Urban Canadians ... firearms?

I've read a bit on how firearms can fit in to ones overall preparedness plans, but I am having a bit of a hard time figuring how they best fit into the picture for urban Canadians like myself, or even if they fit at all.

So, for those of you in the same boat as me, or who are familiar with the restrictions & constraints of urban Canadian living, how do you see firearms fitting into your overall preparedness picture? In what ways do you think firearms can be beneficial in your situation and, specifically, how do you approach this within our legal & regulatory framework?

I really don't see it as useful unless you are facing some sort of eotwawki situation (which is extremely unlikely), there are just too many restrictions and stereotypes for it to work. Have someone kicking your doors down? Better convince the robbers to wait while you take your firearm out of the safe. I recall on the news some guy had vandals firebombing his house, he fired warning shot in the air. The cops came, didn't even bother looking for the vandals, just arrested and charged him for unsafe storing of firearm.

I think you know how they fit in. You just have to decide if you want to go down that road.

To acquire firearms you need to take a course and get a PAL. Not that hard. For handguns you need a restricted PAL which requires another course. Some places offer both courses plus exams (written and practical) all in one weekend. Not sure how it'll be in Calgary, but around TO these courses fill up really fast. Damn urbanites...

Once you've taken these courses all will be clear. They are not too onerous, and you'll probably especially enjoy the practical parts since it sounds like most of the different firearm actions may be new to you. I think you can find downloads of the various course manuals.

Contrary to what most Canadians think, it is quite legal to walk around inside your house wearing a cowboy hat and a pair of loaded six-shooters, if you want to. Yes, they changed the laws about cowboy hats! It's all about care and control, and a gun within your immediate arm's reach is considered under your control, so it *is* legal to have it loaded in your home. It's the using of it that causes the grief of course. The correct safe storage of guns and ammo when they're not in your care and control is a big course deal too.

If you want to know what I've heard urbanites around here buy for "home use": a shotgun, and/or a light/short semi-auto 9mm rifle for the "lady of the house" if she's smaller. This is not a good topic to discuss publicly in Canada...even more so around the area where I live.

Edit: you used to be able to search the gun registry by postal code (only first 3 letters) so could get an idea of what kind of firearms people in your area had legally acquired.

I don't know the situation in Canada, but I'd imagine that you'd use firearms for hunting and for defense, if you choose to include firearms in your preparation plan. Practically speaking, it may not take TEOWAWKI to use a firearm. During this last and continuing economic depression, for example, some families have hunted more frequently to put some meat on the table, according to a public radio show. (What a sad thing that is!)

But I do have questions for our Canadian brethren: how easy/hard is it to get quality firearms training (beyond basic safety & handling)? I've noticed that some states in the US have lots of good firearms courses; others, not so much. (Interestingly enough, this doesn't seem to correspond to state law or politics -- but that sort of stuff is not for discussion on this forum. I just want to point out that politics doesn't seem to be a big factor.) If you have to fly somewhere for four days to take a course, that will add potentially a thousand dollars to your expenses.

I'm thinking about this because training makes a HUGE difference. In the words of Col. Jeff Cooper: "You are no more armed because you own a gun than you are a musician because you own a piano. The instrument is not the answer; the skill to use the instrument is the answer." People who buy guns for "home use" without training are virtually naked. (Note that a part of training includes acquiring some legal knowledge about firearms usage, so you won't get arrested for "unsafe storing of firearms.")

A big problem is that anything beyond the basic safety course is quite expensive. You're often looking at $400-$800 for a three-day course. Then there's ammo cost. And there's the cost of maintaining firearms skills, which are perishable if you don't practice. And then you need to take more than one course...

^ Yes, those things are a problem. Especially for handguns, you will almost certainly have to join a club, and even those are fewer nowadays. We're speaking for urbanites here, you don't have to go very far into the rural areas where none of these things are the slightest issue.

comment from a spectator looking in...and not familiar with your laws... and not trying to be a smartass

do you have an other means to stop a violent attack on yourself or your family by possibly multiple assailants?... not referring to property, only violence against individuals

Personally, no I do not. I'm a relatively fit guy but with no self defence training and/or experience at all. At this point I'd pretty much be relying solely on what bravado I could muster and dumb luck if such a situation occurred.

The basis of the law is you can't use more force than "necessary" to defend yourself. You can't go after the bad guys, once they start fleeing they are legally driven off and you become the attacker. The lawyers have a field day, the law-abiding citizens get short shrift. It's getting better though, the law was just changed to allow a little more leeway to the home-owner etc.

At home I have machete and tomahawk hanging behind doors, I'd imagine they can do some damage. Outside, since we aren't allowed to carry weapons I guess it's whatever tools of convenience.

The "use" and "need" for firearms in Canada is exactly the same as in the US. Self defense and sustenance hunting. That part doesn't change. The difference is whether that's legal in Canada or not. And if you are willing to break Canadian laws during a disaster situation to protect and/or feed yourself, or would be willing to settle for different results than you might get without a firearm. You may be willing to settle for different results because you don't think the likelyhood of the original event is high. Maybe assaults in Canada are so low that it becomes irrelevent to own a firearm for self defense. That is your call.

From what I am reading by your question I would suggest self defense classes. Carrying such an item could cause you as much problems as it could solve them.

Not knowing nor pretending to know the laws in your area, I will say that you are possibly causing more issues that you are solving.

Perhaps some classes on self defense would be best. I know that there was a bit of shoot out in Toronto recently, and I am not sure that possessing a fire arm would have solved the issue. Ducking and running, that may be at times the best solution.

Even if you do decide to carry, I would strongly suggest self defense classes. You may not be looking to learn Kata's and forms, but a real world self defense class may really help you.

One of my instructors once said, "once you clear leather and pull the trigger, you just committed to $10,000 in legal fees."

Questions of use of force and so much more come into play.

For the urban bag, you can better judge what you do and don't need in there for resources.

You are absolutely correct. I guess I'm wondering to what degree those things are practical given our environment. And actually, I guess I'm mostly wondering about the defence aspect; I think I have a clearer idea of the practical aspects of hunting up here.

And, to clarify, I'm talking about uses completely within the realm of legality.


Good points about the risk analysis though, I think that has to come into the picture as well.

For Canada, any form of carry is a non-issue; its simply not allowed. Firearms are not a self defence option outside of your home.

That being said, your suggestion of self defence training makes a lot of sense.

^ It is very unlikely you will get any detailed practical advice *publicly* from a Canadian who has a clue. We all know better. We only talk about other people who did this and that...of course.

Edit: in case it's of any interest, since I don't know exactly what you had in mind, a home security expert we had lecture at the gun club once, highly recommended a very bright light for giving you that break in a home situation. He said a couple hundred lumens was fine, but a couple million candlepower "close" in the face is finer.

I helped a friend with some logistics for on a Cowboy Action shoot last month. Several
Canadians attended. One fellow told me some of the differences
between Canada and the US. In CA he was allowed handguns with
barrels 4" or over, while in the US you can own shorter. On the
other hand he could own in Canada a short barreled rifle or
shotgun, whereas in the US they are restricted and even in "free"
states they require a Federal tax stamp. He said he owned short barreled AR type rifles. (Just looked online and see
the short barreled long guns do require extra paperwork in
CA)

Even bringing firearms across the border wasn't a big deal as long as the paperwork for both countries was done in advance.

As Cowboy Action shooters, they brought single action revolvers,
shotguns, and lever action rifles. They cast their own bullets
and loaded their own cartridges.

If I remember right, he was from BC.

They were a friendly bunch, some were firearm dealers. You might
find a club like that to visit for more insight.

http://www.cascanada.com/casalberta/index.htm

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/rangemaps.html

I guess since intent figures so prominently into things it's likely not too wise to spell out any sort of plans in this area publicly.

Honestly, the reason for this post was, like jzmtl's comment earlier on, given our regulated environment I can't really see a very large, practical role for firearms in urban Canada and I was wondering if I was missing something or if this is indeed the case.

I'm leaning towards the thinking that things like home hardening, alarms, and even super-bright flashlights like you mention are all much more practical areas to focus upon. And, for being out and about, perhaps some self-defence or situational awareness training could be beneficial.

OK, Denis, it sounds like urban self-defense is one of the things you are interested in. If guns are not possible for one reason or another, what kind of weapons can you carry or have at home? Knife? Sticks? Swords? These are proven tools of destruction. Not as convenient and powerful as a firearm, and require much more training and physical ability. But they work. Find people who can teach you to fight with them. Usually dedicated students can become lethal and effective against untrained people in a few years.

Situation awareness is a great weapon, and it's something you have to carry with you almost all the time. A weekend self-defense class won't give you that. You need regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to a mock combative environment. But this is a big commitment.

For the home, I consider a firearm to be one or my most practical layers of security. My dog is probably number one. Hardening the home is a relatively difficult thing to do (even though I try). I'm talking about trying to harden against home invaders who don't care about the beauty of my doors. In contrast, a firearm can instantly turn a weak person into somebody who is difficult to harm.

It's a bummer that Canada has strong restrictions on firearms.

Honestly, I guess I don't really know what looking to learn now . I started this thread just wondering about how other Canadians viewed the role of firearms but, logically, this has moved more into talking about self & home defence in general. As this isn't something I've thought too much about any input is welcome.

As far as what we cannot own, this list from the Canadian Border Services Agency summarizes that pretty well. Also, from what I understand, any object can be legally considered a weapon when the individual's intent is to use it to harm another individual.

I hear you about the training aspect though. I have played with the idea of getting involved in something like martial arts in the past, as much for fitness as preparedness, but ultimately balked at the commitment required.

One of the strange aspects of "firearms" in Canada is that an airgun that has a mv greater than 500fps is considered a firearm, yet black powder rifles aren't (you don't need any permit to acquire one).

Anything that looks like a gun (maybe a black plastic waterpistol) is considered a firearm if you use it in the commission of a crime.

Restrictive law is part of the reason, you are also instantly vilified in eyes of both LE and public, like the example in my first post.

I don't think you're missing anything. I have used and owned firearms since I was a teenager. But I have never felt a need to have a firearm in a Canadian city.

A practical example: in all the years I spent living in the city, going to technical college and university, my firearms were stored at my parents' farm. That's where I needed those tools.

For the average citizen up here, the risk for assault is generally very low. Of course if you go looking for trouble, someone will accommodate you. But most urban violence up here involves groups known to each other (and shockingly careless about shooting up public places with smuggled handguns). Situational awareness is the most effective way of staying safe.

That's not to say I'm complacent. I do keep some multi-use, non-firearm options close at hand in my home and vehicle. This in case of the very, very rare random element. I like having options. But my guns are locked up at home, as per law, and that generally suits me.

That's my perspective. YMMV.

It seems to me that the best input I can offer is: you know what you need.

People who believe they are under threat are more likely to take the time and energy to acquire the necessary skills and tools to respond effectively. (The particular skills and tools depend on the context: obviously it would be quite stupid to carry a firearm in a city where carrying is a felony.) Without this motivation, most people can't really get anywhere, because the degree of commitment required is quite high. They buy a gun and a box of ammo, and then forget about them in a closet. They sign up for the hottest martial art, and quit after a few weeks. The people who think there is a real chance they will have to fight for their lives one day, will be committed and diligent.

So if you don't need to protect yourself, you may be less motivated. Of course, there are other forms of motivation besides the practical situation. Some people love to fight, and they enjoy learning and training, much the same way we like talking about gear and preparing for disasters. Maybe if you truly see combative training (with or without firearms) as an essential part of your preparation, being a dedicated prepper, you'll drag yourself to the range or to the dojo.

Don't do combative training for fitness. That's not really an efficient way. It's more about programming your body and mind, less about toning your muscles or burning fat. It helps to be fit, and that's why some martial artists are gym rats as well. On the other hand, it's my personal suspicion that greater body mass provides a more stable platform for shooting. That's why all these fat guys outshoot me.

firearms of all kinds are prohibited in Canada. The cops will bust anyone ass hard if they discover you have firearms even with license.

they will put you away for eternity or you will be in legal black hole.

Sir, I must regretfully inform you that your research is incomplete.

There was a recent thread on this forums credibility. Uninformed and inflamatory insinuations such as this harms the forum credibility and reputation. There are millions of firearm owners in Canada who are also law abiding citizens whom have no such problems with firearm ownership and the police..

Pretty much my attitude.

I am not sure that I am capable of actually using a "weapon" to intentionally hurt somebody, even under duress. I like to think that in a serious situation I would do what is necessary, but I think everybody thinks that, and most really can't because they haven't been trained.

Well, this is a somewhat delicate topic for which I have had my knuckles wrapped previously. So, will play this by ear and see what the moderators have to say.

Sorry, this is probably redundant information, but it will provide a little background for anyone who isn't familiar.

In Canada, you must be licensed to own or be in possession of any firearm otherwise known as the possession and acquisition license or more commonly know as the PAL or the previous POL. Firearms are split into 3 distinct groups as per the Firearms Act - nonrestricted or long guns (rifles & shotguns), restricted (handguns/AR15 platform) and prohibited (which few are allowed to possess). Storage and transport for the above are separated into nonrestricted and restricted/prohib. You only require your PAL when transporting a nonrestricted and a PAL/ATT (authorisation to transport) for restricted/prohib.

Having said all this - there are exceptions. Please refer to the Canadian Firearms Centre website for additional information.

Currently, the Firearms Act in Canada has been amended to end the Long Gun Registry for non restricted firearms. In essence, it ends the previously mandated registration of these types of firearms with the federal government. Restricted and prohib are still required to be registered. Licensing, storage and transport requirements remain the same.

Also, Bill C-26 has been passed into law which clarifies self defense and the powers of Citizens arrest under the Criminal Code of Canada. Although I do endorse the right of self defense of ones person and family, I must also be realistic. In general, the Canadian public do not view firearms in the same light as in the United States.

Please note the following are my personal views only. I would not recommend using a firearm to defend personal property (i.e. computer, television, etc.). The Crown prosecutor will probably argue it is an object which can be easily replaced by insurance. A more viable situation would be you and your family defending yourselves in an ensconced position in response to a person or persons threatening your well being. Regardless, as stated by jzmtl you will be dragged through the courts for using a firearm in self defense.

More importantly, I hope that no one has to face the above situation.

I just want to congratulate the previous posters for a level-headed, well-behaved, and per the forum rules thread discussing firearms and defense of life/property.

Thanks everyone!

I'm not a forum administrator, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

FWIW.... my motivation..
Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen, Texas, USA, October 16, 1991

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.