No I'm not kidding.
But neither is that quote a stopping point.
It is rather a starting point of how to do it.
Two get CCW in Canada you need two things:
a) statistical evidence that it's not a problem, and you can get that from the HUGE American experiment they've been doing for us for at least 20 years. Don't look at homicide rates. Don't look at gangs. Look at problems with CCWers while they were CCWing. Lots of data about that on state websites. CATO has lots of pro stats, and Brady has their famous if somewhat debunked negative anecdotes.
b) gut arguments. Anecdotes. Again, just look to American newspapers and Canadian newspapers. Get a pile of stories/situations that happen in Canada, and get corresponding CCW situations down in the USA.
I doubt I would ever bother getting myself CCW licenced, because I'm a fairly large fellow who lives a fairly safe life. I was mugged once, by a professional football sized fellow, and we both escaped without injury, although I left without any cash. During my mugging I had opportunity to ask passer's by for help, and they did not. I remain without a desire to carry.
But I know people who do. Women who've been mugged and hospitalized in parking lots. Doctors and Nurses who work the night shift in hospitals, who walk alone and afraid through dark spots of the rough parts of Canadian cities, and share stories of assorted victimization by criminals who view the surrounds of the hospital like one of their favourite fishing spots. A few women I know don't want guns, they want tasers. They can't have either in their purses on the sidewalk.
In one of the most notorious of '50s New York City crime cases, one Linda Riss was being harassed by a married former suitor, negligence lawyer Burton Pugach, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a handgun license, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement to another man, Linda and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat by Pugach, the most recent one having been:
"If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you."
And one final time NYPD refused.
The morning following her engagement, a thug hired by Pugach threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently disfiguring her features.
Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful as the municipality denied any obligation to protect the woman. The sole dissenting Court of Appeals opinion highlighted the problem which still exists almost half a century later:
"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law plaintiff did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."
-- Riss v. New York
"If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you."
And one final time NYPD refused.
The morning following her engagement, a thug hired by Pugach threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently disfiguring her features.
Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful as the municipality denied any obligation to protect the woman. The sole dissenting Court of Appeals opinion highlighted the problem which still exists almost half a century later:
"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law plaintiff did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."
-- Riss v. New York
I concur. But that's not the point.
That's the point. There are several Canadians who feel they have the need to carry, who travel too and from work in reasonable fear of being attacked, either by random violence (assaults of various sorts, robbery) or targeted violence (domestic).
Would you deny their right to life, due to your unjustified fears? Have you walked a mile in their shoes?
Its about the freedom to respond in an effective and justifiable manor, to situations known to exist for specific individuals.
Canadian law currently denies us the right to practical self defence. In the 1970s when we lost that right there was little evidence supporting that position. In the 1990s there was lots, most of it debunked now, with lots of evidence supporting the idea that armed self defence is a good thing in a society with rule of law.
The Boy Scout motto is "Be Prepared".
But not in Canada. Disarmed and defenseless. It's the law.
In Canada, the numbers would probably work out the same as the USA:
a) those that are in known peril, would carry. I imagine I'd be quite happy to invite most of these people to dinner. Some I might be worried about their stalkers.
b) at least double the number, would every day carry. A lot of these people I'd find too odd to invite to my dinner table.
c) thirty times the sum of (a) + (b) would get permits, and never ever carry beyond the two or three times they did it initially.
d) In the USA, about 2% are CCW permitted now. I doubt that in Canada it would ever go above 1%.
The problem isn't that CCWers draw their guns too often, but getting them to carry or draw their guns. State of Utah scolded all their carry permit holders because 11 people with Utah concealed carry permits, were not carrying in that mall the day of a Sault Lake City mall shooting (off duty policeman killed the bad guy, bad guy killed 5).
Those that I wouldn't invite to my dinner table, might not be all that wrong.
Police reported about 306,559 violent crimes in 2007 (StatCan).
Police reported about 443,000 violent crimes in 2009 [StatCan, note more things included as violent crime, not an actual increase].
Population of Canada: 33,311,400
Canadian Life Expectancy: 80.96 years.
That gives an expectancy of being a victim of violent crime in your lifetime of 107% using 2009 stats.
That gives an expectancy of being a victim of violent crime in your lifetime of 74.5% using 2007 stats.
Based upon what happened in Pennsylvania and Oregon ("More guns less crime" 2nd edition, tables 5.4 and 5.5 on page 104), if 1% of Canadians were CCW/ATCed, we'd have 189 fewer homicides, 1502 fewer ###ual assaults, 11386 fewer aggravated assaults, and 518 fewer robberies, every year.
With about 1% licenced to concealed carry:
Murder rates drop to 77% of what they used to be,
rape rates drop to 87% of what they used to be,
violent crime rates drop to 85% of what they used to be, and
aggravated assault rates drop to 81% of what they used to be.
("More guns less crime" by John Lott, 3rd edition 2010, assorted graphs near page 262)
So, given the 611 homicides in Canada in 2009, it would only save one hundred and forty life, at no increase in property taxes.
But you and I aren't too far wrong either:
"If you are not involved in gangs, drug activity, prostitution or an abusive relationship, the likelihood of being a ... victim is very low."
-- Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, The Toronto Star 2005.06.02
I think they're connected, but with only 1% or 2% carrying, and laws enabled (as opposed to enacted) at various times, their effect is so tiny as to be virtually impossible to measure, other than anecdotally, at the national or state level. John Lott's analysis at the county level, remains the best science on the topic.
Arguing need is what's wrong with what we have today.
As you say, ATC for wilderness hobby fisherman, is non existent.
ATC for the preservation of life, is illusory. (illusory in the sense of Henry Morgentaler's supreme court case)
Does anyone need to have a gun? (A billion rounds expended in Canada every year, and millions of law abiding owners, vs 158 firearm homicides, about 17 accidentally)
Does anyone need to have a pool or a bathtub (millions of uses every day, 267 drownings a couple of years ago in Canada)
Does anyone need to have a car? (20 million licenced drivers driving billions of km every year, with 2,618 people killed by cars in 2009)
Does anyone need to have ###? (conception/childbirth is generally considered a good thing, but it's a disease vector (STD), and 104,000 abortions in Canada per year (Macleans))
Do you have the right to life?
Do you have the right to self defence?
Imagine you and your wife are kneeling in your home, with two large home invaders. One of them, with a large grin, flicks your wife's bra strap. If you didn't have a weapon, what would you do. If you had a concealed handgun, what would you do.
Barbara Frey of IANSA wrote for the United Nations in 2006 that people don't have a right to self defence, because there's little legislation saying they do.
Every weapon other than a gun increases your odds of being hurt when defending yourself, but a gun increases a woman's odds of surviving with minimal injury a physical attack by 4 times. (Kleck, Lott. I've got a chart and quote around here somewhere).
John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws.
-- Gary Kleck, Professor, Florida State University
There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's excellent, but it's totally irrelevant to rights. Its utility is in demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are de facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent citizens.
-- Sarah Thompson, M.D.; http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970801-06.html
"Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community." He quotes a sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 which unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide: "He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend himself."
-- Jeff Snyder (A Nation Of Cowards 2001)
Actually training, demonstrable need, and history of wilderness as primary employment, are all required for a wilderness permit. Merely fishing wouldn't qualify for the current primary employment requirement.
