Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate  (Read 858479 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 258,752
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,942
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3725 on: August 03, 2017, 22:07:03 »
That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.


That is exactly what it is.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 280
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3726 on: August 03, 2017, 22:27:51 »
That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.


Pretty common in our justice system, really always better to have a good lawyer. in the end though if three intruders break into your house better to take your chances with our justice system than the intruders sense of justice

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3727 on: August 04, 2017, 09:40:20 »
Is this an official practice that can be verified, or is it just a by-product of our justice system that happens to really suck for the accused?

There is a big difference. On the one hand, you have a bunch of people entrusted to apply the law doing so with malice, which is not ok, and on the other, you simply have a people doing their job and it just so happens that their tools and guidelines suck for those involved in weapons related situations, which still sucks, but is more ok, in my books.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 251,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,907
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3728 on: August 04, 2017, 10:09:52 »
In this case I guess it depends on more of the circumstance that hasn't been mentioned.

But for arguments sake lets say I break into your house with a couple buddies and point a handgun at you. You wrestle the handgun out of my grip and fire a couple bullets at my direction, one of them hitting me and giving me non-life threatening injures. I run away.

The police show up at your house and by the time they leave you're told you're being charged with:
-attempted murder
-intent to discharge a firearm
-intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless
-careless use of a firearm
-improper storage of a firearm
-pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
-unauthorized possession of a firearm
-possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized
possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Would you feel like the police are just doing their job or would you feel a bit short changed?

In this case I really hope there is more to the story than what we're seeing and the police have a good reason to nail the guy with all those charges.

I've thankfully had the exact opposite treatment by the police.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3729 on: August 04, 2017, 10:37:11 »
I'm not disagreeing that this situation seems unjust and that there appears to be details missing.

However, what I'm asking is:

1. When the police laid these charges, did they consciously apply an official policy/strategy developed between law enforcement and the Crown Attorneys' Office to hammer people involved in gun related crimes with the goal of causing so much duress that the accused caves and signs whatever plea bargain the Crown wants; or
2. When the police laid these charges, did they simply apply existing legislation, precedent, and law enforcement policy that perhaps states that when there is evidence of weapons involvement in a crime, they must apply all charges that could possibly be derived from the facts of their investigation.

Re-reading what I just wrote, I realize the difference is small, but it's a matter of motive. In situation 1, the policy and crown attorneys are demonstrating malice toward gun owners, and in the other, they are simply doing their jobs as police officers.

I ask, because the last few posts in this thread imply that malice is exactly what the police are demonstrating, and I'm not denying it, I'm simply asking for non-anecdotal proof.

I feel like if there is no official written policy to do what everyone is implying is being done, then someone at the shitty end of this stick would have had grounds at some point to put forward a charter challenge and stop this un-sanctioned practice.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 736,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3730 on: August 04, 2017, 10:50:57 »
In this case I guess it depends on more of the circumstance that hasn't been mentioned.

But for arguments sake lets say I break into your house with a couple buddies and point a handgun at you. You wrestle the handgun out of my grip and fire a couple bullets at my direction, one of them hitting me and giving me non-life threatening injures. I run away.

The police show up at your house and by the time they leave you're told you're being charged with:
-attempted murder
-intent to discharge a firearm
-intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless
-careless use of a firearm
-improper storage of a firearm
-pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
-unauthorized possession of a firearm
-possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized
possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Would you feel like the police are just doing their job or would you feel a bit short changed?

In this case I really hope there is more to the story than what we're seeing and the police have a good reason to nail the guy with all those charges.

I've thankfully had the exact opposite treatment by the police.

If that happened in the USA you would get a pat on the back from the police.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 40,418
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,649
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3731 on: August 04, 2017, 11:01:07 »
I've been told make sure you hit him/her/them in the chest and not the back. 

Shooting them in the back means they were going away from you and not a threat any more...
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3732 on: August 04, 2017, 11:05:56 »
If that happened in the USA you would get a pat on the back from the police.

I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you can shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 125,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,882
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3733 on: August 04, 2017, 11:18:59 »
I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you can shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?

Nope. In Canada, you may not use deadly force to protect property. If you injure or kill someone who is breaking into your house, you had better be able to convince the investigating police force and the local crown attorney that you feared for your own life and the life of you family members, or you are most likely going going to court and maybe to jail. You may even get sued by the perp. As was noted upthread, that threat has to immiment- if the bad guy starts to run away, carrying your tv, you cannot shoot him in the back. You are no longer at risk of bodily harm or death, when he is running.

That is my understanding of how the CCC is currently written. I await correction by FJAG!

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 125,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,882
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3734 on: August 04, 2017, 11:22:36 »
Something smells funny in this case in Halifax, which is why I hesitate to rush to the home invasion victims defence.

Why was he charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking (a drug charge)?

For that to happen, he had to have a reasonably significant quantity of illicit drugs in the house, no?

 ???

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 736,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3735 on: August 04, 2017, 11:28:52 »
I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you can shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?

In Canada we don't really have property rights like in the US, thus the reason why the government has no problem banning or confiscating things. In the US you have the right of self defense of you, your family and your property. Here in Canada the police would rather have you call them, than you taking matters into your own hands.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3736 on: August 04, 2017, 11:32:57 »
In Canada we don't really have property rights like in the US, thus the reason why the government has no problem banning or confiscating things. In the US you have the right of self defense of you, your family and your property. Here in Canada the police would rather have you call them, than you taking matters into your own hands.

Ok, so it's as I thought, and personally, I don't see a problem with this.

Are you really ok with taking someones life over material items? I have no problem shooting someone to protect my family, but I wouldn't feel ok knowing I took someone's life because he was trying to make off with my PlayStation, or because they were drunk and taking a baseball bat to my car.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 736,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3737 on: August 04, 2017, 11:42:02 »
Ok, so it's as I thought, and personally, I don't see a problem with this.

Are you really ok with taking someones life over material items? I have no problem shooting someone to protect my family, but I wouldn't feel ok knowing I took someone's life because he was trying to make off with my PlayStation, or because they were drunk and taking a baseball bat to my car.

No I'm not but the deterrence factor is there knowing they maybe shot, wounded or detained by the homeowner. Violent home invasions are on the rise in Canada. I do believe we should have the right to self defence of yourself and your family including the use of deadly force. 
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 251,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,907
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3738 on: August 04, 2017, 12:06:43 »
No I'm not but the deterrence factor is there knowing they maybe shot, wounded or detained by the homeowner. Violent home invasions are on the rise in Canada. I do believe we should have the right to self defence of yourself and your family including the use of deadly force.

If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 251,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,907
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3739 on: August 04, 2017, 12:12:08 »
Editing
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 14:15:18 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3740 on: August 04, 2017, 14:43:31 »
If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.

And I agree that we should have the right to use deadly force to protect our families, but if I switch the light on, and see the guy walking through my living room, I'd give him the chance to leave peacefully instead of just shooting him. If he starts walking away peacefully, but is still holding my TV/Playstation/Box of jewellery, again, I'm not going to shoot him.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Rick Goebel

  • Donor
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 23,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 94
    • http://www.ducimus.com
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3741 on: August 04, 2017, 14:54:26 »
Nope. In Canada, you may not use deadly force to protect property. If you injure or kill someone who is breaking into your house, you had better be able to convince the investigating police force and the local crown attorney that you feared for your own life and the life of you family members, or you are most likely going going to court and maybe to jail. You may even get sued by the perp. As was noted upthread, that threat has to immiment- if the bad guy starts to run away, carrying your tv, you cannot shoot him in the back. You are no longer at risk of bodily harm or death, when he is running.

That is my understanding of how the CCC is currently written. I await correction by FJAG!

I think that the jury is important to, at least in Calgary in the 80s:

"In April, druggist Steven Kesler sold his pharmacy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Recently described by the Calgary Herald as "a legend in the area for nearly 20 years," Kesler had become nationally renowned in the wake of an attempted robbery of the pharmacy in November 1986, the third such attempt that year.

Two masked men entered the drugstore shortly before 3 p.m. on November 8, 1986. One, armed with a gun, went to the back of the store where Kesler's wife Mary (also a pharmacist) was dispensing drugs. The other man, Timothy David Smith, confronted Kesler at the front counter, whereupon Kesler grabbed a shotgun, chased Smith out of the establishment and down the street, and fired a single blast that found its mark. Smith fell to the ground unconscious, still clutching the $115 he had taken. He later died at a local hospital.

Kesler returned to the store, where he exchanged gunfire with the second suspect. Neither man was injured during the shootout, but when the robber ran to his car in an escape attempt, Kesler followed and began pummeling him with the shotgun. Police soon arrived and carted the battered felon to jail.

Kesler was charged with second-degree murder for killing one of the robbers. But he received tremendous public support (more than $35,000 was raised to help pay his legal bills) and was acquitted by a jury. Four hours after the verdict he was back at work in the pharmacy, where a ragged hole made by a shotgun blast adorns a wall to this day."

The quote is from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Remembering+a+legend.-a0110620348.  Note that the man killed was "out of the establishment down the street".
Rick Goebel
Calgary

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 736,552
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,737
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3742 on: August 04, 2017, 15:00:02 »
I think that the jury is important to, at least in Calgary in the 80s:

"In April, druggist Steven Kesler sold his pharmacy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Recently described by the Calgary Herald as "a legend in the area for nearly 20 years," Kesler had become nationally renowned in the wake of an attempted robbery of the pharmacy in November 1986, the third such attempt that year.

Two masked men entered the drugstore shortly before 3 p.m. on November 8, 1986. One, armed with a gun, went to the back of the store where Kesler's wife Mary (also a pharmacist) was dispensing drugs. The other man, Timothy David Smith, confronted Kesler at the front counter, whereupon Kesler grabbed a shotgun, chased Smith out of the establishment and down the street, and fired a single blast that found its mark. Smith fell to the ground unconscious, still clutching the $115 he had taken. He later died at a local hospital.

Kesler returned to the store, where he exchanged gunfire with the second suspect. Neither man was injured during the shootout, but when the robber ran to his car in an escape attempt, Kesler followed and began pummeling him with the shotgun. Police soon arrived and carted the battered felon to jail.

Kesler was charged with second-degree murder for killing one of the robbers. But he received tremendous public support (more than $35,000 was raised to help pay his legal bills) and was acquitted by a jury. Four hours after the verdict he was back at work in the pharmacy, where a ragged hole made by a shotgun blast adorns a wall to this day."

The quote is from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Remembering+a+legend.-a0110620348.  Note that the man killed was "out of the establishment down the street".

Yes and in a different province or time he could very well have gone to jail, not to mention a very large legal bill.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Rocky Mountains

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 298
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3743 on: August 04, 2017, 15:27:56 »
Quote
Defense of Person
    34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
        (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
        (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
        (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Factors
    (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
        (a) the nature of the force or threat;
        (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
        (c) the person’s role in the incident;
        (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
        (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
        (f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
        (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
        (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
        (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
No defence
    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

Defence of Property
    35 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
        (a) they either believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of property or are acting under the authority of, or lawfully assisting, a person whom they believe on reasonable grounds is in peaceable possession of property;
        (b) they believe on reasonable grounds that another person
            (i)is entering or has entered the property without being entitled by law to do so,
            (ii) is about to take the property, is doing so or has just done so, or
            (iii) is about to damage or destroy the property, or make it inoperative, or is doing so;
        (c) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of
            (i) preventing the other person from entering the property, or removing that person from the property, or
            (ii) preventing the other person from taking, damaging or destroying the property or from making it inoperative, or retaking the property from that person; and
        (d) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
No defence
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person who believes on reasonable grounds that they are, or who is believed on reasonable grounds to be, in peaceable possession of the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to its possession by law.
No defence
    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the other person is doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

You can apply self defense to counter force or threat of force.  It's pretty straight forward.  That's why, after everyone charged goes through punishment by process, they have been found not guilty.  You can use force to defend property but the bugaboo "reasonable in the circumstance" will likely bite you in the ***.  Putting a 9mm hole in someone for stealing your tv is likely excessive, although for stealing $100,000 in gold might not be but I wouldn't count on it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 251,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,907
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3744 on: August 04, 2017, 15:30:14 »
And I agree that we should have the right to use deadly force to protect our families, but if I switch the light on, and see the guy walking through my living room, I'd give him the chance to leave peacefully instead of just shooting him. If he starts walking away peacefully, but is still holding my TV/Playstation/Box of jewellery, again, I'm not going to shoot him.

If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?


« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 15:34:24 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3745 on: August 04, 2017, 15:39:43 »
If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?

Yea, I could try that, but if he ignores me and keeps walking away, I'm not going to shoot him.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 896,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,634
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3746 on: August 04, 2017, 15:45:26 »
If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?
The problem being is that if he's not armed or a deadly force threat, you've now used a deadly force threat to apprehend. If you pull a gun on a fist fight, unless the guy is way bigger than you, I'm willing to bet you'd be in the wrong.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 251,301
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,907
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3747 on: August 04, 2017, 15:54:24 »
Yea, I could try that, but if he ignores me and keeps walking away, I'm not going to shoot him.

Are you thinking some of us are going to champion putting shotgun slugs in someones back for taking a video game? I'm going to guess if we go back over the last 3746 posts in this thread we won't find anyone saying this is an okay thing to do in Canada.

The problem being is that if he's not armed or a deadly force threat, you've now used a deadly force threat to apprehend. If you pull a gun on a fist fight, unless the guy is way bigger than you, I'm willing to bet you'd be in the wrong.

Possible. Pulled this up quick.
Preventing assault.
Quote
The crown has the burden of disproving at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt:
[1]force was for the purpose of preventing an assault on self or person under his protection.
[2]no more force than necessary to prevent assault or repetition having regard to the nature of assault to be prevented
[3]the force was proportionate to the danger threatened.
I'm not a lawyer but I think I could make a good argument that someone who went to the length of breaking into your house could very well be armed and a threat.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,189
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3748 on: August 04, 2017, 16:03:31 »
Are you thinking some of us are going to champion putting shotgun slugs in someones back for taking a video game?

No no no; god no! I think we're trailing off from the original point, which was simply a question on my part: 1. In Canada, no deadly force to protect property; in America, Yippee ki-yay, touch my property and I have the right to blow your head off. Is this correct? And I was just saying that I agree with Canada's take on it. I'm not using force that's strong enough to take someone else's life unless my life (or my families) is legitimately in danger.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 280
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate
« Reply #3749 on: August 04, 2017, 19:00:57 »
If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.

This! You're not going to have much time or space inside your house to make this decision. To me the intruder has already proven their bad intentions.