Hmm ! For CC = Kahr CM9 9mm jmo RJ
CC in Canada..what would you carry?
- Thread starter johNTO
- Start date
Thankfully, so far in my personal life I’ve never been in a situation where I felt I “needed” to be”strapped” either...lucky for me - as if I had ever been in such a situation, I’d have likely had a very bad day since the government does not allow me to decide for myself.
In the US, most states do not impose that restriction on their citizens...So is it paranoia if I have a fire extinguisher in my house and my truck? I’ve never felt that I was in danger of catching fire, or of my house/truck burning? Am I paranoid if I wear a flotation device when I go boating? I’m a strong swimmer and never felt like I was going to drown? Government even mandates that I wear a seatbelt/helmet when driving yet I’ve never “felt” like I was going to get in a motor vehicle accident...
None of those precautions are viewed as “paranoia”...In fact, many lives have been saved and most would agree they are prudent steps to be prepared for potentially dangerous circumstances. Yet when given the ability to carry a firearm (or any other tool) for self defence, those who exercise that ability are deemed to be paranoid. This is a huge non sequitor and speaks to our current issues around firearms in this country. If Canadians (especially Canadian gun owners) were more inclined to view firearms as an essential tool, rather than just sporting equipment or a hobby, then perhaps our political masters would tread lighter on gun control.
Do you wander around with a lightening rod attached to your cap too or do you choose not to do that even though you’re more likely to be struck by lightning in Canada than be involved in an armed altercation, or would that be too paranoid?
Be honest, if a gun was an “essential tool” in canada many would choose not to live here, me included. Maybe it’s an essential tool for bear protection in isolated areas but then again there’s plenty of people that are fine there without weapons too.
Last edited:
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...es over 2 million,year in the United States.
Compared to victims of homicide and violent crime...
Victims of Homicide
Victims of Violence
Ergo you are 66 times more likely to be killed in a violent altercation than by lightning.
And you are 2,750 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than injured by lighting.
Because math.
Walking around with a lightning rod attached to your head is a bad idea because lightning rods INCREASE your odds of getting struck by lightning and do nothing to reduce injury/death by lightning.
Because science.
Whereas carrying a concealed firearm for self defense does nothing to affect the likelihood that you may be a victim of violence, but is demonstrably effective at increasing your odds of survival should you find yourself being subjected to a violent attack. Because Reasons.
And just to comment on your nonsense about bears. You are about 100 times more likely to be attacked by a person than a bear. Its so rare in Canada that I couldn't find official statistics on bear attacks. Seems to be less than 1 killed per year on average. Which means you are more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than a bear, with or without the lightning rod.
I'm right there with you johNTO. I'd have to go with a bigger frame because the Clock 36 you are talking about would fit on the palm of my hand. Therefore I would have to use open carry. What about putting a round or two of armour piercing rounds in the mag just to make your point that much more pronounced?
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Good rebuttal.
Not to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are talking about equating a violent attack with "armed altercation".
There are two problems with using ARMED ALTERCATION in my analysis.
First, altercations where the attacker is armed are not the only times where a person may benefit from, or be authorized to use lethal force in self defense. Therefore your argument about lightning, armed altercation, and carrying a gun for self defense represents a false premise.
Second, stats canada does not track the occurrence of "armed altercations". Least not that I can find anyways. It would probably take a year to get an FOI returned with all known instances of violent crime involving use of a weapon against a victim. If you want to submit it and report back on the results I'd be happy to revise my post to more closely equate apples to apples.
They do track offenses involving firearms, but this is problematic because not all offences involving firearms are necessarily violent attacks or even where a firearm was used, and second, there are weapons other than firearms that can be used in an armed altercation. They do report on aggravated assault, which can be either an assault with a weapon, or any assault where the victim is seriously injured, with or without the use of a weapon by the attacker. Again, not a good proxy.
In all of the above cases, however, it's worth noting that the occurrence rate of all of the above is still at least 50 times higher than that of being injured or killed by lightning. For example, major assaults (robbery, serious injury, or use of a weapon) happened approximately 8,000 times in 2018, which is still 63 times more than injury by lightning.
Last edited:
I suspect we agree on more than you think. I just disagree with a statement above that the gun is an “essential tool”. At least not here in Canada but then again, everyone’s threshold for precautionary action is different. If the threshold changed for me I’d give serious consideration to where I lived.
On topic. I wouldn’t carry my shadow as the thing weighs a ton. If I’m really being asked what I’d do to protect myself in the event it was legal to use any available means I’d seriously love to be able to drive everywhere in a chauffeur driven tank with a couple of armed bodyguards/butlers as carrying things oneself is for peasants.
And therein lies the problem...If gun owners can’t even regard guns as essential, how on earth can we expect anyone else to, much less respect our choices to own and use them.
As for what someone wants to carry, or whether they carry at all, each individual should be free to make that choice. Because freedom.
You didn't try very hard. Here they are for all of Canada and the US. They are listed with some clarity. I used Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
A fellow in the US once quoted stats similar to your approach. He claimed the NWT had a murder rate xtimes more than most of the US. The number he quoted was, if I remember correctly, 5 murder per 100,000. There were two murders quoted in the year he found which equated to 5/100K. Even Terrace annually has a rate of 7.7/100 Scary isn't it! We have a population of about 13K and it seems every year someone gets drunk and kills his wife or her new boyfriend over in the trailer courts. Major crime centre I guess.
The problem anyone has when looking up comparisons is the method of data collection. A shoving match on Friday night might be an assault in Terrace and noted by local RCMP for Stats Canada whereas in Chicago it would not make the stats sheet. As of last week there were 363 shot and killed by firearms and 1756 shot and wounded in the city of Chicago. There have been 396 homicides year to date. Chicago is about the same size as Toronto. There is no CC or Open Carry allowed in Chicago or Toronto. Someone is obviously not listening or following the law.
https://heyjackass.com/
I have had a Wilderness permit to Open Carry a handgun while in the Bush panning for gold. As much as I would like to be able to carry open or concealed it is not about to happen no matter how I, or anyone else feels. We are an election away from having a 50 50 chance of losing our handguns and/or any number of semi automatic rifles and we are discussing CC. Time to take a deep breath folks and work with the Conservatives.
Take Care
Bob
Last edited:
They are demonstrably not “essential” though because facts. I’m arguing about the use of hyperbole here that we as gun owners need to be careful of in case you try to make an argument based on that hyperbole that ends up biting us in the ass. Oxygen is essential for us to survive, that statement is fine and dandy and supported by evidence. If you want to know why I get wound up about this it’s because I believe at times we are our own worst enemies. If you want us to appear to be paranoid gun owners to those that would use that against us carry on.
Canuck44 wrote; We are an election away from having a 50 50 chance of losing our handguns and/or any number of semi automatic rifles and we are discussing CC. Time to take a deep breath folks and work with the Conservatives.
C44, many folks don't have an attention span long enough to make it through an election, so their thoughts wander back to what irks them most, without realizing what's presently at stake.
Maybe it's just to painful, maybe they're bored???
Fudged stats are nothing new. The only time bureaucrats and some politicians cry over them is when they don't promote their personal agendas. Often they're complicit in spreading fake news themselves.
The CPC will not be our saviors unless we keep at them in a meaningful manner. Just electing them to a mandate to govern is only the beginning. Once they're elected, we need to be involved at every level to prove we're worth the time/resources/effort to make the changes we want to see. Even then, it won't happen in one mandate. If we can help stem the tide and get to majority governments in a row, significant changes will happen, but only if we're visible and supportive.
C44, many folks don't have an attention span long enough to make it through an election, so their thoughts wander back to what irks them most, without realizing what's presently at stake.
Maybe it's just to painful, maybe they're bored???
Fudged stats are nothing new. The only time bureaucrats and some politicians cry over them is when they don't promote their personal agendas. Often they're complicit in spreading fake news themselves.
The CPC will not be our saviors unless we keep at them in a meaningful manner. Just electing them to a mandate to govern is only the beginning. Once they're elected, we need to be involved at every level to prove we're worth the time/resources/effort to make the changes we want to see. Even then, it won't happen in one mandate. If we can help stem the tide and get to majority governments in a row, significant changes will happen, but only if we're visible and supportive.
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
Well said!
LOL...Wanting to be prepared for any number of situations is prudent and even requires legislation in some cases...Wanting to be prepared for a circumstance in which a firearm might be the best tool for the job, and you are paranoid - because feelings.
Sorry to get you all hot and bothered...but the fact that people can and do successfully use firearms to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property is not hyperbole...The fact that in many cases, without that firearm, they would be unable to do so is not hyperbole.
The beauty of a free society is that people get to choose what for them is considered essential...The fact that you don’t consider guns essential is awesome...but you want to talk about a position that will come back to bite us in the ass, try arguing that your “hobby” or “sport” (or whatever it is you consider your guns are used for) trumps any of the arguments anti’s and politicians regularly present against private firearms ownership...If its only hobby, it’s pretty easy to dismiss. Good luck.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
A shoving match on Friday night might be an assault in Terrace and noted by local RCMP for Stats Canada whereas in Chicago it would not make the stats sheet. [/QUOTE]
I used google as well and I did find that list. Problem is its not a verified or comprehensive list. AS you said, there are issues with comparing data when there are differences in method collection. I didn't want to use a wikipedia based collection of media reported bear attack stories in an analysis where my other data points are generally reliable statscan data.
In Canada, we have the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey. Its a national standard for police reports. All police agencies in Canada report crime in similar ways based on the UCR, and it means that for the information contained in the UCR, we have access to pretty good cross jurisdictional data. This is supported in large part by the fact that our criminal code is federal, and what is a crime in Toronto is a crime in Lethbridge. Big Caveat: Police reported crime does not cover all crime. Only those crimes reported to police, get covered, obviously. It is believed that the vast majority of homicides get reported. Simple assaults, could be as low as 10% get reported. Victimless crimes almost never get reported unless directly observed by police.
I do not believe the US has anything like the UCR, so yes, stats from Chicago will need a certain degree of interpretation. Cross jurisdictional studies between states, and between THE states and Canada, will also need to be done with caution as the crimes themselves are different, vary from state to state, and there is no standardized reporting. The CDC has generated a set of non legal terms, that it uses for violent crime studies, so that it can translate all of the state by state data into a standardized form, but thats less than ideal. Ultimately, if your shoving match in Chicago gets a police report, it will be captured in national crime states.
If you are going to say because facts, feel free to share those facts.
Calling each other paranoid because we are aware of the facts of violent crime, and want to adopt a preparedness mindset is probably the worst thing I've ever seen suggested at the same time that you are claiming we are our own worst enemies. This from the guy who suggested lightning rods on our head to deter lightning, and is woefully ignorant of the rate of violent crime vs bear attacks.
Here's the thing: I agree that guns aren't essential most of the time. Fortunately in Canada, most of the time truly is a very high percentage of all the time. I don't need a gun right now. But for those 600 people people who are going to be murdered this year, the 8,000 that are going to be the victim of a major violent attack, or the 370,000 that will be a victim of some type of violent crime, guns CAN become essential quickly. Assuming that 370,000 crimes = 370,000 victims, (which I admit is not a fair assumption but it makes for convenient math), in a country of 37 million people, that makes a nice round 1 in 100 people this year who will be a victim of violent crime. Could be 1 in 200, not sure, but lets stick with 100, because convenience.
That means for 99 people this year, a gun will not be essential. I like those odds. But for one person, it could be. But here is the tricky part, you won't know until after its too late to get one. As they say in the military you go to war with the guns you've got. Therefore it is not essential to have a gun because you need one right now, it is essential to have a gun because you won't know if or when you might need it later. This is not paranoia; its prudence. Trying calling your insurance company to get fire insurance AFTER you're house has burned down. Or renewing your auto policy after you've been in the crash?
Would you suggest these insurances are essential? If not then do you advocate we all cancel our policies and save our money? Or do you think people who car home and car insurance are paranoid? Because the odds of a total loss fire or being in a car crash are low?
On that point, when the hysterical anti gun crowd goes on about on about the evils of letting people carry for self defense, the most sensible way to address those concerns is public liability insurance policies for people who carry guns in public. And to be honest, as much as I am a free market libertarian, I'd honestly be fine with that as a caveat, knowing that the policy would probably cost less than $50 a year.
This is specious to say the least. While your examples of castle, sports car and crocodiles can be dismissed as pointless hyperbole (which will in no way be used by the anti gun crowd to ridicule us. #rolls eyes), we aren't exactly talking about having government provided Glocks for self defense either. You can drive to work in a sports car with your emotional support crocodile if you want one, that IS your choice. You just have to pay for it yourself.
I absolutely expect to have to pay for my own firearms should the government wake up and let people legally exercise their right to life and defense of it.
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
2 x Smith and Wesson Model 60, for a New York reload.
Plus two Safariland Comp 2 speedloaders. Ammo will be .38spl+P 158 JHPs.
Plus two Safariland Comp 2 speedloaders. Ammo will be .38spl+P 158 JHPs.
