[jsalcedo]

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2005/12/06/1340311-sun.html

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan has issued a blunt warning to an influential American pro-gun lobby group: Butt out of the Canadian election campaign.

McLellan yesterday condemned the controversial National Rifle Association for reportedly offering assistance to help "like-minded" Conservative candidates win election in close races in swing ridings.

The Edmonton incumbent MP cited a speech by one of the NRA's directors to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association this past weekend and the group's bid to influence Conservative delegates at a national convention held in Montreal earlier this year for her remarks.

A bitter McLellan said the NRA's "U.S.-style, big money" efforts to "foist a U.S.-style agenda" on Canadians are inappropriate -- especially as the nation shudders over escalating gun violence in Toronto and pauses to remember the shooting deaths of 14 female students in Montreal 16 years ago today.

McLellan was troubled that the NRA, which views gun ownership as a constitutional right, was "working with Conservative candidates" with the goal of influencing electoral outcomes.


But Conservative justice critic Vic Toews called it "absolute fabrication" to suggest the NRA is working with the Conservatives. The Tories have strong policies on cracking down on criminal use of firearms and don't agree with the NRA on fundamental philosophies, he said.

"This is a typical Liberal ploy to fear-monger," Toews said.

The Liberal legacy on cracking down on illegal guns is the "boondoggle" registry that cost taxpayers $2 billion and did nothing to stop gun violence, he said.

kathleen.harris@tor.sunpub.com
Previous story: Election Notebook
Next story: Tories not a hit with the ladies

[Waitone]

My, my aren't we touchy!

--Canada bellyaches about US guns being the cause of its murder rate
--Canada siddles up with UN NGO's and threatens the US with human rights charges in the Haig because we don't have european style gun control.

Can't have it both ways. Don't complain about US organizations interferring in Canada's social paradise while interferring with the US's gun policy. Pick one and go with it.

[Janitor]

especially as the nation shudders over escalating gun violence in Toronto and pauses to remember the shooting deaths of 14 female students in Montreal 16 years ago today.
Shouldn't that read:

" ... the shooting deaths of 14 female students in Montreal who were unarmed and unable to protect themselves ..." ?
-

[shermacman]

Ditto Waitone!
The Canuckistan Liberals welcome the "big money, foreign influence" of the UN to dictate gun policies so why shouldn't the NRA have a voice too?

[jsalcedo]

Maybe the National Rifle Association Needs to be updated to the:

International Rifle Association.

I really don't mind the NRA messing with anti-gunners in other countries
as long as they don't forget where their bread is buttered.

[geekWithA.45]

Sure, we'll butt out of their elections, when they butt out of mucking with our gunrights.

[HankB]

So?

That Canuck, the late Peter Jennings, had no qualms about mucking about with AMERICAN politics. For most of his career at ABC, Jennings was still a Canadian citizen while he was manipulating the news on his TV show . . . he only became a naturalized citizen shortly before his death.

[Vitamin G]

Maybe the National Rifle Association Needs to be updated to the:

International Rifle Association.


Yes. I'd love to see the faces of thousands of Englishmen when they realized they just wrote a "cheque" to the IRA.

:D More proof that God has a great sense of humor.

[Hypnogator]

Yes. I'd love to see the faces of thousands of Englishmen when they realized they just wrote a "cheque" to the IRA.

:D More proof that God has a great sense of humor.
Yeah, kinda gives new meaning to the term, "putting your money in an IRA," too. :D

[ArmedBear]

Wouldn't that be the EX Deputy Prime Minister?

[Justin]

Transnational Rifle Association...

Anyway, I can't help but grin at this.

[Silver Bullet]

--Canada siddles up with UN NGO's and threatens the US with human rights charges in the Haig because we don't have european style gun control
Yup, and I think I just read that the Canadians were contributing to the Brazilian referendum to outlaw private gun ownership.

[hillbilly]

waahhh.....waaaah.......waaaah........


They're gonna issue "warnings" in newspapers....

waaah.....waaaaa.............

[MD_Willington]

as the nation shudders over escalating gun violence in Toronto and pauses to remember the shooting deaths of 14 female students in Montreal 16 years ago today.



Lepine would have not killed 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique if those women were armed and willing to fight back...but with the rampant social engineering that goes on in Canada they were destined to be victims...


Once more, blame the inanimate object with no will of it's own for the actions of a person :barf:

[dpesec]

Once more, blame the inanimate object with no will of it's own for the actions of a person :barf:
Guns don't vote, people do. So why not blame something that can't defend itself.:evil:

[jsalcedo]

The more the liberals whine and cry the better I feel.

[mountainclmbr]

makes me think we should not come to their rescue when they are invaded by Greenland.

[71Commander]

Maybe the National Rifle Association Needs to be updated to the:

International Rifle Association.

I really don't mind the NRA messing with anti-gunners in other countries
as long as they don't forget where their bread is buttered.

No. Make it a seperate organization. It's not a bad idea. Could address international gun control.

Could call itself the IRA. Last I looked, with Great Britan and Ireland being all kissy kissy with the disarmament, those letters aren't being used.:evil:

[Nicky Santoro]

New Jersey Guido (me) tells Deputy Canuck PM to go pee up a rope!

[sterling180]

Mark Lepine was a 25 year old crank, who was obssessed with war movies and who lived a Walter-mitty existance. The guy had a ????e love life and constantly found himself rejected by women, because of his mood-swings and obsessive behaviour. He killed those female students with a Ruger M-14 Ranch-Rifle and the cowardly bastard kills himself. This woman doesn't understand that the NRA helps it's friends and allies, wherever they might be in the globe,irrespective of who is in power.

Old man Winston Churchill owned a Mauser M96 Broomhandle and A Colt 1911 and 1911A1 and used to carry them one around with him, the other he gave to Detective Inspector Thompson. Churchill was a great leader, who loved shooting and was much liked in Canada. So lady read up on history and you will find that world leaders like weapons.

[Lobotomy Boy]

What are the Candadians going to do? Invade the U.S.? Go for it, I say. We could use a humorous distraction.

Go NRA.

[armoredman]

Ah, Canada, leading the world in being just north of the US...:neener:

[robertbank]

This lady lost her seat in Parliament as did the Liberal Government. As for the NRA, as a gun owner up here this organization does nothing but polarize the anti-gunners up here and is not a positive force for helping us out in our, like yours continued fight to retain firearm usage IMHO. The help is appreciated but the reality is the NRA involvement has had a negative impact on our ongoing fight with the anti-gun crowd.

MD_Willington - your post is about as nonsensical a post as I have read on the net. Lepine walked into a class room and opened fire on defesneless students. Had any situations like that in the STates?

Nut cases are a fact of life on both sides of the border but to suggest this would not have happened had everyone been armed to the teeth is just silly. About as silly as the Federal Liberal parties reaction to the shooting aka Bill C 68 and the nonsense that we now for awhile have to put up with. Hopefully we will learn next week what the new Conservative Government intends to do with oour Gun Registry and some of the more useless regulations that go along with C 68.

This is really old news, if indeed it was anyting more than election sound bites to start with ie Landslide Annies comments.

Take Care

[Euclidean]

I don't believe he was suggesting the mere presence of firearms would have prevented such a tragedy, but rather that if the victims had been armed and willing and able to fight back it could have been stopped or at least curtailed.

We have stuff like that happen in the US but typically only in places where firearms are prohibited by law. Americans in places with more sensible gun laws fight back successfully all the time.

That's the whole point of an armed citizenry - not everyone has to do it for it to be beneficial, enough people will take it upon themselves that it benefits everyone. Where's that poster - "This gun keeps you safe because criminals don't know you're not the one carrying it"?

[robertbank]

This shooting took place in a classroom on a University campus.

I know what the poster was suggesting.

Do you really believe students attending an engineering class would be expected to be armed? For that matter what Universities in the U.S. would tolerate students attending classes being armed? They were female engineering students.

His post makes no sense and I think upon reflection you might want to re-consider yours as well. This was a random shooting, the likes of which we have not experienced since. Unfortunately the fall out has been all out of proportion to the act itself, tragic as it was. I respectfully submit that there is no way on earth you could prevent such an event from happening. The school shooting in the U,K, and the Australian shootings were similar events with about the same political reaction.

Take Care

[Herself]

Do you really believe students attending an engineering class would be expected to be armed?
In my home state (Indiana, you may not have heard of it though I'm told a few of our auto races command some slight attention in the larger world), I would most certainly expect some of them to be. Why not? Is there something about Engineering that prevents the peaceable carriage of arms?
For that matter what Universities in the U.S. would tolerate students attending classes being armed?
"Tolerate?" Last time I checked, there were neither metal detectors nor strip-searches at most universities throughout North America. Most states of the Union do allow adults to carry weapons, in some cases including on the campuses of some universities. State law often preempts the laws and regulations of lower bodies. I suspect, for instance, that Texas permitees can carry on most campuses in that state.

They were female engineering students.
I'm sorry, sir, but do you mean to suggest that women are somehow less deserving of self-protection than men?
Do you think it is more "womanly" for me to be at the mercy of any muscle-bound or illegally-armed hooligan who happens along? Too bad for you, I don't like being beaten up, robbed or raped just so you can feel all warm and happy that the girlies know their place!
Or is it merely female engineering students who are unworthy of self-defense?
Or do you believe that engineers are not to be trusted with firearms?

My dear sir, it is engineers who design and prototype firearms!

As a female and a former engineering student, I take great exception to your implications. I had really expected better of a Canadian subject.

--Herself

[Maxwell]

If the NRA is involved in international affairs, it should definally spinoff or rename itself and go seeking support from more forign members. Theres lots of money to be made in expanding membership that way, and it would help to get someone going up against groups like brady (who apparently know no borders).

Of course, we still need someone guarding the home front to cover our own rear ends first :banghead:

[JoseM]

I'm not sure if it's federal or statewide for colleges, but in NC you absolutely can NOT bring a firearm onto campus (legally that is).

There has been some gun hold ups in the past few years on my local campus but not too much. Additionally, you have to be 21 to have a CCW permit. So that eliminates a good portion of the students as well.

[Lucky]

I understand that the NRA does a lot of good work up here, as well as around the world. IIRC it is due to the NRA that the populace in Brazil suddenly swung in opinion to vote against gun bans.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

robertbank: the reality is the NRA involvement has had a negative impact on our ongoing fight with the anti-gun crowd

Robert, if you are trying to "reason" with the anti's, give it up. They are not reasonable, and if you give them a millimeter they will take a klick.

It is best to fight them, and use any allies you can find to help you.

How much does that stupid gun registry cost you?

How many crimes have been solved using it?

Take my NRA money and use it for good in your nation. You guys still are our brothers (although sometime I think most of your politicos should be put in the closet for a while.)

[robertbank]

Get a grip. Canada is a modern society not Bosnia.

This was a random act that could not have been prevented if you intend to live in anything that could be described as a free society. The guy walked in opened fire than commited suicide. If you think having firearms in the classroom at that momemnt would have prevented this from happenning you are living in a dream world.

I am well aware of Indianna, your state and your car race.

I am not aware that your Universities would allow firearms to be carried in the classroom. Somehow I doubt it but hey who would have thought Sweeden would have won the gold medal in Hockey?

["B]I'm sorry, sir, but do you mean to suggest that women are somehow less deserving of self-protection than men?[/B]"

No the fact is the victims in this case happenned to be all women and no I would not expect students up here be they men or women to be armed in the classroom. Would you?


JoseM - Well we have never had in our history CCW with handguns being controlled pretty much from day one. That said these young ladies were under and just over the age of 21 pursuing their degrees. What happened was a tragedy to be sure and despite comments by the "If they were armed it would not have happened crowd", a tragic isolated incident which led to our Bill C 68, the Gun Registry and a host of useless regulations as politicians attempted to show the public they could prevent the unpreventable. About as crazy as the suggestion put out by former group. Terrible things happen in our societies, from time to time, price we pay for living in an open society. The alternative is worse.

Take Care

[Maxwell]

Get a grip. Canada is a modern society not Bosnia.

Point me to where madmen of the world signed a treaty to respect "modern society" any different to a warzone?

I dont think anyones said the world would be 100% safe with guns, just that you would stand a fighting chance.
More guns in society and the acceptance of armed citizens means theres a greater chance that businesses and schools would be less restrictive, and a chance that these mass executions would be less common.

Maybe no one would have been armed and maybe the incident would have been exactly the same... but at least you couldnt say it was for lack of free access to firepower.

[longeyes]

My, my aren't we touchy!

--Canada bellyaches about US guns being the cause of its murder rate
--Canada siddles up with UN NGO's and threatens the US with human rights charges in the Haig because we don't have european style gun control.

Can't have it both ways. Don't complain about US organizations interferring in Canada's social paradise while interferring with the US's gun policy. Pick one and go with it.

+1

This from a country we American taxpayers have been de facto protecting for decades.

[longeyes]

No the fact is the victims in this case happenned to be all women and no I would not expect students up here be they men or women to be armed in the classroom. Would you?

Tell it to the dead at Columbine. I'll bet they wish there had been a few armed teachers about that day.

And what makes a classroom different from Denny's? These days anything can happen anywhere. Semper paratus.

[robertbank]

Sorry I missed your post. Make no mistake we up here appreciate the assistance and I do think the N.R.A., which enjoys Canadians as members I might add, has provided support over the years. On balance though it has been my observation that the offshoot from the liberal press (sound familiar), is on balance negative. Our histories of firearm ownership are completely different. We have a number of national firearm groups who do good work in defending our position. I suspect support to those organizations is provided by the NRA but I don't know that for a fact.

You are comletely right about the anit-gun crowd. Not much different than those who are against the Seal Hunt.

To put all this is perspective. Last year in the whole country we had less than 150 firearm related murders in the wole country and only 550 murder in total. The firearm relating murders were for the most part drug gangs solving their problems and if it were up to me I would buy them ammunition.

For that our registry costs about $90 million per year. I have no idea how that compares with your federal registry but for the cost there is little benefit and that is our argument to get rid of it. I could if I had to, live with the dumb registry but the regulations that the former Liberal government came up with that go along with it in the form of Billl C 68 are onerous and for the most part are a nuisance in the extreme. Did I say useless as well.

The registry has not solved one crime. You are into reasoning now and as you said the proponents of the gun registry are not about to listen to reason. I guess we will all know something about the Gun Registry's fate come March 23 when parliament is reconvened.

Take Care

[tulsamal]

The guy walked in opened fire than commited suicide. If you think having firearms in the classroom at that momemnt would have prevented this from happenning you are living in a dream world.

The CCW movement in Texas was driven by the lady who had to sit there and watch her father be killed at Luby's. The nut crashed his truck into the front, then came in and killed people. The woman told legislative bodies across the country that she had left her loaded gun in the trunk of her car because "that was the law." If she had had that gun on her person when it started, there might well have been just one person killed.

Oklahoma is weird about universities and guns. In general, you can't legally carry. BUT there is an exception. You can get an actual signed letter from the President of the University to go with your CCW. Then you are legal. If I was still teaching or taking classes, I would be taking my credentials to the President's office and making my case for such a letter.

As somebody said in another thread recently, a lot of people seem to get the whole "carrying a gun" wrong from the beginning. I don't "leave my gun at home unless I'm going somewhere dangerous." If something is dangerous, I don't do it. If there is a bad part of town where people get killed at night, I don't go there. But I carry a gun with me everywhere I go. When I go to town to pick up my kids at school. Or the movies. Or out to eat. It is like picking up my wallet and car keys. You are leaving the property, you pick up your gun. I don't have car insurance that I just turn on and off depending on where I'm driving.

So basically I disagree with you. If that nutcase had walked into my college classroom and I was sitting in the back with a Glock 35 on my belt, he wouldn't have been able to kill more than one or two people before he got a .357 SIG round in the chest. And the world would have been a better place.

Think about it. Off-duty cops carry their guns concealed when they go places. If a cop was taking that class and had his/her gun with them, wouldn't you think there was SOME chance he/she could have stopped the attack? Then why don't you think a well trained civilian could do the same thing? I'll put my weapon's skills and training up against the VAST majority of the police. They don't get special booster shots or something!

Gregg

[robertbank]

Maxwell - How would that have stopped this idiot in Montreal from shooting his victims (took place in under a minute) then shooting himself. You are talking about two situations 1) Prevention, 2) dealing with the perpatrator.

Longeyes - not sure how long Columbine lasted but it goes to prevention and I suspect having armed teachers may have shortened the tragedy but I doubt prevented it. You are right, there is no difference save except one is a public restaurant whilst the other is a University. Both it would appear can be involved in random acts of violence.

Who is complaining, just a simple observation on my part as a gun owner. Apparently the NRA agrees because their participation is very low key. It is the battle we want to win not debate the tactics.

I have never heard anyone say our murder rate is as low as it is due to firearms entering into this country from the US. I have heard left wing twits go on about illegal firearms entering Canada from the US but where else would they come from you are the only country we happen to border and we both have criminals in our societies who like to make money doing illegal things. Just another way politicians transfer blame to avoid the real issues of failed social policies ie Toronto.

This is just not a "Canadian" thing incidently, have you read any of Hillary Clinton's tirades about how the 9-11 terrorists entered the US from Canada, which they didn't or how we caused the recent blackout in the East which was not true, problem was in Ohio if memory serves me correctly. Just away of politicians to raise national blood levels and pass blame onto others. Makes for good sound bites for the five minute attention span most voters have. Landslide Annie who got removed from office in the last election loved that ploy. Fortunately Edmonton voters had enough of her stupid comments.


Take Care

[robertbank]

tulsamal - In Canada off duty cops are not allowed to carry guns, they have no more rights than any other citizen in Canada when it come to the right to carrry so, no this tragedy would still have taken place cop in the classroom or not.

As of you shooting the guy well might have come down that way but then you saying the deaths of say one student would have been less tragic. Well you are right but you would not have prevented the crime and you might have missed and got yourself killed. Who knows? What I do know is what followed has cost the taxpayers up here over $2 billion dollars and accomplished absolutly nothing in return.

Take Care

[longeyes]

Longeyes - not sure how long Columbine lasted but it goes to prevention and I suspect having armed teachers may have shortened the tragedy but I doubt prevented it. You are right, there is no difference save except one is a public restaurant whilst the other is a University. Both it would appear can be involved in random acts of violence.

Prevention is wise and prudent, but it has a nasty habit of turning into fascism. I don't think you can prevent all violence without causing more and possibly graver problems elsewhere in the "system," but you can certainly mitigate random occurrences of violence. Columbine went on for a good, long while. Gun-free zones are, paradoxically, perfect killing zones. Alll I know is, if I'm in a Denny's late at night (very unlikely, but let's say) I'd rather be armed.

[robertbank]

On control:

I agree.

On Denny's late at night in some cities I have been to:

Me too.

Take Care

[Maxwell]

Maxwell - How would that have stopped this idiot in Montreal from shooting his victims

It does not take a minute to unholster a weapon and return fire.

Im not saying that no one would have died. Im also not saying that a world where almost everyone could carry a weapon would not have tragic shootings.

Im saying that with things as they are now, a mandman or criminal is 100% assured he can kill a half dozen people by simply getting a loaded gun into a "gun free zone".

The sign does not stop him, rather its a very attractive. Its like the "no guns are in this house" sticker that might as well say "please rob me and rape my wife".

You can accept it as a fact of life that mad men will walk into "gun free zones" and kill dozens of people... or you can change the laws that made these places into targets to begin with.

As more people carry, more businesses will realize that banning CCW will cost them money. More politicians will push for laws that force ccw acceptance in public areas.
Without the gun free zone and without the limits to carry, there is a chance one of those girls or someone within range would have been carrying.
There is a chance that from the time this man pulled a gun, someone would have brought their own gun to bear on him.

Theres the chance his twisted brain would have thought "someone might shoot me if I do this here" and he would have gone off in search of an easier target.


Now youve got a choice: Certain death, or a chance at life.
Which ones better?

[robertbank]

"Now youve got a choice: Certain death, or a chance at life.
Which ones better?"


Ummm, if life and choices were as easy as you suggest. The political reality is that up here you are not going to see CCW up here and not because I anm against it. I have a carry permit for the "wilderness" areas while I am "prospecting", read fishing for protection against bears. The same argument I would use suggesting the Montreal slaying was an isolated incident can be used by the anti-gun crowd when one gets into discussions regarding CCW and it's need up here. Try to remember our histories regarding firearms and their use are completely different. Aside from Toronto, our demographics in most of our cities are quite different as well.

Too, all our criminal law is Federal, unlike your situation where you have Federal and State criminal law. There are pros and cons for both I guess. This makes it difficult for different areas with different concerns agreeing to say CCW. Citizens of Toronto might be totally against it while up here we might be for it.

Both our countries have goofy gun restrictions, but then in fairness we both have a propensity to elect idiots to office, guess it goes with the territory. See Landslide Annie!

I would respecfully suggest in both our countries the incidents we have been talking about are rare indeed. I don't walk around with a lightening rod in my hand nor do I expect to win the lottery though I do buy tickets. The odds of an armed confrontation up here are certainly more than a) getting hit by lightening or b) Winning the lottery.


Take Care

[Roadkill Coyote]

robertbank,

You have stated that the shootings at Ecole polytechnique took place in under a minute. Could you provide a link to your news source, since every reputable report I can find indicate that they took place in multiple locations all over the building and lasted considerably longer. These reports also indicate that before opening fire in room 303, the criminal took the time to herd dozens of male students out of the classroom, which would have allowed ample time for an law abiding, armed individual to take action. If there is another source I should examine, let me know...

[robertbank]

You can come up with any type of what if senario you wish the fact remains CCW is not going to be a feature of this countries landscape under any ciecumstance I can visualize. To postulate that somehow this all could have been prevented with CCW ignores the fact such events to a lessor or more extent have happened south of the the border where CCW is allowed or where firearms are more prevalent with no more or less effect.

You happen to live in a country where in most states CCW is allowed. Enjoy that right.

I have stated that for me if we had CCW up here I would likely carry and if it came to a vote on the matter would support. It isn't about to occur so the question really is moot.

The election of the Conservative minority government up here stems for the moment the anti-gun movement but unless the registry is completely eliminated we will see more attempts to remove handguns from our landscape by the federal Liberals when they return to power as they will in time. I suspect the cost of doing so will be the governing question and the politics of the day. Until that happens I will remain an outspoken advocate of handgun ownership. Frankly, there are more pressing issues than gun ownership to deal with up here and I suspect future governments will not be quite is enthused to pursue this topic. But then who knows? From what I can see south of the border the issue is more local in nature as well with Bush & CO. dealing with more urgent matters at the moment. I think you would agree.

Take Care

Edit: Did a search and yes you are right event took place over 14 minutes. 17 years ago and we are still paying for it up here. Some have said that had he shot men not women the whole thing would have been forgotten by now and the political fallout up here would not have been as severe. Not sure that is true but several women's groups do there best to mark the anniversary with marches and parades every year. These marches usually end with a mournful cry to ban firearms from the face of the planet and more particularly in Canada. The left wing politicians (Liberals/NDP) are usually out there in force ensuring their pictures get taken. Interestingly if memory serves me right one of the mothers of one of the students that got shot thinks the gun registry is a waste of money and has said so on more than one occasion. It is and hopefully it is dead.

[tulsamal]

The political reality is that up here you are not going to see CCW up here and not because I anm against it.

I'm 44 years old. I'm old enough to remember what things were like in the late 60's and early 70's. All the gun control laws were getting stricter and stricter. My Dad bought a .38 Special "off the books" in the 60's and was all proud of it because "all handguns are going to be banned soon."

But the NRA and the rest of the pro-gun movement finally started to fight. If you would have asked Americans in 1973 if the vast majority of the US states would EVER have CCW laws like we see today, you would have gotten 95% "NO" responses. "The course of events" just seemed to be going in the exact opposite direction.

And yet, here we are.

You happen to live in a country where in most states CCW is allowed. Enjoy that right.

It's true that I "just happened" to be born in the US. But the laws are no accident. Gun owners worked and worked hard to elect politicians who would pass the laws we wanted. Many Americans are passive towards their government. A heck of a lot of American gun owners are not. We write, we call, we argue, we are just generally a big pain in the ass to our friends, our co-workers, and our politicians. We don't accept the existing laws; we want many of them repealed. There are groups out there right now working to change the 1968 Gun Control Act. Not to mention 1934 NFA laws.

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Accepting various gun control laws as "the best we can do" doesn't work. Saying "CCW laws will never happen here" is just political defeatism. It CAN happen if enough people work at it. It CAN happen if people in Canada ever get the REAL facts about how the CCW laws in the US have been VERY successful. We don't have CCW holders pulling out their guns at traffic accidents or suddenly killing all their co-workers. All the things the anti's said just didn't happen.

I'm still trying to get you to understand how "pedestrian" concealed carry becomes over time. I don't walk around thinking, "I'm currently wearing shoes" any more than I think about the fact that I'm carrying a gun. I would think about it FAR more if I _wasn't_ carrying a gun. Having a gun with me at all times is my "norm" and it gets that way within a few months of getting your CCW and starting to carry. But I would remember in a very, very short time if some lunatic walked into a room with a Mini-14 and started shooting people!

tulsamal - In Canada off duty cops are not allowed to carry guns, they have no more rights than any other citizen in Canada when it come to the right to carrry so, no this tragedy would still have taken place cop in the classroom or not.

That's just weird. And it seems counter-productive to me. I'm not one of those real "pro-police" kinds of guys but even I think the off-duty police should be _required_ to carry a concealed gun. Didn't my tax dollars pay to train them? Aren't they public servants tasked with maintaining the peace? If I trust them with guns when they are in uniform, why wouldn't I trust them because they are wearing jeans? It just seems like a waste of resources to train and equip a police force and then only make it possible for them to intervene in violent circumstances when they happen to be on duty and in uniform. I don't see it as "right" at all. It's their job. They are "sworn" officers and aren't allowed to just witness a violent crime without trying to stop it.

Gregg

[sacp81170a]

That's just weird. And it seems counter-productive to me. I'm not one of those real "pro-police" kinds of guys but even I think the off-duty police should be _required_ to carry a concealed gun. Didn't my tax dollars pay to train them? Aren't they public servants tasked with maintaining the peace? If I trust them with guns when they are in uniform, why wouldn't I trust them because they are wearing jeans? It just seems like a waste of resources to train and equip a police force and then only make it possible for them to intervene in violent circumstances when they happen to be on duty and in uniform. I don't see it as "right" at all. It's their job. They are "sworn" officers and aren't allowed to just witness a violent crime without trying to stop it.

Hear, hear. Well said. My department requires its officers to carry off-duty. Sadly enough, there are some larger departments in the area where officers have to get a civilian CCW to carry off duty. I've had some of 'em in CCW classes. Can't figure that one out. :(

Back on the subject matter, robertbank is exactly right in his comments about a free society being unable to prevent random acts of violence by the deranged without sliding into fascism. But remember the various school shooting incidents that were cut short by armed citizens in the U.S.? Pearl, Mississippi and that college in Virginia(can't remember the name offhand) come to mind immediately. Both times killers were stopped mid-spree by armed citizens, but you wouldn't have known it by the media coverage. Guess that doesn't fit with the agenda.

[robertbank]

I don't know if you have ever travelled much in Canada but believe our backgrounds historically are night and day. If you think there is a ground swell of Canadians wanting CCW, or indeed any real need for it up here than you really have no idea of the background of this country or it's political make-up.

How can you advocate the NEED for CCW when you have 150 gun related murders in a year in the entire country and 550 odd murders all told.

It is going to be an uphill battle politically to get rid of the long gun registry and some of the more silly gun rules and regulations up here.

I suspect there are more Americans living in areas where CCW is not common than our entire population. (N.Y. City, Washington, Chicago, L.A. and San Francisco would just about do it if my rough math is correct). You have regional States that can deal with this on a local level, whereas up here it is the Federal Government that deals with this issue.


Gun rules and regulations are hardly on the radar screen up here so this is not a "defeatist" attitude but rather a frank assessment of the situation. Would be the happiest man in the country to find myself wrong on this but I don't think I'll be opening a bottle anytime soon. Based on your time line from the 70's if we marked time today I'll be 97 when the change comes...by then I might be more worried about drooling than gun ownership. LOL



Take Care

[Sylvan-Forge]

Most schools in the USA DO NOT allow concealed or open carry.

NO carry allowed on airliners.

"Gun Free zones" if you will. Easy pickings.

If we all had our full rights,
no more easy picking.

It only takes a couple seconds after seeing a brandishing gunman to realize yous are about to get hosed.
Less than a second to draw and fire.

Human nature is human nature regardless of your nationality.

Concealed carry for all the good people of the world!

[Maxwell]

The political reality is that up here you are not going to see CCW up here

In my time Ive seen more than a few anti-guns change their minds, but I have yet to see a pro-gun turn anti. The logic behind rkba is pretty simple once you force someone to think about it.
Once youve got more voters putting gun rights high on their list of issues, changes will happen quickly.

[Herself]

Get a grip. Canada is a modern society not Bosnia.
And thus, by implication, the United States are not a "modern society?" Ummm. Gee. The mind boggles.

Perhaps our definitions of modernity differ, Robert. I have always concluded that a truly modern society recognizes the individual's right to self-defense, as it recognizes the worth of any person.

This was a random act that could not have been prevented if you intend to live in anything that could be described as a free society. The guy walked in opened fire than commited suicide. If you think having firearms in the classroom at that momemnt would have prevented this from happenning you are living in a dream world.
While one cannot prevent the actions of madmen -- certainly not by disarming the populace as a whole! -- one can, if armed, stop their actions with great rapidity when those actions harm others.

Disarmed, you've just got to cower and take it. How's that more moral or modern? Sounds positively prehistoric to me!


I am not aware that your Universities would allow firearms to be carried in the classroom.
"Allow?" Concealed is concealed.
As for the lawfulness of it, I don't see colleges on the "off limits" list. Schools are, but in a context that seems to imply the K-12 schools.
A school no less liberal than Indiana University has an indoor shooting range on school property, which has always tickled me.


"I'm sorry, sir, but do you mean to suggest that women are somehow less deserving of self-protection than men?"

No the fact is the victims in this case happenned to be all women and no I would not expect students up here be they men or women to be armed in the classroom. Would you?
I would, assuming they were intending to behave as responsible adults. Really thinking we have drastically differing worldviews, you and I. Why, it is almost, I dunno, as if we lived in different countries! :)


Elsewhere, you suggested it would be futile to take action against a classroom killer, as it would compromise one's own safety. I don't accept your logic; you've got a loonie shooting people, and you're among those people. It is difficult to be less safe than that.

Yes, one risks attracting attention from the killer. But the cost/benefit ratio favors stopping him, not smiling and waiting your turn to be target! And that's ignoring the possible trade off, say, 47-year-old-me for a room full of youngsters. It's not like I was planning to live forever.

Homicical lunatics don't care how "modern" one's society might be by any measure; the norms of civil behavior mean nothing to them. What matter is stopping such persons, as rapidly as possible and with the least loss of life. The alternative is unchecked murder, a behavior as old as humankind.

--Herself

[robertbank]

And thus, by implication, the United States are not a "modern society?" Ummm. Gee. The mind boggles.

Where did that come from? What we are talking about is the political and social climate of Canada relative to the likliehood of CCW ever coming to Canada. How your insecurity floats this comment is beyond me. I am not surprised your mind boggles! Canada is not Bosnia. We are not an armed camp up here and the Montreal shootings took place 20 years ago the likes of which we had not seen up here before or since. One incident in 138 years and we end up spending $2 Billion dollars on a gun registry that consumes $96 million per year to "prevent" 150 odd murders a year, most of which invlove low life drug dealers and their friends.

Do I agree with CCW, of course, do I think had there been armed citizens on campus that day that perhaps the carnage could have been reduce absolutely, do I think CCW or having students walking aroound armed is ever going to be a feature of Canada - not a snow balls chance in hell. Do I believe nut case situations like this can be PREVENTED in our modern societies - No. The basis for criminal activity does not lie with the availability of guns in fact in my view any attempt by the antis to draw a connection between the two is nonsensical in the extreme. Bad guys, disarranged individuals bent on carnage may or may not use a firearm to commit their acts, access to a firearm may mitigate the consequences of the act ie bring it to an end but "Prevent", not unless you have a police officer on every corner and a society living under rules even the darkest dictator would blush at. The Montreal shootings gave us Bill C 68, and from a pure political point of view is going to be a very tough sell to get rid of, maybe the Conservatives will honour their commitment to do so...we shall see, I rate politicians just below car salesmen when it comes to "trust".

The Federal Liberal Party up here right now is outwardly against firearms for now or at least they were in the last election. Until they can be shown that taking that stance hurts them or prevents them from regaining power I am afraid we are in for a long uphill fight for our "rights". With the defeat of Landslide Annie in Edmonton there is hope. Time in the end will tell.

Take Care

[island]

How can you advocate the NEED for CCW when you have 150 gun related murders in a year in the entire country and 550 odd murders all told.

Easy: How many rapes? How many other violent crimes? The rate of "hot" home invasions is higher in Canada than the U.S.

Even easier: How many rapes/murders/assaults is too many?

If it saves one life, to turn a phrase around....

[joab]

but to suggest this would not have happened had everyone been armed to the teeth is just sillyDo a search of the Pearl Mississippi School shootings

[carlrodd]

robertbank....great posts. one thing i have learned in recent years is that when people come from different places, it makes sense and is important to listen to what they have to say in regard to culture, civil rights issues, morality etc. we are not from there; we couldn't possibly know as much as someone who is. i love america and americans, but if we are honest with ourselves, i think we have to admit that we can be very pushy and stubborn with insisting on our way of seeing things....both a strength and a weakness that. wanting people to see things our way has done great good, and at times been disastrous.

canada is definitely a different country, and has a much different history, many different needs, and many different traditions than the US. thanks for your intelligent posts that have been very informative, for those that thoroughly read them. most all of us on this site, i would imagine, feel very strongly about the right of any human to be able to protect his self, family, property and home, and also feel strongly about governments that interfere with that right. i'm sure you feel the same.

splitting hairs with issues like CCW in different countires though seems to me to be just that...splitting hairs. those that want to argue those finite points might do well to reread some of robertbank's posts and think a little more openly about what he has to say in regard to canada's history, culture, demographics etc. he is a gun-owning citizen that apparently has no love for knuckleheaded politicians that use dubious logic to argue for the restriction or outright banning of gun ownership.....as far as i can see, that makes him the same as most of us. so, well met brother robert banks.

to stay on track....we might do well to pay attention to a canadian citizen that claims to know from experience that the NRA's nose in canadian politics does more harm than good...so might the NRA. if we are friends to gun-owning canadians, we might consider helping them in ways that they know to be more effective. just because we have the same goals doesn't mean we must share the same approach.

[robertbank]

I thank you for that. We have two very special countries, similar but different. Probably a good thing, each can learn and take from each other. As most know thare are not always simple solutions to complex problems and if you believe that and then consider the idiots we elect and the motivation that drives them, seeking perfect poltical solutions to all our social problems seems to me to be to much to expect.

Ah well Canada comes away from the Olympics without even a medal in hockey, the Edmonton Oilers are in 6th place and likely will do nothing in the playoffs but there is still hope, baseball is just around the corner as is spring and golf.

Take Care all,

[Herself]

Robert, it would appear you and I are (mostly) agreeing violently.

I did read your "Bosnia" comment as implying that an armed society could not possibly be a "modern" society -- that's not insecurity on my part, it's a lack of clarity on your part. Not to mention a gratuitious jab at a Balkan country that, as far as I know, never harmed you.

As for CCW coming to Canada, it will if enough Candians want it; or have you given up on that whole "parliamentary democracy" thing? (Even directly under H. R. M. Elizabeth's rule, you might find the Crown receptive to widespread outcry -- look what happened to King John). I'm joking but my point remains: if enough Canadians are willing to work towards CCW, you'll have it.

I carry. I carry all day except inside work (too crowded, too many expensive things -- and we have a professional group to do the shooting here) and I carry or have a gun at close hand all night. 24/7.

--Herself

[CAnnoneer]

Yet again, the pro-gun/anti-gun argument devolves into legal bickering and a clash of worldviews between sheep and dogs. Meanwhile, the wolves sit back and laugh their tails off...

So, let's repeat a few simple truisms:

1) Gun freedom is about individual freedom. Anybody who tries to restrict freedom of upstanding people is full of crap. No excuses, no exceptions!

2) Criminals and crazies could not care less what the laws say. Gun control only disarms the dogs, leaving the wolves in charge.

3) Gun violence statistics is completely misleading. Is it a good thing if fewer wolves get shot while taking sheep?

Mmmm-kay.

[robertbank]

As far as Bosnia is concerned Canadian Troops have been involved in firefights over their during the 90's and we still have troops stationed there trying to keep what passes for peace in the Balkins. I apologise if you wre not aware of our involvement in that dirt pile piece of the world. Lets not get into a who did what to whom type of discussion or things could deteriate very quickly.

Queen Elizabeth is our official Head of State. Beyond that if you have an interest in our Constitutional Manarchy I am sure there is enough information on the net to satsify any shortcomings you might have. Suffice to say it is our Parliament and the idiots we elect to Parliament that pass the laws of this country. Any suggestion of the "crowns" involvement or what past Kings did or didn't do is not germaine to Canada in the context of the 21st Century. Well at least for the past 139 years anyway.

The poster who introduces crime rates into the question is correct of course, unfortunately in any discussion involving firearms and the need or lack there of for restrictions usually focuses on much more confined stats. Chicago likely had 500 odd murders in 2005 with a population of about the same size as Toronto which had I believe 77. If you are a political party trying to get elected and Toronto has, as they do, a significant number of seats in the House of Commons, how do you respond to a comment like, "We don't want to be like the American gun crazies and their shoot'um society". The fact Chicago has more restrictive firearm legislation than we do in Canada escapes both the media and the anti-gun crowd.

You and I don't believe this nonsense but that is the political reality and it sells well in large urban centres where a large numbe of parliamentary seats lie. Forget demographics, racial mix and all the other social sins that contribute to the variance, logic has never been the focus of the anti-gun ctowd as someone has already mentioned. That poster was correct. What we have is an emotional topic and emotions know no logic on either side of the issue.

You see our Constitution, unlike yours, does not empower the Provinces to deal in Criminal Law that is the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. whether a case will ever be put forward to the Supreme Court arguing personal property and the fact it lies within the jurisdiction of the Provinces is a whole different matter. In your situation individual States can enact laws for CCW where in Canada the Provinces to date can't.

You have what you have and it works for you, so to us. Your situation will change over time as will ours to what direction, God only knows. My hope is we continue to travel in more or less the same direction. I suspect the general population will whether or not the politicians come along for the ride is quite another matter.

Landslide Annie didn't get re-elected and the NRA was low key - life is good.

Take Care

[tellner]

Be honest guys. When "dad-blamed furriners" say critical word one about US politics most people here bristle and scream.

A heavily funded group of foreign activists is attempting to use its money and skills at media manipulation to change a sovereign nation's laws in ways which the majority of the citizens don't want. They are also trying to bend the culture so that it is more like their own.

If any non-American (other than Saint Rupert Murdoch) were doing that in your country most of you would be livid.

[Herself]

Robert,

1. So, did Bosnia come over and grab those troops from Canada and haul them off to the Balkans? I'm not cool with what the 'States are doing in the Middle East, and while I don't have a dog directly in the Canada/Bosnia thing (surely there are some U. S. Army troops over there, too?), to me it is just more of the same: armed first-world outsiders, meddling. And why did you even want to bring that up? --So we'd know Canadians had guts? Already knew that; I've seen your climate. A people who can prosper in that -- yes, the real climate, not the cartoon version --are not weak-kneed. It's not terribly different to that of Russia. Or North Dakota.

2. Ummm, the line about the Crown was hyperbole, as I had just wondered if your nation had given up on its form of representative democracy, in response to your personal stiff-upper-lip resignation in re gun rights in Canada. --Does the Crown not serve as a means of continuity between governments? All purely pro forma these days, but all things change. You could do worse than Elizabeth Windsor, you know.

3. I'm sorry to tell you that I certainly hope the States do not travel in the political direction of Canada. Socialized single-provider healthcare alone is anethema to me! We share a language (except in Quebec and parts of the Maritimes) and many cultural elements but the States and Canada are neighbors, not siblings. There's nothing wrong with that. If the U. S. Dollar keeps slipping, we'll even be back to more-or-less sharing currency!

--Herself

[robertbank]

No Bosnia didn't come over and pull our troops out of Canada. Being a member of this small planet we have a compelling notion that genocide, mass murder and the like is not something we condone. Neither did other members of NATO and the U.N. So we volunteered to send combat troops over to keep the people from killing each other. Not that people in that region were novices at it. They have been doing it for about 500 years and it was an incident in the Balkans that started WW1 as you no doubt know.

Canada has been at this kind of business since Korea.

Whether or not such actions really help in the long run only history will tell. One hope the efforts are worth while. To stand by and ignore what was going on there was not acceptable to us up here or for you in the States cause your young men & women played a part over there as well. Dirty business but sometimes you have to help those who cannot help themselves.

My reference if you go back and read it was to emphasis this country is hardly a lawless society. We are governed by laws which we entrust to elected representative to enact for the benefit of all.

"It's not terribly different to that of Russia. Or North Dakota."

Well parts are similar to N.D., Minn., Mich and N.Y. but I doubt many in Minot golf year round as they do in Vancouver/Victoria.


-"-Does the Crown not serve as a means of continuity between governments?"

Nope

"Socialized single-provider healthcare alone is anethema to me"

Ummm you wouldn't say that if you knew more of what you speak.

THe U.S. Fed Gov't spends more money per capita on "medicare" than we do by far. You should find out why. Might make paying your taxes more painful.

We would be the last to claim our system is perfect but it sure works for us. I am sure your system provides the same excellent medical protection for the Americans that are covered by private insurance. I know my sister in Spokane enjoys paying $500 per month for her and her husbands medical insurance with their large deductable. That is in addition to federal taxes that go to pay for Medicare payments made by the US Federal Gov't. Can't imagine why more countries don't adopt it.

Take Care

[Herself]

Sorry, Robert; I do not condone international meddling. No matter who does it or under what banner. As you point out, persons in the Balkans have been killing one another off for years; the only thing that slowed them down was a totalitarian government. Far better to simply step back and let them go to it. The survivors will be well sick of war and death. Think of it as evolution in action.

Health care, U. S. vs. Canada: I had no idea it was a competition, or that either country expected others to copy its system. But one reason Canada spends so much less than the States is that there are far fewer Canadians than there are U. S. citizens and others on Medicare and Medicaid (programs which I believe should be terminated) alone! Another reason would be that there are, for example, more MRI machines in Minneapolis than there are in all of Canada, and this is true for most advanced diagnostic equipment. Waiting times are long. This also holds down costs, for obvious reasons.

You live in a lovely country, Robert, with fine traditions and a grand history. I would not care to live there -- and I don't! Let us each be happy where we are.

--Herself

[robertbank]

Costs per capita relate to how much money is spent per person not how much money is spent in total.

Interesting views regardig ones responsibilities in the world and for our fellow humans. Sorry we can't agree on that one I am afraid.

Take Care

[wjustinen]

:banghead: When the shootings occurred at the Polytech my daughter was a college student and was smart enough to recognize that if women don't protect themselves they are at the mercy of their assailant. The women who survived did so because Lepine shot himself, not because of the police protection that altogether too many people fool themselves into believing is a fact of life. "To protect and serve" is a fiction.

Canadian gun owners have no reason to be wary of NRA assistance. No negative fallout related to NRA is of any consequence compared to the bleating of "sport only sport" that threatens to disarm the country.

If firearms are too dangerous to own and use for protection of life; even the thickest anti-gun politician can connect the dots and recognize that they are far too dangerous to "play with.":banghead:

By the way, we already have CCW in Canada. The problem is that it is not "must issue" but rather "may issue." As with all "may issue" legislation only those with an appropriate level of political or economic clout qualify for authorization.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[robertbank]

"To protect and serve" is a fiction

Get real! If you think that you are a very lonely man. consider the reaction across this country when the four young RCMP officers got killed last year. People lined the streets in Edmonton out of respect for the officers, memorial services were held across this country. You obviously have a much different view of our police officers than the majority of Canadians do.

"Canadian gun owners have no reason to be wary of NRA assistance. No negative fallout related to NRA is of any consequence compared to the bleating of "sport only sport" that threatens to disarm the country."

You have got to be kidding! Post that on canadiangunutz and you will be laughed off the forum! All the NRA involvement did was give annunmition to the anti gun crowd, with all the anti-American crap that was in the papers. The NRA understand that and were very low key in the last election. What they did behind the scenes as far as direct financial support to CASSA, the NFA or the BCRGA is their business but I thank them for the support they may have given.


"By the way, we already have CCW in Canada. The problem is that it is not "must issue" but rather "may issue.

The legislation setting out who can get carry permits and under what circumstances is clearly set out. Nowhere does it suggest this is a "may issue" situation. IF you qualify under the guidelines which are strickly enforced you will receive same. Before any of our American friends get the wrong idea, the provisions set out involve armed guards such as Brinks etc, certain Judges have qualified, prospectors and trappers are another group who can get permits while working in the "Wildernous" which means you travel with your handgun double lock & key until you reach your destination and then and only then can you arm yourself. I have the application form in front of me and I can tell you unless you meet the criteria you are not going to get a CCW or more approprately a "Authorization to Transport - amendment" no matter what this poster says. I should add there is a provision where if you are in real and threatening danger the equivalent of a CCW authorization can be granted. It is my understnading these are rarely authorized and only under very narrow conditions. "may issue", indeed.


"If firearms are too dangerous to own and use for protection of life; even the thickest anti-gun politician can connect the dots and recognize that they are far too dangerous to "play with"

Huh? Been to any of our shooting ranges lately?

Take Care

[Malice]

Robertbank

You seem to imply that under the guidelines you laid out, Canada is not "may issue."

What you describe is what we Americans call may issue. For example, in a few areas of this country, the requirements to get a CCW are very similar to yours. You need to prove a need to have a CCW.

However, shall issue is what occurs in most places, like my state of Texas. If you take the class, and you are not a felon, you get one. You work at McDonalds next to the police station? You get one. If you are unemployed or selfemployed and you only leave the house for recreation, you get one. No matter what.

So yes, Canada's system is "may issue."

THe fact that there are clear guidelines does not change this. Perhaps it is shall issue to special people. That does not make it shall issue. Shall issue is when anyone, wether they are on an approved list of super-special Extra-Equal people or not, gets one.

[robertbank]

Hi

Well it isn't really quite the same. Companies like Brinks of course obtain authorizations to carry for their people while they are working. Armed guard services could obtain such permits while their people are working. It would be rare for someone to have a carry permit other than when they are specifically working.

I have an authorization to carry while in wildernous settings while I am "prospecting". Hunting guides might obtain a permit while they are guiding for protection agains 4 legged threats ie bears etc.

There are other exceptions which might arise such as perhaps a judge who has received threats etc. Beyond that just because you take cash to the bank regularily is not normally going to get you a permit easily. Aside from need you have to be able to provide proof you are proficient with a sidearm and have a letter from say a range officer or the Police indicating same.

In that context I guess Canada would be described as a "may issue" country. I suspect you can count on your one hand the number of individuals outside of what I have described that have CCW 24 hour permits. Even our police, when they are off duty cannot be armed, and unless they have a valid Firearms license can't even buy ammunition. Go figure!

As stated before I think you would require a significant shift in attitude and culture for this country to ever get to a "must issue" position. Don't think for a minute I would not support such a move but I am trying to be as frank as I can be setting aside what I feel would be the correct course for an objective look at the country's political scene.

Take Care

[wjustinen]

Apparently you are satisfied with our system. I'm not. Shortly after C-68 I met Rock's parliamentary secretary as I was leaving the parliament builkings with my MP. I asked him why "to protect life" was still number one on the list of reasons to own or carry restricted firearms, when Rock had publicly stated that "to protect life was no longer a legitimate reason to own firearms in Canada."

His response was that there were only 34 permits valid throughout Canada and that "they" were very careful about issuing them.

My response was that 34 was probably too many with issuance based on some bureaucrat's idea of "need"; and that 400,000 might not be enough if Knowledge and skill appropriate to the firearm and use to be made of it were the determining factors.

We agreed to disagree despite the fact that driver and pilot licencing is based on knowledge and skill.

As to the "too dangerous to play with" statement, we have already lost our ability to own what are now classed as prohibited handguns on exactly that basis. You can't carry them for protection so they must be too dangerous for sport.

Personal protection is the only issue that resonates with non-owners, and since they believe that they can't protect themselves there is no reason for them to care whether we have guns for sport (to play with).

To Protect and Serve

Everyone on this forum recognizes the value of the men and women who serve as police, but let's get this one thing straight. Police have no legal duty to protect any person, except on the rare occasions when they are tasked with bodyguard duty. Their purpose is to "collect the garbage" when we have failed to arrest an assailant or someone who has commited an offence against our property.

It is disgusting that these fine men and women are placed under outrageous pressure by those who believe the FICTION, and are therefor horrified when they "fail to protect the innocent."

[robertbank]

Wrong again! No I am not satisfied with the present system BUT I am a realist and I see no change in public opinion or politically to change what would amount to a complete reversal of at least 125 years of Canadian culture when it comes to carrying of handguns. I know something of this as I have the original handgun registration certificate from my grand -father and the Colt my great-grand-dad owned. CCW for the general public is not about to occur up here no matter how many letters we write or how we vote.

"Police have no legal duty to protect any person, except on the rare occasions when they are tasked with bodyguard duty."

Please provide your source regarding their "legal" duty. I have yet to meet a Police Officer who would not protect the citizens they serve. You might want to review, since you live in Beaumont the Oath the Edmonton City Police. The RCMP oath is a good read as well.

The 4" rule stems from Allan Rock's justice department and their desire to remove as many handguns as they could overtime from the general public. After surveying the RCMP crime stats, whom I might add, played no part in the decision that followed, the justice department chose 4". The sport argument was, but a cover to justify their actions. Remember these are the same idiots who said the Registry was only going to cost $2,000,000 and be self-sustaining.

While self protection is not one of the reasons the Gun Registry will accept for possession or acquisition of a handgun the laws setting out what consitutes self defense have not changed. The infamous "Castle" principle remains safe within the halls of our justice system. A recent shooting of a home invader by a teen age boy in Ontario is but the latest example of your right to defend yourself and family in your own home. NO charges were laid. In speaking the local RCMP they too have confirmed that you have a right to defend yourself in the face of bodily injury and can as much force as necessary to repel the attack. With few exceptions I suspect the is consistent across most juridictions in N.A. as we all inherited British Common Law in one form or another.

I think you would agree we have a few mountains to climb before we even begin to address CCW in Canada. I for one would like to see us return to at least the status we had prior to 1985, gut C 68 and eliminate the ATF form all together. All that is necessary is to address the method of transportation and where you can transport to your restricted firearm. Remove the 4" prohib rule and as a compromise outlaw (Unenforceable but sounds good .25 Cal auto pistols - Jeff Cooper could see not reason for their manufacture and for what its worth neither can I), civilian ownership of .50 cal Sniper rifles and fully auto weapons. Remove all other rifles from prohib/restricted status. The outlawing of the .50 Snipers and fully auto weapons would be pure politics but could relieve us of most of the nonsense contained in C 68.

Would be nice to at least measure some progress. I guess it won't be long before we find out what Harper has in mind. Like what I see so far but he is a politician, and I have little faith.


Take Care

ps IN the mean time keepo writing Gary B. In the end he may be our best chance.

[Malice]

Robert,

I think he is refering to a common truism.

Yes, police would love to protect citizens. Most consider it the most important part of their job, I am sure.

But the sad fact is that they have no obligation to. Nor can they be reasonably expected to.

I do not know about Canada, but in the U.S., the courts have ruled numerous times that the "protect" part of protect and serve refers to the whole citizenry. It does not mean the police have the obligation to protect you personaly.

In orther words, if you are being beaten to death slowly, you call the police numerous times but they do not make it in time to either stop the killing or to catch your attackers, the police cannot be held liable, in criminal or civil court.

[robertbank]

Yes you are right in the sense you couldn't up here anyway, sue the police for failing to protect yourself and from that stand point it is fair to say you really are on your own. From a practical sense I don't make it a practice of putting myself in harms way. For example when I lived in Vancouver or Edmonton it was not my practice to walk down dark back alleys in the wee hours in the morning in areas where common sense said there was a good chance of something happening.

Having said that I don't believe for a minute a policeman would not come to your assistance if they saw you were being attcked either. I guess timing in life is everything.

For my part I do lock my doors at night - not sure why but I do and I also have a loaded gun near the bedside in the unlikely event it were to be needed to protect my wife and I. Having a very faithful Labrador retreiver works as an early warning signal, also as an alarm clock....

In any event one has to assess ones needs, the odds and take action accordingly. I have, and I think most do. Whether arming yourself is necessary is a personal choice. I cannot speak for all areas of your country nor mine. Just my life experiences lead me to believe that in my daily life I really don't need to be armed (assuming I could). If it were otherwise and there was a NEED I would and disregard the law. Life is to short to do otherwise. If you allow me some rounding and assume for a minute that all firearm deaths up here relate to middle class Canadians and do not involve family members the odds of being involved in a shooting death directly work out to 1 in 266,666. I can live with that. The odds decrease subtantially if you exclude drug dealers, gang members and the low lifes our societies seem to generate from the number of shooting deaths.

When in the bush up here I do feel the need and I am but not out of any sense of threat from two legged predators but rather a host of four legged ones.

Take Care

[xd9fan]

It couldnt be that the people of Canada where speaking......no that cant be it.

denial is alive and well....and breeding.

[robertbank]

Writing coherent sentences apparently is not in some parts of Minnisota. Read your post several times and it still doesn't makes sense. I would have thought Minnisota would be one of the safest places to live in the Union. Tyranny? CNN must have missed that one.

Take Care

[PigPen]

OK! Canada not withstanding, the original question was what to do when your significant other does not approve of your firearms.

As I read this thread, I get the impression that many (or most) of the subscribers to this thread are youngsters. I have been married to the same women 43 years. I am 62 years old now. This may have a bearing on why I have a handle on this problem (That's why I brought it up) but I do not think so. I think the solution that I found will still work. Here it is.

When I married, I usually did not carry..............I still usually don't. I did go hunting. I didn't make a big deal................I just went. I owned a shotgun (nothing else). After a few years, I added a rifle.....no big deal, just a little .22 for squirels. Then a larger rifle for deer. No body thought a thing about it. Finally, I started a real collection. By this time I could afford it. I took the wife, children and finally daughters in law to the range. We all had a great time shooting.

With this gradual approach, there has never been an issue with firearms. Somewhere along the way, self defense became an issue. Now I am old enough that I am not a match for a lot of 25 - 30 year olds, so I carry some.

I recomend this approach to anybody who is just starting out.

Now. If some outspoken woman thinks that she is going to make it her business to tell me how to conduct my affairs as it relates to firearms and a number of other things which do not concern her (Some things do, I know) she has another think coming. I have a feeling we would disagree on a number of other things as well. I have a feeling that I would be much happier going down the highway of life without her. Division of labor and respect for each others areas of influence are important. Firearms are one of mine! Physical protection of the family is one of mine. You must decide what is right for you.

PigPen

[robertbank]

Well the original post dealt with Anne McLlelan's (aka Landslide Annie) political comments during the heat of an election up here.

Under Bill C 68 up here if you significant other sometimes known as your wife fears for her safety because her husband has firearms in the house - good bye guns if she files a complaint.

As to your own situation I suspect firearms in the house, CCW in your part of the world ought to be addressed early in a relationship otherwise as you elude to the road of life is going to have some serious bumps in it. My life experiences suggest most sucessful marriages survive on compromise, understanding and a lot of affection between husband and wife during lifes journey. Might be a reason for such a high divorce rate in both countries, no compromise...no understanding.

But that is a looonnnngggg way from our concerns about dealing with our stupid gun laws and in some respects yours too. Anti-gunners seem to feed on each other.

Take Care

[wjustinen]

Calgary, 10+ years ago, lady calls the police. Man trying to break down her door. Phone call disconnect. 911 operator calls back, no answer. No police dispatched. Disconnect due to door giving way, lady raped.

Bad enough that police not responsible to protect her (applies in all societies where basis is British common law) but when asked why she didn't use one of the loaded rifles in the gun cabinet she said that "she had always been told we have police to protect us."

That is the fiction that you will be given if you determine that you "need" to protect yourself from human predators in an urban area of Canada. That applies even if you meet the requirements as written, unless you have the appropriate level of economic or political clout.

Virtually every woman with a restraining order against a violent spouse/boyfriend qualifies to carry concealed but you will find no authorizations to carry - to the best of my knowledge.

Police officers, on the other hand, get departmental approval to carry off-duty based on a threat, despite the fact that the rest of us must first be attacked and survive.

Getting back to our lady who relied on the fiction, to add insult to injury, when her husband applied to renew his Firearms Acquisition Certificate Calgary Police Service denied the application and tried to take his guns away.

By the way, the last time I looked at the Alberta Police Act and the oath taken by employees of the Government of Canada, they essentially said that "...will not divulge anything that I learn in the course of my duties"

Now, we should address this whole idea of need. The only person who "needs" a handgun to protect life is the one who is being attacked. Anyone who understands the dynamic would admit that if they knew when and where they would be attacked, they would either avoid the place or carry a rifle or shotgun. Handguns are designed to be available in an emergency, while not getting in the way while going about one's normal affairs.

You say that you support change but don't believe it will happen in Canada. My first registration certificate was the type that had a reason for owning the firearm and listed all that one owned. The reason given by the police inspector who acted as registrar, and accepted by RCMPolice registration section, was "self defence."

It has been my experience that among that vast majority of the population that is neither pro-gun nor anti-gun a positive response is usually forthcoming when carriage of a pistol for protection is presented in this way:

The law allows carriage of a pistol to protect life. It is virtually impossible to obtain an authorization in Canada without sufficient economic or political clout. It is therefor highly unlikely that, if you ever need to protect the lives of yourself and your loved ones, you will be able to do so. You will be told that we have police to protect us. When is the last time you heard of an officer arriving in time to protect someone who was being attacked.

Rather than relying on the good-will of some bureacrat, whose rules practically demand that he deny you authorization to own or carry a firearm to protect life, wouldn't it make more sense if authorization were available based on demonstration of an appropriate level of knowledge and skill?

Unfortunately it is often the firearms owners themselves who resist the idea that they should be treated as responsible individuals, or refuse to stand up for their beliefs. We also tend to be all too willing to sell each other down the river, witness your willingness to strip my friends who own automatic weapons and large caliber "sniper rifles" of their property rights.

Personally, I look forward to the day when our American cousins are able to visit us - pistol on the hip - while we will be welcome to, once again, exercise the common law right to keep and bear arms both at home and when we travel south of the border.

DVC
Wayne

[robertbank]

Couldn't agree more but unlike you I have to deal with reality.

The reality is Americans are not going to be allowed to wonder around this country armed and you can be dammed sure the Americans are not going to allow foreignors to do the same thing either. Have you crossed the 49th lately? Nuclear detectors, proposed I.D. cards, for awhile National Guard, I am surprised Bush & Co didn't drag out the old "Duck and Cover" commercials.

Yes I know about how we can get CCW via the Utah legislation and it is good in 39 states etc.

Given this countries aversion to such discussions and the fact we came within a few elected seats from seeing a Liberal minority/najority government and the loss of our handguns for all intent and purpose do you really believe significant changes are likely in our ability to walk around with a gun on our hip? If you do I reespectfully suggest you read up on the tooth fairy stories.

Rather than bleat on about what we like to see in our perfect world why not work first with the realities of the world you live in and make the changes that in time might get you to the perfect world you desire.

The R.C.M.P. and your city police can have their guns at home but no city/provincial ordnance/act can allow them to carry while off duty and they still need a PAL/POL to be able to purchase ammunition just like the rest of us.

Your 10+ year old story is of interest but unfortunately, like the Montreal slayings, the event would appear to be isolated (the screw up not the rape), and until our political body decides through pressure from the general public to change the rules we are in for an uphill climb.

As an aside my Norinco Commander resides near my beside loaded, and cocked and locked (my two boys are long gone), against the law I know but I plan on being around for a few more years yet. I guess you have to do what you got to do.

Take Care

[Art Eatman]

And having wandered off from Deputy PMs and elections...

Art