POLL: Would you pay a $5000 "public safety bond" to gain the 12x designation?

[Nico77]

For me, that about covers it. I want to, freedom, rights, value life, value the right to buy and carry gear that could help me in a life-threatening situation, ...

Maybe add: I don't believe in "I'm safe because I have a gun." Dangerous thinking.

Come up with one valid reason for concealed carry other than, "I want to" or some notion that it has something to do with "freedom" or "rights". Other than the US and South Africa is there another nation in the Western World that provides for "Concealed Carry" or where there is a need to be armed? Just asking because others would ask the same questions.

Take Care

Bob

 

[scout_289]

Firearms legislation in general is a display of laziness from our leaders to deal with the actual issues that contribute to violent crime. it's always easier to make rules for those that follow them then to deal with actual issues. This way they can say they did something and the sheep praise them for it.

Bang On Wrench.

The root causes of social violence run so deep that every politico is overwhelmed just thinking about real solutions.

This actually provides us gunnies with an opening to step out and take a lead role but there's no taste for that.

 

[scout_289]

Okay - here is a good idea. If a person has had their RPAL with a spotless record for a few years - say 5 or 10, we should be allowed to have another level of license - and this could extend again later to include the highest levels of license - like concealed carry and full auto. I don't mind the idea of older, settled fellows (or gals) packing, but I don't think much of arming cocky young punks (or dames) who have shaky young egos.

With this system, we have a new clean elite class which we can all have access to by means of level-headed good behavior. If one has been apt to beat the wife or kids, drive drunk or stoned or such, there might be an appeal process which takes a long time to get through - if at all - and might require a bond.

The weakness of this system is the law. If the other parts of the law work to weed out the trash, this system works. Almost all of the "problem" people demonstrate their problems at some point in a 5 or ten year span in youth, so it is unlikely that "evil" folks will slip through.

Marriage blowups or such might require a lengthy timeout - so be kind to your spouse folks - and get her into shooting too - because then she won't threaten to get your guns taken away - because she would lose her license too!

Thank you!

In a constructive conversation I would suggest adding some clauses etc. but the idea of a graduated licence / privileges isn't heresy as far as I'm concerned.

With you on getting the spouse involved. Wifey has her RPAL plus the iron to go with it so our "domestic differences" are very civil. ;-)

 

[Canuck44]

Hiya Bob...would you have the same question about "visible carry"? Just asking because I wonder if folks are more or less for (or against) one or the other. Your thoughts?

Well if I thought there was a chance I might actually find myself confronted with a gun I am not so sure I want my gun exposed. Open Carry in the US is widely felt to be a "shoot me first" invitation.

Personally, I don't think:

1) Canadian society as it stands to day exhibits even remotely, the need for citizens to be armed in an urban environment. Most of the talk up here on this forum seems to me to be generated by commentary from the US. Even in the US, outside of a few urban areas the "need" to be armed is sketchy at best. I would suggest, that most of the support for same is generated by folks who have not spent much time thinking about the pros and cons and more importantly the reality of our society.

2) There is any chance of any event occurring where an elected government in Canada or political party in Canada ever championing concealed or open carry. The young guns on this forum fantasize about gaining that ability. Fantasize is one thing, looking at reality is another. For political parties there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by passing concealed carry/open carry laws.

3) I do think there could be a relaxing of the rules governing handgun carry in the bush ie Wilderness Carry. There is a valid reason for hunters and others who find themselves in areas such as where I live where carrying a handgun would be a real benefit. We have lost hunters to Grizzly bears after game has been shot and the bear responded to the shot aka dinner bell. We used to be able to hunt in Ontario and it was the Ontario Anglers and Hunters that got the government to put an end to it. Where does anyone think they are going to get any support for concealed carry.

4) More legislated training programs is just more add on bureaucracy In my opinion.

Lastly, I have carried a 36 oz handgun on my hip for a day and the desire to do so gets old real quick. I don;t envy our Police Officers one bit and frankly am thankful they are willing to do it. I would not be so inclined.

Take Care

Bob
ps If it were in the ballot, with a yes or no vote for either I would vote yes. I am not about to go buy a new pen though to do so.

 

[scout_289]

Come up with one valid reason for concealed carry other than, "I want to" or some notion that it has something to do with "freedom" or "rights". Other than the US and South Africa is there another nation in the Western World that provides for "Concealed Carry" or where there is a need to be armed? Just asking because others would ask the same questions.

Take Care

Bob

I'm on record as supporting automatic opportunity for CCW for those who can demonstrate a cause for concern regarding grievous bodily harm given qualifying conditions for screening eg. Clean record, training etc.

Different than today because once the criteria are met the CFO cannot deny them access.

Lots of blanks to be filled in but right now a shop keeper who has been the victim of an armed robbery and wants to continue carrying on business in a seedy neighbourhood, or a person getting credible death threats or a woman holding a restraining order against a violent ex has no chance whatsoever to carry a piece legally.

 

[scout_289]

For me, that about covers it. I want to, freedom, rights, value life, value the right to buy and carry gear that could help me in a life-threatening situation, ...

Maybe add: I don't believe in "I'm safe because I have a gun." Dangerous thinking.

Uh oh! This is likely to result in 15 posts of attacks and mutual glad handing from a certain group.

 

[Nico77]

I want to like this, and it "sounds" smart, and I like the incremental aspect, but I have a few serious concerns:

- sounds like "guilty until proven innocent". Why do we have to earn the right to buy X or Y?
- law's firearm classification system is kinda silly. Should be scrapped, not used as foundation for other stuff.
- the myth that the longer you've had a piece of paper, the better/safer you are. This is a dangerous idea. (e.g. "I've had my driver's licence since I was 16 and never killed anyone, so that proves I'm a safe driver."
- Unintended consequences: This punishes all the good, responsible 18-year olds because of a few bad ones. Worse: it punishes 35 million law-abiding, responsible folks because of a few thousand actually or potentially violent, irresponsible people.

And then I think: Maybe we're too hard on ourselves. "Perfect is the enemy of better."

Okay - here is a good idea. If a person has had their RPAL with a spotless record for a few years - say 5 or 10, we should be allowed to have another level of license - and this could extend again later to include the highest levels of license - like concealed carry and full auto. I don't mind the idea of older, settled fellows (or gals) packing, but I don't think much of arming cocky young punks (or dames) who have shaky young egos.

With this system, we have a new clean elite class which we can all have access to by means of level-headed good behavior. If one has been apt to beat the wife or kids, drive drunk or stoned or such, there might be an appeal process which takes a long time to get through - if at all - and might require a bond.

The weakness of this system is the law. If the other parts of the law work to weed out the trash, this system works. Almost all of the "problem" people demonstrate their problems at some point in a 5 or ten year span in youth, so it is unlikely that "evil" folks will slip through.

Marriage blowups or such might require a lengthy timeout - so be kind to your spouse folks - and get her into shooting too - because then she won't threaten to get your guns taken away - because she would lose her license too!

 

[Edandedna]

Hell ya, money is cheap that sounds like a whole lot of fun

 

[Trimmer 905]

We used to be able to hunt in Ontario and it was the Ontario Anglers and Hunters that got the government to put an end to it. Where does anyone think they are going to get any support for concealed carry.

You had me right up until you said that. The OFAH fought long and hard to retain handgun hunting and against C-68,contrary to the misguided opinions of the know-nothings and haters that sometimes frequent this forum.

 

[shoota]

Come up with one valid reason for concealed carry other than, "I want to" or some notion that it has something to do with "freedom" or "rights". Other than the US and South Africa is there another nation in the Western World that provides for "Concealed Carry" or where there is a need to be armed? Just asking because others would ask the same questions.

Take Care

Bob

Czech Republic for one.

"A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a shall issue firearms license first. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way very similar to a driving license - by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record. Unlike in most other European countries, the Czech gun legislation also permits a citizen to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Most Czech gun owners possess their firearms for self-defense, with hunting and sport shooting being less common."

Good write up on the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Czech_Republic

 

[Nico77]

I like where you are going.

Coupla thoughts:

"We don't need weapons, because our country is safe. Statistical risk is very low."
--> There were 381,000 "reported" incidents of violent crime last year in Canada. (Real number is higher, but many ### crimes aren't reported.) So more than 1,000 people are violently attacked every day. Very low probability, and yet ... (No idea how many of these would justify lethal force.)
- For me, the stats are there, but anecdotal. The values/rights angle is more powerful. Even if crime were zero, one should still have the legal right to arm up.


"The government will never go for it."
--> People thought hell would freeze over before Socialist France would arm up, and look how fast things are changing there. (Unfortunate reason, and no concealed carry, but ... things can change a lot faster than we expect.)

Well if I thought there was a chance I might actually find myself confronted with a gun I am not so sure I want my gun exposed. Open Carry in the US is widely felt to be a "shoot me first" invitation.

Personally, I don't think:

1) Canadian society as it stands to day exhibits even remotely, the need for citizens to be armed in an urban environment. Most of the talk up here on this forum seems to me to be generated by commentary from the US. Even in the US, outside of a few urban areas the "need" to be armed is sketchy at best. I would suggest, that most of the support for same is generated by folks who have not spent much time thinking about the pros and cons and more importantly the reality of our society.

2) There is any chance of any event occurring where an elected government in Canada or political party in Canada ever championing concealed or open carry. The young guns on this forum fantasize about gaining that ability. Fantasize is one thing, looking at reality is another. For political parties there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by passing concealed carry/open carry laws.

3) I do think there could be a relaxing of the rules governing handgun carry in the bush ie Wilderness Carry. There is a valid reason for hunters and others who find themselves in areas such as where I live where carrying a handgun would be a real benefit. We have lost hunters to Grizzly bears after game has been shot and the bear responded to the shot aka dinner bell. We used to be able to hunt in Ontario and it was the Ontario Anglers and Hunters that got the government to put an end to it. Where does anyone think they are going to get any support for concealed carry.

4) More legislated training programs is just more add on bureaucracy In my opinion.

Lastly, I have carried a 36 oz handgun on my hip for a day and the desire to do so gets old real quick. I don;t envy our Police Officers one bit and frankly am thankful they are willing to do it. I would not be so inclined.

Take Care

Bob
ps If it were in the ballot, with a yes or no vote for either I would vote yes. I am not about to go buy a new pen though to do so.

 

[NVShooter]

I see folks with guns frequently. I have been around guns all my life. It doesn't bother me one way or the other. When I see someone with a gun, either at the range, in the bush, or on the street downtown (LEO, armed guards, regular folks (USA) )), I take note, but it, in and of itself, does not cause me any concern. A particular person's actions on the other hand, well that is something I pay real close attention to, regardless if they appear to be packing or not. So open carry or concealed carry is not something I would object to. Would I carry? Likely not in the city, most of the time at least. Just my choice. Happy for other folks to carry if they feel the need/desire. I likely would have a firearm closer at hand though, than I am able to now. I would always have a good-sized handgun with me in the wilderness though, if able to. When I pack for a day hike, I pack enough for an emergency overnight, and I have always felt like my pack is missing something.

 

[Kevin M.]

The government can kiss my ass! I would not pay for freedom.

Errr... did you get your PAL for free?

 

[NVShooter]

Errr... did you get your PAL for free?

Busted

 

[Canuck44]

I'm on record as supporting automatic opportunity for CCW for those who can demonstrate a cause for concern regarding grievous bodily harm given qualifying conditions for screening eg. Clean record, training etc.

Different than today because once the criteria are met the CFO cannot deny them access.

Lots of blanks to be filled in but right now a shop keeper who has been the victim of an armed robbery and wants to continue carrying on business in a seedy neighbourhood, or a person getting credible death threats or a woman holding a restraining order against a violent ex has no chance whatsoever to carry a piece legally.

Your reply falls to point 1 of my post and fails to address point 2. Point 2 being the biggest stumbling block along with little public support, 2(a) if you will. Why not bring up, "What if a BG breaks into my house at 2:00 am armed with a gun." as a reason. Those kind of examples get dismissed in a heart beat. I appreciate your sentiment but deal with my Point 2. If you can't, concealed carry is nothing more than a pipe dream. Did you not see Justin out for a photo shoot reminding us all about the Montreal Massacre the other day.

Take Care

Bob

 

[st1264]

Maybe you guys should ask Goodale on the poll. He probably wouldn't be able to contain his laughter.

One can dream though.

 

[abb1]

It should more be looked at to remove these stupid laws that have no bearing on crime whatsoever. The government would save a sh!t load in processing fees by just remove gong these laws that have no bearing on crime. Two such laws come to mind here 1) a 4" hand gun being prohibited vs a 4.2" that is not. I don't think that criminals have ever measured the barrels in their guns to determine if they are to commit a crime. 2) mag capacity- i don't think that criminals care if they have a 15 Rd mag or a 10 Rd mag. I don't think there ever was a situation where a criminal felt he could not commit a crime because he only had a 10rd instead of a 15 Rd mag. These laws have ever only affected legal gun owners, and cost the federal government and tax payers millions.
Ok, I will quit ranting now.........

 

[Scotty454]

Voted nope. I have no interest in collecting guns I can't legally shoot. If they changed the laws, allowing people with the 12.x designation on their RPALs to actually shoot those guns at ranges, then I'd consider it.

Still probably no though.

 

[Molon.Labe]

What a stupid idea to promote disarmament agenda with your dollars.

 

[onetwentyish]

As written I had to vote no. The question should be "would you donate $5k to your organization(s) of choice to get real change accomplished?" The answer is absolutely, especially if I knew I was not alone. The CCFR would get 40% and the CSSA and NFA each 30%.