Carrying of sidearms

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by javlin101

WHAT, another what if, what if

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

It's the lurkers and undecided people whose minds are not entirely made up that I am trying to reach, with examples of defenceless people that they can relate to.

For example:

Everyone eventually gets old.
Everyone has a mother, sister or daughter.
And certainly we're all but one mishap away from being stuck in a wheelchair.

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by expmler

So at what age are you going to turn in your drivers license.

When I can no longer operate a motor vehicle safely, you?

I have seen first hand with my parents as to where age and their actions could have cost peoples lives and was involved with having their privilege removed. I will not be one of them

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

The police have multiple means of defence, home is where retreat is not an option.

Including a gun which they use when needed. Police can retreat but they are not expected to.

You seem to think that I think a gun is the ONLY means of self defense. I see it as a last resort when other options have failed.

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by twofifty

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

It's the lurkers and undecided people whose minds are not entirely made up that I am trying to reach, with examples of defenceless people that they can relate to.

For example:

Everyone eventually gets old.
Everyone has a mother, sister or daughter.
And certainly we're all but one mishap away from being stuck in a wheelchair.

ok your concern is noted!

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by score

The idea is 'always' to retreat when possible whether or not you're carrying a side arm. Not sure people get that concept.

De-escalation and retreat to a safe place are generally required by oc-cc laws in most States. Some have 'stand-your-ground' provisions that mean different things in different circumstances, but those are still rare.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by expmler

I don't think that has been said once here, unless they were talking about bears.

just off the top of my head read a couple of the "I got scoped" threads.or maybe some trespassing threads

[score]

Originally Posted by twofifty

De-escalation and retreat to a safe place are generally required by oc-cc laws in most States. Some have 'stand-your-ground' provisions that mean different things in different circumstances.

Right, but the idea is self protection and/or the protection of others when necessary.

What I'm arguing is that there seems to be some kind of twisted misconception that those that carry are gun nuts hell bent to use their firearm, which couldn't be further from the truth and/or reality, whether you retreat or you are holding your gun on the punks forehead.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by javlin101

When I can no longer operate a motor vehicle safely, you?

I have seen first hand with my parents as to where age and their actions could have cost peoples lives and was involved with having their privilege removed. I will not be one of them

So based on that limited experience you paint all elderly people as dangerous drivers.

Now it is clear to me how you form your opinions.

[hillbillyreefer]

http://www.examiner.com/article/anal...chool-shooting

You antis might take note that of the two guys that tackled Jared Loughner one was a CCW holder who chose not to use his firearm.

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

just off the top of my head read a couple of the "I got scoped" threads.or maybe some trespassing threads

Those threads would be scary if not for internet chest thumping.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

http://www.examiner.com/article/anal...chool-shooting

You antis might take note that of the two guys that tackled Jared Loughner one was a CCW holder who chose not to use his firearm.

Ok the lets post up the others ..darker side . http://vpc.org/press/1412ccw.html. these stats are from a limited availability off ccw offences.

[score]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Ok the lets post up the others ..darker side . http://vpc.org/press/1412ccw.html. these stats are from a limited availability off ccw offences.

Come on fish, you know that the evidence from years of study is very conclusive that CCW saves lives and negative consequences minor in comparison to states with strict gun laws. This is an emotion issue that bares no resemblance to reality.

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by score

Right, but the idea is self protection and/or the protection of others when necessary.

What I'm arguing is that there seems to be some kind of twisted misconception that those that carry are gun nuts hell bent to use their firearm, which couldn't be further from the truth and/or reality, whether you retreat or you are holding your gun on the punks forehead.

There are lots of misconceptions and mistruths out there.

Nonetheless, US and UK crime stats show there is no co-relation between rates of ownership and use by law-abiding citizens and 'gun crime' rates.

In America, States with about 25 years of increasingly liberalized carry laws have measured a reduction in gun crimes.

otoh, the UK, despite imposing ever strict gun laws, has seen gun crime rates increase.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by score

Come on fish, you know that the evidence from years of study is very conclusive that CCW saves lives and negative consequences minor in comparison to states with strict gun laws. This is an emotion issue that bares no resemblance to reality.

For the most part I concur. However that is based on a society with firearm ownership as a right . In canada access is far more restrictive and our firearms violence reflects this in kind.

[Immigrant]

The debate somehow got "muddy" between ccw for self defence when not in the wilderness and carrying a handgun for self defence in the wilderness. It seems we are debating the ccw for non wilderness more than for wilderness.
Are there any examples where the guys for ccw felt they needed a handgun to protect their own life/ property to the extent that they needed to shoot someone?

[twofifty]

I think our lower rates of violence (compared to the US) reflect that we are a difference society, with lower economic and social stresses. We are also socialized differently in our schools.

Our people as a whole are also somewhat less crammed close in together. Generally, the closer people are packed together, the nastier things get.

[twofifty]

Immigrant: No.

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by expmler

So based on that limited experience you paint all elderly people as dangerous drivers.

Now it is clear to me how you form your opinions.

Oh my sorry I have seen many elder people driving well past their ability. however my mom caused an accident that nearly killed 5 people including my father so ya I have a very personal experience on elders driving well past their ability.

You????? what is your do you think the time will be???????

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by twofifty

Those threads would be scary if not for internet chest thumping.

We both know that . All I am saying is The loose cannons of the the nation will have as much right to get a carry permit as the responsible gun owner . Some of these jokers are barely able to contain their stupidity when they are unarmed let alone armed .
I can't say I am for or against open carry, to be honest it matters little to me. I am licensed for a handgun but they hold little interest for me so I don't own one .

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

The debate somehow got "muddy" between ccw for self defence when not in the wilderness and carrying a handgun for self defence in the wilderness. It seems we are debating the ccw for non wilderness more than for wilderness.
Are there any examples where the guys for ccw felt they needed a handgun to protect their own life/ property to the extent that they needed to shoot someone?

I have not, yet. I also have never been in a car accident but I wear my seat belt. Never had a house fire, but I do have an extinguisher in the house.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

The debate somehow got "muddy" between ccw for self defence when not in the wilderness and carrying a handgun for self defence in the wilderness. It seems we are debating the ccw for non wilderness more than for wilderness.
Are there any examples where the guys for ccw felt they needed a handgun to protect their own life/ property to the extent that they needed to shoot someone?

No. but there was a time an employee had death threats leveled at him. That concerned him enough to keep a shotgun within reach for a long time. The person making the threats eventually went on to murder two people and was killed by a good guy with a gun. Seeing as the employee lived in the same yard as my family having the piece of mind of a sidearm would have been nice.

There is absolutely no chance the RCMP would ever be here before an incident was over.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

For the most part I concur. However that is based on a society with firearm ownership as a right . In canada access is far more restrictive and our firearms violence reflects this in kind.

It is far more complicated than that.

To use drunk driving as an example, my province has the most restrictive alcohol laws and the highest rate of drunk driving. 8.4\100,000

Ontario has much more relaxed alcohol laws and a much lower rate of drunk driving, about 3\100,000

To credit our restrictive gun laws with lower gun crime is a very narrow view.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by expmler

I have not, yet. I also have never been in a car accident but I wear my seat belt. Never had a house fire, but I do have an extinguisher in the house.

You make a good point.

[javlin101]

Been an interesting debate but I gotta go.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

It is far more complicated than that.

To use drunk driving as an example, my province has the most restrictive alcohol laws and the highest rate of drunk driving. 8.4\100,000

Ontario has much more relaxed alcohol laws and a much lower rate of drunk driving, about 3\100,000

To credit our restrictive gun laws with lower gun crime is a very narrow view.

We could list endless stats of restrictive nations firearms policy vs the US . It only goes one way .
Wilderness carry has its place as the ATC program exists. I support the idea based on training and proficiency requirements. However I also undetstand the . .00001 % eventuality is off set by the accidental failings of humans.

[score]

That's fortunate Hillybilly, indeed. The cops will never save you in a situation that develops in which you have to use a weapon, never.

I would be willing to bet that the vast, vast, vast, vast, majority of CCW permit holders have never drawn the gun. As some have said it very rarely is necessary, perhaps even more so in Canada (I say that with reservations).

But that's not the point. The last thing you want is any kind of problem. But it does happen every now and then and that's the point.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by javlin101

Oh my sorry I have seen many elder people driving well past their ability. however my mom caused an accident that nearly killed 5 people including my father so ya I have a very personal experience on elders driving well past their ability.

You????? what is your do you think the time will be???????

My dad is 84, still drives everywhere. Has never had an accident nor a near miss. I have an uncle who is 70, still drives semi across Canada.

Should my dad and my uncle lose their license because of the action of your mother?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

We could list endless stats of restrictive nations firearms policy vs the US . It only goes one way .
Wilderness carry has its place as the ATC program exists. I support the idea based on training and proficiency requirements. However I also undetstand the . .00001 % eventuality is off set by the accidental failings of humans.

So do you claim there are no other factors that contribute to the high rate of gun crime in the U.S.?

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by javlin101

Well yes and no, do not claim it's your right because it is not per the law at this time. That is my point here, I say no & you say yes, no one is more correct than the other. I will not force my will onto you and I do not wish you to do the same. What I believe should not make me feel wrong.

But that is the difference, if this issue was put to a vote, you would vote no, which if passed would not allow me to do what I believed, so your will has been forced on to me.

If I voted yes, and it passed, you are still allowed to do what you believe, my will has not been forced on you.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by expmler

I have not, yet. I also have never been in a car accident but I wear my seat belt. Never had a house fire, but I do have an extinguisher in the house.

But there have been enough accidents to prove a seat belt saves lives. And house fires that could have been prevented with a small fire extinguisher. Are crime levels and violent assault levels high enough in Canada to make us want to carry?