NOT a CCW thread

[expmler]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

So being deemed the murder capital of Canada is not an issue, just a good story?

You see FG lived in the U.S. a country with 300 million guns, 1 hour away from the murder capital and surrounded by CCW. Yet never got shot. Which flies in the face of what he is saying would happen here if allowed CCW.

He attributes this to luck. When it is more the case that he was a law abiding citizen and the CCW people were responsible gun owners.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Gust

You need to post facts too; please prove your point. I'm not saying you're wrong but facts/findings/reports are really good in important discussions like this one (newspapers are ok but they are agenda based).

I will post this for you, I doubt FG will read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

It would be as dangerous as a banana to the rest of the public as well.

No...no it wouldn't.

Bananas don't shoot the wrong guy, go off by "accident" or wind up in the wrong hands.
Bananas don't cause an escalation or shoot bystanders.

Trust me... a unprepared monkey with a banana is a lot less dangerous than one with a sidearm....to everyone including himself.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

More lives are saved by using guns in self defense in the U.S. than in Canada.

How many?

Honestly thats no different than the anti-argument that lives were saved by the LGR.

Prove it...how many?

You can't and you do not know.

But...you can speculate as they did but by doing so you lend credibility to their argument.... IF.... that is your wish.

Its also a fact that there are lone cities in the US that see far more gun related crime per year than our whole country does.

But you know what?

None of that matters because the entire demographic is different and so are the variables.

Canada and the US are apples and oranges.

We do not count, report or consider deaths in the same way.
Its made even more difficult as between states... the way things are tallied is often different.

I also happen to think that it is a mistake to ape another country and especially that one while seeking solutions to OUR problems.

It occurs to me that violent crime rates have also been dropping and that un-like our neighbours we managed to avoid having the highest incarceration rate on the planets while doing so.

Gee... sounds like success to me or at least not the failure that some would have us believe it to be.

Maybe just maybe we should keep doing things our way instead of trying to imitate the flashy neighbour with 3 ex wives and every other cousin in jail.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

No...no it wouldn't.

Bananas don't shoot the wrong guy, go off by "accident" or wind up in the wrong hands.
Bananas don't cause an escalation or shoot bystanders.

Trust me... a unprepared monkey with a banana is a lot less dangerous than one with a sidearm....to everyone including himself.

Slips and falls are a leading cause of premature death amongst the elderly. what if the banana slipped out of his pocket?

[elkhunter11]

What insult ?? Oh your history match exmplers ...the dutch ,the french, Iiirc the Portuguese and yes finally the brits. You know the guys that burnt down the white house, the guy that pushed a foreign invader from canadas shores. Yea those guys oh ya and saved the world from speaking french.

You left out Britain's largest claim to fame, they lost one of the most important pieces of land in the world, to the people that later formed the most powerful country in the world, after their army of volunteers defeated the professional army fielded by the British in the American war of independence. As time progressed, Britain became less and less powerful and influential in the world, while the USA gained power and influence around the world. Britain has become so backwards in their laws, including firearms laws, that they now are including Sharia law into their legal system.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

How many?

Honestly thats no different than the anti-argument that lives were saved by the LGR.

Prove it...how many?

You can't and you do not know.

But...you can speculate as they did but by doing so you lend credibility to their argument.... IF.... that is your wish.

Its also a fact that there are lone cities in the US that see far more gun related crime per year than our whole country does.

But you know what?

None of that matters because the entire demographic is different and so are the variables.

Canada and the US are apples and oranges.

We do not count, report or consider deaths in the same way.
Its made even more difficult as between states... the way things are tallied is often different.

I also happen to think that it is a mistake to ape another country and especially that one while seeking solutions to OUR problems.

It occurs to me that violent crime rates have also been dropping and that un-like our neighbours we managed to avoid having the highest incarceration rate on the planets while doing so.

Gee... sounds like success to me or at least not the failure that some would have us believe it to be.

Maybe just maybe we should keep doing things our way instead of trying to imitate the flashy neighbour with 3 ex wives and every other cousin in jail.

I posted the stats for you to read.

If Canada and the US are apples and oranges why do you and FG keep pointing to what happens in the US as evidence of what a bad idea CCW is for Canada.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You left out Britain's largest claim to fame, they lost one of the most important pieces of land in the world, to the people that later formed the most powerful country in the world, after their army of volunteers defeated the professional army fielded by the British in the American war of independence. As time progressed, Britain became less and less powerful and influential in the world, while the USA gained power and influence around the world. Britain has become so backwards in their laws, including firearms laws, that they now are including Sharia law into their legal system.

Could it be that because the British gov't was overthrown once in the war of independence by a bunch of armed citizens they banned guns to prevent it happening again.
All under the guise of public safety.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You left out Britain's largest claim to fame, they lost one of the most important pieces of land in the world, to the people that later formed the most powerful country in the world, after their army of volunteers defeated the professional army fielded by the British in the American war of independence. As time progressed, Britain became less and less powerful and influential in the world, while the USA gained power and influence around the world. Britain has become so backwards in their laws, including firearms laws, that they now are including Sharia law into their legal system.

No silly read your history that was the french and when out side of Grenada the US can succsessfully project this power you speak of on her own get back to me . the one really important land mass you speak of ..is canada which still belongs in the commonwealth

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by expmler

Could it be that because the British gov't was overthrown once in the war of independence by a bunch of armed citizens they banned guns to prevent it happening again.
All under the guise of public safety.

Please point oit where the UK banned guns cause I cant find it , restrictive ownership yes .. but muncle still owns the same firearms he did when I was born so.... no one I know of lost any firearms ????

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Please point oit where the UK banned guns cause I cant find it , restrictive ownership yes .. but muncle still owns the same firearms he did when I was born so.... no one I know of lost any firearms ????

Handgun ban, "assault weapons" ban. Just the beginning.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Please point oit where the UK banned guns cause I cant find it , restrictive ownership yes .. but muncle still owns the same firearms he did when I was born so.... no one I know of lost any firearms ????

I have sat in the background reading both sides of this debate , some of which is good and some of whcih is downright rediculous.

The British Goverment has made owning and ashooting firearm so restrictive that it was hard for the Olympic teams to practise on their own soil - they had to go to France to do it.
I bought a bunch of guns for jimbo1 when he was coming over because he was not allowed to own them over there.
The laws are so restrictive concernig hunting that know of no one that I talked to that is a British subject that likes them, it makes things almost impossible to hunt over there unless you know someone.
If you like their laws so much I suggest you go back there because I forone have no time for someone advocating the British guns laws here and know of no one except anti gun types that do.
Cat

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

Oh get me a worthy opponent . TRAINING thats what seperates those that can from those that cant .. I cant even walk on a lease in opperation with out training . They have a engagment standard. You are not expected to enter conflict . Unless behind your front door. You are not sworn to protect you have no burden out side your front door. so now your addmiting the 1% is that correct . do your wear a helmet when you drive It would increase your rate of survival in event of a crash

TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING

http://globalnews.ca/news/1256107/in...tly-fires-gun/

[Dunezilla]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

And what if Smokey decides to break the door down of you cabin of stick his head into your tent?

There's a difference between being scared and prepared.

The point could be bought up on how did we live without a handgun in a cabin or a tent before, for years? We can make it personal & ask how did you live without a hang gun in a cabin or a tent all those years?

By the way I am not against the idea.

[220swifty]

Originally Posted by Dunezilla

The point could be bought up on how did we live without a handgun in a cabin or a tent before, for years? We can make it personal & ask how did you live without a hang gun in a cabin or a tent all those years?

By the way I am not against the idea.

I think that the default position for those of us who want to see expanded privileges for handgun use has been on the defensive for too long. Perhaps instead of defending our position to those who oppose it, we should be asking them 'Why not?'

Force them to defend there position, and make it clear that emotion based rhetorical situations won't fly. I am sick of defending against the 'wild west' argument, simply because it can't hold water. It is repeated by the anti gun lobby ad nauseum, yet it can't be substantiated. Every day in Alberta, hundreds of gun owners are out and about with long guns, yet we very rarely hear about shootings. To suggest the dimensions or design of the firearm will suddenly cause these people to forget safety protocol, or become homocidal at the flip of a certain finger, is simply preposterous.

To answer your question, I got by without a handgun in my tent by bringing a more cumbersome, heavier long gun along. It seemed ridiculous, because I had a better suited handgun collecting dust in a safe, but because I am a law abiding citizen, I had to choose the inferior choice.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by leeaspell

But when does a simple B&E become a home invasion or a murder. I personally don't want to let it go that far. You break in to my house, obviously you didn't come to bring me coffee and a box of Tim bits. I don't live in fear of it happening, I also don't live in fear of a lot of things, but I have plans for if it does occur. In my opinion, you see ot on the news way to much, a B&E gone wrong, home owners killed when robber discovers homeowners are still home.

Everyone on this thread needs to face some facts. If you don't agree, then you're not thinking straight.

1) B&E carries a maximum of 25 years imprisonment.

2) If someone breaks into your house, whether you are home or not, they aren't there to have a discussion, or ask, they are there to TAKE.

3) Each and every person on this planet, save that of young children and mentally disabled are capable of making choices. If that choice is to B&E, tat is their CHOICE and they can face CONSEQUENCES.

4) In making this choice, they step outside of written boundaries, also known as the Criminal Code of Canada. They also step outside of unwritten law, Common law and moral law.

5) Moral law says I am well within my right, and I'd go so far as to say my DUTY to protect my loved ones. On this point, lets keep property out of this for now...

6) In protecting my family, I have to assume things, like in any logical debate.

A) Is this my house?
B) Is this person invited in?
C) Are they here to harm me?

(C) must be assumed because (A) answers yes and (B) answers no.

I don't have time to ask the intruder (s) if they have perhaps made a mistake. Seconds count.

7) In defending my family, if I am not prepared to kill, I am not prepared for the situation. I don't WANT to kill, but understand if I must, I must.

8) Written law aside, no legislation is lawful that doesn't allow me reasonable force to protect life. There fore I must be prepared to answer for my actions, to be arrested, and charged. Possibly even serve time in jail. Do I care if I go to jail to prevent my wife and son from being killed, hurt, disabled, raped? NO I DO NOT.

It is a false argument to say, "what if it is the neighbours kid" "...a drunk" etc. The FACTS are, a home is there to provide shelter, security, and protection. From elements, and people alike.

To use logic further, IF these arguments I posted are incorrect, then why don't I break into homes. Surely I should expect not to be shot.

As an aside. My dad was an RCMP officer for 35 years. He had to draw his sidearm a few times, and told me there were 2 times he would have been justified in shooting someone. Completely morally, and lawfully justified. He told me, "son, when you realize that a life may be taken, you think twice about pulling the trigger. You may have to, but you have to think about it a lot."

He never shot at anyone nor took a life. He was prepared to. But he was able to use alternate means.

Look, I am not saying that any time an intruder happens into your home that you should instantly shoot, but;

1) We should have legal backing inside and outside of the home to use a firearm if at all costs it can't be avoided.

2) We have to realize 99% of the time it is not needed or justified.

3) I don't want to be the 1% where I or someone else could be alive if I had legal backing to be armed but gov't said I can't.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

I will not discuss my friend further it is none of your buisness. The 5w's of his ccw is not up for discussion . Sorry .
The police are there to enter the 1% of harms way this great country isolates the general public from. So they kik down doors, they enter conflict they are the pointy end of the stick . See the difference. We dont expect our citizens to engage conflict ie peaceful folk to the 99th% the ploice deal with the other 1% equiped to deal with conflict.

A failed argument.

Who do you call when you need the guns?

I'll answer for you. The police.

CCW allows a citizen the natural right to protect themselves.

In Canada, there is crime, and just because you won't admit it doesn't make it all go away.

If guns won't ever solve anything I invite you to never call the police ever again.

Perhaps you would prefer to live in a less free Country just as you have invited pro CCW people to live in the USA?

I would if I was able to, but obummer says I must be from Mexico and sneak in first.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Dunezilla

The point could be bought up on how did we live without a handgun in a cabin or a tent before, for years? We can make it personal & ask how did you live without a hang gun in a cabin or a tent all those years?

By the way I am not against the idea.

You could also ask, how did we live without automobiles, PCs, internet etc.

Just because you got by without something before is not a reason to not use it when it is available.

[catnthehat]

I for one found it a major PIA not being legally able to carry a side arm when I guided and also when I trapped.
Even now it woud be nice to be able to carry wen sport hunting.
Cat

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by expmler

You could also ask, how did we live without automobiles, PCs, internet etc.

Just because you got by without something before is not a reason to not use it when it is available.

My thoughts exactly.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I have sat in the background reading both sides of this debate , some of which is good and some of whcih is downright rediculous.

The British Goverment has made owning and ashooting firearm so restrictive that it was hard for the Olympic teams to practise on their own soil - they had to go to France to do it.
I bought a bunch of guns for jimbo1 when he was coming over because he was not allowed to own them over there.
The laws are so restrictive concernig hunting that know of no one that I talked to that is a British subject that likes them, it makes things almost impossible to hunt over there unless you know someone.
If you like their laws so much I suggest you go back there because I forone have no time for someone advocating the British guns laws here and know of no one except anti gun types that do.
Cat

In no way am I advocating british gun law im simply pointing out I still know folks with fire arms. from the farmer (my uncle ) to a private citizen with a work place that gives him the right to ccw.
The differance is justification .

[expmler]

Originally Posted by fish gunner

In no way am I advocating british gun law im simply pointing out I still know folks with fire arms. from the farmer (my uncle ) to a private citizen with a work place that gives him the right to ccw.
The differance is justification .

So private citizen CCW is allowed in the UK. Why have gun deaths remained low, yet you say the reason for the high number of gun deaths in the U.S. is because of CCW, and if it were allowed here gun deaths would increase.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by expmler

So private citizen CCW is allowed in the UK. Why have gun deaths remained low, yet you say the reason for the high number of gun deaths in the U.S. is because of CCW, and if it were allowed here gun deaths would increase.

His argument isn't valid. It is emotive and really has no grounds whatsoever. Just ignore it. He's ignored all the logical rationale.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

I posted the stats for you to read.

If Canada and the US are apples and oranges why do you and FG keep pointing to what happens in the US as evidence of what a bad idea CCW is for Canada.

Actually no...you did not post the stats.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

So private citizen CCW is allowed in the UK. Why have gun deaths remained low, yet you say the reason for the high number of gun deaths in the U.S. is because of CCW, and if it were allowed here gun deaths would increase.

Wrong again...nobody is saying that CCW is the sole reason that gun deaths in the US are high....what they are saying is that CCW is not the magic fix to preventing crime and violent deaths like some would have us believe.

[elkhunter11]

I have sat in the background reading both sides of this debate , some of which is good and some of whcih is downright rediculous.

The British Goverment has made owning and ashooting firearm so restrictive that it was hard for the Olympic teams to practise on their own soil - they had to go to France to do it.
I bought a bunch of guns for jimbo1 when he was coming over because he was not allowed to own them over there.
The laws are so restrictive concernig hunting that know of no one that I talked to that is a British subject that likes them, it makes things almost impossible to hunt over there unless you know someone.
If you like their laws so much I suggest you go back there because I forone have no time for someone advocating the British guns laws here and know of no one except anti gun types that do.
Cat

Well said!

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Actually no...you did not post the stats.

Take a look at post# 152

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by connexion123

Everyone on this thread needs to face some facts. If you don't agree, then you're not thinking straight.

1) B&E carries a maximum of 25 years imprisonment.

2) If someone breaks into your house, whether you are home or not, they aren't there to have a discussion, or ask, they are there to TAKE.

3) Each and every person on this planet, save that of young children and mentally disabled are capable of making choices. If that choice is to B&E, tat is their CHOICE and they can face CONSEQUENCES.

4) In making this choice, they step outside of written boundaries, also known as the Criminal Code of Canada. They also step outside of unwritten law, Common law and moral law.

5) Moral law says I am well within my right, and I'd go so far as to say my DUTY to protect my loved ones. On this point, lets keep property out of this for now...

6) In protecting my family, I have to assume things, like in any logical debate.

A) Is this my house?
B) Is this person invited in?
C) Are they here to harm me?

(C) must be assumed because (A) answers yes and (B) answers no.

I don't have time to ask the intruder (s) if they have perhaps made a mistake. Seconds count.

7) In defending my family, if I am not prepared to kill, I am not prepared for the situation. I don't WANT to kill, but understand if I must, I must.

8) Written law aside, no legislation is lawful that doesn't allow me reasonable force to protect life. There fore I must be prepared to answer for my actions, to be arrested, and charged. Possibly even serve time in jail. Do I care if I go to jail to prevent my wife and son from being killed, hurt, disabled, raped? NO I DO NOT.

It is a false argument to say, "what if it is the neighbours kid" "...a drunk" etc. The FACTS are, a home is there to provide shelter, security, and protection. From elements, and people alike.

To use logic further, IF these arguments I posted are incorrect, then why don't I break into homes. Surely I should expect not to be shot.

As an aside. My dad was an RCMP officer for 35 years. He had to draw his sidearm a few times, and told me there were 2 times he would have been justified in shooting someone. Completely morally, and lawfully justified. He told me, "son, when you realize that a life may be taken, you think twice about pulling the trigger. You may have to, but you have to think about it a lot."

He never shot at anyone nor took a life. He was prepared to. But he was able to use alternate means.

Look, I am not saying that any time an intruder happens into your home that you should instantly shoot, but;

1) We should have legal backing inside and outside of the home to use a firearm if at all costs it can't be avoided.

2) We have to realize 99% of the time it is not needed or justified.

3) I don't want to be the 1% where I or someone else could be alive if I had legal backing to be armed but gov't said I can't.

Speaking facts... I didn't know that 1% of Canadians were needing to defend their lives or the lives of their loved ones every year.

So..here are a couple of facts... this time for you to face.

1.You are entitled to an opinion but not your own facts so... quit making things up.

2.That last point has got to be the weakest argument ever.

I just love it when guys come on here demanding their rights be recognized and then betray themselves to be of the mind that they actually need permission to do something.

3.News flash... your rights already are recognized and all a fella has to do is understand the idea of reasonable force and the interpretation of a couple of laws to know that all is well.

Guaranteed if someone starts trying to carve up Aunt Sally with an axe and you take em out with goose gun.... you were well within your rights and afforded a legitimate defense under the law.

4.That said.... if you are the kind of guy that thinks that he needs permission to do what he thinks is the right thing... you are also the kind of guy that will never be able to squeeze that trigger.
If you are the sort that worries about little things like having someone backing your play... you will never get out of the gate. Your mentality forbade you.

5.Sorry...and I really mean that.... but that's the truth of it.
Nobody who ever did something heroic or valiant or stepped up and took control of an out of hand situation ever worried about the opinions of others, permission or that they might get into trouble....that's what makes them exceptional.

Feel free to carry on as though the preponderance of evidence does not matter and as though you know how you would respond to a situation that you have only ever experienced in your imagination.

Why not?

Its not like the opinions of anyone who has actually done any of this stuff are worth a hill of beans stacked up against the arm chair warriors among us.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

Take a look at post# 152

Those are not stats.

That is a Wicki article of dubious quality especially when one considers that they reference a proven fake.

You know its really hard to debate with someone that is trying to use the same sort of manipulation of facts that the anti gun crowd used to force the LGR upon us.

[connexion123]

BDB, I'm making nothing up. You glossed over the facts I posted in the beginning and took the very last thing I said and attacked me on it.

Quite frankly I don't care if you think it is opinion or fact.

The FACT is. CCW does save lives. Deal with it. And I'm not just talking about having access to a firearm in the home for defence, I already have that.

What I'm concerned with is not being able to carry in public where one is vulnerable.

Stabbing in Calgary of late? Could have been stopped.

Stabbing in Onterrible yesterday? Could have been stopped.

There are more than enough instances out there where a fireaŕm could have stopped a tragedy.

If you just want to be insulting and add nothing to the argument from either side just go away.