Concealed Carry in Canada....

Also, I own property in a town the same size as Terrace down here and they haven't had a murder in 10+ years. What are murder rates like in peaceful Terrace, BC Canada? You guys have what, 2 murders so far this year? almost one every year. 1 shooting and another beat to death this year. A stabbing and a murder with a hammer in the last couple years.

Yea the murder capital of Canada. Both involve alcohol and or drugs.among friends. No reason to champion CCW. To American readers this doesn't mean we lack freedom, as a whole, we just have a different mindset. I have carried both as a Banker when we had guns in the office and with a Wilderness Permit. Damn uncomfortable for the most part.

When I travel in the US I have yet to ever feel uncomfortable or think I needed to be armed. Not sure if those in the arms industry want to hear that but there you go.

Take Care

Bob
 
No one forces CCW/CPH on anyone, its a choice, and with those choices come responsibilities.


I choose to carry a gun because it gives me more options if god forbid there is situation near me.
 
Yea the murder capital of Canada. Both involve alcohol and or drugs.among friends. No reason to champion CCW. To American readers this doesn't mean we lack freedom, as a whole, we just have a different mindset. I have carried both as a Banker when we had guns in the office and with a Wilderness Permit. Damn uncomfortable for the most part.

When I travel in the US I have yet to ever feel uncomfortable or think I needed to be armed. Not sure if those in the arms industry want to hear that but there you go.

Take Care

Bob

If you're not allowed to do something that is not an initiation of force, how is that not a lack of freedom?

I would have to deduce from that, that this mindset you speak of, accepts that lack of freedom.

Not that there isn't a clear cut lack of freedom. Because clearly, there is that lack of freedom.
 
From what I've read re: CCW permits in the US, they don't just hand them out like prescriptions. Training is required that stresses the legal ramifications of using deadly force.

Citizens with CCW permits have a lower rate of recidivism than do non-licenced. Violent crime in CCW jurisdictions drops. The presence of an armed citizen in the right place at the right time has saved lives. The antis allowed CCW in some states hoping that the program would fail and the streets would be bathed in blood. It didn't happen.

Doesn't matter the number of times if you apply the "... if it saves even one life ..." mantra that justified C-68. How many lives makes it worthwhile one way or the other? Ask yourself how you would feel if you were part of a scenario where you could have made a difference if you were armed instead of hoping to be the last person shot.

Far better to have a gun and not need it than the opposite. The rabid, foaming at the mouth antis feel they have to force their agenda down our throats as if we wanted them to go armed. They have the right to become victims just as we have the right to life.
 
Well I can't defraud folks, distribute hate literature, speed on our highways and a host of other non forceful actions. Has nothing to do with freedom or the lack of it. I can vote for Members of Parliament who could pass laws to allow for CCW. I doubt you could manage to elect anyone in this country who promised to pass such a law and I would doubt many on this board would argue that point.

Kevin B I agree CCW is not forced upon anyone but the fact you in your State and County can do so does impact those who are around you though. Do you feel you need to carry to be safe in your daily life or do you carry just because you can?

Sharps, the mantra if it saves one life is the cornerstone of the argument for CCW as well.

Take Care

Bob
ps I do believe very strongly in our laws that allow us to defend ourselves up to and including lethal force and do ensure I have that capability within the confines of my home. I just don't believe there is a dogs chance in hell of widespread CCW ever happening up here.
 
From what I've read re: CCW permits in the US, they don't just hand them out like prescriptions. Training is required that stresses the legal ramifications of using deadly force.

That depends on the state, there is some of everything in the US. Alaska and Vermont have no state firearms laws at all (and the world doesn't end, imagine that! ;)). If you can legally own the gun (according to federal firearms law), then you can carry it. Arizona has unlicensed CCW and a number of others have very minimal licensing requirements, with no courses or testing required. Some have only written tests and some also include live fire testing in their licensing procedures.


Mark
 
The only places in the US with worse gun violence rates per capita than Canada are the cities like Chicago, and DC that have tighter gun laws than Canada. If I could live in the US I would, and probably will end up retiring there. By the time I retire, I'm pretty sure there won't be any firearms owners in Canada, and it's just too much a part of who I am for me to ever give them up.

I don't think so. While DC is virtually a gun free zone or so the law says it has the highest high violent crime rate in the US (31.2 per 100K) Alaska rates number 2 in the US with no gun laws ( 20 per 100K). see http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 Add Hawaii to the mix with the toughest gun laws in the US and it has the fewest death rates. What does all this mean...nothing.

From Stats Canada - Canada's 2006 firearm homicide rate was nearly six times lower than the United States. But it was about three times higher than the rate in Australia and six times higher than in England and Wales. The rate of non-firearm homicide was fairly similar in all four countries.

Take Care

Bob
 
I don't think so. While DC is virtually a gun free zone or so the law says it has the highest high violent crime rate in the US (31.2 per 100K) Alaska rates number 2 in the US with no gun laws ( 20 per 100K). see http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 Add Hawaii to the mix with the toughest gun laws in the US and it has the fewest death rates. What does all this mean...nothing.

From Stats Canada - Canada's 2006 firearm homicide rate was nearly six times lower than the United States. But it was about three times higher than the rate in Australia and six times higher than in England and Wales. The rate of non-firearm homicide was fairly similar in all four countries.

Take Care

Bob

Erm, apparently you can't read. "Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state " is not violent crime. This includes ALL deaths (suicides, accidents and murders). Alaska has a gun MURDER rate of 2.7 per 100k.

Not to mention the site you used is a known anti-gun site. They included knife and other weapon murders in their totals for gun violence.

Even with those measures, the top ten least violent states have good gun laws except Hawaii.

Top ten least violent (most of which have lower crime rates than Canada):

1) North Dakota
2) Vermont
3) Wyoming
4) South Dakota
5) Maine
6) New Hampshire
7) Montana
8) Rhode Island
9) Hawaii
10) Idaho
11) Alaska (included so you can see how wrong your above statement was)
 
Perhaps but the heading is "firearm deaths per thousand". Pretty clear to me if the numbers are correct. Not sure why quibble with the numbers. They far exceed anything up here. Not that it matters much. You can re jig the numbers any way you want we aren't going to get CCW up here and you know it. Crime rates and the lack thereof have little to do with firearms.

I believe we had a grand total of 598 murders of all kinds in 2011 and have a homicide rate of .1/100K. The US is six times that amount. I would be surprised if there were more than 150 murders due to the use of firearms. in 2011 in Canada. My bet is Chicago and DC exceed those numbers.

Take Care

Bob
 
Last edited:
Perhaps but the heading is "firearm deaths per thousand". Pretty clear to me if the numbers are correct. Not sure why quibble with the numbers. They far exceed anything up here. Not that it matters much. You can re jig the numbers any way you want we aren't going to get CCW up here and you know it. Crime rates and the lack thereof have little to do with firearms. I believe we had a grand total of 598 murders of all kinds in 2011 and have a homicide rate of .1/100K. The US is six times that amount. I would be surprised if there were more than 150 due to the use of firearms. My bet is Chicago and DC exceed those numbers.

Take Care

Bob

Try 2.8x, not 6 (not sure where you got that). 1.7 per 100k in Canada, 4.8 per 100k in USA.

Anyways, I don't really care what Canadians do. I left and I will never move back but it still disgusts me that gun owners there are anti concealed carry.
 
Try 2.8x, not 6 (not sure where you got that). 1.7 per 100k in Canada, 4.8 per 100k in USA.

Anyways, I don't really care what Canadians do. I left and I will never move back but it still disgusts me that gun owners there are anti concealed carry.
It isn't that I am against it I am just of the opinion it is never going to come to pass in Canada. Too, I am convinced CCW has had nothing to do with the drop in crime rates in the US as we have enjoyed the same rates of decline without CCW. The boomers just got older.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44;920891Kevin B I agree CCW is not forced upon anyone but the fact you in your State and County can do so does impact those who are around you though. Do you feel you need to carry to be safe in your daily life or do you carry just because you can? Sharps said:
It matters not that a person may or may not have 'need' for CCW. I don't 'need' a .50 BMG, .338 Lapua, a 12(6) 'prohib' or a full auto for that matter. It should not be up to a bureaucrat or political police commissar to arbitrarily decree what guns, calibres, colours of guns, magazine capacities, etc. that we may have or how we choose to transport them, concealed or otherwise. Until a crime is committed with any of them, they are just firearms - period, property in another form.

I don't 'need' a high performance car or motorcycle, ATV or SeaDoo either. But until I cause a problem or endanger anyone, All the regulations, restrictions and licencing in the world doesn't prevent their misuse. Yesterday, Vancouver marked it's 6th "gang related" murder of the year, a targeted hit in the back alley of a residential street. What are the chances it was done by an unlicenced shooter with an unregistered "prohib" carried concealed?

We may or may not have a "dog's chance" of achieving CCW rights, but like anything else, whether you think you can or cannot, you're right either way. Don't ask - don't get. Sometimes you gotta demand. There was a time we thought we'd never see the cancellation of the long gun registry. It's ghost is still with us, but it's unlikely we'll see universal firearms registration reinstituted.
 
Well get out there and write letters etc. The gun community is so small in this country relative to the population you don'y have a snow balls chance in hell to put it bluntly. I have spoken to my MP and he has said the same thing. Power has shifted to the cities where the population is and that is where the anti gun crowd plays.

Take handguns for instance. There are about 2500 - 3000 IPSC, IDPA, PPC and CASS shooters in Canada. I mention those groups because they likely are the largest consumers of handguns in Canada. Where do you think the mass demand for CCW is going to come from? Double or triple my estimate and you still don't have enough folks to even to begin to stir the political pot and the politicians know it.

I asked Kevin a question which doesn't include the word "need". There is a mindset involved. Do you think you require CCW to really defend yourself in your daily environment or is it just a case that you can carry so you do. In my case when fishing where I fish I would carry to protect myself against four legged creatures, I don't "need" to carry in my daily environment. I only carry when I am gold panning because I can't for any other reasons.

Take Care

Bob
 
I asked Kevin a question which doesn't include the word "need". There is a mindset involved. Do you think you require CCW to really defend yourself in your daily environment or is it just a case that you can carry so you do. In my case when fishing where I fish I would carry to protect myself against four legged creatures, I don't "need" to carry in my daily environment. I only carry when I am gold panning because I can't for any other reasons.

So the handgunners are a minority amongst gun owners - so what? No one's guns are sacrosanct, as we have seen of late. What is legal today is a 'prohib' tomorrow. The list of long gun bans rivals or exceeds that of handguns. It's all in accord with the "Prime Directive" - remove as many guns from civilian hands as possible and by any means, one gun at a time.

I'm of the "better to have a gun and not need it" mindset. When you need a gun, you need it bad. I carry a 50-70 Sharps carbine when hiking with my wife and dogs as they have a habit of bringing bears to me - on the run! This has happened more than once and the same situation for a friend resulted in him getting a swat across the face by a bear.

Why the 50-70? I have implicit faith in my ability with it, to place a shot where it has to go, probably the only shot I'd have in that scenario. But I'd prefer to be packing one of my heavy calibre handguns (not a wobbly antique firing an anaemic cartridge), particularly when berry picking. I don't see how the world would be less of a wonderful environment for me so doing. I also don't see the need to have 'Big Brother's' approval to do so.

However, since we don't have property rights in this country, we are at the level of feudal serfs, to include firearms we own at the suffrage of the government of the day. With illuminati like Justin Trudeau and discredited soldiers like Romeo Dallaire in favour of "gun control" and the UN initiative on small arms, we are under a two pronged attack. We can flap our gums all we want, but we're all just an Order in Council away from losing any and/or all of our guns as deemed fit by the flavour of the day.
 
If you live in Canada, aren't involved in the drug trade and don't frequent bars at 3:00am in the morning your chances of being murdered are next to nothing.

Take Care

Bob

Let's do an experiment.

You hop in a plane, direction: Montreal, Qc. Get off, take a cab to the neighbourhood of Hochelaga-Maisoneuve and go strut around anytime pass 9pm and see what happens.

Ohh and good luck.
 
NorthAmericaMurderRateComparison2005-2008c.jpg
 
So the handgunners are a minority amongst gun owners - so what?

We can flap our gums all we want, but we're all just an Order in Council away from losing any and/or all of our guns as deemed fit by the flavour of the day.

We are in a huge minority when compared to the population as a whole and therein lies the problem and why we will never have CCW.

Your last paragraph is spot on.

Rangebob - you are missing the forest for the trees. There were just over 500 mrders in Canada last year. About the same as there were in Chicago (532 - 2012) vs Toronto (41 - 2012). The cities are the same size. Gun laws in Chicago are far more stricter than in Toronto so I guess our gun laws are working....or have nothing to do with either murder amount. Since you provide the murder rates per 100K for selective rural States why do you suppose residents in those States feel they need to carry while residents North of the 49th don't?

Benl - my point exactly.

Take Care

Bob
ps From what I can see the whole gun issue is a dead issue politically now. The Liberals are not about to reinstate the long gun registry as they know it did nothing and the NDP will yap about the issue to try ti hold on to their seats in Quebec and urban English areas. Even our local NDP MP will admit to this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom