NOT a CCW thread

[220swifty]

I think we are trying to decide just how far we could take the liberties of pistol owners while maintaining public confidence. There is a few offshoot conversations happening too, but no major derailments going on.

I actually have to give you guys a pat on the back, over 400 posts and I don't think the mods have had to even edit one. I'm impressed.

[raab]

Originally Posted by wags

Third scenario.

The guy pulls the gun. The teller does what he/she's trained to do, gives the money submissively. The robber leaves the store, money in hand, and no one hurt. You, in the back of the store, is irrelevant to the events. Maybe he gets caught later, perhaps not.

Out of the three scenarios, what is the most likely to happen in a majority of cases?

Is it right or not? I don't know. Do I feel safer every day knowing the potential of scenario two, minus you (me) having the gun, instead of how safe I would feel if several people had guns on them at all times. To that, I believe I can say yes. I consider the chances of scenario two happening are far less than most day to day life events killing me.

Cheers

And in the 3rd scenario if the the guy in the back pulls his gun he's going to court. What he's charged with would be more up in the air, but IMO he'd still get charged with murder as the robber was not threatening him directly.

The point for me is I wouldn't want to carry around my firearm for self defence or to be a vigilante. I would want to carry it around for convenience and to know its safe, not getting stolen out of my truck. Also would like it in the wilderness and hunting for the reasons listed. The only reason I'd even think about pulling it out of the holster to use it on a human would be if my life was in danger and there was no other way out. For me I don't wanna be a cop, I just wanna be able to wear a gun in the outdoors and not have to pack it and unpack it every time I go to town, load and unload the truck, etc...

[raab]

Originally Posted by Gust

I had a lot of work to tend to and fell out of this thread; is this about having pistols on and about rural/remote property or is it back to the urban center debate?

Not trying to stir the pot, just a bit lost now.

Basically just trying to improve the transportation laws. I think thats where we need to start.

[Wild&Free]

threads gotten a little quieter now that we're discussing solutions instead of just arguing.

transport requirements would be a logical place to start.

another avenue to consider is tax sponsored ranges. I'm sure someone here has some relation to an MLA or MP that might be able to influence a development deal. could tie into the transportation thing. just call up the range as say you're on your way. though true conservatives might not like their tax dollars paying to promote their rights.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

threads gotten a little quieter now that we're discussing solutions instead of just arguing.

transport requirements would be a logical place to start.

another avenue to consider is tax sponsored ranges. I'm sure someone here has some relation to an MLA or MP that might be able to influence a development deal. could tie into the transportation thing. just call up the range as say you're on your way. though true conservatives might not like their tax dollars paying to promote their rights.

Why call the range and say you're on the way? That's not needed now as long as you have an ATT.

Before 1992 we didn't need an ATT. Loosening the transport law would be nice and perhaps a place to start.

The shot at Conservatives, well I'll let you explain that one.

[rugatika]

why have a separate status for "restricted" guns anyway?? You're ok to go hunting with a 30/06 or go shooting on crown land with a 50bmg, but you want to shoot coyotes with an ar15 or plink some grouse with a 22 handgun and it's verboten? Makes zero point zero sense. You get your PAL and you should be good to go.

And I like the idea of tax dollars going to shooting ranges...we seem to get soaked for every liberal playground idea that comes along like art galleries and free heroin needles.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by rugatika

why have a separate status for "restricted" guns anyway?? You're ok to go hunting with a 30/06 or go shooting on crown land with a 50bmg, but you want to shoot coyotes with an ar15 or plink some grouse with a 22 handgun and it's verboten? Makes zero point zero sense. You get your PAL and you should be good to go.

And I like the idea of tax dollars going to shooting ranges...we seem to get soaked for every liberal playground idea that comes along like art galleries and free heroin needles.

Here's something crazy, how about we go back to the way it was prior to C-68 but keep the PAL system in place.

Wait, that is way too common sense and way too radical, I know.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Why call the range and say you're on the way? That's not needed now as long as you have an ATT.

Before 1992 we didn't need an ATT. Loosening the transport law would be nice and perhaps a place to start.

The shot at Conservatives, well I'll let you explain that one.

there's always some back and forth with the improper use of liberal and conservative ideologies on here ry. it's also known that some people need to be antagonized to act/participate. the NV situation or any gym class for example.

it's not likely C-68 will be revoked, but it can be watered down substantially IMO. if people from both sides can present the rest of the nation and our representatives with workable solutions.

[norwestalta]

How do we start the change?

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

How do we start the change?

Pressure the law makers. It'll take years but that's the start.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

How do we start the change?

Everytime the conservatives call for another donation, I tell them I am holding off on making any further donations until I see some movement on C-68. They're always polite and say they'll pass it along. Money talks.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Everytime the conservatives call for another donation, I tell them I am holding off on making any further donations until I see some movement on C-68. They're always polite and say they'll pass it along. Money talks.

Bingo.

Swifty made a good point many pages back which is to take the numbers of members on AO to become a voting bloc as you will. It's not a small number to be shrugged off by any politico.

Though we might have differing opinions of the where's and what's of it, there is still a common theme amongst us all (or at least what I'm reading on here), the right to a sidearm in back country and on rural/remote locales.

This is the first baby step in my opinion.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Everytime the conservatives call for another donation, I tell them I am holding off on making any further donations until I see some movement on C-68. They're always polite and say they'll pass it along. Money talks.

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by rugatika

why have a separate status for "restricted" guns anyway?? You're ok to go hunting with a 30/06 or go shooting on crown land with a 50bmg, but you want to shoot coyotes with an ar15 or plink some grouse with a 22 handgun and it's verboten? Makes zero point zero sense. You get your PAL and you should be good to go.

And I like the idea of tax dollars going to shooting ranges...we seem to get soaked for every liberal playground idea that comes along like art galleries and free heroin needles.

Exactly it's all foolish, pal should cover what we got now with RPal and the new RPal in my kingdom would cover some of the current stock of banned

[220swifty]

So we seem to have agreed on where we should take the first step, now how do we take it?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

threads gotten a little quieter now that we're discussing solutions instead of just arguing.

transport requirements would be a logical place to start.

another avenue to consider is tax sponsored ranges. I'm sure someone here has some relation to an MLA or MP that might be able to influence a development deal. could tie into the transportation thing. just call up the range as say you're on your way. though true conservatives might not like their tax dollars paying to promote their rights.

A license should be all that is required to transport.

It makes no sense that a guy basically needs to carry a license...his registration, his ATT and just for good measure... his range membership.

The ATT is a redundant and un-necessary peice of paperwork..... little more than another hoop to make all of us trained seals jump through.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

How do we start the change?

At the very least be a paid up member of a pro-gun organization. When one or more orgs approach the government and can prove they represent a large number of dues paying members who vote they are taken seriously. The bigger the number the better. Politicians understand that for very one paid-up member there are hundreds of likewise voters who are too cheap/stupid/ lazy to join but who can unseat unfriendly m.p.s, money talks, bravo sierra walks.

[CanadianReich]

Originally Posted by Gust

Interesting name, I was going to originally go with "Khmer Moulin Rouge" or "Pol Pot Calling Kettle Black" instead of Gust, but thought they were monikers insensitive to those AO members of a Cambodian background.

What's the Reich angle in your name and how many threads on CGN have you been booted from, and on your CGN acct sig-line, does it say "Canadian Reich on AO"?

Do you hunt and/or fish?

So many questions, such little time.

Yeah, I fish... some... not so much these days. Always so many people hogging the river during shad season and no trout left in the rivers or lakes.... all perch or bass which r too damn bony.

hunt all the time, rabbit, grouse, deer....... but behind my place.... again lots of hunters so not so much luck. get afew grous every year thou. rabbits.... lots of them but another guy has them snaired pretty heavy so I feel guilty about taking any ("harvesting"). The good hunting spots are acar drive away rather than a walk behind my place.

as far as CanadianReich goes that was about Canada = Canada and Reich = nazism........... as in that is the damn direction Canada is headed if we don't get rid of theFirearms Act, change the criminal code to not include gun owners by default (no pal= you r a criminal). Im not sure if you noticed from earlier posts but Im a tad annoyed with the "save the women and children lets legislate against millions of legal gun owners ...those damn spree killer criminals" kinda naziesque propaganda.


anyway, im not sticking around, just wanted to make sure my "self defense in seconds, and its legal" thread was gone..... some guy had it on here, I think it is gone now.

this one.

if anyone sees it pm me, it isnt showing up in google searches now.



"an I Shoot Intruders? - Page 5 - Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum
www.outdoorsmenforum.ca › Main Category › General Discussion‎
Jan 7, 2012 - 30 posts - ‎22 authors
After reading about the BC Jewler that shot an intruder with his 9mm awhile back ... William <> 5/10/2010 6:33 PM >>>
More results from www.outdoorsmenforum.ca"

[CanadianReich]

You are missing my point (note: the first 20% of this is reply to you, the rest is just me rambling...lol... I do that!)

The basis of "gun control" is a lie, and the implementation of their methods itself is tyrannical.

See what is happening in America after Newtown? Same crap that happened after Poly T in Canada and other tragedies in Australia or Britain.

1 person does something, some mentally ill violent person, so they use it as an excuse to take away many many rights from the entire population. Hell, a "Terrorism" attack and then they pass the Patriot Act or national defense authorization act.... CAnada has similar acts. So every person in CAnada needs to be "monitored" just in case.... TERRORISM!! All these extraordinary powers granted to leaders in times of war........ granted now during a perpetual war that never stops, ever.

IF some ******* shoots up a university I feel it is tyrannical, amoral, and downright hate speech to suggest that milliions of X group are somehow responsible for it, ergo we should pass laws to let cops enter their home without suspecision of criminalty, or to disarm them...... X being we hunters and sport shooters.

As far as self defense goes, no one has the right to say I can not use my hunting guns for self defense. If a person breaks into my home at 3am I should not have to wait to see what type of weapon they are holding before I try to arm myself, It should be assumed that the intruder is armed, they chose my house and time to attack. Im not saying blow them away, im saying make your demands they GTFO and let them run.... but if they come at you, well it isnt your civic duty to be a victim.

Further, with force matching force any lethal force can be matched with any lethal force. A person attacks you who is much larger, or they are many, or they have a knife...... any of these are potentially lethal.

Attack a cop with a knife, he will shoot you dead at 20 feet or so with his gun..... he will not look for a knife.

The guy raping a woman, the people breaking into an old mans home... I dont care if they are armed or not.... they have the physical power to dominate and potentially kill given that they have overpowered their victim utterly.

Groups like Amnesy International and the UN would say keep the woman disarmed, let her be raped, it is saves the rapist's life then thats one less gun death..... I say she should blow his ass away.... we do not know he wont kill that girl when he is "done" with her, rape isn't about sex, it is about violence.

Disempowering victims because someone was victimized is so illogical to me, I can not fathom it.

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

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

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.

[CanadianReich]

just a gif for you guys...


ccw works in preventing crime by empowering victims therefore disempowering criminals


I think every us state now has some form of ccw/oc..... maybe one hold out.

As far as the dramatic increase in "gun crime" and "gun violence" in America...or Canada... it isn't so at all. Media lies, imo.

Its been decreasing for decades, in both countries.

"gun control" in general, in Canada, played no part in it either http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract


http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...-25-years.html
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...26-220403.html
(its ~ all blue 2014)

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by CanadianReich

You are missing my point (note: the first 20% of this is reply to you, the rest is just me rambling...lol... I do that!)

The basis of "gun control" is a lie, and the implementation of their methods itself is tyrannical.

See what is happening in America after Newtown? Same crap that happened after Poly T in Canada and other tragedies in Australia or Britain.

1 person does something, some mentally ill violent person, so they use it as an excuse to take away many many rights from the entire population. Hell, a "Terrorism" attack and then they pass the Patriot Act or national defense authorization act.... CAnada has similar acts. So every person in CAnada needs to be "monitored" just in case.... TERRORISM!! All these extraordinary powers granted to leaders in times of war........ granted now during a perpetual war that never stops, ever.

IF some ******* shoots up a university I feel it is tyrannical, amoral, and downright hate speech to suggest that milliions of X group are somehow responsible for it, ergo we should pass laws to let cops enter their home without suspecision of criminalty, or to disarm them...... X being we hunters and sport shooters.

As far as self defense goes, no one has the right to say I can not use my hunting guns for self defense. If a person breaks into my home at 3am I should not have to wait to see what type of weapon they are holding before I try to arm myself, It should be assumed that the intruder is armed, they chose my house and time to attack. Im not saying blow them away, im saying make your demands they GTFO and let them run.... but if they come at you, well it isnt your civic duty to be a victim.

Further, with force matching force any lethal force can be matched with any lethal force. A person attacks you who is much larger, or they are many, or they have a knife...... any of these are potentially lethal.

Attack a cop with a knife, he will shoot you dead at 20 feet or so with his gun..... he will not look for a knife.

The guy raping a woman, the people breaking into an old mans home... I dont care if they are armed or not.... they have the physical power to dominate and potentially kill given that they have overpowered their victim utterly.

Groups like Amnesy International and the UN would say keep the woman disarmed, let her be raped, it is saves the rapist's life then thats one less gun death..... I say she should blow his ass away.... we do not know he wont kill that girl when he is "done" with her, rape isn't about sex, it is about violence.

Disempowering victims because someone was victimized is so illogical to me, I can not fathom it.

I agree