- Location
- East of Home, West of the Rest
Thanks for your efforts in keeping things the same.
Were you around when carrying a handgun in the bush was legal? Before C68 and such?
Hunter killed by bear, WRITE a letter to change Wilderness ATC 'rules'..
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
Thanks for your efforts in keeping things the same.
Were you around when carrying a handgun in the bush was legal? Before C68 and such?
I was told to keep dreaming that the gun registry would never get abolished by guys like you. You're defeated. As for me I will be writing a few more letters and making a call to my MP.
Here here.
The only thing worse than the naysayers were the self righteous naysayers from within.
I will certainly be writing a letter. We should definitely have the right to carry in wilderness areas.
I know here on the east coast we don't have grizzly and such but in the past few years we have had people attacked and one killed by coyotes.
The bottom line is that wildlife can be dangerous and a side arm is easier to handle in close quarters. And to the people who disagree i hope you never find yourself in one of these unfortunate situations defending your life unarmed.
I know here on the east coast we don't have grizzly and such but in the past few years we have had people attacked and one killed by coyotes.
The bottom line is that wildlife can be dangerous and a side arm is easier to handle in close quarters. And to the people who disagree i hope you never find yourself in one of these unfortunate situations defending your life unarmed.
I agree that hunters should be given the choice to carry a hand gun while hunting, but I dont think it would change the outcome in this case or any others like it. Are you really going to be able to drop your long gun and pull a hand gun out of a holster while being taken by surprise and accurately shoot? Think about it realistically. A hand gun wont make a difference in a situation like that.
we just came back from picking up some hounds in the states. while there we stopped at a sporting goods store and ran into a clerk with some rather large facial scars that ran down his neck and disappeared into his shirt collar. His story was that on a hunting trip he shot his animal and had leaned his rifle against a tree while he gutted his kill hearing a noise he turned just as the bear hit him him he said if it wasn't for his handgun he wouldn't have returned from that trip and he was sure we were nuts for hunting bear without one
Thinking about it realistically, yes I can absolutely think there is a great chance that if I'm taken by surprise and can't reach my rifle that I have a better chance when using a sidearm. Nobody is talking (that I read) about dropping a rifle to pull your sidearm out. That's.............. Silly. There is, however, the possibility that you may be able to reach your sidearm in this situation since it would be in it's holster.
Do I think it's going to guarantee my safety? Of course not, I don't think anyone said that either. However, do I think that in the event I am able to get off 1-10 rounds it would make a difference? Not necessarily, but it certainly has the potential.
Dorian Gray
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Don't be hatin' on track, man. While i personally think he's misguided on this issue, he's actually doing us a favor by helping us generate replies to those who would oppose this. I mean, he's using the same arguments the anti's would use. "Move to the states if you want to do that!" "Can't have people carrying because some nut some day is going to be stupid with his gun!" None of this #### is new. We've heard them all before. It's been proven to be overwhelmingly wrong before. No matter what you say, he won't side with you because he feeeeeeels it's not right. Logic and reason have nothing to do with it, it's all about the feels. Nevertheless, it's still good debating practice for when you do actually talk to someone with an open mind. Practice makes perfect.
Not trying to be offensive track, even though it might come off that way. I do value your contributions to the board, especially when it comes down to topics in this sub-forum. But on this one, i think you're flat our wrong man. I do think this is a winnable fight. Maybe not right away, but with time and effort, it can be done. When i tell non-shooters about the restrictions on handguns and then tell them what i can do with my rifles, the usual answer is: "That makes absolutely zero sense." I find this encouraging.
Just like with the LGR, if we do our part in educating the public on the idiocy we have to deal with as gun owners, it can only mean good things for us.
nowarningshot
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Since it is after midnight here. I will give er a go.
I can agree that the hunter should have been given the chance to be carrying. Even if it was currently remotely possible, it also might have been in a pack. My comment on after midnight is relating to waiting at least a moment to think of this man's family and friends.
A sober thought, a reality of walking the high lonesome, the escape from crowded places that takes me there.
It just seems much like the anti's grave dancing 20 years after polytechnic, and the comments on social media....huffington???something or other being glad that the guy is dead.....except not even waiting a day to call for wilderness carry is us doing the same...using a tragedy for personal gain.
On a side note the idiots on Huffington should be charged for those comments.
I can agree that the hunter should have been given the chance to be carrying. Even if it was currently remotely possible, it also might have been in a pack. My comment on after midnight is relating to waiting at least a moment to think of this man's family and friends.
A sober thought, a reality of walking the high lonesome, the escape from crowded places that takes me there.
It just seems much like the anti's grave dancing 20 years after polytechnic, and the comments on social media....huffington???something or other being glad that the guy is dead.....except not even waiting a day to call for wilderness carry is us doing the same...using a tragedy for personal gain.
On a side note the idiots on Huffington should be charged for those comments.
Don't get me wrong, I love firearms, however; I personally draw the line when it comes to handguns. Grizzly bear expert, Jan Allan and former CO from Pincher Creek, Alberta stated to me, "best bear defense is a shotgun loaded with SSG or buckshot". For decades I always stated, "if your afraid of the woods...........stay home!" I really don't want to encounter some guy carrying a sidearm who is pissed because I screwed-up his hunt.
To answer your question, no I don't know about Bill C-68 or the carrying of handguns............would it make a difference?
Trying to get a wilderness carry permit out of the Ontario CFO is like trying to pull a bad tooth from a fully awake and unrestrained tiger with vice grip pliers so I went with a non-restricted Chiappa Mare's Laig in 44 Mag I carry in a leather holster I got in the states.
When I'm actually hunting I carry a Guide Gun in 45-70 or a BAR in 300 Win Mag so any bear I meet in the bush can "bring it on" if it wants.
When I hunt birds in the fall I carry rifled slugs for my 12 gauge DA Grizzly (12.5" bbl).
A black bear license makes carrying rifled slugs legal after Aug 15 where I hunt birds even though I have no intention of shooting a bear unless it starts making predatory/aggressive overtures toward me.
I've lived and worked in Alaska and in Northern Ontario where bears are a problem and have been known to be predatory and aggressive.
I AM obviously a wimp compared to you because I am very afraid of black and grizzly/brown bears and prefer to go armed with a heavy caliber rifle or 12 gauge shotgun and slugs in bear country.
And of course a pissed off guy packing a sidearm (an evil handgun) is so much more dangerous than when carrying a Remington 700 in 338 Win Mag.
40 years of drinking the Liberal Kool-aid has had its effect on Canadians.
Get real !
You love firearms but you can't trust a firearms owner carrying a handgun incase he wants to shoot you? That was right from the liberal playbook. That same pissed off hunter can shoot you at 300 yards with a rifle rather than double digit yardage with a handgun.
Although you are obviously Grizzly Adams and can stop a charging grizzly just by looks, the bush can be a very dangerous place and to state "if you're afraid of the woods, stay home" is totally ridiculous. The people that forget the wilderness can be a dangerous place are the ones that end up a victim. Being cautious and wanting to carry a lighter firearm for protection is not "being afraid of the woods"... it makes perfect sense.
