*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.
Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds
CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ---->
  |
|
Page 7 of 8
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should we expand Canadian access to Concealed Weapon Permits? |
| No, we should ban handguns. |
|
12% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, we should keep our gun laws where they are. |
|
15% |
[ 5 ] |
| Yes, Restricted - ie. to off duty, retired, and part-time law enforcement officers. |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, May Issue |
|
25% |
[ 8 ] |
| Yes, Shall Issue |
|
37% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 32 |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mac wrote: | | Cole wrote: | Although he does make a valid point, if I am supposed to trust you with a handgun, why can't you trust me with a tank, SADM, or a biological weapon?
Point is where do you draw the line? I wasn't being rhetorical, anyone have any suggestions on what a limit would be on the type of gun a person should carry? |
Here's a little factoid you might not have known... It is not illegal to own a tank, a full-sized howitzer, an anti-aircraft gun or a bazooka... and they don't have to be registered either. I know a guy who operates his own "museum" including numerous military ordinance delivery systems, tanks, you name it. A bit too big to pack into a purse, I know, but imagine the impression you'd make towing a howitzer behind your Hummer...
Now where would you like to draw that line again? :D
-Mac |
There is a guy in Fort McMurray with a Centurian tank, fully operational. The cannon is a Hi Vel 25 pounder. It fires a 25 pound slug 5100 feet/sec. That's firepower! |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | crazymamma wrote: | | I will not make the mistake of thinking you are open to anything but your own views regurgitated for your pleasure on this particular topic again. |
It should be noted that at least I attempted to compromise very early in this thread...
| Quote: | | I could support a very stringent form of this where people who have had significant training (a basic law enforcement course) would be allowed to carry. I just oppose blanket legalization. |
So WHO is the one not open to anything but their own views??? Who??? Perhaps you can show me where YOU compromised on this subject? I'll wait patiently.... |
Well I immediately discounted your law enforcement course as they have limited enrollment and I as a 5 foot nothing female weighing One hundred and ...a few pounds would never ever be accepted due to my diminutive size. Nor would anybody else that was not a peak specimen, the most vulnerable would automatically be excluded.
I am however agreeable to safe handling/use of a firearm/course before you can get to take your baby home. I don't think I advocated everyone gets one in their stocking for goodness sakes, mind you I did find this really cool thigh holster when I was in the states recently, no I didn't buy it, it is currently illegal.
https://www.oldtradingpost.com/western_store/product.php?productid=196&cat=25&page=1 |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
  
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You cannot convince the other side. Guns banned in Britain and gun crime goes up? Does not change anyone's mind. Guns banned in Australia and gun crime goes up? Does not change anyone's mind. Florida becomes a shall issue state, dire prediction of gun battles in the street fail to pan out and gun crime goes down? Does not convince anyone. The anti-gun peopel don't actually have any statistics or examples that prove their point? Does not change a single mind.
The fact is, nanny statism has infected everyone. The west is in decline, and this fear of objects is only one facet of that.
| Quote: | | Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! |
http://libertyonline.hypermall.....berty.html
We live in times where men would rather file obediently out of the room rather than protect a single life other than their own. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cole wrote: | Although he does make a valid point, if I am supposed to trust you with a handgun, why can't you trust me with a tank, SADM, or a biological weapon?
Point is where do you draw the line? I wasn't being rhetorical, anyone have any suggestions on what a limit would be on the type of gun a person should carry? |
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you take the US model, where the people are the final defenders of the constitution, then it stands to reason that any weapon the government can deploy should be available to the citizens.
But take a step back. The police force, the national guard, the army, those people are your fellow citizens. They are the same people you do not trust to carry a gun when they are wearing jeans and driving a car. Why is it OK for them to be in control of a tank, or F-18 when they are in uniform, but they have a shower and go on leave, and you are suddenly afraid of them? As people have said, rage is uncontrollable and unpredictable.
You know the old saying; an armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject. There is another old quote;
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” –Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:49 pm Post subject: Concealed Carry |
|
|
| It's none of the government's business what a citizen does with their own property. As long a they don't infringe on another citizen's rights or property. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: Concealed Carry |
|
|
| skye_bowen wrote: | | It's none of the government's business what a citizen does with their own property. As long a they don't infringe on another citizen's rights or property. |
That is a statement I can get behind,
Although should that freedom extend to being able to carry a weapon off your property? |
|
|
|
|
ezbeatz
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1140
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: Concealed Carry |
|
|
| cosmostein wrote: | | skye_bowen wrote: | | It's none of the government's business what a citizen does with their own property. As long a they don't infringe on another citizen's rights or property. |
That is a statement I can get behind,
Although should that freedom extend to being able to carry a weapon off your property? |
Why not? If it's your property and it's on your persons than the government doesn't really have a right to take it away or prevent you from having it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: Concealed Carry |
|
|
It's none of the government's business what a citizen does with their own property. "As long a they don't infringe on another citizen's rights or property."
This is a guiding standard against which citizen of a nation need to continually measure their freedom by. Sadly Canada is no longer a free country.
To your point specifically, The owner of the property determines the rules that must be followed while on his property. When deciding rules for public property we must err on the side of liberty, and freedom rather than grant the government another encroachment on our rights as free citizens of a free nation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kwlafayette wrote: | [
Why is it OK for them to be in control of a tank, or F-18 when they are in uniform, but they have a shower and go on leave, and you are suddenly afraid of them?
|
Well, a child is not likely to find his dads F-18 and shoot himself in the head with a sidewinder.
A cop is not going to have to shoot first because he is afraid some guy is grabbing his Abrams tank during a domestic dispute.
A enraged driver does not have a turret on his car when someone cuts him off in traffic.
I have mixed emotions about this, but I think from a cost/benifit perspective, handguns are a disaster. Unless you have a really good reason to be carrying one, that gun is likely more of a threat to your family than anything else. Seriously, how many peoples lives have been saved by handguns ? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | kwlafayette wrote: | [
Why is it OK for them to be in control of a tank, or F-18 when they are in uniform, but they have a shower and go on leave, and you are suddenly afraid of them?
|
Well, a child is not likely to find his dads F-18 and shoot himself in the head with a sidewinder.
A cop is not going to have to shoot first because he is afraid some guy is grabbing his Abrams tank during a domestic dispute.
A enraged driver does not have a turret on his car when someone cuts him off in traffic.
I have mixed emotions about this, but I think from a cost/benifit perspective, handguns are a disaster. Unless you have a really good reason to be carrying one, that gun is likely more of a threat to your family than anything else. Seriously, how many peoples lives have been saved by handguns ? |
And you are comfortable/more then happy to let some government bureaucrat or Lizzy Mae/Iggy et all to make the decision as to what you can and can not carry/do? What constitutes a good reason?
What if someone decides that a person is not allowed to travel more then 5 KMs to get to work?
What if someone decides that a person can only have a 3 days worth of food in their home?
What if someone decides that you may only spend your money at fill in the blank?
What if....freedom is a thing one should always be expanding not contracting at the will of our servants. You are supposed to be the master of your own life not the slave to your government... |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What if some government bureaucrats decide that Christians can no longer speak frankly about what is in the Bible? Or the government decides to set up commissions to "protect" favored groups from hate speech, and that hate speech can only be uttered by conservatives or Christians? Wait a minute... |
|
|
|
|
FF_Canuck
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | Well, a child is not likely to find his dads F-18 and shoot himself in the head with a sidewinder. |
This is an issue related to safe storage, having nothing to do with carry laws. Suicide is a mental health issue, and access in the home is the responsibility of the individual firearms owners.
Studies comparing suicide rates in Canada, the US, Europe, and Israel have demonstrated that there is no correlation between suicide rate and firearms laws, or within each country, suicide rates and changes to firearms laws. Oddly enough, people who want to kill themselves ignore laws the same way that people who want to mug you do.
Furthermore, even in countries where firearms suicides decrease, the overall suicide rate remains the same - so even if restrictive firearms laws reduced firearms suicides (they don't; see above), the evidence shows that it would have not actual impact on the number of suicides.
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | A cop is not going to have to shoot first because he is afraid some guy is grabbing his Abrams tank during a domestic dispute. |
First of all, this is again something occuring in the home, and thus is hardly an argument against CCW or open carry. Secondly, a knife presents the same danger to a police officer within the distance you postulate, and a lot more people have access to those. Mac should comment, but IMO the current state of firearms law isn't going to impact an officer's threat assessment or situational awareness. If it does, he's probably doing it wrong.
Finally, this just doesn't match up with reality. Again using Florida as an example, when they switched to shall issue in 1987, Dade County started tracking crimes committed by permit holders - 5 years later, they'd recorded only 4 crimes, none of these involving the firearm - so they discontinued the program.
State-wide, only five permit holders, out of 350,000 have ever been convicted of firearms offenses. So, despite the fact that they *all* have access to firearms, permit holders were over 800 times less likely to commit an offence with a firearm than the general Florida population. If the whole of the US were as violent as those Florida permit holders, the US would have the lowest crime rate in the world.
A police officer has *never* been fired upon by a permit holder, though there are several documented incidents of a permit holder coming to the assistance of an officer and saving their life.
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | A enraged driver does not have a turret on his car when someone cuts him off in traffic. |
This has already been addressed, but I'll do so again - it simply doesn't happen. There is absolutely no evidence that allowing CCW results in road-rage induced gun battles. The State of Florida has 2 recorded incidents of permit holders using their guns following a traffic accident. In both cases, the permit holders were acting in self-defense, to save their lives from violent attackers.
| fiscalconservative wrote: | | I have mixed emotions about this, but I think from a cost/benifit perspective, handguns are a disaster. Unless you have a really good reason to be carrying one, that gun is likely more of a threat to your family than anything else. Seriously, how many peoples lives have been saved by handguns ? |
You've clearly not performed a 'cost/benefit' analysis, as none of your concerns are founded in facts. I've yet to see evidence that a handgun is more of a threat to your family than 'anything else', and I can assure you that a great many lives *have* been saved by firearms, handguns or not.
Edit: Fixed quote tags. Sorry!
Last edited by FF_Canuck on Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice reasonable reply, but facts do not matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kwlafayette wrote: | | Nice reasonable reply, but facts do not matter. |
Obviously absolutely correct...how can you expect to change someone's "Mixed Emotions"? As soon as you see that you know your not dealing with someone who is using rational thought. Facts never really have an opportunity to counter" emotions". |
|
|
|
|
Geolaw
Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: Concealed Carry |
|
|
| I think it should be allowed, the fed gov could use the issuing of permits as a revenue generator. Also as long as your have a valid PAL there should be no firearms classifications regarding barrel lenght or cal. If the government wants to stimulate the economy remove these restrictions(I'm ready to spend) .You should be able to own full auto /converted auto and sound suppressors. Asl this could also be a revenue generator as it is in the states (with purchases requiring a $200transfer tax) . What it comes down to is that If people take the time and effort to take the mandatory safety courses and pass background checks , and then store thier collections in a safe manner (as per the law) is should not matter what they own. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 7 of 8
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Thoughts on Concealed Carry in Canada |
|
phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB |
|
