The black ones are even more scary.

Absurd to think that a guy that can handle a gun safely will suddenly cause "accidents" if he is carrying a different firearm.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by MK2750

The short guns are very scary.

The black ones are even more scary.

Absurd to think that a guy that can handle a gun safely will suddenly cause "accidents" if he is carrying a different firearm.

See avitar, no pea shooter will get a flinch . How about the ones that already make poor choices. What my point is,this poll is in responce to a tiny % of actual bear encounters > 1% now just for arguments sake use EH11 100'000 hunters, what are canadas deaths from hand gun accident per. Versus wild animal deaths per . So the odds favor more accidents not lives saved from wildlife. Simple really.

[elkhunter11]

Charter of rights and freedoms says we are all equal under the law.

The biggest lie in the charter is

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Canada has laws, that by their very nature are racist. For example, a person of one race, can engage in activities, that would be illegal for a person of another race to engage in. As well, the taxation laws are different for different races.

The charter uses the nonsense below as an excuse.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[elkhunter11]

What my point is,this poll is in responce to a tiny % of actual bear encounters > 1% now just for arguments sake use EH11 100'000 hunters, what are canadas deaths from hand gun accident per. Versus wild animal deaths per . So the odds favor more accidents not lives saved from wildlife. Simple really.

To make the stats relate to your claim, lets look at the total number of firearms accidents per year in Canada, per those same 100,000 people.

Using the data below

http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm

So we have 63 accidental fatalities due to firearms for 34,000,000 Canadians. That translates to .003 fatal accidents per year for each 100,000 people, or one accidental firearms death every 333 years. And that is for all firearms, not just for handguns. How many Alberta hunters do you suppose have been killed by wild animals in the last 333 years? And that fails to take into account that the number of Alberta hunters has grown significantly in the past 333 years.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To make the stats relate to your claim, lets look at the total number of firearms accidents per year in Canada, per those same 100,000 people.

Using the data below

http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm

So we have 63 accidental fatalities due to firearms for 34,000,000 Canadians. That translates to .003 fatal accidents per year for those same 100,000 people, or one accidental firearms death every 333 years. And that is for all firearms, not just for handguns.

Oh your one sided, what about wildlife attack. lol, I found 80 odd since 1950 by bears. In all of north america. Lol so with my poor math skills odds still favor gun accedents not bear attacks.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To make the stats relate to your claim, lets look at the total number of firearms accidents per year in Canada, per those same 100,000 people.

Using the data below

http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm

So we have 63 accidental fatalities due to firearms for 34,000,000 Canadians. That translates to .003 fatal accidents per year for each 100,000 people, or one accidental firearms death every 333 years. And that is for all firearms, not just for handguns. How many Alberta hunters do you suppose have been killed by wild animals in the last 333 years? And that fails to take into account that the number of Alberta hunters has grown significantly in the past 333 years.

You really need to work on your research, cause I found three in alberta directly related to hunting in the last five years.now ill see how many from bears and other wild life.

[TheRealDeal]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The biggest lie in the charter is



Canada has laws, that by their very nature are racist. For example, a person of one race, can engage in activities, that would be illegal for a person of another race to engage in. As well, the taxation laws are different for different races.

The charter uses the nonsense below as an excuse.

Its about time somebody completley changed the subject and went a totally different direction. This thread about handguns was getting way too focused on handguns, good thing you brought up indians.

Ugh.

[elkhunter11]

Oh your one sided, what about wildlife attack. lol, I found 80 odd since 1950 by bears. In all of north america. Lol so with my poor math skills odds still favor gun accedents not bear attacks.
__________________

You made the challenge, and I responded with actual data, you just don't like the results. Had the results taken into account only accidental handgun deaths per 100,000 Canadians, it would be closer to one death per thousands of years.

Its about time somebody completley changed the subject and went a totally different direction. This thread about handguns was getting way too focused on handguns, good thing you brought up indians.

I was responding to a statement made by a previous poster. I see no mention of any specific race in my post.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

See avitar, no pea shooter will get a flinch . How about the ones that already make poor choices. What my point is,this poll is in responce to a tiny % of actual bear encounters > 1% now just for arguments sake use EH11 100'000 hunters, what are canadas deaths from hand gun accident per. Versus wild animal deaths per . So the odds favor more accidents not lives saved from wildlife. Simple really.

How did we get to a point where it someones decision, outside of the individual, on how one defends ones self.

Imagine if I said to you 150 years ago that I will decide what you choose to defend yourself or family.

"There only an estimated 50 grizzly between here and Montana so pass over your firearm. It is more likely you shoot yourself than a bear!"

The danger, be it real or perceived, is irrelevant. Telling a man what he can and can't do when his life is endangered is ridiculous.

Accidents from sport happen on a daily basis. The hunting and shooting sports are some of the safest pass times one might have. You are more likely to be injured playing pool than hunting or shooting.

When you make statements that imply one object is more dangerous than another object, you inadvertently are suggesting that by eliminating an object the danger is less or even nonexistent.

Much like the Ostrich with his head in the sand, it may make you feel safer but does not change the danger from irresponsible people. The irresponsible will be in the woods with firearms, checking from behind in hockey, unleashing pit-bulls in the park and driving pick up trucks down crowded streets. Just because you're paranoid enough to speak out against the responsible use of a firearm doesn't mean they aren't going to get you.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You made the challenge, and I responded with actual data, you just don't like the results. Had the results taken into account only accidental handgun deaths per 100,000 Canadians, it would be closer to one death per thousands of years.



I was responding to a statement made by a previous poster. I see no mention of any specific race in my post.

Is that because we have not carried hand guns since roughly the 30's oh the irony .point taken . Canada with very restrictive hand gun laws leaves the odds of hand gun deaths in the most remotest of possibilities per thousand years. Lol thanks lol.

[Ryry4]

Never fails when this question comes up. Why are so many guys out there scared to allow a guy to carry a pistol but have no issue with those same people carrying a rifle?

[Chet]

I would carry the big iron on the hip quite regularly... grizz country, hockey game, church...... wherever they would let me.

[SkytopBrewster]

Only 70% for carry, that's pretty surprising, thought it would be more like 90%.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

Only 70% for carry, that's pretty surprising, thought it would be more like 90%.

Too many people scared of the little guns. I'm amazed how well the social engeneering has worked in Canada to make people scared of handguns and people with handguns. It's sad really.