Carrying firearms in a truck

It is a common misconception that the Canadian population is skewed towards rural areas and small towns. Actual demographics show that we have a SMALLER percentage of our total population living in rural areas....we tend to cluster together (like everyone else does).

And I didn't say not to defend your property; I was demonstrating the illogic of your statement. Defend your property of course, but not at the expense of another persons life.....and before you even start to defend, be sure of intent.

 

Actually, as a self professed gun nut (in that I hold that you should be allowed to carry everywhere), I disagree that protecting private property is worth the life of another human being. If somebody wants my car.. my truck... whatever, and they are armed, yeah, they can have it.

Provided I am alone. In this case, threat != action. It's my choice to assume Mr Badguy is not going to pull the trigger.

If somebody enters my home, or tries to hijack me when I have a passenger - the rules have changed. In these instances, I'm no longer protecting property, but another human life. I can not afford to assume Mr Badguy won't pull the trigger, so it behooves me to put a stop to his escapades at my earliest opportunity.

Thylanes - I may be wrong )mark your calendar( but from what I've been hearing, the murder rate in Canada has been climbing for th' past 10-15 years. Is this correct? I ask, because the rate in the US (we are talking national in each case here) has been steadily decreasing over the same period. (I think there have been peaks, but the over all trend is down.. Miami and Washington DC notwithstanding)

 

I have been off the boards for a few days so let me clarify on some of my previous statements. I have been working with law enforcement and corrections for 3.5 years now, and as such I have fairly decent marskmanship with both rifles, and handguns. I DO believe in our right to freely carry a firearm of our choice (with the exception of automatic rifles) and enough ammunition to use said weapon. I am actually AGAINST concealed handgun licensing practices, not because I do not believe in having a concealed handgun (I carry my 9mm in a shoulder harness), but rather because all that these laws do is make it harder for LAW Abiding citizens to carry their weapons. I do know of instances like some of you have posted where peoples homes were being invaded and they made the choice to use their weapon rather than risk their lives (we hear of these quite often in Texas). One man was just granted a pardon because he wounded a man who was attacking him, then with his second shot he killed him as he tried to escape the property. The cops had been called, but as he lived out in the rural portion of the county they could not get there in time to assist him with the problem. Their Advice "stay calm, and do whatever THEY tell you do to, do not use any form of force" this is total B.S. and many people were glad he was granted a pardon, of course he had to be ARRESTED before he could be granted said pardon. All I am saying is that for those who do carry a firearm, make sure that you are willing to use it, because if somebody else sees it they may decide at that time they are willing to use more force than originally planned.

 

Lurch: You've clarified your position, and I can (pretty much) agree with it now. I am assuming by the wording of your post that the 'bad guy' is armed with a firearm, not a knife/club/angry pussycat (lol), and then I would do much the same as you.

As for murder rates, unfortunately we are climbing, especially in the urban centers such as Toronto. Gang violence is becoming more and more the norm

Lonewolf: Although I support the old mans decision to use a firearm in the first place (defending himself from an attacker) the SECOND shot (while the attacker was trying to escape the property) would IMNSHO constitute manslaughter at the least, and 2nd degree murder at the most. However, I am glad that he got off, and hopefully he will go back to the range and practice a bit more....if you need to take a second shot, the day may come when you don't get the opportunity to.

Gun control means being able to hit the target

 

Um.. not to pick too large a nit, but in order to receive a pardon, he has to have been convicted of something.

Of course, the DA could have declined to prosecute, or the judge could have dismissed the case...but those don't lead to a pardon.

Thylanes
It's not quite so cut and dried.. somebody enters my house unbidden, especially at night - I have no compunction about opening fire first and asking questions later. In such an instance, it doesn't matter if he's armed or not - his very presence constitutes a valid threat against the welfare of my family. (note - this doesn't include my yard - ONLY if he enters my home)

In other situations.. it's not merely the weapon the bad guy holds, but his ability to use it without delay. 20 feet away from anybody.. no significant threat. 5 feet away from somebody - significant threat.
It's a judgment call.

 

Want me to have the bad guy fill out a questionnaire, maybe interview him, first to see what his intentions are?
I understand where you are coming from and, no, I am not going to pop a drunk for being drunk. That being said, if said drunk gets carried away, I will do what I have to to stop the threat, and that's what it's about; eliminating the threat.

 

20 feet is a significant threat, most definitely. In fact, a man can cover 20 feet in a very, very short period of time, possibly before you can even react. If I perceive a threat, I will do what's necessary to eliminate that threat. I am not going to give the attacker time if I can possibly avoid it.
I refuse to be a victim.

 

Using Lonewolf's quote to make a point that for some reason, always stays in the back of my mind:
In the 1980's, a convenience store near my present home was robbed, the two clerks, (both young ladies around 20 yo, and another girl (teen) who was visiting with one of the clerks, were all shot and killed AFTER the store was robbed. LEO can only guess that perp(s) wanted no witnesses. Crime was never solved.

Last year, near my workplace, a convenience store I USED to stop at, was robbed. The robber, (who was captured the following day), shot the clerk, AND the only customer in the store. The clerk, a woman in her late 50s, died; The elderly male customer survived, but is permanently disabled.
The punk who shot those people stated he did so "while high on drugs, and didn't want any witnesses because he knew that as a multiple offender, he faced some serious time. The clerk and the customer had complied with his demands giving up the store's money, as well as their own.

My point is that even complying with the demands of these people, you are still not guaranteed a safe ending. All too many of these nuts have no regard for our laws, or other people's lives. Add drug abuse into the equation and you have a situation that I would not want to be exposed to, ESPECIALLY unarmed.

 

Goes to show you that police are there after the fact, its great if there just around the block when something goes down, but most of the time they are on other calls when **** happens. This is why people should be able to carry. Thats what I love about where I live I can carry all day long. I can understand where some of the anti gun azzholes are trying to do ( very little ) but most of their ideas wont work, if you look at places where you cant carry or own a gun ( new york, ma, etc ) they have a higher crime rate.

 

I agree but in La. all most all establishments post signs warning that no guns are allowed(their right by law) so a person carrying would be in violation. This might be alright if an individual does not care but can be serious if they are caught.