Canadians... What's it really like?

[rnArmy]

Agree with your point 100%. We recently learned that medical errors are now the third leading cause of deaths in America. I say we ban medical errors. Better yet, ban all medical care -- that way nobody can die prematurely from an error (sarc).

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eath-in-united-states/?utm_term=.db6ae09654cb

Yup; I guess I'm part of the problem. We should pass a law banning medical errors (that would solve the problem - cause then people would stop making medical errors). And where do a lot of folks die? IN THE HOSPITAL. So it stands to reason if we close down all the hospitals, fewer people will die.

Here's an interesting thought - what's the NUMBER ONE cause of motorcycle accidents? Riding a motorcycle. We need to ban those too ("... if we can save just one life...."). Any motorcycle riders out there?

What's the number one cause of aircraft crashes? Flying in an aircraft. We can drop those deaths down to zero real easy (ban flying).

It all depends on how silly you want to get. Or how much of a control freak someone wants to be telling others what they can and can't do.

And for the record, I love Canada - beautiful country and nice folks. I've spent time up there, and look forward to going back. We just don't bring our handguns (their house - their rules). I figure between our bear spray, 44Mag lever action carbine, 45-70 Guide Gun, and a 12-gauge pump (with slugs) we're good.

 

[scanny]

Absolutely not but I also am old enough to realize how useless FA is in realty for non civies.

What is useless for you could be useful for other people, by the way all sporting equipment could be considered useless.
I hope that you agree that in a free country we shouldn't ban things just because somebody thinks it's useless.

 

[nasko]

scanny, where do you draw the line? What if I really want to own a few bombs or some chemical weapons?

On the topic of handguns for protection in the wild... I see that people in Alaska carry revolvers, so probably I am wrong but... I shot a young male bear this spring weighting roughly 220-250lbs with my 30-06 using a 165 grain bullet. Shot from roughly 40/50 meters at 45 degree - heart shot. This bear made it another 15-20 meters before it dropped. I question how effective a handgun will be for self defence in a bear attack situation for larger bears. The noise might scare it away, but the actual impact I am not so sure.

 

[2025 deleted member]

So you'd prefer to get chewed up because your not sure how effective the pistol is. I don't know for sure but I'd empty a mag of hard cast out of my glock 20 if a bear was charging me.

 

[scanny]

scanny, where do you draw the line? What if I really want to own a few bombs or some chemical weapons?

On the topic of handguns for protection in the wild... I see that people in Alaska carry revolvers, so probably I am wrong but... I shot a young male bear this spring weighting roughly 220-250lbs with my 30-06 using a 165 grain bullet. Shot from roughly 40/50 meters at 45 degree - heart shot. This bear made it another 15-20 meters before it dropped. I question how effective a handgun will be for self defence in a bear attack situation for larger bears. The noise might scare it away, but the actual impact I am not so sure.

I fully understand that guns might not 100% help if you ‘re attacked by animals - same with bear spay, bear bangers, air horn or just bear awareness. I was just saying that having a revolver in wilderness is more convenient than a long gun and in most cases is more effective than using non-lethal bear protection. In that rare case if you need any protection at all. What I was saying is that in my opinion our gun laws are poorly designed, a lot of laws are confusing, controversial and don't contribute to public safety, not to mention that some of them are just stupid. And as an example I mentioned that we can't carry handguns in wilderness. I don't understand what our law makers are afraid of and what made them come to conclusion that a person with a revolver is more dangerous in wilderness than a person with a rifle.

As per drawing a line – I don't argue that some of the things needs to be controlled in populated places. But that's another discussion. By the way personally I don't mind if you have all bombs you want as long as you keep in your property and blast radius won't affect any public or private lands. Chemical weapons might leak and poison environment so I don't think there's place for them in our planet at all. Funny that you mentioned it by the way, I don't want to give anybody ideas on public forum but bombs and deadly chemicals are not too hard to make from common components if you know what you're doing.

 

[Gtdad]

Cant say its useless.
Albeit expensive, Its insanely fun at the range or exterminating invasive wild boars, what btw, Canada I dont think is suffering yet.

Ya we don't have invasive species that require FA. ********.

 

[nasko]

I fully understand that guns might not 100% help if you ‘re attacked by animals - same with bear spay, bear bangers, air horn or just bear awareness. I was just saying that having a revolver in wilderness is more convenient than a long gun and in most cases is more effective than using non-lethal bear protection. In that rare case if you need any protection at all. What I was saying is that in my opinion our gun laws are poorly designed, a lot of laws are confusing, controversial and don't contribute to public safety, not to mention that some of them are just stupid. And as an example I mentioned that we can't carry handguns in wilderness. I don't understand what our law makers are afraid of and what made them come to conclusion that a person with a revolver is more dangerous in wilderness than a person with a rifle.

As per drawing a line – I don't argue that some of the things needs to be controlled in populated places. But that's another discussion. By the way personally I don't mind if you have all bombs you want as long as you keep in your property and blast radius won't affect any public or private lands. Chemical weapons might leak and poison environment so I don't think there's place for them in our planet at all. Funny that you mentioned it by the way, I don't want to give anybody ideas on public forum but bombs and deadly chemicals are not too hard to make from common components if you know what you're doing.

Fair enough.
On the handgun, I do not think I will ever want to carry one as I only carry firearms when I am hunting, but if they are allowed to be used in the wilderness I would not be opposed. I definitely am opposed to be lawful to carry in cities and populated areas. If they were to come with a safe solution, something similar to what you are describing I do not think too many people will be against it.
On the other issue, I think our laws here, as hard and difficult they are to understand, are doing a good job. I used the bombs and chemical weapons just as an example, obviously I have no desire to own either. To me, they are just as useless as black rifles.. The concept of owning/carrying firearms for self defence is foreign to me. Canada is a safe country and I honestly have never ever felt the need to arm myself.

 

[scanny]

On the other issue, I think our laws here, as hard and difficult they are to understand, are doing a good job. I used the bombs and chemical weapons just as an example, obviously I have no desire to own either. To me, they are just as useless as black rifles.. The concept of owning/carrying firearms for self defence is foreign to me. Canada is a safe country and I honestly have never ever felt the need to arm myself.

Due all respect I don't agree that our gun laws are doing a good job. Laws never stopped criminal from doing crimes, ignoring the laws is pretty much a requirement for them to get a job. Just look at the news, police busts drug rings and shows all kind of confiscated firearms - prohibited AK, prohibited short pistols, restricted guns - you name it. Not to mention that criminal never bother to get a firearm license. I think we don't have mass shootings in Canada not because we have magazine restrictions and licensed gun owners people can't buy AK-47 in Canadian Tire. I think it has something to do with people, not with gun laws. Switzerland or Czech Republic for example has way more relaxed gun laws, but there's less violent crime than in Canada. Or if you even take US some states are safer than Canadian provinces and it's not states with stricter gun laws.

In Canada I'm fine with background checks and training requirement and some other small stuff, but a lot of rules are just not helpful. Magazine limitations, guns prohibited by name or restricted by name, handguns barrel length restrictions - all this is just a harassment of law abiding gun owners in my opinion. If pin in a magazine falls out or gets broken and you don't notice it - you're in possession of prohibited device and instantly become a criminal with mandatory jail minimum. If you left disassembled shotgun on workbench in your home and left home for a minute - you're risk a criminal record for improper storage. If you have a big enough land and good backstop you can shoot targets from non-restricted rifles there but risk jail time if you use restricted rifles like AR15 or handguns. Non-restricted rifles can become prohibited overnight and had to be surrendered without compensation. If you don't guess what - you're in possession of prohibited device - mandatory jail time.. Even if you forget to renew your license - you're in unlawful possession of firearm and could easily go to jail. There are many examples of our gun laws, those just few of them. And of course if you're a good citizen and are nice with police and judge you most likely will be spared of jail time - just a criminal record and you lose all your guns and license after spending tens of thousand dollars on lawyers.

I never felt need to carry a gun in my day-to-day life as well, but I know that there are quite a few cases when people needed to protect themselves. Just google case of Ian Thomson as a biggest one.

I understand that you're not interested in restricted firearms but I think you should understand that gun laws are not getting any better in Canada and if we don't stand for each other and allow government take away our guns one by one, we will end up in situation like in Australia or UK.

 

[Trikebubble]

Better to have an not need, then not have and find yourself needing.........and the shotgun is fun to bring along as well.......

My newest hiking companion. An Etro ATA 09 (14") About the shortest and most compact firearm I can figure to carry in the bushes. I've been looking at the Ranch Hand type short rifles, but they aren't really any shorter than this little thing.

My Wife just completed (and passed) her PAL and RPAL) firearms licensing course. On the back wall of the classroom, their was a big sign that said "Because the Government says so". Anytime a student in the class would ask why a certain firearm in Canada was considered restricted (ie: an AR-15) and another is considered non-restricted (ie: an SKS), or ask the instructor a question regarding our convoluted and confusing firearms laws they would just point to the sign.
On a side note, My Wife, who in the past never had a fondness for handguns, and prior to my bringing them into our home would have never wanted one in her house, is now excited at the fact that once her license arrives she can start shopping for her own first handgun and schedule some training with her instructor. (insert proud Husband emoticon here)

 

[Christian P.]

Non-sense postings about race differences have no place on this forum. Postings have been deleted and next step is temporary ban of the user(s).

Thanks

 

[zimm]

So you'd prefer to get chewed up because your not sure how effective the pistol is. I don't know for sure but I'd empty a mag of hard cast out of my glock 20 if a bear was charging me.

not me.

i only use lead in revolvers.

 

[zimm]

scanny, where do you draw the line? What if I really want to own a few bombs or some chemical weapons?

On the topic of handguns for protection in the wild... I see that people in Alaska carry revolvers, so probably I am wrong but... I shot a young male bear this spring weighting roughly 220-250lbs with my 30-06 using a 165 grain bullet. Shot from roughly 40/50 meters at 45 degree - heart shot. This bear made it another 15-20 meters before it dropped. I question how effective a handgun will be for self defence in a bear attack situation for larger bears. The noise might scare it away, but the actual impact I am not so sure.

what did you think was going to happen? it was going to fly backwards like in a superhero movie? typically, medium animals only drop instantly with something high speed like a 7mm that shocks the nervous system, or if you happen to separate the nervous system. roll over and die seems to be the province of humans and hares.

 

[PPCLI_Jim]

So as a Cdn Hunter ,all around outdoorsy sort, and ret military guy. My view is keep FULL AUTO prohibited and allow the BLACK TYPE rifles back in the bush. with them being registered with the frame #'s only. below is my ammo cabinet from a while ago. it shows from .22LR to 12 g I would love to carry use pistol in the bush much like a trapper can. especially during non hunt season for animal human interaction .

 

[icedragonmx]

To the OP - There is a lot of great info on non restricted firearms found online at places like CanadianGunNutz.com etc. Things like an Alaskan Scout takedown in 44Mag with a 12" barrel might be a light compact item for bear protection in the back woods. Unfortunately restricteds are for range use only and this includes handguns. Lots of fun options like ACR's etc that are non restricted as well.

 

[mezmochill]

Icedragon - You are quite "entertaining" in your discussions on “hero fantasies” and in firearm use as a whole. I hope the OP understands your view is yours alone and not that of the community.

Lol!