NOT a CCW thread

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

The Magna Carta was written so long ago most people are unaware of it. Kind of like how I had to look up Berger and Hair.

How can anyone be unaware of the Magna Carta??

And you should change your handle to Berger.

[wags]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

'I intended to go to thee range after work and fire my pistol. Since my office is on the other side of the city from my home, and the range is close to my office, I brought my pistol with me. Due to the high occurance of theft from vehicles in parkades, I do not feel comfortable leaving a firearm unattended in the vehicle, and that is why it was on my person when I was attacked'

Understanding that there's a convenience to what you propose, my legitimate questions (simply because I don't know the laws around it) would be, can you do this exact thing now, but replaced pistol with rifle?

Originally Posted by raab

If we were truly free would it be a big deal to wear a firearm in public? Basically by saying people shouldn't be able to wear them in public because something could happen you are judging the person/group before they've had a fault. It's akin to me saying I don't think people should be allowed to drive because they might get drunk, speed, not follow the laws and kill someone.

I see it slightly differently. If it's to be viewed as "what's best for the greater good", then it would be more comparative of having a speed limit of 80 on a major artery (Anthony Henday as an example) when 120 can be driven and not necessarily increase the amount of deaths due to bad driving. If it were that you cant drive because of the above mentioned, then the comparative would simply be - no guns period.

From this side of the line, as I've mentioned, my support related to pistols would be for what you can more or less do with rifles/shotguns now - protection in the wild, protection on your land, protection in your home. I question the validity of pistols being a true hunting tool, without any merit of being a hunter, just my thoughts. I will say that the video posted earlier this year, which I suspect most here have viewed, of the man on the skidoo using a pistol as a tool of protection against the moose, did not sit well with me. The debate aside of whether his actions were necessary or not, it seemed for a lack of better words, barbaric.

With that said, not in public.

Cheers

[220swifty]

Well put W&F. That closely parallels what I was thinking when I started the thread. I believe that the personal defense angle of handguns isn't necessarily the angle we want to take when trying to sway public opinion. The less exciting, but more practical, plinking, hunting, and target shooting uses are the angles we need to work.

I would also like to agree that increasing our numbers would be a good tactic. To show the government a strong voting base is a way to get their ear. If everyone with an RPAL bought a pistol, even if it was a $150 cheapie they had no intent on ever firing, it would make a statement. Perhaps we could get some clubs in on this. Package up a bottom tier range membership with a bargain priced pistol just to get more people owning legal handguns. Places like RDSC, CSC and Phoenix come to mind.

Any other ideas.

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by wags

Understanding that there's a convenience to what you propose, my legitimate questions (simply because I don't know the laws around it) would be, can you do this exact thing now, but replaced pistol with rifle?


Cheers

Absolutely, provided your office building/company doesn't have it's own policy about you bringing in your gun.

[Wild&Free]

Hunting with hand guns would draw attention from some animal groups and 2 fronts is typically not a good idea.

though I remember watching a cougar hunt show shot in the US where they used hand guns on treed cats. seemed more practical to me. Buddy shooting the moose on the skidoo though that set that back.

consider what duty you'd think fair in legislation to have the right to hunt with a hand gun that would make the anti's feel safe. I remember seeing in the regs that you had to be a certain distance from an atv to shoot a pronghorn the inverse could be applied to handguns perhaps, and limited species with seasons...

But to get to hunt with them, gotta get the usage thing cleared up first. separate Acts.

[wags]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

Absolutely, provided your office building/company doesn't have it's own policy about you bringing in your gun.

Fair enough, although I've never seen it, it would certainly make me do a double take. Obviously the pistol could be far more discreet - I probably wouldn't want to be bragging it up lol.

Cheers

[220swifty]

Hunting with handguns wouldn't initially attract a large number of hunters, but it is one of two ways the general public views shooting (of any discipline) as legitimate. The other type of shooting is target, to which they can easily rebutt 'well you do that at a range, and you can already use handguns on ranges, so why do we need to change the law?'

Hunting, from what I understand, might be our best bet, as we can challenge it at a provincial level. Federal politicians have said that hunting areas aren't listed on an ATT because no jurisdiction in Canada allows it. SRD says it isn't allowed because the Feds won't allow handguns in the bush anyways.

If we could convince the province to write into law that handguns may be used to hunt, so long as all firearms act requirements are met, then perhaps it would open a door for changes at the federal level, allowing CFO's to grant ATT's to any property where hunting can legally take place. Just another angle to look at.


This seems to have turned into a productive talk. I hope it can carry on this way.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

Hunting with handguns wouldn't initially attract a large number of hunters, but it is one of two ways the general public views shooting (of any discipline) as legitimate. The other type of shooting is target, to which they can easily rebutt 'well you do that at a range, and you can already use handguns on ranges, so why do we need to change the law?'

Hunting, from what I understand, might be our best bet, as we can challenge it at a provincial level. Federal politicians have said that hunting areas aren't listed on an ATT because no jurisdiction in Canada allows it. SRD says it isn't allowed because the Feds won't allow handguns in the bush anyways.

If we could convince the province to write into law that handguns may be used to hunt, so long as all firearms act requirements are met, then perhaps it would open a door for changes at the federal level, allowing CFO's to grant ATT's to any property where hunting can legally take place. Just another angle to look at.


This seems to have turned into a productive talk. I hope it can carry on this way.

Would not a pistol have to meet the .24 velocity /energy restrictions long guns face also .

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Would not a pistol have to meet the .24 velocity /energy restrictions long guns face also .

What velocity/energy restrictions.
Rifles simply need to be .23 calibre or greater, and centre fire.
I can legally hunt with a 44 mag or 38 spl carbine.

I see what you are alluding to, though, and agree that there would have to be some sort of way to ensure adequate firepower for the target species was being used.

[raab]

Originally Posted by wags

Understanding that there's a convenience to what you propose, my legitimate questions (simply because I don't know the laws around it) would be, can you do this exact thing now, but replaced pistol with rifle?



I see it slightly differently. If it's to be viewed as "what's best for the greater good", then it would be more comparative of having a speed limit of 80 on a major artery (Anthony Henday as an example) when 120 can be driven and not necessarily increase the amount of deaths due to bad driving. If it were that you cant drive because of the above mentioned, then the comparative would simply be - no guns period.

From this side of the line, as I've mentioned, my support related to pistols would be for what you can more or less do with rifles/shotguns now - protection in the wild, protection on your land, protection in your home. I question the validity of pistols being a true hunting tool, without any merit of being a hunter, just my thoughts. I will say that the video posted earlier this year, which I suspect most here have viewed, of the man on the skidoo using a pistol as a tool of protection against the moose, did not sit well with me. The debate aside of whether his actions were necessary or not, it seemed for a lack of better words, barbaric.

With that said, not in public.

Cheers

Problem is with Non-Restricted you can walk down Jasper ave if you wanted without it encased as long as it's not concealed. There's nothing illegal stopping you from doing it, although you may have a run in with EPS. So if you say you want it the same as long arms then an open carry permit would make sense.

[wags]

Originally Posted by raab

Problem is with Non-Restricted you can walk down Jasper ave if you wanted without it encased as long as it's not concealed. There's nothing illegal stopping you from doing it, although you may have a run in with EPS. So if you say you want it the same as long arms then an open carry permit would make sense.

But I didn't say that. I said "for what you can more or less do with long arms now - protection in the wild, protection on your land, protection in your home...With that said, not in public."

If the current law is that there's nothing illegal with walking down Jasper Avenue with a gun, then I would say that I don't support that law. If everyone who could exercise their rights under the that law did exercise their rights, I would really be avoiding Jasper Avenue. Not only would the business sector of Jasper Avenue not appreciate the decline in potential customers, as others like myself would also avoid the area, I'm sure the idea of people with guns outside their stores everywhere would cause thoughts of perhaps relocating to a different area. This continues a ripple effect that will ultimately leave someone in the end very unhappy with their financial returns for what used to be a lucrative investment.

How much validity there is to what I say above is irrelevant to the final point. That this is all aside to the fact that there would simply be public outcry.

I will admit I do not know all the laws around guns, very few really. I've learned more from 220swifty in a few weeks than I've known in my life. I just know how I feel.

As 220 mentioned earlier, you're allowed to be your gun to work, providing there's no company policies against it. How common place is the actual practice? I would have to think it's very limited, because even for those that support the gun argument, common sense says, guns at work aren't a good idea. The same would apply to Jasper Avenue and the likes.

I am, however, shocked those laws exist.

Cheers

[expmler]

Handgun hunting would probably come up against the same irrational opposition that being able to hunt varmints with your AR does. Maybe we start there.

[Wild&Free]

transport and usage restrictions currently prevent hunting. I see the hunting aspect a separate issue to address, one that faces major obstacles. there are many outdoor related regulations that don't make sense but the government and bureaucrats won't budge on, like 2 lines through the ice is illegal in BC, but you can have 2 rods in the water on a boat if youre alone.

should focus on the federal level, federal supercedes provincial, consider the barbless hook regulation.

[wags]

Originally Posted by expmler

Handgun hunting would probably come up against the same irrational opposition that being able to hunt varmints with your AR does. Maybe we start there.

Again, insulting my intelligence will not gain you favor from this side of the debate.

My opposition to what you believe in is no different than your opposition to what I believe in. As such, either they're both irrational, or simply different sides of the debate. Since irrational, in the context of your statement, is used as an insult, how about we just say the opposite view, and not have 'us' be upset at 'you', and instead, have a civilized debate and discussion.

It can't be all that irrational if that many people feel that way.

Cheers

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by raab

Problem is with Non-Restricted you can walk down Jasper ave if you wanted without it encased as long as it's not concealed. There's nothing illegal stopping you from doing it, although you may have a run in with EPS. So if you say you want it the same as long arms then an open carry permit would make sense.

Can it have a loaded mag?

[raab]

Originally Posted by wags

But I didn't say that. I said "for what you can more or less do with long arms now - protection in the wild, protection on your land, protection in your home...With that said, not in public."

If the current law is that there's nothing illegal with walking down Jasper Avenue with a gun, then I would say that I don't support that law. If everyone who could exercise their rights under the that law did exercise their rights, I would really be avoiding Jasper Avenue. Not only would the business sector of Jasper Avenue not appreciate the decline in potential customers, as others like myself would also avoid the area, I'm sure the idea of people with guns outside their stores everywhere would cause thoughts of perhaps relocating to a different area. This continues a ripple effect that will ultimately leave someone in the end very unhappy with their financial returns for what used to be a lucrative investment.

How much validity there is to what I say above is irrelevant to the final point. That this is all aside to the fact that there would simply be public outcry.

I will admit I do not know all the laws around guns, very few really. I've learned more from 220swifty in a few weeks than I've known in my life. I just know how I feel.

As 220 mentioned earlier, you're allowed to be your gun to work, providing there's no company policies against it. How common place is the actual practice? I would have to think it's very limited, because even for those that support the gun argument, common sense says, guns at work aren't a good idea. The same would apply to Jasper Avenue and the likes.

I am, however, shocked those laws exist.

Cheers

Do you own a gun? If not what is it about the guns that you don't like?

[Wild&Free]

in a predominantly non violent society seeing armed Joe public doesn't make sense for A LOT of people. it has little to do with the gun itself, more of a social issue.

[raab]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Can it have a loaded mag?

That Im not sure on...

[220swifty]

Let me explain the 'irrational' sentiment that many gun owners feel, wags.

We feel that it is an irrational point of view because many of us have a personal familiarity with many of the semi-auto rifles that currently fall into the restricted category. We know full well that these firearms function and operate no differently than similar firearms that are non-restricted semi autos. They have, however, been classed as restricted based on a purely emotional response to there physical appearance. The AR family exemplifies this perfectly. It is functionally very similar to a mini-14, but because it comes out of the factory with a collapsible stock, flash hider and pistol grip, it was deemed 'more dangerous' than the mini-14, and subsequently made restricted, and only legal to use on a certified range.

It's unfortunate, but understandable, that the general public might hold the opinions they have of these guns. Unless you are involved in the shooting sports, and have made an effort to educate yourself on these rifles, you likely get your information from Hollywood and the media. Again, totally understandable and I wouldn't question your intelligence for thinking that way.

We all know Hollywood. I watched a movie last night that had a 9mm vaporizing the lights off a cop car at 100 yds. Shotguns throw human targets 20 feet while the shooter feels little to no recoil. Entertaining, sure. Realistic, not in the slightest. I don't think it is possible to make a fuel tank explode with a single 223 round. I know that you understand this too, on a concious level, but I would like to suggest that, on some level, these images are engrained on your subconscious, and are associated with the guns that Hollywood prefers for action movies. Those would be the AR's, handguns and other 'tactical' style guns. Known collectively by shooters as 'black guns'.

Now, we will look at the other major source of gun information. The media. The first issue we have as gun owners is that guns are NEVER reported on in a positive light. We only hear of guns in the news when something bad has happened, and never do we hear of 3 gun, IPSC, IDPA, cowboy action, etc. matches or their results. I would be interested to see what percentage of Albertans are even aware that there are active clubs for all these disciplines that meet and compete in the province regularly.

The second issue with media coverage is that they have a strong tendency to make the firearm the focal point of the story when bad things happen. How many stories are published weekly that list off key points about the firearm used. This phenomenon increases exponentially when it is an AR or a mass shooting. I lost count of the number of times I heard or read 'Bushmaster' in the weeks following Sandy Hook. I even recall a half page graphic in the Calgary Sun with a picture of the rifle and a list of 'stats'. The gun is vilified, as much or sometimes more so than the loon that was pulling the trigger.

To summarize, those of us who want to see some more legislative freedom when it comes to these firearms must first neutralize the huge PR battle that had been upon us. Hollywood, and the media, have given the public a false perception (and yes, an irrational one, not unintelligent but irrational) of what these guns are capable of, and the type of person that owns them.

If my gun collection was more diverse, I would gladly invite you out to try a few on your own. I think that real world experience would help you understand where we are coming from, and hopefully change your perception of 'black guns'

Unfortunately, I am currently without any semi autos or pistols, but perhaps another Red Deer area member might be willing to make the same offer.

[wags]

Originally Posted by raab

Do you own a gun? If not what is it about the guns that you don't like?

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

in a predominantly non violent society seeing armed Joe public doesn't make sense for A LOT of people. it has little to do with the gun itself, more of a social issue.

I do not own a gun. Have only shot them a few times in my life. I quite enjoy them to be honest.

As W&F mentions above, one point is definitely a social issue. For me personally, I am simply not convinced that they provide benefit in a public setting.

I truly feel that the amount of times that they will actually stop a tragedy is outweighed by the amount of times they'll create one.

I posted a link to a story in the Edmonton paper in a different thread. It was a story about my cousin who was attacked. These are specifically the types of incidents, which I think are for more common, where the attacker, being a coward, attacks from behind. So now we still have a woman attacked, and the perp now has a gun. I appreciate this is only one example, but as I mentioned, I see this as the more common scenerio.

I appreciate the point that criminals will get guns regardless. My point is that it's more difficult now, then it would be if everyone is carrying them. Demand will create supply. Supply will create opportunity.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Can it have a loaded mag?

In your pocket. Sure.

[CanadianReich]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

were free in Canada, no guns required to build that.

Im not American by any standard but without guns we are not free, as without guns we have no means of self defense and of more importance we have a government that dosen't trust us with guns..... which in and of itself means we are not free.

Why would the government fear its own people so much as to disarm them? Most government that disarm their people end up being "electronic police states", see Britain and Australia.

See the revised bill C30 ...i think that was it... the Vic toews "you are with us or you are with the pedophiles" bill.... revised and back in the works.

no internet privacy for us, no sir no way, RCMP need more "tools" to watch us.

I am of the mind that if we can not control our own lives, as exemplified by our ability to be permitted the human right to defend our own lives, we are not free, have no "liberty'.

People can live in a cage and be free, or be open to society free to walk roam the streets but still be enslaved.


Again, most antis will read this and accuse me of being American ized, but I held these beliefs from childhood, before I ever got into guns or knew what the internet was.

[CanadianReich]

one fellow PMd me noting the Firearms Act permits a long gun, unloaded, in the woods for self defense.

this is true

federal law


in NOVA SCOTIA provincial laws make even this illegal
http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/L...inst-coyotes/1

I've written my MLAs on it..... no reply as of yet.

Originally Posted by CanadianReich

handguns?

how about simply letting self defense be acknowledged as a right, at all, period.

you can not carry anything for protection in our country, nothing.

hell, in nova scotia you cant even carry a long gun in the woods for self defense, even with a PAL .......

(you have to pretend you are hunting, you can not use self defense as a reason)


you can not own a gun for the purpose of self defense, thats illegal for all of us, even with a PAL/ RPAL.

a woman in a high crime area can not carry pepper spray or *anything* to protect herself........


the problem here is self defense is pretty much illegal....... and IMO it comes down to international "norms and standards" thanks to the disarmament crowd at the UN.

they use their "small arms survey" data, which is junk science imo funded by governments produced by IANSA- to claim that women and children are in danger, so guns and self defense should be denied.

see wendy cukier on the news talking of polytechinqe, or womens shelters noting they need the long gun registry, to protect women and children....... this is IANSA at work- blaming every legal gun owner in Canada for the actions of a few people that have nothing to do with us, but on a global scale.

See green party, NDP, liberals...... gun control platform. See the Firearms Act, all due to IANSA's input (UN, and their Programme of Action to combat "illicit" arms (ie any gun not owned by a cop or soldier)).

Eliz May even mentions we need to abide by the UN standards and live up to our end.

The war on self defense is a global one.

So long as CFO dictate who gets to CCW it will never happen. So long as RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police dictate policy to our MLAs and MPs (these groups are also influenced by or part of IANSA (aka Coalition for Gun Control here in CAnada)) dont count on CCW in Canada any time soon.......... actually, count on a total handgun ban, semi auto ban, and eventually a ban on pump action firearms and centerfire firearms afterward.


Wont list any sources, google some of my keywords for few hours and youll find plenty


Best we can hope for is our government sees the junk science behind the gun control lobby- "gun deaths" (cops shootings, civilian self defense shootings, criminal shootings all grouped together), "gun violence" (ignores total violence and causes of)- all they care about is correlating total guns in a population VS "gun death" and "gun crime" and then using that to ban guns - any guns- from the population- ie legal gun owner's guns.

"more guns = more death" is their main theme.

Ill stop talking now, I type too damn fast.

[CanadianReich]

Originally Posted by raab

Good post. I honestly don't get why some groups are advocating so hard to get rid of all firearms. If no average citizen has any firearms we are sittings ducks if/when any political sort of strife happens in this country. Personally I'd rather see something like Switzerland use to have where pretty much every male at 20 undergoes basic recruit training, and enlisted into the militia until 30. They were then issued a rifle and 50 rounds of sealed ammunition that they kept at home.

Maybe its just my internal conspiracist coming out but something just doesn't seem right about wanting to take away ALL firearms.

While I am at it, some sources for my material

http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/L...inst-coyotes/1
self defense in NS illegal in woods with gun


on the united nations and self defense
http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/1/
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/UN-To-World.htm

United Nations Programme of Action (basis for our Firearms Act, South America's Firearms Control Act (Wendy Cukier wrote both), and most other nations gun control acts... all to be standarized, same registration, illegalization, confiscation, destruction plans, same brainwashing plans (see paragraph 41)
http://www.poa-iss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx

Honestly, I didnt think Wanye Lapierre's books would be anything other than biased garbage but his books are not bad for a brief overview of the crap the UN, IANSA, and our anti gun NGOs are ramming down our throats in the name of "women and children". download free PDF most anyplace
"America Disarmed: Inside the U.N. and Obama's Scheme to Destroy the Second Amendment (2011)Wayne_LaPierre"

[wags]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

Let me explain the 'irrational' sentiment that many gun owners feel, wags.

We feel that it is an irrational point of view because many of us have a personal familiarity with many of the semi-auto rifles that currently fall into the restricted category. We know full well that these firearms function and operate no differently than similar firearms that are non-restricted semi autos. They have, however, been classed as restricted based on a purely emotional response to there physical appearance. The AR family exemplifies this perfectly. It is functionally very similar to a mini-14, but because it comes out of the factory with a collapsible stock, flash hider and pistol grip, it was deemed 'more dangerous' than the mini-14, and subsequently made restricted, and only legal to use on a certified range.

It's unfortunate, but understandable, that the general public might hold the opinions they have of these guns. Unless you are involved in the shooting sports, and have made an effort to educate yourself on these rifles, you likely get your information from Hollywood and the media. Again, totally understandable and I wouldn't question your intelligence for thinking that way.

We all know Hollywood. I watched a movie last night that had a 9mm vaporizing the lights off a cop car at 100 yds. Shotguns throw human targets 20 feet while the shooter feels little to no recoil. Entertaining, sure. Realistic, not in the slightest. I don't think it is possible to make a fuel tank explode with a single 223 round. I know that you understand this too, on a concious level, but I would like to suggest that, on some level, these images are engrained on your subconscious, and are associated with the guns that Hollywood prefers for action movies. Those would be the AR's, handguns and other 'tactical' style guns. Known collectively by shooters as 'black guns'.

Now, we will look at the other major source of gun information. The media. The first issue we have as gun owners is that guns are NEVER reported on in a positive light. We only hear of guns in the news when something bad has happened, and never do we hear of 3 gun, IPSC, IDPA, cowboy action, etc. matches or their results. I would be interested to see what percentage of Albertans are even aware that there are active clubs for all these disciplines that meet and compete in the province regularly.

The second issue with media coverage is that they have a strong tendency to make the firearm the focal point of the story when bad things happen. How many stories are published weekly that list off key points about the firearm used. This phenomenon increases exponentially when it is an AR or a mass shooting. I lost count of the number of times I heard or read 'Bushmaster' in the weeks following Sandy Hook. I even recall a half page graphic in the Calgary Sun with a picture of the rifle and a list of 'stats'. The gun is vilified, as much or sometimes more so than the loon that was pulling the trigger.

To summarize, those of us who want to see some more legislative freedom when it comes to these firearms must first neutralize the huge PR battle that had been upon us. Hollywood, and the media, have given the public a false perception (and yes, an irrational one, not unintelligent but irrational) of what these guns are capable of, and the type of person that owns them.

If my gun collection was more diverse, I would gladly invite you out to try a few on your own. I think that real world experience would help you understand where we are coming from, and hopefully change your perception of 'black guns'

Unfortunately, I am currently without any semi autos or pistols, but perhaps another Red Deer area member might be willing to make the same offer.

Well said and point taken Vince.

If indeed the anti argument is based on something from Hollywood, or media manipulation, and that is what they base their entire argument on, then I would agree that would be irrational.

I think the reason for my defence of the irrational statement is that at least on this forum, the anti arguments (which anti isn't the correct term, but I think point is taken) are not "I saw a pistol in a movie do this" and the such. I see them as valid arguments. They just counter the pro arguments.

Also, regardless of whether or not the argument is truly irrational, calling me irrational will not neutralize the PR battle. It will only fuel the anger. I'm simply pointing out that it won't win favor in the fight.

I don't believe what I see in movies. I'm well aware that not every bad guy in the world can be that bad of a shot, while all the good guys can wipe out an entire squadron in one clip. What I know is how things make me feel, and what education I've attained over the years.

I grew up in a hunting family. I did rifle training in Cadets. I've shot them on friends farms. I've gone Magpie and gopher hunting with my uncle.

I don't mention this to say that I'm any sort of expert when it comes to firearms. I mention it as a means to show that when I defend my point of view, it's not based on a hate for guns, gun owners, or their desired endeavors. It's what I view as "what's best for the greater good".

Regarding Sandy Hook specifically, knowing that as I say this I'm not one of the parents of those poor kids, and being put into the situation may change how I react, this is how I expect my reaction to be if it were one of my children killed.

Revenge. I would want revenge. I would want to hunt down and kill the guy that did that. I would also expect that if I were able to exact that revenge, I would likely spend the majority, if not the rest of my days behind bars.

I would not be demanding that we had guns in our schools, armed teachers guiding our children, to prevent such a tragedy. Would it have minimized the tragedy? I fully agree it likely would have. Perhaps 5 or 10 would be dead instead of 28. We of course will never know. It may have been the armed teacher shot first, and then the classroom, and now he has a new gun to proceed with his rampage.

I think that what you have mentioned and attempted in these last few threads is a step in the right direction. Take your fight in chunks. Get what seems more reasonable to the entire group and get that first. Slowly graduate from there.

As for the offers, I would gladly take anyone up on their offer. I will say however, it won't change my opinion on the issue, it'll just be fun!

Cheers

[raab]

Originally Posted by wags

I do not own a gun. Have only shot them a few times in my life. I quite enjoy them to be honest.

As W&F mentions above, one point is definitely a social issue. For me personally, I am simply not convinced that they provide benefit in a public setting.

I truly feel that the amount of times that they will actually stop a tragedy is outweighed by the amount of times they'll create one.

I posted a link to a story in the Edmonton paper in a different thread. It was a story about my cousin who was attacked. These are specifically the types of incidents, which I think are for more common, where the attacker, being a coward, attacks from behind. So now we still have a woman attacked, and the perp now has a gun. I appreciate this is only one example, but as I mentioned, I see this as the more common scenerio.

I appreciate the point that criminals will get guns regardless. My point is that it's more difficult now, then it would be if everyone is carrying them. Demand will create supply. Supply will create opportunity.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

I can agree with this. I think guns really don't have a place in an urban public setting. And that the people looking to use the gun as a means of self defence are fighting a battle that'll be hard to win. No one wants the average joe making life and death decisions.

But in saying that don't you think it should be alright for people to be able to take a handgun with them if they're going hiking in cougar country? Or how about if they're flyfishing down in pincher creek? Also what if they'd like to just go do a campout a few nights and do some target shooting. What if you just come into town for a few minutes to grab gas and a bite to eat after the aforementioned events? From what I've heard right now every time you move your handgun you have to call in and let them know all the details of the trip. I find that to be excessive.

In closing for me anyway I feel that not being able to wear a hand gun in public is just another right that has been legalized away. I feel that Canada is becoming an over legalized Country and people are losing a lot of the freedoms they once had. There should be a middle ground where gun enthusiasts and the Anti's can come to an agreement for the betterment of all involved.

[Wild&Free]

CanadianRiech. if you are without a firearm, and someone assaults you, are you incapable of defending yourself?

That's rhetorical btw.

Guns ARE NOT required for self defense and only in extreme circumstances, under Canadian law, are they justified for such use. What it boils down to is you can shoot back, IF you're being shot at or there is a high likelihood of being shot. Reasonable force. even in the event you witness a murder, but you and no one else is in imminent danger(stabbing as an example as it's more common then shootings here) you cannot use a firearm for anything but detaining the assailant.

freedom isn't free you're right. The cost is finding a balance in a democratic society.
I feel I have the right to know and choose what I put in my own body. GMO labelling, constantly shot down and controlled substances act... listen to prescription ads lately? aspartame, 25+ year's of rejection for being unsafe then all of a sudden it's safe.

keep the hard line approach its worked so far right?

again, rhetorical.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by wags

Again, insulting my intelligence will not gain you favor from this side of the debate.

My opposition to what you believe in is no different than your opposition to what I believe in. As such, either they're both irrational, or simply different sides of the debate. Since irrational, in the context of your statement, is used as an insult, how about we just say the opposite view, and not have 'us' be upset at 'you', and instead, have a civilized debate and discussion.

It can't be all that irrational if that many people feel that way.

Cheers

It was not meant as an insult and was not directed at you personally, If it offended you I apologize.

Do you oppose being able to use the AR as any other legal semi automatic rifle?

If you do, I would appreciate knowing what your objections are.

[leeaspell]

Originally Posted by raab

I can agree with this. I think guns really don't have a place in an urban public setting. And that the people looking to use the gun as a means of self defence are fighting a battle that'll be hard to win. No one wants the average joe making life and death decisions.

But in saying that don't you think it should be alright for people to be able to take a handgun with them if they're going hiking in cougar country? Or how about if they're flyfishing down in pincher creek? Also what if they'd like to just go do a campout a few nights and do some target shooting. What if you just come into town for a few minutes to grab gas and a bite to eat after the aforementioned events? From what I've heard right now every time you move your handgun you have to call in and let them know all the details of the trip. I find that to be excessive.

In closing for me anyway I feel that not being able to wear a hand gun in public is just another right that has been legalized away. I feel that Canada is becoming an over legalized Country and people are losing a lot of the freedoms they once had. There should be a middle ground where gun enthusiasts and the Anti's can come to an agreement for the betterment of all involved.

I agree with you here. In towns or cities I think would/could be an issue. In the bush, I see no reason why a person cant carry a hand gun, for what ever reason. Every time this topic comes up I always think of the Johnny Cash song "Don't take your guns to town"

[wags]

Originally Posted by raab

I can agree with this. I think guns really don't have a place in an urban public setting. And that the people looking to use the gun as a means of self defence are fighting a battle that'll be hard to win. No one wants the average joe making life and death decisions.

But in saying that don't you think it should be alright for people to be able to take a handgun with them if they're going hiking in cougar country? Or how about if they're flyfishing down in pincher creek? Also what if they'd like to just go do a campout a few nights and do some target shooting. What if you just come into town for a few minutes to grab gas and a bite to eat after the aforementioned events? From what I've heard right now every time you move your handgun you have to call in and let them know all the details of the trip. I find that to be excessive.

In closing for me anyway I feel that not being able to wear a hand gun in public is just another right that has been legalized away. I feel that Canada is becoming an over legalized Country and people are losing a lot of the freedoms they once had. There should be a middle ground where gun enthusiasts and the Anti's can come to an agreement for the betterment of all involved.

I have mentioned several times that I would support pistols in more or less the same capacity as long arms - protection in the wild, protection in your home, use on your own land. I don't see them as having a place in public, not do I personally see the validity of them being hunting tools. With proper arguments, I could be swayed on the hunting point as well.

Originally Posted by expmler

It was not meant as an insult and was not directed at you personally, If it offended you I apologize.

Do you oppose being able to use the AR as any other legal semi automatic rifle?

If you do, I would appreciate knowing what your objections are.

I understand you didn't mean it as a personal insult. I'm speaking on behalf of those that share my views on the issue. My point simply is, that in order to get what you want, you will have to persuade many on my side of the issue. Calling our view of the issues in general, would be insulting to the group as a whole, and will not win you that support you need.

AR, which I admit that I'm not exactly clear what it is, but assume assault rifle/automatic rifle? Assuming I'm on the right track, again, I would support them the same as I my points as it relates to pistols. I can appreciate many's concerns relating to the discharge capacity, but those concerns are more related to criminal activities (I image a school shooting to be more devastating with an automatic weapon vs a single shot type thing in most circumstances).

I would argue that stringent conditions, both training and mental capacity, would have to be met. Although, the mental condition is difficult as a person can be completely sane for their whole life until that particular moment.

Cheers