Carrying of sidearms

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Maybe not a psyche test but a more in depth back ground check could be part of the screening.

Another bureaucratic rubber stamp process won't solve anything. People lie as needed.

Out of curiosity what would you ask specifically to remove any concerns?

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Another bureaucratic rubber stamp process won't solve anything. People lie as needed.

Out of curiosity what would you ask specifically to remove any concerns?

I don't have a answer but I would think a more in depth back ground check would be fair. No criminal/or violent tendancies would be a start. I realize people lie as needed and I don't think there is a fool proof way to make sure only the good have guns.
Maybe make the bad more accountable for their actions as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I don't have a answer but I would think a more in depth back ground check would be fair. No criminal/or violent tendancies would be a start. I realize people lie as needed and I don't think there is a fool proof way to make sure only the good have guns.
Maybe make the bad more accountable for their actions as well.

It is probably the toughest point. Many want no checks.

So someone who feels the government is out to get them and are prepping...should they get a permit? People that believe the CIA blew up the twin towers on 9/11... Should they get a permit? Anyone with financial distress or martial troubles...should they get a permit! Anyone on drugs of any kind...should they get a permit? Should certain religious groups get permits? If you belong to Any group that advocates for violence get a permit? Should you have to disclose all you blog posts such that any anti social tendencies may stand out?

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Help me out Badger. I don't understand where I'm inconsistent.
In my experiences the average Canadian is more apt to be a victim of a criminal occurance then winning a lottery.
The average law abiding citizen would not become a instant gunfighter with the intent on shooting someone that makes him/her angry because they've got a firearm on their person.

Well, specifically the two inconsistent statements are:

"Now if somebody knocks on his door or mine they'll be greeted with something more than a smile.
As far as I'm concerned you can take your propabilities and shove them up that bald spot underneath your tail bone."

and

"Joe Blow the average Canadian has no intention of killing anyone. I don't think Joe would think any different if he had a gun or not."

which says to me that in the first statement you greet people warily, based on what your dad went through, and that you are not fond of statistics; then in the second statement you seem to indicate that the average (indicating some kind of statistical generalization) Canadian is a good person, whom one need not be alarmed by, out of hand.

What am I missing?

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

It is probably the toughest point. Many want no checks.

So someone who feels the government is out to get them and are prepping...should they get a permit? People that believe the CIA blew up the twin towers on 9/11... Should they get a permit? Anyone with financial distress or martial troubles...should they get a permit! Anyone on drugs of any kind...should they get a permit? Should certain religious groups get permits? If you belong to Any group that advocates for violence get a permit? Should you have to disclose all you blog posts such that any anti social tendencies may stand out?

I can't say for sure. I do believe that as a law abiding citizen I should have every right to protect myself and others in any way a responsible person would deem fit. If the people or groups you've mentioned above are deemed responsible then by all means they should be able to carry. I think past history shows if a person is responsible or not. Obviously the person who has a room reserved at the alberta hospital wouldn't be deemed fit but the majority of us that have a history of gainfully contributing to society should have the option to carry or not.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I don't have a answer but I would think a more in depth back ground check would be fair. No criminal/or violent tendancies would be a start. I realize people lie as needed and I don't think there is a fool proof way to make sure only the good have guns.
Maybe make the bad more accountable for their actions as well.

I would say that the system we have now works pretty well as far as keeping handguns away from criminals goes. (I think murders with handguns is about .3\100,000.)

Not so much because of the restrictions on use, but more because of the restrictive system of obtaining handguns. The people going through the process to own a handgun are not committing crimes with those handguns.

Now add on training in use/proficiency and use of force laws to be eligible for a carry license.

Those who own handguns now would not be more prone to commit crime with their guns simply because they are carrying.

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

Well, specifically the two inconsistent statements are:

"Now if somebody knocks on his door or mine they'll be greeted with something more than a smile.
As far as I'm concerned you can take your propabilities and shove them up that bald spot underneath your tail bone."

and

"Joe Blow the average Canadian has no intention of killing anyone. I don't think Joe would think any different if he had a gun or not."

which says to me that in the first statement you greet people warily, based on what your dad went through, and that you are not fond of statistics; then in the second statement you seem to indicate that the average (indicating some kind of statistical generalization) Canadian is a good person, whom one need not be alarmed by, out of hand.

What am I missing?

Not the average Canadian I'd be wary of but I'll be prepared if it wasn't the average Canadian.
I've got no stats saying most people are well intentioned. Just my past experiances is what I base it on. I believe my generalization would be much the same as yours based on your experiances in life. I could be wrong. Like I said your stats are wrong with the comparation of lottery winners to crime victims.

[surhuntsalot]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

What am I missing?

You are missing the point that Law Abiding , Trained and licensed individuals should have the right to carry if they so choose. If you don't feel the need, then don't carry... Millions of Americans walk around every day without a sidearm. That is their choice, as it should be yours.

Just because it were legal, would not mean that every individual in society would run and get a CCW permit, furthermore, not everyone would not get approved. If a person were to be involved in the use of that weapon, they would still be held legally accountable for their actions. U.S citizens don't get a free pass to shoot people because they have a carry permit... One still has to be responsible and be held accountable.

The tragedy that took 8 lives in Edmonton the other day was not prevented by laws. The police weren't able to stop it. A disturbed individual, with a lengthy criminal record, who had no business being in possession of a firearm, lest a stolen handgun, was still able to obtain his means, and commit that crime. You make it sound like if there were carry laws that tragedys like this would happen on a regular basis... Can you say that there would have been no possibility that one of the 5 adults who died May have been able to intervene and possibly save a life had they been carrying ?

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by surhuntsalot

You are missing the point that Law Abiding , Trained and licensed individuals should have the right to carry if they so choose. If you don't feel the need, then don't carry... Millions of Americans walk around every day without a sidearm. That is their choice, as it should be yours.

Just because it were legal, would not mean that every individual in society would run and get a CCW permit, furthermore, not everyone would not get approved. If a person were to be involved in the use of that weapon, they would still be held legally accountable for their actions. U.S citizens don't get a free pass to shoot people because they have a carry permit... One still has to be responsible and be held accountable.

The tragedy that took 8 lives in Edmonton the other day was not prevented by laws. The police weren't able to stop it. A disturbed individual, with a lengthy criminal record, who had no business being in possession of a firearm, lest a stolen handgun, was still able to obtain his means, and commit that crime. You make it sound like if there were carry laws that tragedys like this would happen on a regular basis... Can you say that there would have been no possibility that one of the 5 adults who died May have been able to intervene and possibly save a life had they been carrying ?

I cannot offer an informed opinion on the tragedy in Edmonton the other day, nor the shooting in Calgary, or the one in Stettler. Not enough information has been released for any of us to make an informed statement with regard to how the presence or absence of a sidearm would have affected the outcome.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by surhuntsalot

You are missing the point that Law Abiding , Trained and licensed individuals should have the right to carry if they so choose. If you don't feel the need, then don't carry... Millions of Americans walk around every day without a sidearm. That is their choice, as it should be yours.


The tragedy that took 8 lives in Edmonton the other day was not prevented by laws. The police weren't able to stop it. A disturbed individual, with a lengthy criminal record, who had no business being in possession of a firearm, lest a stolen handgun, was still able to obtain his means, and commit that crime. You make it sound like if there were carry laws that tragedys like this would happen on a regular basis... Can you say that there would have been no possibility that one of the 5 adults who died May have been able to intervene and possibly save a life had they been carrying ?

Paragraph 1- people lie. They become desperate.
Paragraph 2- if if if if if if

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I can't say for sure. I do believe that as a law abiding citizen I should have every right to protect myself and others in any way a responsible person would deem fit. If the people or groups you've mentioned above are deemed responsible then by all means they should be able to carry. I think past history shows if a person is responsible or not. Obviously the person who has a room reserved at the alberta hospital wouldn't be deemed fit but the majority of us that have a history of gainfully contributing to society should have the option to carry or not.

But you see no individual In any category is likely to harm others. Harming others is very rare. So then what can be done to offset extra murders seen in the US up here in Canada.

If everyone who was afraid of a remote unlike random incidence of violence donated to a mental health charity...that could help remove more threats and further reduce the extremely low probability of violence.

There are lots of people experiencing depression...many don't report it. Also most mental illnesses are not violent to other contrary to popular opinion.

In other words what my point is you will be defacto be placing guns into the hands of those you want guns yourself to protect against.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

I cannot offer an informed opinion on the tragedy in Edmonton the other day, nor the shooting in Calgary, or the one in Stettler. Not enough information has been released for any of us to make an informed statement with regard to how the presence or absence of a sidearm would have affected the outcome.

For the 8 in Edmonton, I don't think the outcome would have been any worse if a sidearm was present.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

But you see no individual In any category is likely to harm others. Harming others is very rare. So then what can be done to offset extra murders seen in the US up here in Canada.

If everyone who was afraid of a remote unlike random incidence of violence donated to a mental health charity...that could help remove more threats and further reduce the extremely low probability of violence.

There are lots of people experiencing depression...many don't report it. Also most mental illnesses are not violent to other contrary to popular opinion.

In other words what my point is you will be defacto be placing guns into the hands of those you want guns yourself to protect against.

What stops them from getting guns now?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

Well, specifically the two inconsistent statements are:

"Now if somebody knocks on his door or mine they'll be greeted with something more than a smile.
As far as I'm concerned you can take your propabilities and shove them up that bald spot underneath your tail bone."

and

"Joe Blow the average Canadian has no intention of killing anyone. I don't think Joe would think any different if he had a gun or not."

which says to me that in the first statement you greet people warily, based on what your dad went through, and that you are not fond of statistics; then in the second statement you seem to indicate that the average (indicating some kind of statistical generalization) Canadian is a good person, whom one need not be alarmed by, out of hand.

What am I missing?

So the implication is that he has a gun and feels empowered and reacts differently mentally to those coming to his door.

It rings true because in the US there are many cases of people killing someone knocking at their door and claiming self defense.

I recall a woman knocking because her car broke down. Then getting gunned down through a locked door I also remember a child at Halloween being killed. Home owner thought the 12 year olds Halloween app,es and knocking sounded like an intent to break in. Also killed through a locked door. Both were deemed self defense under the law.

[Talking moose]

1880 cowboys and shop keeps.... Where do you fit in?
It's apparent who tames the land and who tends to the inn...Clint Eastwood and Don Knotts..... Lol, sorry. This thread sucks. It's apparent that one side will not change the other sides views an inch. We all knew this on page uno. Carry on to nowhere fast.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by expmler

What stops them from getting guns now?

Same thing that stops you and I.

In the US illegal guns are common. Up here not so much. Most illegal guns up here originate from the US.

It is true that guns are the weapon of choice in Canada and the US...it is also true that increase access to firearms in the US mean a dramatically higher murder rate there. I don't want that here.

[surhuntsalot]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Paragraph 1- people lie. They become desperate.
Paragraph 2- if if if if if if

So if people lie to obtain licenses and permits, then this is something already affecting our current process to obtain a PAL and RPAL... What would your solution to that be ? No different really than people who promise they won't Text and Drive... But people lie... They might Text while driving, and cause an accident. Would you suggest denying them a drivers license on the speculation that they might do wrong at a later point in time resulting in tragedy ?

If If If you are right, and I never need the use of a sidearm, I can live with that...

If If If you are wrong, and a sidearm could have madethe difference in protecting my life, or my families but was not available , I'm sure you will find some rational as to how it probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway...

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by surhuntsalot

So if people lie to obtain licenses and permits, then this is something already affecting our current process to obtain a PAL and RPAL... What would your solution to that be ? No different really than people who promise they won't Text and Drive... But people lie... They might Text while driving, and cause an accident. Would you suggest denying them a drivers license on the speculation that they might do wrong at a later point in time resulting in tragedy ?

If If If you are right, and I never need the use of a sidearm, I can live with that...

If If If you are wrong, and a sidearm could have madethe difference in protecting my life, or my families but was not available , I'm sure you will find some rational as to how it probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway...

Your a smart man.
Great comparism. Cell phones in Canada no doubt kill more than guns of any kind. True.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Same thing that stops you and I.

In the US illegal guns are common. Up here not so much. Most illegal guns up here originate from the US.

It is true that guns are the weapon of choice in Canada and the US...it is also true that increase access to firearms in the US mean a dramatically higher murder rate there. I don't want that here.

Exactly.

No one is advocating for easier access to handguns, the laws concerning acquiring a handgun need not change.

The only change would be that with additional training those who qualify to own a handgun under our current laws would be able to carry.

[elkhunter11]

To the posters arguing that Canadians should be able to carry handguns either in the wilderness or concealed carry, do yourself a favor, and click on the usernames of the people that are putting up the strongest opposition to this. Look at the posts made by these people, and it soon becomes apparent that these people never post about hunting or shooting. They have hundreds of posts, but none about their posts are about them hunting or shooting. That tells me that they don't hunt, they don't shoot recreationally, and they likely don't even own firearms. I asked one of these people if he even owned firearms, and he refused to even answer the question. The simple fact is that they don't want us to own firearms, and they are against any easing of the firearms regulations. As such, you are wasting your time trying to debate logically with them, it really doesn't matter what reasoning or what statistics you produce to support your position, their minds are closed , and they aren't listening.

[expmler]

Here is something interesting about gun deaths in the U.S. Of the 30,000 gun deaths in 2010 nearly 60% were suicide.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...st-gun-deaths/

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Same thing that stops you and I.

In the US illegal guns are common. Up here not so much. Most illegal guns up here originate from the US.

It is true that guns are the weapon of choice in Canada and the US...it is also true that increase access to firearms in the US mean a dramatically higher murder rate there. I don't want that here.

I don't believe comparing Can to Us crime rates are relevant. They have different demographic than us. I don't know if there is a similar sized city compared to Edmonton in the states that has similar household income and employment rate that we can compare to. I would think that the city with citizens having sidearms would have a lower crime rate than the city that doesn't. Purely speculation on my part.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by expmler

Here is something interesting about gun deaths in the U.S. Of the 30,000 gun deaths in 2010 nearly 60% were suicide.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...st-gun-deaths/

Cool. Another interesting fact.

Lots more guns ...US gun culture translates into...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ted_death_rate

Total firearms related deaths...

In Canada 2.22 people per 100,000
In US 10.3 people per 100,000

Total homicides

In Canada 0.51 per 100,000
In US 2.83 per 100,000

Total suicides

In Canada 1.6 per 100,000
In US 6.30 per 100,000

And really interesting...unintentional or accidental

In Canada 0.04 per 100,000
In US 0.3 per 100,000

Almost 10X more likely to die in an accidental shooting in the US versus Canada. Almost 6X more likely to die by gun in a murder in the US

Statistically just becoming a US style gun culture the risk to your family goes up significantly.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

I don't believe comparing Can to Us crime rates are relevant. They have different demographic than us. I don't know if there is a similar sized city compared to Edmonton in the states that has similar household income and employment rate that we can compare to. I would think that the city with citizens having sidearms would have a lower crime rate than the city that doesn't. Purely speculation on my part.

Pick another gun culture to compare against. Currently US and Canada are the closest culturally. We live on US TV.

Socially there are differences for sure. I can except it us not a one to one comparison...however we have similar crime problems.

[surhuntsalot]

As well there are roughly 37 million people in Canada versus 316 million residents of the United States. People tend to forget the difference in population when they see incidents.... I'm sure per capita they may still be higher in the US , but not as huge a difference as it appears. If you took the shootings in Alberta in the past 48 hrs, and divide it by the provincial population, I'm sure we don't look that great right now either ...

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Cool. Another interesting fact.

Lots more guns ...US gun culture translates into...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ted_death_rate

Total firearms related deaths...

In Canada 2.22 people per 100,000
In US 10.3 people per 100,000

Total homicides

In Canada 0.51 per 100,000
In US 2.83 per 100,000

Total suicides

In Canada 1.6 per 100,000
In US 6.30 per 100,000

And really interesting...unintentional or accidental

In Canada 0.04 per 100,000
In US 0.3 per 100,000

Almost 10X more likely to die in an accidental shooting in the US versus Canada. Almost 6X more likely to die by gun in a murder in the US

Statistically just becoming a US style gun culture the risk to your family goes up significantly.

Sooooo skewed.... Srry. Apple.... Meet orange.
If edmonton oilers played 100 games vs Chicago Blackhawks, you get the point.....

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To the posters arguing that Canadians should be able to carry handguns either in the wilderness or concealed carry, do yourself a favor, and click on the usernames of the people that are putting up the strongest opposition to this. Look at the posts made by these people, and it soon becomes apparent that these people never post about hunting or shooting. They have hundreds of posts, but none about their posts are about them hunting or shooting. That tells me that they don't hunt, they don't shoot recreationally, and they likely don't even own firearms. I asked one of these people if he even owned firearms, and he refused to even answer the question. The simple fact is that they don't want us to own firearms, and they are against any easing of the firearms regulations. As such, you are wasting your time trying to debate logically with them, it really doesn't matter what reasoning or what statistics you produce to support your position, their minds are closed , and they aren't listening.

The same close minded attitude is found on the other side of the fence. the majority of Canadians Do Not want to live in an armed society.

no, I do not own firearms, my father does and I use his which I will most likely inherit.

my father taught me that recreational shooting is wasteful. if your gun fires true, then it's good until the next time you want it to put dinner in front of you. that logic works for me. I hadn't fired a gun in over a decade, but still dropped my first whitetail with 1 round.

I've been on the hunting section here, it can be more of a gong show then general at times. posted up pictures of my first whitetail. got a couple congrats and a handful of views. thought about keeping the antlers for a mount, then decided against dragging animals remains around as I've moved quite a bit and will most likely move around some more.
I'm not big into hunting, only camo I own is the hat I got from my first skydive, camo was all they had. I hunt to eat. between dad, myself and his hunting buddy who all share in the work(when I'm up there anyways)and rewards we've got more then enough for me not to put in draws for this past season, next season I may start building moose priority as it would fit with what those two got going on but really it's not for me. I would like to get an elk for the freezer, but dads not really into it, and it's not something that motivates me to go out of my way for. the costs don't match the reward for me, but to each their own.
so just because we're not active in the other forums don't assume we have nothing to do with the sport. it just doesn't drive us like it does you.

This thread is not about hunting nor is it about recreational shooting. it's about some peoples desire to live in an armed society and those who do not want to live in an armed society.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Ok.

So go back to my earlier post and let's directly talk about facts. Average peoples concerns.

You don't want to talk about facts. If you did you would speak to the state of Vermont which has almost no laws on fire arms and a lower murder rate than most Canadian provinces. Or You would talk about the District of Columbia, the city of New York, and the city of Chicago which have very restrictive gun laws and a far higher murder rate than you would ever find in Canada.

[norwestalta]

Wild and free I think what he was getting at is some of these people are afraid of guns due to lack of understanding or ignorance. Even you should be able to agree that people kill people not guns.
People already have guns so are we not a armed society?

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by silver

You don't want to talk about facts. If you did you would speak to the state of Vermont which has almost no laws on fire arms and a lower murder rate than most Canadian provinces. Or You would talk about the District of Columbia, the city of New York, and the city of Chicago which have very restrictive gun laws and a far higher murder rate than you would ever find in Canada.

understanding the nature of power in the US will illuminate you as to why those three cities have restrictive gun laws and high crime, and why Vermont is not as important to maintain control over the citizenry.