Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
JOIN OPERATION 'Sheepdog' Operation 'sheepdog' - April 17, 2012
Moderator: snip
The practice of CCW is technically legal in many jurisdictions in Canada; however, in practice, it is often not permitted through the refusal to issue permits. This is the legal situation for Canadians, where an Authorization to Carry (ATC) exists, but the Provincial Chief Firearm Officers have agreed not to issue such licenses. Concealment of the firearm is only permitted if specifically stipulated in the terms of the ATC (thus this would then be a specific class of ATC, specifically an ATC-3 or type 3) and is in practice nearly impossible to obtain.
An Authorization to Carry (ATC) allows a person to carry a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun concealed (if specified as a condition of carry) and loaded. An ATC for open carry is usually only issued to employees of armored car companies or for other limited employment reasons. In very rare situations, an ATC may be issued for protection of life, which would allow the holder to have a loaded handgun with them, or at home, without violating safe storage rules that usually require an unloaded firearm to be trigger locked and secured.
Canadians reported using firearms between 62,500 and 80,000 times per year to protect themselves from wild animals or criminal violence. The best estimate is that firearms are used defensively around 66,000 times per year.
Cited below is the 2006 break down by Province / Territory of restricted hand guns that can potentially become CCW in Canada:[/font]
Ontario: 159,890
Quebec: 73,265
British Columbia: 72,065
Alberta: 61,932
Saskatchewan: 20,617
Nova Scotia: 15,370
Manitoba: 14,185
New Brunswick: 11,284
Newfoundland and Labrador: 3,542
Yukon Territory: 1,208
Northwest Territories: 932
There have been only 13 ATC-3 permits issued in Ontario as of 2005 and 19 ATC-3 permits issued nationally for self-defense since 2000. It is also alledged that one of these illusive ATC-3 for personal protection permits may have been issued to none other than Ms. Wendy Cukier of the notorious Coalition for Gun Control. These are the cases that we can exploit to loosen the arbitrirary ‘may issue’ restrictions of ATC-3 issuance for the rest of us.
The current criteria to get a ATC-3 permit to conceal carry are:
- the life of the applicant must be in 'imminent danger'
- police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances (a Police Acknowledgement Form signed by the local Police Chief is required)
- certified training in 'Use of Force' methodology (Use of Force Certificate is optional)
- a letter of firearm proficiency with the side arm intended to be used for CCW (optional)
- a valid RPAL (Required)
What we all need to do on April 17, 2012 is simultaneously apply for CCW and flood our provincial CFO offices with these applications. That is sure to make the news and start the public debate!
The goal is to change our arbitrary 'may issue' ATC-3 permitting process into a 'shall issue' process -meaning it cannot be denied if you are qualified.
URGENT: Call your CFO for the 'special' CAFC 680 Application for an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns for self defense; fill it out and mail them with all supporting documentation (Letter of proficiency; Use of Force certificate; a Police Acknowledgement Form etc.) on April 17, 2012. (Official signing date of our Canadian Constitution into law) The application fee for an 'Authorization to carry a firearm to protect life' is $100 (*refunded by the CFO after your application is rejected)
The Chief Firearms Officer is responsible for issuing all authorizations to carry. The specific conditions for authorizations are set out in the Firearms Act. The fee is non-refundable if the ATC-3 permit approved.
The completed CAFC 680 ATC applications will be processed by the CFP and sent to your provincial CFO and will be most assuredly 'REJECTED'. This is not the end but only the beginning. Once that is done, we will then appeal those rejections in court, and use that forum to prove the arbitrary and unjust nature of the process. There we will successfully showcase how this process is just another example of our eroded civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.
Last edited by sunshineleith; 03-15-2012 at 05:05 PM..
Reason: New members are not permitted to post links
Canadians reported using firearms between 62,500 and 80,000 times per year to protect themselves from wild animals or criminal violence. The best estimate is that firearms are used defensively around 66,000 times per year.
66,000. That's not very much. I'm curious about who those reports were made to, and whether or not most of those people lived rurally. Presumably the majority of those reports would have come from people using long-guns and probably mostly defending their properties and livestock from wild animals. I doubt that many of them were using firearms for protection against criminal violence.
I don't really understand what any of that has to do with carrying concealed handguns though. Handguns wouldn't be as practical as long-guns to use in defense against wild animals.
How many Canadians want to carry a concealed handgun? And why?
66,000. That's not very much. I'm curious about who those reports were made to, and whether or not most of those people lived rurally. Presumably the majority of those reports would have come from people using long-guns and probably mostly defending their properties and livestock from wild animals. I doubt that many of them were using firearms for protection against criminal violence.
Here's where the numbers come from - it looks like somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 were for defense against people, rather than animals if I'm reading correctly.
Empirical studies surveying states in the US who have passed laws allowing their law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public reveals that violent crimes committed against their residents drop markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses. Other related studies revealed that as more law abiding citizens acquire firearms, murder rates tend to decline.
Interpretation of these studies is that the bad guys are less likely to be emboldened to engage in open violent crime when they know their intended victim(s) may be armed and willing to resist. Allowing law abiding citizens to be armed in public is a psychological force multiplier and enhances general public safety via ‘halo effect’. The uncertainty created by concealment multiplies the deterrent effect on violent criminals because they don't know who is and isn't carrying a firearm. One could say that a single concealed handgun protects a thousand unarmed citizens.
Other studies reveal that those law abiding US citizens who are allowed to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) do not engage in vigilantism; are less likely to commit a crime than the general public; tend to be highly proficient and safe with their firearms; and usually defend themselves or others from a violent attacker by not rashly discharging their firearm but by simply drawing their firearm as a deterrent.
While I do not pretend understand the psychopathic behavior of violent criminals, I do know they are dastardly and predatory ‘animals’ who tend to hunt in safe havens. An armed Canadian citizenry would make their hunting grounds less safe and would prevent some of these violent crimes
Why Carry Concealed Handguns?
Moderator: snip
Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed.
According to a 2000 study by John Lott, PhD, U.S. "shall-issue" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and rapes by 5%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992.
The right to bear arms has existed in English common law for at least 300 years and was imported into Canadian law by the preamble of the BNA Act, 1867 and section 26 of the Charter. Section 26 declares that traditional rights not listed in the Charter continue to have force and effect in Canada. The first explicit recognition of the right to bear arms in British-Canadian law occurs in the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is re-affirmed by the celebrated Blackstone in his commentaries as one of the five most important rights of British subjects; and confirmed in several 18th and 19th century precedents. Although this right is subject to regulation by Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right. The right to bear arms is still a historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter. Since Bill C-68 prohibits the mere possession of a firearm, even for purposes of self-defense in one’s own home, it fundamentally violates this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
According to a 1997 study of U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey data, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.”
Even if an adult never needs to draw a concealed handgun for self-defense, a person may feel safer being armed and feel freer to go outside at night or in dangerous areas.
A majority of U.S. and Canadian citizens who legally carry concealed handguns are law-abiding citizens who do not misuse their firearms. According to a 2000 report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general U.S. public is 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, than concealed carry weapon permit holders.
Carrying a concealed handgun could aid in ending public shooting sprees. The December 6, 1989 École Polytechnique Massacre and September 13, 2006 Dawson College shooting could have been ended and lives saved by an armed Canadian citizen shooting the assailants.
The government cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Protecting oneself and family is a personal duty and the government should not impede the ability of responsible adults to defend themselves.
Criminals carry concealed weapons regardless of their legality. Responsible citizens should have the same advantages when it comes to protecting themselves from armed attackers.
Concealed handguns are an effective non-lethal form of self-defense a majority of the time. An autumn 1995 peer-reviewed study by Gary Kleck, PhD, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found that when someone draws a concealed gun in self-defense, the criminal simply retreats 55.5% of the time when challenged.
Moderator: snip
Last edited by sunshineleith; 03-15-2012 at 05:03 PM..
Reason: New members are not permitted to post links.
In the above statistics, the USA had 9,369 murders by firearms.
Canada has 144.
Adjusting it to be representative based on population, Canada's number would be approximately 1440 versus the USA's 9369. In other words, the USA rate of death by firearms is 6.5 times higher than Canada's.
"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate" from Gun Facts
Gun deaths per 100,000 population - USA figures 2001, Canada figures 2002:
Murders by firearm per 100,000
USA: 4.0
Canada: 0.4
Suicides by firearm per 100,000
USA: 6.0
Canada: 2
As for your assertion that the Polytechnique massacre could have been halted by a private citizen with a concealed weapon, I would propose that it is just as likely that more innocents would have been killed in the cross-fire of a crazed gunman and a private citizen engaging in a fire fight.
Last edited by sunshineleith; 03-16-2012 at 12:56 AM..
Here's where the numbers come from - it looks like somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 were for defense against people, rather than animals if I'm reading correctly.
Thanks for posting that Stubblejumper. I've got that PDF open now (I do wish there was some way to copy and paste stuff from PDF's, it's so frustrating sometimes to not be able to do so.)
That report is based on information taken over the course of 5 years from 3 independent telephone surveys from 20 years and more ago so I think that after 20 years it's out of date and those figures should not be used for contemporary times. I would have been happier seeing statistics from current times. In any case, it's still good to see where "Operation Sheepdog" is getting its statistics from, even if it is 20 years out of date.
If you look near the bottom of page 12 on that report you will see it says that all 3 surveys report and agree that the majority of defensive uses of firearms was against wild animals.
If you look near the bottom of page 17 you'll see that in Canada, out of 1,400 firearms related deaths annually, 1,100 of them were suicides. It doesn't state if they were using long-guns or hand guns but I would assume it was handguns for the suicides since it's easier to use a hand gun to commit suicide.
It was interesting to read that on a per capita basis nearly as many Canadians own long-guns as do Americans. 28% for Canadians and 32% for Americans. I imagine that now, 20 years later, that percentage of long-gun owners in Canada is even higher.
Agreed, I think the opening topic itself is trying to open a can of worms and the article you posted shows that the Mauser report that those statistics came from is biased in favour of hand guns ownership.
***************************
I understand this opinion of mine will get me on the hate list of people like the OP but I don't care, I'm going to give it anyway.
My opinion - Not counting peace officers and military - it's my opinion that people who want to carry concealed handguns are suffering from a mental illness, they are nothing but paranoid cowards with a death wish for themselves and a will to kill themselves and others in defense of their own death wish. The statistical fact of the occurrence of 1,100 suicides out of 1,400 firearms deaths in Canada, annually, is all the proof that anyone should need of that.
I have nothing against qualified, responsible, mentally stable people owning firearms and that includes owning hand guns. If you (that is you in general) want to own them, then fine, fill your boots but keep the hand guns and the hand gun owners who want to carry them at home.
It is my wish that Operation Sheepdog will be an abject failure.
Agreed, I think the opening topic itself is trying to open a can of worms and the article you posted shows that the Mauser report that those statistics came from is biased in favour of hand guns ownership.
***************************
I understand this opinion of mine will get me on the hate list of people like the OP but I don't care, I'm going to give it anyway.
My opinion - Not counting peace officers and military - it's my opinion that people who want to carry concealed handguns are suffering from a mental illness, they are nothing but paranoid cowards with a death wish for themselves and a will to kill themselves and others in defense of their own death wish. The statistical fact of the occurrence of 1,100 suicides out of 1,400 firearms deaths in Canada, annually, is all the proof that anyone should need of that.
I have nothing against qualified, responsible, mentally stable people owning firearms and that includes owning hand guns. If you (that is you in general) want to own them, then fine, fill your boots but keep the hand guns and the hand gun owners who want to carry them at home.
It is my wish that Operation Sheepdog will be an abject failure.
.
Bingo! You need look no further than south of the 49th to see all the evidence you need of what a proliferation of handguns brings to the table.
Wanting to own one for shooting club activities; fine. wanting to own one to keep in the glove box of your car or on your hip while socializing; NOPE!
Desiring to carry a weapon for the purpose of protecting yourself from other people carrying weapons is just nuts.The more there are, the more you'll need. Where will it end? Everyone driving around in amoured cars with 20mil cannon in a turret on the roof? Nuts!
Getting rid of them entirely should be our desired end game.
Sheesh; it's become acceptable to sue tobacco companies with the inane logic it's the only product that "used exactly as intended can kill you".
Bingo! You need look no further than south of the 49th to see all the evidence you need of what a proliferation of handguns brings to the table.
Wanting to own one for shooting club activities; fine. wanting to own one to keep in the glove box of your car or on your hip while socializing; NOPE!
Desiring to carry a weapon for the purpose of protecting yourself from other people carrying weapons is just nuts.The more there are, the more you'll need. Where will it end? Everyone driving around in amoured cars with 20mil cannon in a turret on the roof? Nuts!
Getting rid of them entirely should be our desired end game.
Sheesh; it's become acceptable to sue tobacco companies with the inane logic it's the only product that "used exactly as intended can kill you".
Helllooooo!
I disagree with this logic.
The problem is that getting rid of guns is a pipe dream - we're still wrestling with gun crime, using illegally owned guns. That is itself would suggest that no amount of legislation will eliminate them. And even if it somehow does, we end up in the same argument regarding knives, clubs or whatever weapon we're left with.
I'm not jumping on board this operation sheepdog, or whatever it's called, but statistically, there's been very little change in homicide rates from prior to concealed carry to current (if anything, they've declined). Beyond that, the rate of people in the US with concealed carry permits charged with violent crimes is disproportionately low.
I think, then, we can conclude that these are generally not people who are out to kill or injure others, and they seem to carry that lack of aggression into practice.
Not only that, the study done by Mauser at SFU, while certainly biased, and ambiguous about exact numbers, does indicate that handguns can play a legitimate role for defensive usage, at least in some instances.
The question then remains - how is a peace officer, whom we've deemed accountable for our protection, and someone who's deemed themselves accountable for their own protection (assuming they've met the same qualifications) really any different?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
