So, you freely admit that the onerous rules we currently have do nothing to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Then you go on to say that MORE RULES are the answer to this problem? How is any of what you said logical with that as your basis? Do you also realize that a large percentage of police officers wouldn't qualify to carry for work under the system you proposed?
Why are Canadian gun owners so mistrustful of their fellow citizens that they need this enormous blanket of excessive government regulation to let them sleep at night?
Mark
Yes and No.
Yes I agree with the fact that the gun control method in Canada (or anywhere) doesn't prevent violent crimes to happen because like its been said many times, criminals don't follow laws. I don't think the current ''laws'' are meant to control but to ''disarm'' us. But it doesn't mean that ANYONE, just because they have the right and they properly filled up a piece of paper should be allowed carrying a weapon in public for different reasons. You have different classes for driving licence which requires that you qualify for it in order to get it. You don't asking for a truck licence with no courses and the clerk just gives it to you because you have a normal driver licence. Want it simple: Get your RPAL, get 2-3 years of ''shooting experience'' and then request CCW, just like the learner licence.
Because carrying is absolutly no big deal, but it implies that if an event happen and you choose to use this weapon to defend your life or your family or the life of an other citizen, this choice my friend, you will live with it wheter it means jail time because your were to dumb/cheap to use proper personnal defense ammunition (HP) and your FMJ went thru the bad guy, thru a wall and thru someone's head because you didn't think further than ''killing the bad guy'' or a medal from mayor/elected people for saving the day. Or maybe you missed 4-5-6 shots because you're very good at the 10m lane on paper target but lost your ''skills'' and decided to engage at 45m, and I've seen the last one happen on ranges, people overestimating their skills/weapons. That could go on and on but you get it right ?
Cops and some trades in the Army receive not only shooting training (and bare with me, it doesn't mean its sufficient) but we also get a lot of training about making that choice, when is it acceptable to use LETHAL FORCE know as Rules Of Engagement, because this is what CCW/self defense really comes too. So yes it would make sense to have some criterias that you have to meet, in order to carry a weapon on you in public and possibly make a life or death decision.
For the trust level, I'm in the Army and the word ''accidental discharge'' gets thru my mind. I believe, for me at least, it is not a matter of trust but more of proof. The driver licence example again: to get it you MUST succeed to a test in order to proove that you understant some laws and basics of driving. If someone can proove that he/she understand the laws which I refered as ''rules of engagement'' and that this person is not only able to use a sidearm, but use it with a degree of precision, its enough for me
I'm not saying that this is how it should be, not saying that I'm right and everything else is wrong, I'm just expressing my view about what CCW could be in Canada. If we could at least get rid of the ATT and allow us to use restricted firearms the same way we use non-restricted... I mean, shooting a 9mm in a gravel pit is no more dangerous than a 30-06 or a shotgun eh ? That would be a great start. And I would be more than happy to ''argue'' about this subject while having a beer with fellow gun nutz here. We're all aiming in the same direction here: CCW
