Concealed/Open carry for Canada....ever?

This will probably never happen.

The people who actually think they are in danger yet cannot get a permit, carry anyway laws be damned, and those with a permit carry too. As an average Joe, you'll never get an ATC and these rules will never be changed. Handguns will be banned before ATC-3's become shall issue.

If I'm proven wrong, I'll buy whoever calls me out on this a beer.
 
Andurp said:
This will probably never happen.

The people who actually think they are in danger yet cannot get a permit carry anyway laws be damned, and those with a permit carry too. As an average Joe, you'll never get an ATC and these rules will never be changed. Handguns will be banned before ATC-3's become shall issue.

If I'm proven wrong, I'll buy whoever calls me out on this a beer.
Click to expand...

Boy, that's realy stickin' your neck out!
 
There isn't any "trend" with the registry being cancelled.

That was a bait and switch by the Conservatives to get the simple-minded single issue voter who didn't give a hoot about Canada being dismantled to serve the oil companies and other resource companies to vote for them because of the promise of eliminating the gun registry. What they got was a mandate from you to sell the country to the lowest bidder.

The cancellation of the registry was an empty hollow effort anyway. The feds know who has guns because of your PAL.

You didn't gain anything. The Conservatives got your vote to sell out the country to the lowest bidder.

Congratulations.
 
hunterinthewoods said:
None, it was used as an example only.

I do not disagree with you about the law abiding citizens not being careless. I completely understand that.
All it takes is just one person to go ballistic, that can happen with anyone at anytime....regardless if there is CCW or not...just a bit easier if its strapped to your side......that is all.
Click to expand...

using that logic, we should all take our guns to the dumpster. what's a stupid law going to do to prevent me from carrying my gun concealed? If us gun owners are mature and responsible enough to leave our guns at home, because by law we can't ccw, then why would you be worried about people going out of control if ccw was permitted?

I for one, think it's a losing battle. It's people (and gun owners) like you (no offense) that would make it impossible to get ccw in Canada. We not only have to fight against the anti-gun groups, but also our very own pro-gun groups. sad, but that's life.
 
MrSchultz said:
using that logic, we should all take our guns to the dumpster. what's a stupid law going to do to prevent me from carrying my gun concealed? If us gun owners are mature and responsible enough to leave our guns at home, because by law we can't ccw, then why would you be worried about people going out of control if ccw was permitted?

I for one, think it's a losing battle. It's people (and gun owners) like you (no offense) that would make it impossible to get ccw in Canada. We not only have to fight against the anti-gun groups, but also our very own pro-gun groups. sad, but that's life.
Click to expand...

You see the thing is at least 70% of gun owners live in rural areas and we can begin to comprehend why someone would need to carry. Last time I checked fighting people to get what you want is usually the worst thing to do, the key to getting what you want is to explain why you need it and who would benefit ( both parties if possible if not then bs)

So first things first explain why you NEED to be able to carry, we would like to help its just we don't understand why.

Secondly who would benefit, would it just be you? Or would we be able to go shoot handguns and possibly Restricted rifles in our back yard(on farms not in town)or shoot gophers or squirrels a with them if we wanted? ( that would be cool and benefit both you and most nay sayers)

Thirdly you could bs about how it would benefit non gun people and possibly explain the idea to them bit more ( you can save that parts for people that apply for it )

In conclusion I'm good at getting what I want and now you all are to.
some exclusion may apply
 
hunterinthewoods said:
None, it was used as an example only.

I do not disagree with you about the law abiding citizens not being careless. I completely understand that.
All it takes is just one person to go ballistic, that can happen with anyone at anytime....regardless if there is CCW or not...just a bit easier if its strapped to your side......that is all.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they said in Florida, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Texas........ Strangely, they were all wrong, in fact they could not have been more wrong. The number of permits revoked for "brandishing" or menacing, or criminal misuse is infinitessimally small - so small as to be statistically insignificant. Your fellow human beings are much more in control of themselves than you think they are. Incidentally, the one person I've met who actually does have a permit to carry from the BC CFO has had ongoing and credible threats to his life, over the last 20 years. Every year he has to prove that they still are ongoing. It's not that hard for him to do, he just lets the CFO listen to the death threat hit parade on his voicemail. There are some truly sick puppies out there.
 
Last edited:
hunterinthewoods said:
None, it was used as an example only.

I do not disagree with you about the law abiding citizens not being careless. I completely understand that.
All it takes is just one person to go ballistic, that can happen with anyone at anytime....regardless if there is CCW or not...just a bit easier if its strapped to your side......that is all.
Click to expand...

Way to change your post to attempt to add weight well after I had replied to the one liner originally posted ;).

What I tend to see here that such arguments such as the one you are providing are projections of what people fear they would do in a given opportunity and thus they assume it's what everyone else would do. Such as the typical anti argument against hunting rifles (or any firearm really); "can't have it with a capacity of more than one round and can't have a range of more than a hundred meters with a bullet larger than a .22lr. Otherwise a person might go ballistic with their high power large capacity lever or bolt action and it's easier to do so if it's not stored in a police lockup. If it only saves one life....". What you're doing is projecting what you fear you might do in a given situation and applying that fear to the rest of society, same thing that the anti firearms crowd does. "It's just too easy to go get your shotgun from your trunk and go ballistic, you shouldn't be allowed it", you see it's no different for you to go ballistic with any non-restricted hunting rifle than it is with a conealed, but firearms owners are largely in control and law abiding.

You see how that there is no difference between your hunting rifle, semi-auto range only rifle, and a pistol with a permit for CCW with such an argument? There is no difference in the type of firearm, it's the owner that is vetted and allowed to lawfully possess and carry the firearm and by such measures they are usually more law abiding then the regular public as they know and respect the duty of proper firearms care and the concequence of not being law abiding.

Allow me to use your own logic for a second with a direct quote with a slight edit; "All it takes is just one person to go ballistic, that can happen with anyone at anytime....just a bit easier if its non-restricted and legally being transported in your vehicle......that is all.". Such attempt at logic from pure emotion and no statistical evidence could very well be used against you for any firearm.

Don't be divisive on any firearms issue as the same logic will eventually be used against you. If you're a valid PAL holder I support your ability to possess non-restricted and carry them and enjoy them where legal, and as a fellow firearms owner I would hope you would do the same if an individual were allowed to carry concealed.
 
Does anyone know how a person can get the names of all the private citizens ,in Canada, who have been issued Permits to Carry . It would make for an interesting project to try to speak to them in an effort to identify trends in successful applicatios to carry . Just a thought :)
 
loki_81 said:
Way to change your post to attempt to add weight well after I had replied to the one liner originally posted ;).

What I tend to see here that such arguments such as the one you are providing are projections of what people fear they would do in a given opportunity and thus they assume it's what everyone else would do. Such as the typical anti argument against hunting rifles (or any firearm really); "can't have it with a capacity of more than one round and can't have a range of more than a hundred meters with a bullet larger than a .22lr. Otherwise a person might go ballistic with their high power large capacity lever or bolt action and it's easier to do so if it's not stored in a police lockup. If it only saves one life....". What you're doing is projecting what you fear you might do in a given situation and applying that fear to the rest of society, same thing that the anti firearms crowd does. "It's just too easy to go get your shotgun from your trunk and go ballistic, you shouldn't be allowed it", you see it's no different for you to go ballistic with any non-restricted hunting rifle than it is with a conealed, but firearms owners are largely in control and law abiding.

You see how that there is no difference between your hunting rifle, semi-auto range only rifle, and a pistol with a permit for CCW with such an argument? There is no difference in the type of firearm, it's the owner that is vetted and allowed to lawfully possess and carry the firearm and by such measures they are usually more law abiding then the regular public as they know and respect the duty of proper firearms care and the concequence of not being law abiding.

Allow me to use your own logic for a second with a direct quote with a slight edit; "All it takes is just one person to go ballistic, that can happen with anyone at anytime....just a bit easier if its non-restricted and legally being transported in your vehicle......that is all.". Such attempt at logic from pure emotion and no statistical evidence could very well be used against you for any firearm.

Don't be divisive on any firearms issue as the same logic will eventually be used against you. If you're a valid PAL holder I support your ability to possess non-restricted and carry them and enjoy them where legal, and as a fellow firearms owner I would hope you would do the same if an individual were allowed to carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Yes I added to my comment directly after I posted it, a few pages ago. But I am flattered that you must pay attention to what I am doing.
Is there any particular reason that you feel the need to single me out and use me as a example?
I will repeat once again... I live in a rural area, I do not feel threaten by other humans, so MY need to carry is very low. If anyone locally needs to carry as a tool (hunting/trapping), I see that as being different...............MY OPINION which I am entitled to.
Sorry if I do not conform to your ideas or thoughts, I have my own, whether right or wrong it should not matter to you..I enjoy the outdoors, hunting ,fishing going to the range..IS that ok with you??? Or should I do as you wish??????..........that is all.

If you feel the need to have a further conversation, please pm me....I will gladly chat...thanks!
 
hunterinthewoods said:
Excuse me? Yes I added to my comment directly after I posted it, a few pages ago. But I am flattered that you must pay attention to what I am doing.
Is there any particular reason that you feel the need to single me out and use me as a example?
I will repeat once again... I live in a rural area, I do not feel threaten by other humans, so MY need to carry is very low. If anyone locally needs to carry as a tool (hunting/trapping), I see that as being different...............MY OPINION which I am entitled to.
Sorry if I do not conform to your ideas or thoughts, I have my own, whether right or wrong it should not matter to you..I enjoy the outdoors, hunting ,fishing going to the range..IS that ok with you??? Or should I do as you wish??????..........that is all.

If you feel the need to have a further conversation, please pm me....I will gladly chat...thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm not paying attention to what you're doing, I have a very good memory, scary good. That and I quoted your full post, not hard to see the change ;).

That's the problem that I was pointing out, is that you're going into this debate with your opinion based on emotions and what you need. Some people live in high crime & high population density areas, some are women/infirm/incable of self defence, why should they be denied the right to defend themselves? This isn't about your need.

If you can give statistical information of how a state/country/municipality passed a CCW law and violent crime directly increased then that will hold more weight in this conversation than an opinion and emotion. I bet for every one impartial and non funded statistic that you can find (if there are any to be found) that points to the increase in gun rights directly increasing violent crime that you can also find three impartial non funded statistics that say otherwise.

Nobody is asking you to conform. What I did say is to support other gun owners or they wont support you, I did so by using your exact logic and changing the scenario which is the platform we're fighting against as firearms owners. Don't for one second think that a law or opinion that singles out pistol shooters couldn't be expanded to milsurp, red rifles, and hunting rifles. I may or may not need what you do, I may or may not agree with your opinion, and I may or may not support the types of firearms you like to play with. I will however as a fellow firearms owner support you in ownership, and only ask the same in return. As a community if we're divided we're much easier to seperate than united, and it doesn't matter what your opinion on concealed carry is so long as you support the need for someone else to have it. If it has been historically proven that concealed carry has directly risen crime then there would be no debate, but the proof has been the exact opposite contrary to your opinion.

I'd rather not take this conversation to PM as it can serve to educate others, please do not PM me and leave the conversation public.
 
Last edited:
And with all that, what are your required needs to CCW? Not what you think everyone wants to hear on this forum, or what our community needs.....YOUR personnel opinion.

I have given mine, which is based on emotion and my needs ( as you stated above) which is fine, I am not going to lie or sugarcoat anything. Last time I checked I was allowed to say whatever I felt like.....So, since you have debated my beliefs.....share yours perhaps??

Maybe you could shed some light on this and explain to us, why you NEED it? I am curious, like I said before, I live in rural NS. I guess I do not understand?

I understand if you do not want to give us your personnel opinion. That is your choice, no harm no foul.

Sure some women/infirm/incable persons, may need to defend themselves, are you suggesting that our policing is not up to par? Do the majority of people that live in a high crime & high population density areas feel threaten all the time? I truly do not know. Guess I like my quiet little towns.

I have not once stated that I would not support this or my fellow firearm owners, or wanted it to fail. Suggesting that is putting words in my mouth.


I stated that our Gov't is weak, and they will never let it happen.

Sorry that I can not write in massive paragraphs such as yourself, or that I do not have any statistical information to prove anything. To be honest it doesn't bother me enough to search and find it. And well, I am not much of a writer and fumble with my keyboard!
 
Last edited:
hunterinthewoods said:
And with all that, what are your required needs to CCW? Not what you think everyone wants to hear on this forum, or what our community needs.....YOUR personnel opinion.
Click to expand...

I, me, myself, personally, do not have a NEED of CCW.
But I would like to think that, if it were legal, that many
a previously-defenseless person, would, with CCW, be able
to defend themselves (or at least be given the option.)
 
I have lived in the US and carried daily in multiple states for years.

I don't agree with the Canadian system regarding handguns. I think we have the RIGHT to protect ourselves with any means necessary however our government has made that not legally possible for most of us.

I don't think you should need to prove your life is in danger to get a permit. Makes no sense.

I dream that someday we can have the freedom to carry a pistol/handgun for wilderness defense, and maybe during my childrens lifetime they will see the RIGHT to carry for self defense become a reality.

Even "pro gun" gun owners in Canada look down on handguns and self defense. Further claiming we don't need "assault rifles" either.

We need to unify as firearm owners and push for real restoration of firearm rights.
 
Loki old pal, are you off your meds again? The Hunter was merely pointing out a fact that on occasion road rage happens. Its not a far reach to understand that the two guys involved in punching the sh1t out of each other on the side of a road somewhere, would most likely have no aversion to an "olde tyme duel at high noon" if they were carrying under the same or similar circumstances...take two of the blue ones, wait a half hour then take one of the little pink ones and PM me in the morning 'K? :p

Hunterinthewoods; correct me if I'm misinterpreting your position,you've been doing a fine job explaining yourself so far and you certainly don't need me chiming in or putting words in your mouth, just couldn't resist you understand. Its a weakness.:D
 
plinker 777 said:
Loki old pal, are you off your meds again? The Hunter was merely pointing out a fact that on occasion road rage happens. Its not a far reach to understand that the two guys involved in punching the sh1t out of each other on the side of a road somewhere, would most likely have no aversion to an "olde tyme duel at high noon" if they were carrying under the same or similar circumstances...take two of the blue ones, wait a half hour then take one of the little pink ones and PM me in the morning 'K? :p
Click to expand...

Lol :D. Good times. For the record it's two pink then a blue perhaps follwed by a red, thank you very much :p.

The problem is that as Canadians we're so used to hearing 'blood in the streets' cries to every change for the better in gun laws that we as gun owners start to perpetuate the same crap. I would like to see any statistical information as to "olde tyme duel at high noon" from lawful concealed carry permit holders. If there is any with lawful gun owners that draw their concealed then 99.99999% of the time there is a life threatening action that proceeds it. Where you would find this to happen is with criminals, and they don't seem to carry a piece of paper telling them they're allowed to conceal. Even drawing your concealed is concidered brandishing, which is a offence if I'm not mistaken, and isn't done so lightly and without reason. To get a permit even in most shall issue states you must first pass a course and prove proficiency, this course also contains explanation of the law and conflict de-escalation techniques in order to only draw your concealed as a absolute last resort.

Lawful gun owners are in fact for the most part very law abiding people and should stand together on firearms issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom