Revolver for newbies like me?

Wow, nothing like attacking a newbie. I'm glad CGN wasn't my first stop when I got interested in buying a handgun for self defense. I'm glad I talked to people who have patience to explain that self defense with a firearm is more often than not illegal. Then we wonder why we can't stop the ridiculous gun control and proceed to suffer from in-fighting and pettiness.
 
Russoft said:
Wow, nothing like attacking a newbie. I'm glad CGN wasn't my first stop when I got interested in buying a handgun for self defense....
Click to expand...

Russoft, you probably already knew a gun from a golf club and asked intelligent questions. Take a look at aliceminer's other thread a bit further down about "maximum firepower". The troll begins to emerge around post #16, and the responses begin to reflect this, just as they do here. (See #31 in that thread.) Then the Nagant revolver question which started this thread. #28 is pretty good: "I mean my only firearms experience is when I am 5" (Grammatically-challenged, too.) Any wonder some of us are getting a bit suspicious/fed up?

:) Stuart
 
When "self defense" questions center around rounds "that can pierce titanium body armour" and after being told SEVERAL times what the laws are like in this country, the actions become a little more troll like...or at least totally unwilling to actual do anything for themselves. The stated requirement for an ATC is...protection against gangsters...really?!?
 
aliceminer said:
How can I get the permit?
Click to expand...


You don't. Not in Canada. Concealed Carry Permits are only issued to people for work; Brinks, Police, Security. You're employer requests the permit and then you get it.

Another option is for fur Trappers who work in the wilds and may need one for self defense. This applies ALMOST only to fur trappers. Other people who work in the bush or arctic, will be told to bring a shotgun or rifle when in the woods. Trappers made the argument that they need their hands for work and that long arms are too bulky and awkward to use. Unless you are a licensed trapper, you won't get one. I should also mention that this permit is a wilderness permit only. It is valid only when working in the prescribed areas and you can't protect yourself from Vancouver's wildlife with this permit anyways.

The last option that I've heard of is when you petition your provincial Chief Firearms Officer claiming a need for self defense. You must have credible and specific threats named and it is up to the CFO to decides whos life is worth protecting and whos is not. Trust me, in your CFOs mind. Your is not. Neither is mine. This option is reserved for politicos, VIPs, Judges and lawyers who have had specific threats made against them. I genuinely believe that even if you have been shot and receive daily threateneing letters signed by 70 gang members and notarized by a public notary, you still will not get this permit. Go ahead and apply, but don't be suprised when it is ignored, I guarentee they won't even finish reading the application before sending it to the garbage can.


To everybody else: he may be young and naive, but calling him a troll and not answering his questions does nothing to anyone. If you don't like the thread stop reading it. Posting troll just makes the forum an uninviting place for newcommers. We were all young once. Many of us were once (still?) are mall ninjas in our fantasies. Give this kid a break and set him straight or shut up.

When I first joined I was only interested in public discussion and to learn the laws and issues and details about firearms and everyone called me a troll. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a troll. Lets try and take the high road and provide credible advice and opinions where possible and let the mods ban the real trolls.
 
Another excellent post, drvrage. And, yes, some of us - me included - have been hard on aliceminer but not simply because he is young and inexperienced. We all started there :redface: I really hope that is all there is to it.

If he had explained himself from the outset, "I'm 17 and just moved to Vancouver from the US and really green when it comes to firearms, having only shot one when I was 5, so bear with me", etc. it would really have helped! (It's not too late, aliceminer- go back a few steps and give us a proper introduction.)

You are giving him excellent advice; heck, I even learned something from your last post. Hopefully your patience (and others') will pay off and he can get out of fantasy land and into being a responsible gun owner. If not, well, just a few minutes and megabits of bandwidth we'll never get back.

:) Stuart
 
ttruscott said:
Sorry, I believe this to be wrong.

From my book: Canadian Law and Self Defence (though there is much more to this topic than this little precis)


S. 87 – Possession of a Weapon for a
Dangerous Purpose:

The following section is used in the arrest and conviction
of those people who have a weapon and claim a legal right
to carry it but may be planning to use it for crime.

S. 87 Every one who carries or has in his possession a
weapon or imitation thereof, for a purpose danger-
ous to the public peace or for the purpose of com-
mitting an offence, is guilty of an indictable offence
and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years.

The Right to Carry a Weapon for
Self Defence:

Greenspan notes:
“This section does not prohibit persons arming them-
selves for self-protection and in the absence of other cir-
cumstances the offence under this section is not
committed if the accused carries for self-defence a
weapon that is an appropriate instrument with which to
repel, in a lawful manner, the type of attack reasonably
apprehended and if the accused is competent to handle
the weapon and likely to use it responsibly.”

Although Mr. Greenspan is a noted member of the profes-
sion and had his own T.V. show about legal issues, we
should regard this only as his opinion. Who will judge
whether my choice of instrument is appropriate or not? I
assume a judge or jury will, so I also assume I must choose
a weapon to suit their criteria and not perhaps the situa-
tion itself. Leave your cannon at home, I guess. The ques-
tion of the likelihood of using your weapon of choice responsibly may allow you to call on an expert witness in
your favor, i.e., your sensei or a police expert, to show that
your weapon of choice was appropriate to the task and
that you are practised in its safe use. -page 75

Sulland 2CCC 3d 68:
In 1982, an 18 year old named Sulland was seen by
police to be hiding something under his jacket. It turned
out to be a can of beer, but the police also noticed a
jack-knife in a belt case. Sulland was arrested and con-
victed under S. 85. The trial Judge asserted it was not
proper for persons to arm themselves for self-protection
when they walk on the streets. This was overturned by
the B.C. Court of Appeals who ruled, in part:
“The Code does not prohibit instruments for
self-defence and S. 85 should not be converted into such
a prohibition. There are many other prohibitions in the
Code. They focus on the weapon (S. 89) or the place it is
taken (S. 86) or the manner in which it is carried, S. 88
(2). S. 85 is narrow; it focuses on purpose –I conclude
that when the trial Judge equated self protection with a
purpose dangerous to the public peace he erred.”
This case clearly supports the idea that carrying a
weapon for self defence purposes is not against the law,
even if there are a lot of restrictions that do go along with
it.

Arrance 3CCC 2nd 341:
This 1971 case found Arrance guilty of carrying a
concealed weapon because the folding knife he had
in his pocket had a locking blade. It could only be

opened manually. It was not a switchblade nor was
there any evidence that it was designed to be a
weapon. He was convicted anyway.
He appealed the conviction and won, leaving us to
wonder at the extra cost to the taxpayers to sort out
this Judge’s obvious bias. At least the judgment
included these words:
“While it may be used effectively in fighting
offensively or defensively unless there is some-
thing in the evidence to show that it was
designed to be so used, a conviction (for carry-
ing a concealed weapon) should not be regis-
tered.”

If all the laws about the firearm are complied with, a firearm is a suitable weapon in some cases to be used "on the sudden" for self defence.

Ted
http://defendyourself101.ca
Click to expand...

Interesting Mr. Truscott. Nice plug for your book too. I may have to pick it up. (After research of course).

But in a way, what you said proved me right, depending on your point of view. The man was charged and convicted for carying a weapon for self defense. It was only on appeal that he was cleared. This was my fundamental point. I see your argument as valid, but only debating symantics.
 
Thank for spending time to explain to me how the system work.
Because I don't have any background related to guns.
 
aliceminer said:
Thank for spending time to explain to me how the system work.
Because I don't have any background related to guns.
Click to expand...


We guessed. :D Don't take it personally. There are a lot of cynics here and those who have been here a long time got tired of answering questions and would rather just troll themselves. You will learn a lot here, both of the fun and of the practical. Just read lots before you post. Probably one of the best features is that CGN is a good reality check for everyone.

(Ahem) ...and body armour is made of kevlar, polyester (GoldFlex) and not titanium. Just so you know.... Hard plates for rifle round protection are made of hardened steel or ceramics. Not titanium.
 
Sorry, I didn't take the time to read all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been discussed.
If it is a revolver you want, I would highly suggest a Ruger Single Six Convertable. It will shoot both .22 (all sizes) plus .22 magnum (by changing the cylinder).
The single action is smooth and will teach you control and patience.
The ability to shoot .22 short is nice when you want a quieter shoot, or are introducing women/kids to the sport.
When you want a little more kick and accuracy, throw in the .22 mag cylinder and away you go.
Did I mention how cheap it is to shoot .22? I'm sure others have pointed it out.
Good used examples of this firearm are out there, and good deals are to be had if you are patient.
$.02
 
ontgunner said:
...If it is a revolver you want, I would highly suggest a Ruger Single Six Convertable. It will shoot both .22 (all sizes) plus .22 magnum (by changing the cylinder)...Did I mention how cheap it is to shoot .22? ..
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A friend of mine has one and he loves it. Armco (see sponsor link at the top of the page) had a Ruger Bearcat on his website at $399. Sold now though. Regular .22 ammo is indeed cheap - which encourages lots of practice without creating a flinch in your wallet or your hand - but .22 mag begins to get pricey.

You might even be able to find a used S&W .22 (Model 17, I think) which would be very nice indeed, although more expensive. It is double action (pulling the trigger cocks the hammer and rotates the cylinder) but can also be shot single action (where you have to #### the hammer with your thumb first), which is the easiest to shoot accurately as the trigger pull is very short. I have a S&W 625 in .45 ACP which has an unbelievably clean single action pull; it breaks like the proverbial glass rod.

:) Stuart
 
I'm gonna come out of hiding to comment on this. Regardless of whether the OP is a troll, there are some excellent comments on this thread (mainly from dvrage) for some of us noobies who are lurking around. Thanks to those who took the time to offer their thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom