Don’t forget with the firearms act creation they also banned less lethal alternatives such as pepper spray and tasers from the public. They really don’t want people to be able to present any sort of defence for themselves.
Several states down here ban some or many Less Lethal options. The issue with LL is they are a tool, not THE tool. LL options are good for LE because a most of LEO engagement with the public isn’t at a lethal force situation. Not all are great for civilians.
Less Lethal options take a lot of time to become proficient with. Most LE academies have multiple sessions with different LL tools, and then scenarios to test students in the appropriate application.
Then there is continuing training with those.
Most non LEO’s do not have 2 weeks to be able to conduct annual, or biannual (depending on entity) refresher and recertification.
Improper use of LL tools can be a major issue, either from unintentional lethal response or disabling themselves.
I’m not anti civilian ownership and usage of LL items, but like a firearm the individual needs to be trained, and should seek refresher training routinely.
I know several folks who’ve accidentally tased themselves or OV sprayed themselves (or their partners) as well as seen batons that won’t extend as they are either bent or rusted, and those are sworn full time LEO’s.
A lot of LL tools get a bad wrap in Hollywood as a tool of kidnappers or other ‘bad guys’, as stun guns, Saps/blackjacks are often used to subdue people in movies and TV shows, it appears a lot of Canadian Laws for various restrictions are based on irrational fears, as opposed to an actual logical look at what those items offer.
Oddly I can’t see where a LL launcher like a 37mm, PepperBall (impact only without the OC) FN303 (impact only without OC) would not be legal (albeit not really the easiest less lethal systems to carry on one’s person.
The major issue I have with Canada’s laws are many effective self defense options put one at jeopardy (outside of the home) for carrying a weapon dangerous to the public (or whatever that is called) or are downright prohibited weapons.
It is interesting the logic behind it all. For example we need smoke alarms in case of a fire (no guarantee it will happen). We need to wear seatbelts in case of a car accident (no guarantee it will happen). But if you wish to plan and prepare for your defence against someone attacking you, you are in the wrong by Canadian standards.
Canada has some very unusual opinions on personal freedom and security.
Canadians are generally very fortunate that Canada is so relatively peaceful and safe.
Hell even if you do everything right you will be punished by process. Look at Ian Thompson, he was still fighting though the courts well the guy who literally tried to kill him and his family was released. Legally he could have shot and killed the attacker but he chose restraint instead and was still punished.
I wasn’t familiar with the case, and only read some highlights so I won’t say I’m super knowledgeable on it c but that seems to be a case of Political motivated charges. The Crown apparently said they had to pursue charges, even though they had no real case (the safe storage argument, that his firearms were too close to his bedroom is absolutely insane). That said it seems the precedent in that case has settled the fact one can have a firearm with ammunition in a safe within easy access.
Terrible he had to go through that.
