A girl in my town was just recently brutally raped and beaten. All she could do was call 911 after the attack. She was so badly attacked she needed to be airlifted to a bigger hospital. The reason I mention this is that I believe that with concealed carry laws that make sense, the bad guys do not know who is carrying an who isn't. I believe that this will keep us safer. I don't understand a system that only gives us the right to call the police after it is all over... If we can.

We need to change these laws and we need to do it now.

A girl in my town was just recently brutally raped and beaten. All she could do was call 911 after the attack. She was so badly attacked she needed to be airlifted to a bigger hospital. The reason I mention this is that I believe that with concealed carry laws that make sense, the bad guys do not know who is carrying an who isn't. I believe that this will keep us safer. I don't understand a system that only gives us the right to call the police after it is all over... If we can.

We need to change these laws and we need to do it now.

Because we all know that there are no violent crimes in societies where conceal/carry laws exist........ Everyone can site some sort of anecdotal instance where a victim might have fared better if only they had a weapon, the training, incredible will, and more luck.

They are drastically less common where concealed or even open carry ia allowed. There are a plethora of statistics available to back that up. You will never be able to remove violent crime from the world, but to simply dismiss a persons right to defend themself because you'll never be able to get rid of all crime is obsurd. Again, not trying to start an argument about politics haha, just trying to get people thinking one way or another. My belief is that a person should have the right to choose if they wish to arm themselves or not for the purpose of self defence. If someone believes they will be better off beig unarmed, they don't have to carry. Even the simple fact that a criminal thinks that its POSSIBlE they are armed, they may think twice.

Of course I am no law maker, and I know that there are people out there who could tear my arguments to shreds. However I believe that everyone should have the right to defend themselves to the best of their abilities. And of course (now this is where it gets sticky) I also believe there should be rules and regulations that a person must meet in order to maintain their concealed carry status. For example, annual psychological exams, annual (or better yet bi-annual) skill proficiency testing and training, criminal background checks, etc. I don't really know how it would work, which is why leave my opinions as opinions. If I really knew how to solve the issue, I would write a bill and try to get someone to sponsor it in parliament 😀

They are drastically less common where concealed or even open carry ia allowed. There are a plethora of statistics available to back that up.

Hey Buggie,

It's all good. I'm always in favour of a little mind opening conversation. One thing I do ask though, is for specific citation for the "plethora of statistics available" so that I can look at the source myself. If, for example, that plethora of stat's comes from our good friends from the NRA it may have an effect on the weight that I give those stat's. The same could be said if those same stat's were furnished by "American Mothers for Gun Control". For me personally, my politics lean more towards libertarian principles; although that doesn't mean that I am willing to ignore the unbiased statistics regarding violent crime for the sake of my politics.

As I see it, violent crime here and elsewhere is on a decline. Media and popular culture would have us believe otherwise however the Buggie Man is not hiding behind every corner. 😉

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/4832

Here is a little bit of home work for y'all. The first site contains "reported" crime stats in OECD countries, which is to say countries who's reporting is more reliable than say.... Yeman. It is there to show how countries measure up in terms of various crimes including property and violent crime.

The second site deals specifically with rates of fire arm related crime, gun ownership by population, and the like. It makes no judgements one way or the other and caveats the data by acknowledging that the Americans numbers throw things askew.

Finally, the third site which I posted earlier, compares the gun policies for the countries of the world.

If you REALLY believe that conceal/carry gun laws would make all the difference, and make Canada a safer place; I challenge you to look up Canada on these three sites. Look up the countries that do better than Canada and those that do drastically worse. Now check out those countries gun laws who have done better than ours and those that are drastically worse.

I'm not saying,"Don't get your PAL! Don't own fire arms!" What I'm saying is, "The shit hasn't hit the fan so mellow out. Leave your fire arms in your safe where they belong. In the unlikely event that the world ends as we know it, and there is no rule of law out there; there won't be a cop harassing you for carrying a concealed fire arm." Today, I think you can probably make it to 7/Eleven for milk without "packin'".

To take a note from the American Katarina incident, the Gov. hired outside security agencies to seize without warrants, any and all weapons that were in the afflicted areas. Do you really think that our Gov. would not so the same. 👿

Uh... it is not only not within the policy of the Government of Canada to hire outside agencies for domestic operations, but in the purest sense, prohibited by law. The company I worked for was not allowed to conduct operations on Canadian soil, even though we did extensive CT and Intel work for numerous NATO nations in close (often imbedded) cooperation with various S/F and Intelligence agencies, Canada would benefit from our ops, but they would never hire us to do any more than train their people, or consult on active ops being run by DND, CSIS, or the RCMP. We were all operators from a wide variety of highly capable organizations who left in (mostly) excellent standing.

-S.

I guess i need to put my two bits worth here, I agree with a lot of statements here and would like to thank antsy for the link a good bit of information...I would be in strong favor of a Castle law...but not a conceal carry law... My opinion and just my opinion is that we all would like to think we could use it under a stressful situation but I really have my doubts.. Keep in mind the folks that are allowed to carry in this country...[Police and armed force's..] have endless hours of training...About 150 hours [ for the police] the forces is never ending......plus there constant re- qualification, and all there ON THE JOB experience with dealing with high stress situations.....Nothing better then suicidal meth heads or the Taliban shooting at you to get the old blood pressure up.....So my point is this, yes if some one breaks into your house I believe you should have the right to confront them with a gun...[ there probably not there for tea..] but on the street...NO... there are two many variables and too much of a chance of an innocent victim from being hit.....If you have ever shot a hand gun then you know they are not the most acurate weapon, especially in the hands of some one under high stress and a lack of training.......I understand the argument [ if we had Carry conceal then the bad person would be less inclined to do harm upon some one...] but if you think about it most attacks of any kind come when you dont expect it...so your concealed weapon will do you no good except have it taken away and used on you....

Just my opinion .......

Howdy All,

Sorry, Antsy, I have not checked out the links.

I understand home invasion robberies are the new fad crime. I can't remember which site I was at. The premise of the article was that to defend against home invasions the construction of our homes has to change. The preferred style is that used in parts of Africa, with minimal or no windows on the exterior walls, inner courtyard, two story, with living quarters on the 2nd story, roof top patio with walls high enough and thick enough to provide cover and protection from small arms, rounded edges of the top walls to prevent the employment of grappling hooks. If I find the article I will post a link later.

So, if it is unlikely that laws will be made in favour of the home owner being able to use force to defend their home, property and those who reside there, maybe exploring better home construction techniques will postpone when you have to deal with a violent threat at your front door.

Having said all that, I do believe that every person has the right to live their life without violent interuptions, and the right to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones with as much force as is necessary to eliminate the threat.

The scum of the earth prey hardest on those who cannot or will not defend themselves. No statistics to back up this claim. So, having a legal system instead of a justice system, it will very difficult to have policy makers with the spine to enact laws that protect the would be victims of crime, by allowing them (potential victims) to use deadly force to defend themselves.

Those who commit crimes do not care, they do not follow the laws to start with. They use dirty lawyers who twist facts and laws to benefit their clients, thus using the legal system against those who follow the law - up until they use force to repel force, to defend their homes and lives.

So, this topic is very polarized, with very little middle ground or fence sitting. I do love the conversation being generated.

If I may I would like to leave a short article at the end of my post from: http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Cheers,

Mountainman.

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

Several years ago I had this discussion with a co-worker. I suggested that if everyone carried a gun, then the bad guys would never try anything for fear of being 'outgunned'.
He suggested that a desperate meth-head would not have any choice; they need their smack. What would change is this;

instead of running into a bank and yelling 'freeze, give me the money'
they would instead run in and start shooting at anything moving to get the upper hand.

It made me re-evaluate my position.

I also worry about all those other drivers out there like Antsy said. If everyone drove as well as I did, there would be no issues on the road. 😀 As Traveller pointed out, a gun is not accurate and not everyone works well under pressure. So, just like bad drivers, we'd have bad shooters. We all look at the other guy, wondering how the hell he got his license; we often don't notice the driver behind us shaking their fist because we cut them off... 😳

this post sums up my thoughts fairly well http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ . Antsy I will put together some statistics from the net if you like. Unfortunatley as has been stated here already, there are conflicting stats for both arguments. If one looks hard enough, they can find data to support either claim. As I said, I believe it comes down to personal preference, but I believe that we should all have the choice to do so. It should be a RIGHT, not a privelage, and also not a Mandate. If i do not feel safe, then I should be able to make myself feel safe.

I agree with the statements that you cant just let anyone have a firearm. There would need to be some sort of mandated training involved to make sure that a person can meet a minimum safety and proficiency qualification in order to maintain their concealed carry status. If you do not meet your requirements then you are not deemed fit to carry. I know this sounds contradictory to the statement I made earlier about everyone having the right... but as we all know with rights come responsibilities...

For example (in regards to the driving comment made by dangphool), Even though everyone of legal age has the right to drive here in canada, they must pass a minimum standard (driving test) to gain their licence. unfortunatley, there are no continuing ability tests for driving. basically its "as long as nothing bad happens (tickets, major accidents, DUI, etc) we will just assume you are opperating the vehicle safely. We all know that with some people it is not the case. weve all seen the person ripping around town doing stupid things with their vehicle and thought to ourselves "now that person should not be driving". I responded to an accident call 2 weeks ago where a man of 87 years ran himself off the road and drove into a guard rail on stoney trail. The police had been following him for awhile as they had received reports of a "drunk driver" swerving all over the road. His license had been renewed 2 weeks prior to the accident. There was no reason at all that this individual should have been deemed fit to drive, and if he had to pass a driver test of any kind prior to regaining his licence, he would have failed. But because of how our system works, he slipped through the cracks. luckily no one else was injured, and the driver survived.

I believe everyone should have the right, provided they are trained to an acceptable minimum standard. The argument for me therefor is WHAT would be considered an acceptable standard. yearly medicals? criminal background checks? tactical testing and firearm safety testing bi-annually? I dont know, but there must be a way to give everyone the opportunity to feel safe in their day to day lives. Not to knock on anyone, but people who are not on the front lines may not be aware of just how prevelant violent crimes are. You may read about the odd event in the local newspaper, and of course large events like sandy hook will take the national headlines, but the ammount of rape, assault, and armed robberies even in a "peaceful city" like calgary are disturbing. For myself, I know what my life is worth, and it is worth enough to protect. I take out insurance on my vehicle to protect it in case of an accident, why not take some out on myself as well. Not to mention those I love and who rely on me.

(edit: also, imagine if the liberal government who had spent 2 billion dollars on a pointless long gun registry had instead spent that money on a concealed carry training and proficiency program? that would be ALOT of trained and responsible sheepdogs out there)

Buggie,

Interesting points.

How about this as a possible criteria to be authorized for concealed carry........

Maybe, just maybe a total revamp of the defence of Canada. With a renewed emphasis on national defence starting in the community. The model in my mind would be similar to the Swiss Civil Defence Force.

Basic training of all able bodied citizens for the defence of their town, village or MD. Training would include disaster response as well as local military defence.

Each qualified citizen would be issued a suitable firearm and ammo to be stored in their home, so they are ready to respond to a disaster or crisis in a moments notice.

Criminal records check. As frequently or randomly as required.

Annual skills training and qualifying. Including local, district and regional exercises.

As this group would be an arm of the Canadian Forces, similar to the Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, licensing of firearms would not be necessary as long as members where in good standing with their unit.

Once, all of these requirements have been satisfied, then and only then would concealed carry permits be issued.

This process would ensure quality training, community minded, non-criminals would be carrying and able to assist fellow citizens or other law enforcement members if they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and become involved in a criminal incident.

Just a possible solution. Might work, if given a chance????

Mountainman.

Buggie,

Interesting points.

How about this as a possible criteria to be authorized for concealed carry........

Maybe, just maybe a total revamp of the defence of Canada. With a renewed emphasis on national defence starting in the community. The model in my mind would be similar to the Swiss Civil Defence Force.
(Arnt swiss citizens mandated to serve 2 years in the armed forces, similar to Israel? correct me if Im wrong please. I will fact check as well)

Basic training of all able bodied citizens for the defence of their town, village or MD. Training would include disaster response as well as local military defence.
(a good notion... however I dont think every able bodied person would a) have the time, b) feel the need, c) feel they have that responsibility. Perhaps more along the lines of a voluntary enrolment?

Each qualified citizen would be issued a suitable firearm and ammo to be stored in their home, so they are ready to respond to a disaster or crisis in a moments notice. (what would you suggest as the necessary qualifications? generalized answer obviously lol)

Criminal records check. As frequently or randomly as required.
(agreed. sporatic intervels would be the best I think)

Annual skills training and qualifying. Including local, district and regional exercises.
(what would you suggest for this? something along the lines of military drill? or active shooter training? scenario based exercises?)

As this group would be an arm of the Canadian Forces, similar to the Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, licensing of firearms would not be necessary as long as members where in good standing with their unit.

Once, all of these requirements have been satisfied, then and only then would concealed carry permits be issued.

This process would ensure quality training, community minded, non-criminals would be carrying and able to assist fellow citizens or other law enforcement members if they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and become involved in a criminal incident.
(I would also like to add that psychological clearances be added as well... also stipulations regarding substance abuse, as well as a zero tolerance to alcohol and drug stipulation. If a person plans on having a single drink, leave the sidearm at home.)

Just a possible solution. Might work, if given a chance????

Mountainman.

Please read my comments within the quotation.

I like this idea very much. Perhaps you could expand on it some more? and what do the rest of you feel about something like this? GC if you could find some more information on the swiss model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I will check out google university to see what info I can find in the mean time.

Actually I'd like to see someone take up this conversation with an open/likeminded MLA or MP (there has got to be one out there). Maybe start with trying to push for real Castle Laws and then move towards somekind of Conceal Carry Legislation/Permit system.

As our Gov seems to like to limit and restrict guns, it would have to be done in baby steps with one small victory at a time. The elemination of the Long Gun Registry was a start, now maybe Castle Laws, then some kind of limited Conceal law.

Canada = Baby steps to success

Buggie,

I read the link in your last post and don't disagree at all. Causality is not clear between crime statistics and gun ownership / tolerance in a society. What is clear is that rates of violent crime in the developed world are down. One could just as easily look at societies treatment of mentally disturbed people within our communities, or efforts to address poverty and try to make a correlation with crime. So where do we go from here? Some ask that we loosen up our fire arms legislation to "see if it makes a difference". I think we agree that no one knows for sure. I would say that once that genie has been let out of the bottle though.... I don't really have an answer for your feelings of insecurity. I get the feeling that you are a sheepdog without its fangs. I would just ask that you consider one last thing. To return to the drivers metaphor; consider the number of vehicle related deaths and injuries against the miniscule numbers of violent crimes against our society. Perhaps our legislators would be better served by addressing those "wolves in sheep's clothing" first?

Antsy

I would have to say ....NO.....about loosing the gun laws, just because of this...It takes a bit of work and time to obtain a gun licence, this in my opinion weeds out some of the wanna be Rambo's...And the 60 to 90 days to have it in your possession is a good cooling off period..Also if you are taking the time to get it you are taking the time to take the firearms course on safety, yes it is basic but it is better then nothing.....Also the P.A.L. has created a problem for bad folks to obtain ammo...some gun ranges that rent have caught many trying to steel the ammo they get with there rental gun at the range.....The only loosing up That might be OK is an individual as a land owner [ 1/4 section = 160 acres or more ] should be able to take his or her pistol and go shoot on his or her land...That doesn't mean friends family and such but the land owner.....

And yes for the record I like the Swiss model....gc's idea would definitely get my vote......