My Opinion on Carrying Handguns

[metallurgynerd]

I’m Canadian and live in Canada and have had my PAL and RPAL for 20 yrs, but from 2007 to 2014 I lived in the US in Texas and Alabama. While in TX I decided to get my concealed carry permit. Not because I felt I desperately needed it but because I figured I’d probably never get the chance again and wanted to have that experience. I carried a CZ 75 Compact in .40S&W and did NOT carry “cocked and locked.” I kept a full mag in it when carrying and half-heartedly practised drawing and racking the slide in one smooth motion (with an empty mag of course) but would not claim to have ever gotten very slick at it. My thinking was that if something went down and I was able to assist I’d hopefully have time to assess the situation and consider the use of force including a firearm. I had no illusions that I would be able to stop someone from sneaking up on me personally or catching me by surprise and somehow beat them in a fast draw or anything Hollywood like that. I prefer a shotgun for home defence or a camp gun anyway, but they’re a bit cumbersome to tote around WalMart. The requirements for getting the TX concealed carry permit were stringent in terms of background checks, course work, written test and live fire proficiency test. Some of the instruction by a retired police officer seemed a bit far fetched (i.e. he recommended practicing your fast draw and proudly claimed he was never more than 10 ft from a loaded gun at any location in his house) but I learned a lot of useful things about self defence, liabilities as a permit holder, how to conceal, how to spot others who are concealing, etc. While living in Alabama my TX carry permit expired so I looked into the Alabama concealed carry permit process. Alabama allowed open carry at the time with no permit required (but there were still laws about where you could and could not carry a firearm), and I learned that all you had to do to get a concealed carry permit was pass a quick name-based police record check. Yikes.

Reflecting on my pistol packing days I think I’m in favour of a concealed carry option for Canada as long as we have a rigorous permitting process and very clear laws about storage, where carry is and is not allowed, etc. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, the culture of Canada, and particularly Eastern Canada will never see it happen. Shame, that.

[WildBillG]

I to think we should have more rights to defend our selves here. Lets face it the gangs and bad guys areall packing we deserve some form of defence. Glad you grought up this topic Key Guy we need to talk more about how helpless we are being made to become.
One thing that baffles me about our suoer safe PAL system is that we need no proof of our sanity to get one.

These are my opions. Oh I and I really mean this is a great topic.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by WildBillG

snip
One thing that baffles me about our suoer safe PAL system is that we need no proof of our sanity to get one.

Do you have 'proof of sanity'?

Who would you trust to judge, or set criteria?

Some (DSM 4&5? or your wife?) submit none of us is completely without disorder.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by qwert

Do you have 'proof of sanity'?

Who would you trust to judge, or set criteria?

Some (DSM 4&5? or your wife?) submit none of us is completely without disorder.

Good Luck, YMMV.

Several years ago the CFO denied a woman from Lac La Biche a PAL, due to ber history of making death threats, so she took it to court. She argued that she was being denied her right to hunt as a treaty person, and the judge ordered the CFO to approve her PAL for that reason. It didn't matter that she had a criminal record, and may have been a threat to the public.

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by qwert

Do you have 'proof of sanity'?
Who would you trust to judge, or set criteria?
Some (DSM 4&5? or your wife?) submit none of us is completely without disorder.
Good Luck, YMMV.

Read the Sasquatch and Clairvoyant threads

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Several years ago the CFO denied a woman from Lac La Biche a PAL, due to ber history of making death threats, so she took it to court. She argued that she was being denied her right to hunt as a treaty person, and the judge ordered the CFO to approve her PAL for that reason. It didn't matter that she had a criminal record, and may have been a threat to the public.

Makes sense she should have the right to defend herself given that aboriginal women as a group are among the most at risk to be victims of violence.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Makes sense she should have the right to defend herself given that aboriginal women as a group are among the most at risk to be victims of violence.

And the fact that she was convicted of making death threats, doesn't concern you?

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Makes sense she should have the right to defend herself given that aboriginal women as a group are among the most at risk to be victims of violence.

Source?

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Several years ago the CFO denied a woman from Lac La Biche a PAL, due to ber history of making death threats, so she took it to court. She argued that she was being denied her right to hunt as a treaty person, and the judge ordered the CFO to approve her PAL for that reason. It didn't matter that she had a criminal record, and may have been a threat to the public.

Odd that they didn't just tell her of the other tools she could hunt with such as a bow or crossbow. Heck, let her have an atlatl for goodness sake! Denying only one of many available means of hunting was not denying her treaty right to hunt.

[260 Rem]

Well Elk, I didn’t hear the evidence, the judge did... and made a decision based the evidence presented and the law. I would assume that if the prosecutor felt the judge made an error, an appeal would have been filed and if it had merit, the decision would have been overturned. Wouldn’t be the first time the decision of the CFO was found to be wrong.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Well Elk, I didn’t hear the evidence, the judge did... and made a decision based the evidence presented and the law. I would assume that if the prosecutor felt the judge made an error, an appeal would have been filed and if it had merit, the decision would have been overturned. Wouldn’t be the first time the decision of the CFO was found to be wrong.

Just like the judge heard the evidence in the case below. Both cases demonstrate how our laws are not applied equally to all Canadians. As a result, there is really no point to having most of our laws.

https://www.communitypress.ca/news/o...f-f2a7b8c2e92f

[260 Rem]

And here I thought you were an advocate of having your day in court ... but now now sounds like you only accept decisions with which you agree? Seems like you could be a cherry picker
Bottom line regarding our system of justice is that the law can often be applied with discretion and that is why we have judges. You seem to have a pretty narrow view of what “equal” applies to...for example if the consequence of theft was a year in jail, then the person that steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family deserves the full year. Thankfully, that is where a judge can use discretion. That is the Canadian way.
As a Principal, I made many decisions regarding “rules” and “consequences” and never pretended that I treated everybody “equally”...but rather used my discretion based on the circumstances. The issue is not “equal” treatment by the law, but rather “fair” treatment according to the law.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

And here I thought you were an advocate of having your day in court ... but now now sounds like you only accept decisions with which you agree? Seems like you could be a cherry picker
Bottom line regarding our system of justice is that the law can often be applied with discretion and that is why we have judges. You seem to have a pretty narrow view of what “equal” applies to...for example if the consequence of theft was a year in jail, then the person that steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family deserves the full year. Thankfully, that is where a judge can use discretion. That is the Canadian way.
As a Principal, I made many decisions regarding “rules” and “consequences” and never pretended that I treated everybody “equally”...but rather used my discretion based on the circumstances. The issue is not “equal” treatment by the law, but rather “fair” treatment according to the law.

There is no point in having minimum mandatory sentences, if the judge ignores them. Either apply them, or strike them from our legal system. And if our laws don't allow for a conditional discharge, then how can a judge give a conditional discharge? Judges should rule based on the law , not based on race or religion. Just because a judge doesn't like a particular law, or the mandatory sentence the law requires does not give him the legal right to make up his own laws and sentences. Unfortunately politics, race and religion have found their way into our legal system, a place where they don't belong. Even our PM is interfering with our legal system , and is not being held accountable.

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is no point in having minimum mandatory sentences, if the judge ignores them. Either apply them, or strike them from our legal system. And if our laws don't allow for a conditional discharge, then how can a judge give a conditional discharge? Judges should rule based on the law , not based on race or religion. Just because a judge doesn't like a particular law, or the mandatory sentence the law requires does not give him the legal right to make up his own laws and sentences. Unfortunately politics, race and religion have found their way into our legal system, a place where they don't belong. Even our PM is interfering with our legal system , and is not being held accountable.

I think that deserves to be a sticky titled “The way the world should be according to Elk.” You really should start a political party, get elected and fix things.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

I think that deserves to be a sticky titled “The way the world should be according to Elk.” You really should start a political party, get elected and fix things.

Poor attempt at a deflection, but it is something a politician would try.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Originally Posted by KevGuy

This is my opinion. I’ve kept it to myself for years but today I’m gonna put it out there.

I do not want open or concealed carry in cities and or urban areas. Walking around town with your glock 22 or your S&W M&P 9mm is not required here in a Canada.

However, I would like to see open wilderness carry for handguns. Examples of this are backwoods camping, quad trips into the woods, hunting, etc. I’m sure you get my drift. I heard that people who run trap lines are now allowed to carry a handgun?

Like I said, my opinion.

Completely Agree ! Backwoods - Rural - Wilderness ONLY Carry ! RJ

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

I’d be fine with it provided there was a stringent qualification process with lots of training and live fire range tests. We surely all know people that we’d not want carrying and we probably all know people that we’d be fine with having CCW.

At the very least it should be fine to defend ones home with any type of firearm.

Until there is an infallible litmus test for mental stability/instability I don't think people need to be carrying handguns in public. Too many things can go wrong. I'm not completely sure most LEOs should be packing either, when it seems like almost every day in the US, some cop guns down some unarmed (usually black) person.
There are just way too many guns in the US. And not enough gun control. Canada is just about right, IMO. The problem here is criminals, not guns.

Wilderness carry? Maybe... Sure. Why not.

[Dick284]

My opinion is that everyone has an opinion.
And.

Opinions are like butt holes.
Everyone has one.
And some stink worse than others.

I choose to really keep my opinions fairly close to myself, as I really don’t want to bless the masses with my odour, and in doing so certainly do not wish to catch much of a wiff of others stench either.

[whiskeywillow]

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/han...#axzz5wPzoRHcw

This is an AUGUST 2019 updated version of the earlier posted link... 73 documented cases where handguns were used in wildlife encounters. Only THREE failures amongst those entire 73 cases (& counting), and two of those failures were using 22's (hardly fair caliber but included in the study anyway.)

That article is an excellent read for those doubting pistol-caliber effectiveness, let alone effectiveness of sidearms in general. An outdoors/backcountry application is where a sidearms best real-world place beyond the gun-range truly is.. the permit should be a no brainer for all properly licensed outdoorsmen & women here in canada

[REMINGTON JIM]

Originally Posted by Dick284

My opinion is that everyone has an opinion.
And.

Opinions are like butt holes.
Everyone has one.
And some stink worse than others.

I choose to really keep my opinions fairly close to myself, as I really don’t want to bless the masses with my odour, and in doing so certainly do not wish to catch much of a wiff of others stench either.

After 12000 + POST & THREADS you have said LOTs of your Opinions ! Every conversation on here has a OPINION ! RJ

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by whiskeywillow

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/han...#axzz5wPzoRHcw

This is an AUGUST 2019 updated version of the earlier posted link... 73 documented cases where handguns were used in wildlife encounters. Only THREE failures amongst those entire 73 cases (& counting), and two of those failures were using 22's (hardly fair caliber but included in the study anyway.)

That article is an excellent read for those doubting pistol-caliber effectiveness, let alone effectiveness of sidearms in general. An outdoors/backcountry application is where a sidearms best real-world place beyond the gun-range truly is.. the permit should be a no brainer for all properly licensed outdoorsmen & women here in canada

Haha I investigated one of those incidents and can tell you the “eyewitness” statement of the bullet going through the chest was wrong! No bullet went through that bears chest, the flank would be a more accurate statement. That incident was pure dumb luck!!

[260 Rem]

Great news ... a usually reliable government source advises that wilderness carry will be permitted in Canada ... immediately following a confirmed threat by a Sasquatch

[Nyksta]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

Until there is an infallible litmus test for mental stability/instability I don't think people need to be carrying handguns in public. Too many things can go wrong. I'm not completely sure most LEOs should be packing either, when it seems like almost every day in the US, some cop guns down some unarmed (usually black) person.
There are just way too many guns in the US. And not enough gun control. Canada is just about right, IMO. The problem here is criminals, not guns.

Wilderness carry? Maybe... Sure. Why not.

You think every day cops are gunning down unarmed people? you need a dose of reality instead of watching so much drama television

[qwert]

Originally Posted by gunluvr

Until there is an infallible litmus test for mental stability/instability I don't think people need to be carrying handguns in public. Too many things can go wrong. I'm not completely sure most LEOs should be packing either, when it seems like almost every day in the US, some cop guns down some unarmed (usually black) person.
snip

Originally Posted by Nyksta

You think every day cops are gunning down unarmed people? you need a dose of reality instead of watching so much drama television

Well actually,

"mass shootings … have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015…
During this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens.”

"That’s 1200% more people killed by police than mass shooters since 2015."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...s-police-force

"In the United States, the overall homicide rate is 4.9 per 100,000 among the citizens.

Thanks to independent watchdog groups who have decided to document this number on their own, we have a total number of citizens killed by police. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.

The police kill rate is nearly 30 times that of the average citizen, yet somehow people still call for disarming citizens and say nothing about the police. And no, the citizens are not becoming more violent. In fact, humanity is at its safest time in history—ever—and, in spite of the lunatic terrorists shooting up public places, violent crimes as well as all crime continues to drop, significantly."
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/po...shooters-guns/

Several studies have also found that innocent bystanders are ~8x more likely to be injured or killed by a stray police bullet (think 'spray and pray')
than by any fired by a licensed CCW (think trained and practiced, and restrained by likely consequence).

Good Luck, YMMV.

[Nyksta]

Originally Posted by qwert

Well actually,

"mass shootings … have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015…
During this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens.”

"That’s 1200% more people killed by police than mass shooters since 2015."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...s-police-force

"In the United States, the overall homicide rate is 4.9 per 100,000 among the citizens.

Thanks to independent watchdog groups who have decided to document this number on their own, we have a total number of citizens killed by police. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.

The police kill rate is nearly 30 times that of the average citizen, yet somehow people still call for disarming citizens and say nothing about the police. And no, the citizens are not becoming more violent. In fact, humanity is at its safest time in history—ever—and, in spite of the lunatic terrorists shooting up public places, violent crimes as well as all crime continues to drop, significantly."
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/po...shooters-guns/

Several studies have also found that innocent bystanders are ~8x more likely to be injured or killed by a stray police bullet (think 'spray and pray')
than by any fired by a licensed CCW (think trained and practiced, and restrained by likely consequence).

Good Luck, YMMV.

how many if those police involved shootings included the police gunning down unarmed people (murder) vs police responding to lethal threat encounters and using their firearms to end a horrible situation.

https://youtu.be/SGK0mTF-5Tg

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by qwert

Well actually,

"mass shootings … have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015…
During this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens.”

"That’s 1200% more people killed by police than mass shooters since 2015."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...s-police-force

"In the United States, the overall homicide rate is 4.9 per 100,000 among the citizens.

Thanks to independent watchdog groups who have decided to document this number on their own, we have a total number of citizens killed by police. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.

The police kill rate is nearly 30 times that of the average citizen, yet somehow people still call for disarming citizens and say nothing about the police. And no, the citizens are not becoming more violent. In fact, humanity is at its safest time in history—ever—and, in spite of the lunatic terrorists shooting up public places, violent crimes as well as all crime continues to drop, significantly."
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/po...shooters-guns/

Several studies have also found that innocent bystanders are ~8x more likely to be injured or killed by a stray police bullet (think 'spray and pray')
than by any fired by a licensed CCW (think trained and practiced, and restrained by likely consequence).

Good Luck, YMMV.

Any stats on how many of those people killed by police were committing criminal acts at the time? What are the odds of a gang member, drug dealer, or other criminal being killed, compared to innocent civilians being killed? As to stray bullets fired by police, after watching the RCMP shoot their handguns, and reading media reports where they discharge their firearms, I don't doubt the stats, but how many times are the police the ones exchanging gunfire with criminals, compared to licensed CCW individuals exchanging gunfire with criminals? The stats could be twisted even further by using Canadian stats, because there are virtually no CCW permits issued, so the odds of even one person being struck by a CCW bullet, are astronomical.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by Nyksta

how many if those police involved shootings included the police gunning down unarmed people (murder) vs police responding to lethal threat encounters and using their firearms to end a horrible situation.

https://youtu.be/SGK0mTF-5Tg

I prefer to read, as IMHO it is much faster and more informative than any video.
I doubt you had time to read any of the material I linked, or the links to further information they contained.

Such as,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...?noredirect=on

Courts in both the USA, Canada and elsewhere have determined that Police have no obligation to (protect or serve) Citizens,
and face little consequence for harmful actions, (or inactions).

IMHO, people often make the mistake of judging results based on speculated (or hoped for) intent.
Foreseeable consequences are not ‘unintended’.

Good Luck, YMMV

[qwert]

*

[qwert]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Any stats on how many of those people killed by police were committing criminal acts at the time? What are the odds of a gang member, drug dealer, or other criminal being killed, compared to innocent civilians being killed? As to stray bullets fired by police, after watching the RCMP shoot their handguns, and reading media reports where they discharge their firearms, I don't doubt the stats, but how many times are the police the ones exchanging gunfire with criminals, compared to licensed CCW individuals exchanging gunfire with criminals? The stats could be twisted even further by using Canadian stats, because there are virtually no CCW permits issued, so the odds of even one person being struck by a CCW bullet, are astronomical.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. - Mark Twain

The calculations of bystander hazard are USA,
but Canadian Police (not requiring RPAL training or licensing) are no better trained or practiced, and also use very high capacity (prohibited to Citizens) magazines and short barreled (prohibited to Citizens) firearms.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by qwert

Lies, damn lies and statistics. - Mark Twain

The calculations of bystander hazard are USA,
but Canadian Police (not requiring RPAL training or licensing) are no better trained or practiced, and also use very high capacity (prohibited to Citizens) magazines and short barreled (prohibited to Citizens) firearms.

Good Luck, YMMV.

. I agree on the poor training and capabilities of our police forces in general, but twisting stats to support an opinion/agenda, to the extent that you are doing, only gains support from people that are too clueless to realize how badly the stats are being twisted. Twisting stats to that degree, is usually a tactic used by politicians, and the anti gun groups.