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.