Fire arm control

ABadjusterrider_5

ABadjusterrider_5

Well-known member
After reading the recent thread on someone's choice about their next firearm, it brought a question to my mind.

Do you believe we as Canadians should have the right to defend ourselves by carrying a fire arm?

If the government drafted a law allowing you as a citizen to carry and conceal a firearm of your choosing, should you meet their standards and take a proper course. Would you exercise that right?

I know more and more states are now abolishing this law in favour of security and saftey while other states cling to the law like a life line.

With the news covering more and more gang shootings, stabbings, rapes and homicides and the general public (law abiding citizen) being defenseless while crimminals run around with pistols jammed in their waistbands. Do you feel safer or more vunerable in todays society.

Just as a caviet; I don't own a PAL (?) Or have my restricted, unrestricted license. I'm just opening a thread to discuss. :)
 
Just because the news are covering more crime doesn't mean that more crime is happening. Actually, the opposite is true. I am not sure if I'd be comfortable with a bunch of armed people walking around all over the place. For defense of home though.. That's a different story. I wish we had the castle doctrine here and SOME loosening of the gun laws.
 
Yes, I believe all law abiding Canadian residents should have the right to carry a concealed firearm to defend themselves if the need ever arises. They should also be afforded protection from prosecution and harrassment if they do shoot an intruder/attacker in their home, automobile or workplace, armed or not. It doesn't necessarily mean a person needs to shoot an intruder - that should be at their discretion.

Criminals will continue to run around armed wreaking havoc on society. The prospect that more law abiding persons might be carrying a concealed weapon would create more risk and uncertainty and a less desirable environment to commit crime for the criminal or gang-banger. It also benefits those who choose not to carry because you never know who might be carrying. It's amazing how trivial matters can become when your life might depend on it. As a result, I think people would be a lot more civil to one another. You're basically creating equality in the balance of power between one another and anyone. If you think about it there is always a disparity of power between those who would take advantage of others and those who are targeted victims.

My father-in-law told me a couple of stories about heated situations that were quickly difused because he was "packing". In those cases, he only started reaching for his handgun and the other person immediately backed off. I wonder what would have happened otherwise? I suppose no one will ever know, but all ended well.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away! :rolleyes:
 
FiReSTaRT said:
I am not sure if I'd be comfortable with a bunch of armed people walking around all over the place.
Click to expand...

A common argument amongst the non-CCW supporters. Fact is, just about every part of that sentence is chosen to elicit a different meaning than the actual fact.

Fact is that people who actually legally carry represent a very small portion of the population, and most of them are trained and practice regularly. The vast majority of people who carry firearms for self-defense take that right very seriously, and actively avoid any situations in which they might be required to use a gun.

For me, the argument is simple, nearly every law-biding person has the right to self defense with the best tools possible. You can discuss training, no-carry zones, limitations, age requirements, etc, but its all details.

For those of you who aren't sure you want a bunch of people going all over the place and being armed, you should consider that its already happening. gangbangers and the like carry guns every day, and they're all over the place. It's simple, criminals will always be better armed than civilians, but CCW can tip the scales to give innocent people a fighting chance.
 
Another interesting note, the true benefits of CCW will always be unknown. This is because in many cases the mere presence of a firearm prevents or deters a crime.

These prevented crimes typically always go un-reported. I can't even guess how many crimes have been avoided in the US because of the presence of a freiarm (without a shot even being fired).....it must be well into the millions.
 
robertsonmatt said:
A common argument amongst the non-CCW supporters. Fact is, just about every part of that sentence is chosen to elicit a different meaning than the actual fact.

Fact is that people who actually legally carry represent a very small portion of the population, and most of them are trained and practice regularly. The vast majority of people who carry firearms for self-defense take that right very seriously, and actively avoid any situations in which they might be required to use a gun.

For me, the argument is simple, nearly every law-biding person has the right to self defense with the best tools possible. You can discuss training, no-carry zones, limitations, age requirements, etc, but its all details.

For those of you who aren't sure you want a bunch of people going all over the place and being armed, you should consider that its already happening. gangbangers and the like carry guns every day, and they're all over the place. It's simple, criminals will always be better armed than civilians, but CCW can tip the scales to give innocent people a fighting chance.
Click to expand...

queue Charlton Heston.


the road rage in the GTA is bad enough, imagine those individuals armed.
 
rutakin said:
queue Charlton Heston.


the road rage in the GTA is bad enough, imagine those individuals armed.
Click to expand...

lol....they said that would happen in the US too.

"No CCW! There will be gun fights in the streets!"

Never happened.....not even close

Any you're argument can be used as a pro for CCW. imagine some maniac wasn't impressed with the speed your wife was driving on a road...and he decides to run her off the road. Let's say its 10pm and he gets out of his car to teach her a lesson (after running her off the road).

At that point, wouldn't you want her to have a gun?
 
Last edited:
robertsonmatt said:
Another interesting note, the true benefits of CCW will always be unknown. This is because in many cases the mere presence of a firearm prevents or deters a crime.

These prevented crimes typically always go un-reported. I can't even guess how many crimes have been avoided in the US because of the presence of a freiarm (without a shot even being fired).....it must be well into the millions.
Click to expand...

Well, it's truly a less violent and safer country than Canada so it must be working!! :-)
 
invictus43 said:
Well, it's truly a less violent and safer country than Canada so it must be working!! :-)
Click to expand...

You make a good point...I do believe the US has more crime, even possibly on a per capita basis.

But here's the thing, does more crime have any relevance to CCW? Is it possible that different socio-economic conditions can also drive crime?...even in spite of CCW?

Some would make arguments on those grounds, but I always go back to my belief system....Irrespective of the rate of violence in society or anything else, every lawful person has the undeniable right to self defense...and everyone deserves a fighting chance.
 
robertsonmatt said:
You make a good point...I do believe the US has more crime, even possibly on a per capita basis.

But here's the thing, does more crime have any relevance to CCW? Is it possible that different socio-economic conditions can also drive crime?...even in spite of CCW?

Some would make arguments on those grounds, but I always go back to my belief system....Irrespective of the rate of violence in society or anything else, every lawful person has the undeniable right to self defense...and everyone deserves a fighting chance.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree necessarily. I think it's more a result of mentality, living conditions, etc than simply what weapons are at hand at any given time. The weaponry is incidental. It will simply raise the level of violence, but the presence and frequency of violence will continue either way.
 
No...no need in this country. If I was in Central or South America though....yes probably. It's not the majority of people that might responsibly carry guns you need to worry about, it's the chance of a minority doing something indescribable and given how driving licences are handed out to obviously intellectually crippled monkeys here I'd have a problem with widespread licensing for concealment of weapons. This argument is for carrying a concealed weapon though, I'm not sure where I stand with one in the home but then again, home invasion isn't a problem here either.
 
invictus43 said:
I don't disagree necessarily. I think it's more a result of mentality, living conditions, etc than simply what weapons are at hand at any given time. The weaponry is incidental. It will simply raise the level of violence, but the presence and frequency of violence will continue either way.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking as well. However, the negatives can still be outweighed by the positives. Having an armed general population does wonders for government accountability. In my old country, we had a de-facto dictator who kept winning the elections in every rural riding bypassed by various international observers. The only ridings where they didn't were the ones where the ballot boxes were guarded by armed locals, starting with my dad's hometown.
 
So what are the stats in US states with CCW laws? More or less crime overall?
 
jc100 said:
No...no need in this country. If I was in Central or South America though....yes probably. It's not the majority of people that might responsibly carry guns you need to worry about, it's the chance of a minority doing something indescribable and given how driving licences are handed out to obviously intellectually crippled monkeys here I'd have a problem with widespread licensing for concealment of weapons. This argument is for carrying a concealed weapon though, I'm not sure where I stand with one in the home but then again, home invasion isn't a problem here either.
Click to expand...


We have 70,000 police officers in canada who carry firearms on a daily basis. About 7,000,000 to 11,000,000 firearms in canada depending on who you ask. So majority of those guns belong to average law abiding citizens. If simply having more guns means more crime there would be a bloodbath in our streets. However that is not the fact, and notice that whenever there is a shooting the individual who has done the shooting has done so with an ILLEGAL gun, usually has been prohibited from having any sort of firearm and had other conditions. Clearly a small percentage of the population doesnt care about any sort of law and you cannot prevent these people from committing a crime. So to try and stop this 1% of the population from committing a crime, who you clearly CANNOT, the solution is to disarm the 99% of law abiding citizens who would never use a firearm to commit a crime? With this kind of logic lets ban all cars because 1% of the population drives drunk.
 
And yes i do believe that we should have the right to carry a firearm to defend ourselves.
 
IRONLUNG said:
That is just so true.

I wouldn't mind a conceal and carry law, but I don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

You guys do realize that you have to do a course to get a license right now? both written, practical and an in depth background check done by the RCMP...

For all you guys scared of guns when was the last time a police officer went on a wild shooting spree? They carry a gun on a daily basis, are an average citizen just like you and me but simply have the ability to carry a firearm. Why is it you call a police officer whenever you need help and arent worried that he/she will kill you?
 
FiReSTaRT said:
That's what I'm thinking as well. However, the negatives can still be outweighed by the positives. Having an armed general population does wonders for government accountability. In my old country, we had a de-facto dictator who kept winning the elections in every rural riding bypassed by various international observers. The only ridings where they didn't were the ones where the ballot boxes were guarded by armed locals, starting with my dad's hometown.
Click to expand...

That's what the US intended with the right to bear arms bit..to defend themselves against an oppresive government. I can see that in certain situations.
 
Dohhh said:
For all you guys scared of guns when was the last time a police officer went on a wild shooting spree? They carry a gun on a daily basis, are an average citizen just like you and me but simply have the ability to carry a firearm. Why is it you call a police officer whenever you need help and arent worried that he/she will kill you?
Click to expand...

I dunno..there seems to be a lot of angry people whenever a cop shoots someone..whether the shooting was justified or not.
 
I don't trust half the morons on here with a riding motorcycle - I certainly wouldn't trust them carrying a firearm.

And *yes*, I have my PAL and know what the course entails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom