Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71
  1. #41
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    49,343
    Quote Originally Posted by labradort View Post
    But I've also sat in a Burger King and played an imaginary game of supposing each person entering had a concealed carry.
    As a side effect of hanging out at CanadaCarry.org before it folded (not that they mentioned it, it's just when it started), for years I've routinely checked the beltlines of men (age 14-90) while I wait in fast food restaurants. If the women are armed, children are armed, or men-with-shoulder-holsters or men-with-ankle-holsters or men-with-switchblades, I won't see those.
    In my low crime area of Canada it's been an utter waste of time, except to add to some situational awareness of which I'm mostly unaware so I draw the line at new people coming in. Also I have no plan whatsoever about what to do if I see such a person. I've seen cell phone packs, fanny packs, and the occasional knife in a leather sheath, and lots of tradesmen with their toolbelts (which I always thought was odd because I always take my toolbelt off when I get in a car), and a bunch of uniformed police. There may have been one guy with a concealed holstered gun, maybe, but he got out of a car with tiny hubcaps.

    One of the stores I frequent has been held up though. Semi-auto pistol. But not when I was there.

    The largest encounter with civilians with guns in a fast food restaurant I've ever had was back in the 1990s in Seattle Washington in a McDonalds. Four extended families, totaling about 20 people, aged 1-year-old to 85-year-old, got out of open 'jeeps', obviously on a camping trip. Just as obviously they didn't want to leave their rifles in the open jeeps in the parking lot lest they be stolen. Every man had one or two rifles slung over his shoulder, most of the women did too, as did half the teenagers. A few open carry revolvers. No other patron had a firearm. It was lunch hour so there were five lines and they evenly distributed themselves with the younger children running around. It took me all of two seconds to grok what was going on, decide it wasn't anything to worry about, and smile at being in America. Some other patrons stared longer, most didn't care at all. There was no reasonable alarm for the safety of persons. One fella had a rifle on one shoulder, and a baby in his arms.

  2. #42
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    49,343
    The Coalition For Gun Control's famous quarter million signature petition, was signed mostly on university campuses. And a few pretty college women with clipboards in major city intersections targeting men aged 20-55.

    At CanadaCarry.org the greatest success rate for petitions was at construction sites. Virtually 100% of construction workers would sign the petition.

  3. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    Waterloomike (06-14-2019)

  4. #43
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    12,851
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    It took me all of two seconds to grok what was going on
    Even though it is a "modern" Internet term, you just aged yourself with that one lol.
    Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times [#uc# you CCP!]

  5. #44
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    While I don't disagree with this, I don't think it will work if it is the only front of attack. We also need a certain percentage of the population on board. The second front must be the re-normalization of firearms. We need to re-normalize self-defence with firearms (just as a concept in general) as something we talk about openly. "Bob, why do you have those rifles?" "Well I hunt, but I also have them for self-defence"... And we need to normalize modern firearms. Which really is a joke (the term modern) when you consider how old the AR-15 is. Anyway, two pronged attack, the politicians and the public.
    As I have stated on many occasions, we have a great many others (perhaps 5,000,000) onside.

    Folks who have absolutely no interest in the shooting sports, but who believe they should have access to firearms for defence of life, liberty, and property.

    And yes, normalization is important.

    The point that is too often missed is what the politicians should be told.

    All law and regulation relating specifically to the use, carriage, and possession of firearms must be repealed.

    The Government of Canada must preempt to itself all regulation of the use, carriage, and possession of firearms to prevent any other level of government from enacting licencing, restriction, or prohibition.

    What we get is unlikely to go that far, but those enacting the legislation will be in no doubt as to what we require.

    Unlike C-42, where Blaney and company actually thought they had given us what we wanted.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  6. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By CLW .45

    manic29 (04-02-2020), Scoutertracker (06-16-2019)

  7. #45
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    49,343
    [non sequitor]

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rangebob
    grok
    Even though it is a "modern" Internet term, you just aged yourself with that one lol.
    Oh yeah, well here's an example of police in cahoots with ...

    https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/06/...ivilian-teams/


  8. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By RangeBob

    CLW .45 (06-14-2019), manic29 (04-02-2020)

  9. #46
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,525
    Just finished two days of first aid training at St. John Ambulance.

    The instructor emphasized, numerous times, the requirement to ensure that the scene was safe for the first aider to enter and to keep bystanders out if it was not safe.

    The other emphasis was on the fact that the goal was for first aider, casualties, and bystanders to survive the incident.

    What wasn’t said was that, in an attack, the first requirement is to stop the assailant.

    It is outrageous that you are prevented from carrying appropriate tools with which to do so, while laws and regulations mandate so many other items.

    Think of your car.

    Airbags, seatbelts, safety glass, appropriate tires are just a few of the items mandated to stop the infliction of harm when you are attacked by another driver.

    As long as there is hope, no matter how small, I will continue to advocate for repeal of laws and regulations that interfere with the right of my neighbours to use, carry, and possess firearms to protect life, liberty, and property.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  10. The Following User Liked This Post By CLW .45

    manic29 (04-02-2020)

  11. #47
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    49,343
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    The instructor emphasized, numerous times, the requirement to ensure that the scene was safe for the first aider to enter and to keep bystanders out if it was not safe.
    Probably not what he had in mind, but I saw this recently.

    Bodycam Shows Routine Medical Encounter Escalates Into Fatal Shootout
    40 minutes


    A fella passed out on a bus (opioid overdose), was treated by firefighter paramedics. Apparently he had a handgun that the paramedics did not check for, nor should they.
    He recovered, and was standing outside the bus being talked to by police who noticed a bulge under his shirt. He drew his firearm, and shot a firefighter (dead) and a woman (wounded). Wounded, he was able to cross the street but no further, and minutes later police officers took him into custody.

  12. #48
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    Probably not what he had in mind, but I saw this recently.

    Bodycam Shows Routine Medical Encounter Escalates Into Fatal Shootout
    40 minutes


    A fella passed out on a bus (opioid overdose), was treated by firefighter paramedics. Apparently he had a handgun that the paramedics did not check for, nor should they.
    He recovered, and was standing outside the bus being talked to by police who noticed a bulge under his shirt. He drew his firearm, and shot a firefighter (dead) and a woman (wounded). Wounded, he was able to cross the street but no further, and minutes later police officers took him into custody.
    So, the shooting was precipitated by police interfering with an individual’s right to be armed?

    Yes, I know that there was probably a law involved.

    I also know that the law was almost certainly a violation of the right to arms.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  13. The Following User Liked This Post By CLW .45

    manic29 (04-02-2020)

  14. #49
    Senior Member Scoutertracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    134
    Here's the thing; we have to get beyond firearms as a hobby or a sport or an "enthusiasm". When people ask me why I own firearms, my answer is always the same. I own firearms because of what I can't foresee. I am a hobbyist or a sport shooter or an enthusiast because I own firearms; not the other way around. If firearms did not exist, I would still be a hunter, trapper, outdoorsman, individualist and survivalist. Firearms pertain to these only because they exist and they are relevant. Until the firearms lobby can get beyond their petty self aggrandizing reasons for owning firearms and accept it as a life choice with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, then we will continue to be subject to the petty restrictions that the utopian idealists feel are necessary for an orderly society.

  15. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Scoutertracker

    CLW .45 (06-24-2019), manic29 (04-02-2020)

  16. #50
    Senior Member gunnutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    “She” is young, old, single, married, widowed, divorced, and male as well as female.

    Based solely on my experience, she is one of approximately 5 million adults in Canada who would have access to firearms were they not prevented by law, regulation, and the BS idea that “to protect life is not a legitimate reason to have a gun in Canada.”

    And, while I sympathize with those among us who have had their guns banned, my heart breaks every time someone who is unarmed by government fiat is victimized by a vicious armed criminal.
    The real question is: Is my right to life (live) guaranteed and protected in Canada? Is it a right? I know its a simple thing to ask but from there stems the whole problem...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •