Would you carry?

[SkytopBrewster]

I guess wilderness protection may not be the best way to go about this, now if they would legalize them for hunting purposes that would solve the issue.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

I guess wilderness protection may not be the best way to go about this, now if they would legalize them for hunting purposes that would solve the issue.

Yep in one fell swoop.

[winger7mm]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

But the facts show the wilderness is very safe without handguns. The only out come of more guns is more accidents. We are not in danger, people are reacting to a > 1% situation .Right now thousands of folks are enjoying the outdoors without any defencive weaponry and their fine honest. Odds its just simple.

Ok so you wanna talk gun accidents while afield. Im not gonna look into people shooting other people, cause within hand gun range there should be NO MISTAKEN identity, So well go with self inflicted gun shots. Loaded rifle leaning up against a fence while crossing, guy in the pickup, slip and falls yada yada yada. Now picture this? You have your pistol on your hip, IN a holster..... It remains there the entire time, until you need to use it for defense, shoot a grouse or whack some kind of varmin. You are just as likely to be shot by said gun while your at home and its sitting in your gun cabinet 99.9% of guns dont "just" go off on there own. The biggest thing about all this is its better to have and not need then need and not have, OR maybe is it having the choice to carry???

I think its about choice, I dont know you personally but I can almost guarantee you are forced into "choices" you dont agree with and would definitely like to go your way. Point is we should be allowed to have that choice.

Ill look into it later tonight or tomorrow before work and report back, but ill use alaska as an example, they are allowed to carry and see how many gun "accidents" there are. Seeing how they have dangerous bears there and most carry for protection

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by winger7mm

Ok so you wanna talk gun accidents while afield. Im not gonna look into people shooting other people, cause within hand gun range there should be NO MISTAKEN identity, So well go with self inflicted gun shots. Loaded rifle leaning up against a fence while crossing, guy in the pickup, slip and falls yada yada yada. Now picture this? You have your pistol on your hip, IN a holster..... It remains there the entire time, until you need to use it for defense, shoot a grouse or whack some kind of varmin. You are just as likely to be shot by said gun while your at home and its sitting in your gun cabinet 99.9% of guns dont "just" go off on there own. The biggest thing about all this is its better to have and not need then need and not have, OR maybe is it having the choice to carry???

I think its about choice, I dont know you personally but I can almost guarantee you are forced into "choices" you dont agree with and would definitely like to go your way. Point is we should be allowed to have that choice.

Ill look into it later tonight or tomorrow before work and report back, but ill use alaska as an example, they are allowed to carry and see how many gun "accidents" there are. Seeing how they have dangerous bears there and most carry for protection

im well aware guns dont just go off . The firing swich must be engaged .
But what I know is even on a craft with a crew of four men all trained in the cunning ways of murphy accidents happen some what often.
Take the missfire on the iowa class battle ship, ten men all trained to run a weapon system,all well aware of the concequences of a mistake, all doing there best to prevent a accident. Yet in the denali time frame more men have been kill BY ACCIDENT with the main guns on a iowa than killed by bears Iin the park .

[winger7mm]

Okay just a quick search, found an informative site, granted its based on america but..... http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Remember alot of states ALLOW to carry

[elkhunter11]

Take the missfire on the iowa class battle ship, ten men all trained to run a weapon system,all well aware of the concequences of a mistake, all doing there best to prevent a accident. Yet in the denali time frame more men have been kill BY ACCIDENT with the main guns on a iowa than killed by bears Iin the park .

So now you are comparing a mistake made while loading a main gun on a battleship to someone shooting themselves or someone else with a handgun by accident, while protecting themselves from a bear. The fact that you have chosen to use such a ridiculous comparison , really shows just how ludicrous your argument is.

[Huntnut]

I know a guy that was out re-baiting his sites and had a grizz come in-he pulled out his .40 S&W and starts blasting away at the bear. He admits he hit it. Now is the bear dead somewhere or wounded and really ****ed off and going to take it out on the next human it encounters. Maybe bear spray would have been better. I wasn't there so I can't say for sure but it's something to consider. I am not stating my opinion one way or the other-just giving everyone some food for thought.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So now you are comparing a mistake made while loading a main gun on a battleship to someone shooting themselves or someone else with a handgun by accident, while protecting themselves from a bear. The fact that you have chosen to use such a ridiculous comparison , really shows just how ludicrous your argument is.

No in fact im stating how safe the outdoors are .90 yrs of park history the iowa reference is mearly for scale.

[winger7mm]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

No in fact im stating how safe the outdoors are .90 yrs of park history the iowa reference is mearly for scale.

Of course the outdoors is a safe place, The whole point behind the being able to carry is just that. If it goes sideways out there should you have the option to be able to carry?? OR would you continue to have the "government" hold your hand while in the woods. Geez im surprised GPS's and courses arnt mandatory for hikers and people headed out to the woods. More people are lost or get lost then people who shoot themselves or others in the woods

[elkhunter11]

No in fact im stating how safe the outdoors are .90 yrs of park history the iowa reference is mearly for scale.

Unless you intend to be cruising around the wilderness in a battleship, it's a pathetically poor choice of an example to choose. Choosing such a poor example is merely an indication, that you have no reasonable examples to choose.

As for the outdoors being safe, we have over 100,000 Albertans in the woods every year with firearms, and the number of people killed in accidental shootings while protecting themselves from bears is pretty much non existent. Changing out some of those long guns for handguns, is certainly not going to change that fact.

[bobnlyn]

Yes but why 40 cal. or larger. I like to shoot grouse. (22) A 9mm is just as good as a 40.

[elkhunter11]

Yes but why 40 cal. or larger. I like to shoot grouse. (22) A 9mm is just as good as a 40.

I think that the idea that many people are promoting, is to carry a handgun for personal protection against bears. In that situation, the idea of a minimum cartridge does have some merit.
A 9mm can certainly kill a bear, but I for one, would not carry it with the intent of being able to stop a charging bear with it.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

im well aware guns dont just go off . The firing swich must be engaged .
But what I know is even on a craft with a crew of four men all trained in the cunning ways of murphy accidents happen some what often.
Take the missfire on the iowa class battle ship, ten men all trained to run a weapon system,all well aware of the concequences of a mistake, all doing there best to prevent a accident. Yet in the denali time frame more men have been kill BY ACCIDENT with the main guns on a iowa than killed by bears Iin the park .

This makes perfect sense.

Using your logic however an argument could be made that the 900 factory workers in Bangladesh may have been saved if not for the restriction on handguns.

It has been proven that the overwhelming majority of red neck rifle shooters and hand gun supporters prefer camo and plaid garb over designer fashions.

The demand for the "Joe Fresh" brand would obviously diminish if handgun carry was allowed as what kind of a self respecting, 44 mag carrying man's man would don a lavender shirt displaying the words "Joe Fresh".

One could easily come to the conclusion that these senseless deaths could have been avoided if not for handgun restrictions, the Democratic Party of the USA, the Liberal Party of Canada, and of course Justin Trudeau.

[TheClash]

why does it have to be with a hunting license....am I only allowed to protect myself in the back country while hunting?

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by TheClash

why does it have to be with a hunting license....am I only allowed to protect myself in the back country while hunting?

Because of the accident on the Iowa of course...please try to follow along.

[elkhunter11]

Because of the accident on the Iowa of course...please try to follow along.

Since the accident on the Iowa was caused by people trained in the military, the logical conclusion must be that military teaches their people to use firearms in an unsafe manner. Perhaps we should just prohibit all ex military people from possessing firearms?

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by TheClash

why does it have to be with a hunting license....am I only allowed to protect myself in the back country while hunting?

The only reason I threw that in there was becuse "they" would argue that if all hikers etc had handguns there would be mass killings etc, guys shootin it out over the better fishing spot kind of BS, you are right, of course we should be able to carry at all times when in the wilderness, the best I could do as far as "wilderess" in AB was crown land West of the 5th (the fifth is prettymuch QE2.

[elkhunter11]

The only reason I threw that in there was becuse "they" would argue that if all hikers etc had handguns there would be mass killings etc, guys shootin it over the better fishing spot kind of BS, you are right, of course we should be able to carry at all times when in the wilderness, the best I could do as far as "wilderess" in AB was crown land West of the 5th (the fifth is prettymuch QE2.

I live quite a bit East of the QE2, and we have plenty of wilderness, and plenty of bears where I live.

[TheClash]

lots of folks with handguns that spend time in the outdoors that do not hunt...I think they have the right to carry (or would if it was allowed) as anyone who is hunting....but i see your reasoning for this poll.

[TheClash]

and to me more guns out there does not mean more violence....one of the most peaceful, happy, polite and cordial places i go is the gun range...always please and thank you's and happy people that are willing to get along and make nice because of the presence of firearms....just my experience, yours may vary

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I live quite a bit East of the QE2, and we have plenty of wilderness, and plenty of bears where I live.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, we can change that to all public land in AB and private land to which you have right of access. I get tunnel vision quite regular.

[elkhunter11]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, we can change that to all public land in AB and private land to which you have right of access.

Exactly, any land to which you have legal access, and no hunting license required.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Well it didn't take long to derail this thread... only 7 posts and then the fight was on at number 8.

So much for...."Let's just keep the opinions out of it and lt the numbers speak for themselves"

This lack of discipline and inability to abide others requests, focus and get along without flying off on some paranoid hypothetical fantasy tangent is EXACTLY why we will never be able to carry sidearms in Canada again.

Fact is too many people including many that are licensed...are not mature enough to be trusted to that extent.

The current test is a joke... any average 10 or 12 year old could pass it.
But would we see them carrying?
No.

Well... along with those kids are a lot of adults who are developementally en pare.

You want to carry folks... fine... figure out a way to eliminate all the paranoid, fantasy prone, reactionary, bad tempered, substance abusing, careless, self righteous, ningcompoops that are licensed but nontheless are buggering it for us all.

There is a world of stupid outside of this forum and once in awhile... some of it slips in.... even here.

[Ryry4]

Pesky, take a look at what's required for a CCW in the US. That would be a good place to start. 8 hour course on the legality of carrying a hand gun, federal back ground check done through the FBI, and you have to renew every 5 years.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

Pesky, take a look at what's required for a CCW in the US. That would be a good place to start. 8 hour course on the legality of carrying a hand gun, federal back ground check done through the FBI, and you have to renew every 5 years.

I agree... that would be a good start point.

Mind you the bar is lower in other ways in the US.

There laws surrounding use are much more clear cut.
Here many people struggle with the concepts... reasonable force, immediate threat and the difference between life and property.
They also have had much of this established for a very long time and the corproate knowledge among Americans is better with rspect to use.

Our laws are not as well understood.
In fact many Canadians are probably better versed in US law than our own.

To get something like they have off the ground here would (I suspect) require considerably more training for most folks.... and along the way there would be difficulties as a result of people who cannot seperate what they believe from what is in fact correct.

Probably the most we can hope for is to be allowed to carry a handgun while in the bush or to take one to a range without a permit for recreational shooting.

Anything more is beyond our reach.

Baby steps... for now we need to lower our sights a bit.

We are in the un-enviable position of having to prove ourselves and having to earn trust that simply isn't there because Canadians have no terms of reference with this aside from what they see happening in the US.

And nobody reports that a half million open carry guys never shot anyone today....nobody reports that there were no firearm accidents today...

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you intend to be cruising around the wilderness in a battleship, it's a pathetically poor choice of an example to choose. Choosing such a poor example is merely an indication, that you have no reasonable examples to choose.

As for the outdoors being safe, we have over 100,000 Albertans in the woods every year with firearms, and the number of people killed in accidental shootings while protecting themselves from bears is pretty much non existent. Changing out some of those long guns for handguns, is certainly not going to change that fact.

No but more people will be in all ligtlyhood be shot in a hunting accident In november than will be killed by bears this year .sorry I cant run computers well enough to post the fact that since 1950 there have been approx 80 bear attacks in all of north america. And in the fact there are that many firearm accidents in the month november alone since 1950.in canada.

[SkytopBrewster]

Baby steps... for now we need to lower our sights a bit.

We are in the un-enviable position of having to prove ourselves and having to earn trust that simply isn't there because Canadians have no terms of reference with this aside from what they see happening in the US.

And nobody reports that a half million open carry guys never shot anyone today....nobody reports that there were no firearm accidents today...[/QUOTE]

Yes baby steps, registry gone and nothing happened, time to move on to phase II

[elkhunter11]

No but more people will be in all ligtlyhood be shot in a hunting accident In november than will be killed by bears this year

So just how would that change if people were carrying handguns, instead of rifles? If anything, less range, would result in fewer fatalities.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So just how would that change if people were carrying handguns, instead of rifles? If anything, less range, would result in fewer fatalities.

I think his whole agenda is remove firearms from everyone. There problem solved right.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by pesky672

I agree... that would be a good start point.

Mind you the bar is lower in other ways in the US.

There laws surrounding use are much more clear cut.
Here many people struggle with the concepts... reasonable force, immediate threat and the difference between life and property.
They also have had much of this established for a very long time and the corproate knowledge among Americans is better with rspect to use.

Our laws are not as well understood.
In fact many Canadians are probably better versed in US law than our own.

To get something like they have off the ground here would (I suspect) require considerably more training for most folks.... and along the way there would be difficulties as a result of people who cannot seperate what they believe from what is in fact correct.

Probably the most we can hope for is to be allowed to carry a handgun while in the bush or to take one to a range without a permit for recreational shooting.

Anything more is beyond our reach.

Baby steps... for now we need to lower our sights a bit.

We are in the un-enviable position of having to prove ourselves and having to earn trust that simply isn't there because Canadians have no terms of reference with this aside from what they see happening in the US.

And nobody reports that a half million open carry guys never shot anyone today....nobody reports that there were no firearm accidents today...

I forgot to add, a proficiency test with a handgun also.