I understand where you are coming from, but remember this thread is specifically intended to discuss the practicality and usefulness of firearms within a Canadian context. Realistically, I don't think there is any way a private citizen in Canada could use a firearm to protect themselves in that type of situation.

This is something I think ireckon had alluded to earlier; its not that a handgun ownership (for example) couldn't be useful in that situation, but rather it is rendered ineffective in that situation by our current regulatory framework (i.e., it cannot be carried; the owner can only transport to & from specified locations under certain conditions).

I'm not advocating for or against our rules, just looking to discuss the pro's & con's of ownership under our rules.

We were just talking about this in the office this morning. It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between Canadian society and American society when it comes to guns. I know. You're thinking "Well, duh!"

I don't just mean that our gun ownership and carry laws are so different. What I mean is that our mindsets are very differnt. Most Canadians don't think about carrying a gun when we leave the house, unless we're legally going hunting or target shooting. I think that's part of the reason these shootings shock us so much. The thought of the guy beside us on the bus or at the soccer game carrying a gun just doesn't cross our minds for most part, until something happens like the recent shootings in Toronto. The average law-abiding Canadian citizen doesn't carry a gun and very likely, IMO, doesn't see a need to because everyone around isn't carrying either.

I've thought many times, about worst case scenarios, when having a gun for personal/family/home protection would be a huge advantage, but I honestly think those scenarios are unlikely, are at least are most likely to be isolated events. For me, it always comes back to this basic mentality. I just don't feel it would help me. Self defense courses, alternative weapons, locks and good OpSec are much more valuable to me when it comes to person/family/home security.

Now, if Canadian laws were to change, I might change my view.

This may be because you are prohibited from doing so (unless you are going hunting or target shooting). So the mindset may adapt to match the laws that are in place. Here in the US as soon as the government says "You can't do that!", then everybody wants to do it - whether they need to or not. And the mindset here leans more towards telling the government to get out of our private lives and personal decisions. Well, you can see how well THAT worked! I didn't say it was always fruitful, but that's the typical mindset. I think Americans may trust their government less than Canadians trust theirs. "Throw the bums out!" is a typical feeling around here at election times, I don't know about in Canada.

I fully understand the point of this thread is within the context of Canadian laws. However, it's still useful to try to think of things from a different perspective sometimes.

I have noticed a trend here among the Canadians. All or most have mentioned the following: They don't feel like they need to carry because needing a gun for self-defense is so unlikely; also, they'd rather use alternative forms of self-defense anyway.

OK, I understand that mindset has a lot to do with your situation. However, that doesn't negate the following principle: guns for self-defense are intended to protect the physically weak or outmatched during an "unlikely" scenario. I have personally experience situations where I am physically weak and my luck is not right. There have been a few times in my life I have known, because of injury, I would have been screwed if almost anybody tried to attack me. Along the same lines, think about the guy traveling around town in a wheelchair, or the old lady, or the injured woman who's recovering from a broken ankle. What are they suppose to do? Should they also take self-defense classes? Or are they supposed to accept the fact they are 100% screwed if somebody decides to attack during the "unlikely" scenario?

Again, I know theses are mostly rhetorical questions because of your laws. However, for some people who are motivated to think differently and affect change in the laws, the questions are not so rhetorical.

The differences in attitude towards gun ownership and use probably can't be boiled down to a difference in purely contemporary attitudes towards the government. For a non-partisan, well-informed study of the history of firearms legislation, see Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America by Adam Winkler, a professor of law at UCLA.

http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-ov...words=gun+fight

I think this is probably as far as we should go in this direction on this forum. Here I'm just providing a bit of bibliography on some objective historical research, but I can see how quickly the discussion can descend into forbidden territories.

In principal, I agree with pretty much everything you are saying. However it doesn't really help with the thought process I'm trying to work through here.

I'm trying to be purely practical. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how I think a firearm could help or harm me in an ideal world; I want to know how it would help me in the world I have to operate in.

Also, I'm trying to keep this thread on track regarding the rules of the forum; not debating the laws around firearm ownership but rather discussing how being prepared looks within the laws we have. I've noticed that other threads discussing firearms (like the one Nato7 alluded to) have run into problems discussing what the laws should allow and am trying to avoid driving into that particular ditch in this thread too.

Well said, Jac-
It is tough to generalize about big populations. There are probably canadians who think about arming themselves every day, and americans who do not think about arming themselves at all.

Florida has about 19 million residents, and easy requirements for concealed carry: about 900,000 residents have ccw permits, maybe 5 out of a hundred. Some folks have ccw permits, and keep a gun in their car. Some carry when they are going into iffy neighborhoods, some don't carry at all. Most residents do not even think about carrying a weapon.
This is a forum for people who have imaginations, and imagine bad things happening, and act on those imaginings. Some of us imagine wild animal attacks, some imagine getting stranded, some imagine assaults. And there are plenty of news stories that prove those imagined scenarios happen all the time.
Chances are,most of us will die of heart disease, stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease or cancer: guns, knives, DRPSK's will not save us.
Most Canadians and Americans are privileged to live in fabulously safe neighborhoods with fabulously high quality tap water: some of us carry guns and drink bottled water anyway.
Many Americans and many Canadians think exactly alike about guns.

This is worth repeating, so here I am quoting Denis for emphasis.

Let me try to get the conversation started. It seems like you basically have three possible uses for firearms. I note down areas of motivation, because it's really important to keep your skills current:

1. No breakdown of order. You may be able to use firearms for home defense against murders/rapists, i.e., situations where your life and limb are threatened. It sounds like you really need to look into the defense laws and the gun laws in Canada carefully before making this decision. If you do decide to go this route, you should pick up some sort of shooting sport that you like, so as to keep your skills current. (Trap or skeet shooting, practical pistol (IPSC or IDPA), bullseye, etc.) The sport will help motivate you. You don't want to just buy a gun and a box of ammo, only to leave them in the closet for the next 20 years. If a serial killer breaks in to harm your family, you might not remember which end of the gun to point at him.

2. No breakdown of order, but you need to do sustenance hunting because of money trouble. If you live in the country, you may be able to hunt and put some food on the table. I gather you have to be good at hunting to begin with. So that means you should be a recreational hunter to begin with (that's your motivation). If you live in the city, I can't see how you'll be able to drag the carcass back home, butcher it, etc.

3. Breakdown of order. The nice folks of Montreal suddenly feel like they live amongst the average citizens of LA. Then maybe you need firearms to shoot marauding gangs who come by to enslave your children, rape your wife, and make you fight the Humongous in the thunderdome for their pleasure. In that case, you'd better get a lot of tactical training during peace time, stockpile guns and ammo, get your black gear in place, etc. The motivation? Fear, vigilance, and... let's face it, those of us who do tactical training often enjoy it.

Guns stuff is expensive. Guns can be expensive, but they aren't the most costly part. It's the ammo and the training cost, if you want to maintain your skill level.

LA is not a good comparison, at least for carry permits as they probably rival Montreal for the least per capita available.

Los Angeles county has aprox. 400 total concealed carry permitees!

http://calgunsfoundation.org/resourc...TC%20STATS.pdf http://calgunsfoundation.org/resourc...TC%20STATS.pdf

California in general is lower than most states. For a summary
state by state for CCW, see the GAO report starting on page 80.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf

Added: whether this is good or bad, I won't say, just to
keep this out of the political.

To help conceptualize Canada's gun laws, I choose California as being the most comparable to Canada with respect to gun laws. California overall has the most restrictive gun laws in the USA. California has the highest score on the Brady website. In contrast, I choose Utah, Arizona, and Alaska as being the least comparable to Canada. Those states overall have the least restrictive gun laws. They have the lowest score on the Brady website.

See here for state scores and explanations:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/

However, the comparison between Canada and individual USA states is still awkward at best. We have the Second Amendment, different government, different borders, different demographics in each state, etc.