Their 'familiarity' with weapons does not, to mind, extend to any particular degree of expertise. A small number of CAF members are pretty experienced and proficient with pistols. The rest might occasionally get to play with them but fall well short of anything I would want to see for someone carrying.
Aside from that, as frequently as I've seen CAF members saying really outlandish stuff on police use of force discussions, I have zero faith that CAF training or mindset appropriately equips people to be carrying firearms on civvy street. Honestly, soldiers and vets are some of the worst armchair quarterbacks for what should be done in use of force situations. There's quite a strong hubris from soldiers who believe that carrying a rifle in training or combat operations carries across perfectly or even adequately for being armed for daily carry for self/public defense. Many are very out to lunch. All that said- military training/experience should not be a factor that is at all in play in determining whether someone should or should not be permitted to carry a firearm in public in Canada.
There's not a chance we are going to see private open or concealed carry of firearms expanded generally in Canada, and I'm fine with that. There's no significant political appetite here, and few of us want to see us move along the trajectory to what we see south of the border. Just no thanks.
Amen. When I was overseas, a number of folks opted to carry pistols instead of rifles in the camp (whether this was for convenience, LCF, availability or what have you). Most folks outside of trades whom carried and fired the/a pistol regularly
(either the Sig, or our old friend the Browning) performed abhorrently at the range in both drills and abilities. They also seemed to have little use for properly maintaining their personal weapon too.
When you factor in stress, from a variety of sources (people screaming, limited time, no clear overview of events in question, etc) you will see more innocent people shot then saved. I also whole heartily concur with everything Brihard stated above.
While some resilience to stress and ability to make decisions in a crowded environment are to a degree
burned into a soldiers training, appropriate use of force in a civilian setting with only a firearm will only bring harm - not only to the innocent people in the way - but also the soldier, sailor or air-person who was ill equipped for the task of carrying concealed in a public place. Should those who were tasked to carry concealed have the rest of the use of force suite of options available to them? (Baton, pepper spray, taser (if equipped)) Those less lethal use of force options are there as tools for a number of reasons - but primarily because your first or only option/tool shouldn't be the lethal one (in most settings or situations). Will we also train those carrying concealed on appropriate use and escalation of force (ie the national Use of Force model)? That training takes months (formal and informal), and good judgement can take years to develop (if it develops at all). If I was responding to a call for service, the last thing I want is to run into some half cocked cook, or infanteer, or mechanic, or whomever
who because of their status as a CF member was magically granted a carry and conceal permit for protecting the rest of the public and the "sheepdog" mindset that I fear will come with it.
I wear civilian attire in my current unit and I carry a pistol most of the time. I'm often out in public with my weapon semi-concealed. I've probably put somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand rounds through that pistol (lots of range days). I'm fairly comfortable handling it, shooting it and hitting the things I want to hit with it - at the range
. But you can bet I've got at least one intermediate weapon with me too. Not only because *policy* but also because I don't want my only "tool" to be the gun - however familiar I am with it. I am also familiar with the consequences of shooting when no shooting was required.