The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[IKnowNothing]

Can't say I disagree with him. I think we have some things backwards in Canada.

We certainly don't have it correct IMO, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing that we should have the right to use our firearms to defend our property. PAL holders shouldn't be heading out into the night in defense of "stuff", precipitating conflict situations that they're not trained to handle.

That being said- there should 100% be a clear path and lowered threshold for the use of firearms in defense of self or family in the home, without the risk of judicial activists sticking it to you to make a point.

 

[Furniture]

We certainly don't have it correct IMO, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing that we should have the right to use our firearms to defend our property. PAL holders shouldn't be heading out into the night in defense of "stuff", precipitating conflict situations that they're not trained to handle.

That being said- there should 100% be a clear path and lowered threshold for the use of firearms in defense of self or family in the home, without the risk of judicial activists sticking it to you to make a point.

People shouldn't feel comfortable coming onto your property to take your "stuff". If the risk of conflict makes people think twice about theft, we all win.

Having to go through insurance to replace your "stuff" can/will lead to higher premiums for yourself and others. I don't know about you, but I don't need another reason for life to get even more expensive...

 

[IKnowNothing]

People shouldn't feel comfortable coming onto your property to take your "stuff".

They shouldn't. But that doesn't mean the answer is angry Jim who has never heard the term of "use of force training" poking around in the dark while hopped up on adrenaline. Most PAL holder's aren't LEO's or CAF members. Hell the story Halifax brought in was literally a man firing into the sky in a built up area.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We certainly don't have it correct IMO, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing that we should have the right to use our firearms to defend our property. PAL holders shouldn't be heading out into the night in defense of "stuff", precipitating conflict situations that they're not trained to handle.

That being said- there should 100% be a clear path and lowered threshold for the use of firearms in defense of self or family in the home, without the risk of judicial activists sticking it to you to make a point.

I'll be very simple when I say this. My TV is worth more than the robber trying to take it. That's the way I see it.

I agree I shouldnt be clear to go looking for trouble, but if trouble finds me I should be able to end it; expeditiously.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'll be very simple when I say this. My TV is worth more than the robber trying to take it. That's the way I see it.

I agree I shouldnt be clear to go looking for trouble, but if trouble finds me I should be able to end it; expeditiously.

I agree with the bottom line wholeheartedly, but given the top line I think we disagree on what "trouble finds me" means.

In my opinion an intruder in the/ in close proximity to them home should be enough to let you remove from storage and load without having violating the firearms act. You should be able to act in a reasonable manner to prepare yourself to defend against a suspected threat. You should be able to act against a known threat to your self or family. Going beyond that gets very murky, very fast.

My family is worth more than the armed methhead breaking in. But my tools in the basement are not worth more than me to my family, or more than the life of the stupid teenager making their first big mistake. And my trigger happy neighbour's gas can is not worth more than my family.

 

[Jarnhamar]

They shouldn't. But that doesn't mean the answer is angry Jim who has never heard the term of "use of force training" poking around in the dark while hopped up on adrenaline. Most PAL holder's aren't LEO's or CAF members. Hell the story Halifax brought in was literally a man firing into the sky in a built up area.

Jim doesn't need to be a LEO or CAF member, or have taken use of force training. Since Jim is an owner of property he can arrest someone and use reasonable and proportional force in doing so.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Jim doesn't need to be a LEO or CAF member, or have taken use of force training. Since Jim is an owner of property he can arrest someone and use reasonable and proportional force in doing so.

And Jim has an innate understanding of what constitutes reasonable and proportional force does he? To go with his innate ability to handle himself underfire when/if things go south without endangering bystanders of course

 

[Jarnhamar]

And Jim has an innate understanding of what constitutes reasonable and proportional force does he? To go with his innate ability to handle himself underfire when/if things go south without endangering bystanders of course

If Jim uses an unreasonable or disproportionate amount of force he'll suffer the consequences.


If the person breaking in and stealing your tools decides to use those tools on you and your family then you're suffering the consequences.

 

[QV]

People breaking into a home often carry tools or instruments to affect the break-in... pry bars, hammers, screw drivers... all of which can be a weapon. In my view your dwelling is sacred territory and we should have castle doctrine.

 

[KevinB]

People breaking into a home often carry tools or instruments to affect the break-in... pry bars, hammers, screw drivers... all of which can be a weapon. In my view your dwelling is sacred territory and we should have castle doctrine.

Even in areas that don’t have castle doctrine, it’s usually pretty clear that folks breaking into one’s dwelling with weapons are a threat to you and yours.

 

[Cloud Cover]

We certainly don't have it correct IMO, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing that we should have the right to use our firearms to defend our property. PAL holders shouldn't be heading out into the night in defense of "stuff", precipitating conflict situations that they're not trained to handle.

That being said- there should 100% be a clear path and lowered threshold for the use of firearms in defense of self or family in the home, without the risk of judicial activists sticking it to you to make a point.

Come on to another persons property with the intent of committing a crime, refuse to back off then that person is the one who is escalating and could then should understand they caused the risk to themselves of leaving in an ambulance, or a body bag. No f*cks given should be the operative policy.

There’s nothing wrong, unethical or immoral about that. What is unconscionable is not having the right to defend your property while on your own land. Under the current system your best outcome is to be a victim who has lost valuable property and your worst outcome is to become an injured or dead victim.

Enough of that.

All we’ve done so far is opened the door to commit increasing volumes of often violent property crime with barely any public legal consequences. Right now people who lose property to theft are stuck with all of the costs and consequences. That needs to change completely and ruthlessly. Elbows up, eh?

 

[Eaglelord17]

The moment someone enters your home lethal force should be a acceptable response. You have no idea why they are there, you shouldn’t have to determine what level of force they have, nor the intent. Seconds matter when the cops are minutes away.

Outside the dwelling use of force and all that should apply as otherwise you would have kids on dirt bikes shot for just entering someone else's property.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree with the bottom line wholeheartedly, but given the top line I think we disagree on what "trouble finds me" means.

In my opinion an intruder in the/ in close proximity to them home should be enough to let you remove from storage and load without having violating the firearms act. You should be able to act in a reasonable manner to prepare yourself to defend against a suspected threat. You should be able to act against a known threat to your self or family. Going beyond that gets very murky, very fast.

My family is worth more than the armed methhead breaking in. But my tools in the basement are not worth more than me to my family, or more than the life of the stupid teenager making their first big mistake. And my trigger happy neighbour's gas can is not worth more than my family.

If you break into my home, you have forcibly entered my home. I see that as a violent act and willing to endanger my family. In HT's Canada that now makes you fair game for ammunition stock rotation.

I feel no remorse or sadness for these likes, they are leeches. And I think if they had an actual concern that my Milwaukee tool set might cost them their lives they may think twice about it.

People breaking into a home often carry tools or instruments to affect the break-in... pry bars, hammers, screw drivers... all of which can be a weapon. In my view your dwelling is sacred territory and we should have castle doctrine.

I would like Castle Doctrine as well.

Come on to another persons property with the intent of committing a crime, refuse to back off then that person is the one who is escalating and could then should understand they caused the risk to themselves of leaving in an ambulance, or a body bag. No f*cks given should be the operative policy.

There’s nothing wrong, unethical or immoral about that. What is unconscionable is not having the right to defend your property while on your own land. Under the current system your best outcome is to be a victim who has lost valuable property and your worst outcome is to become an injured or dead victim.

Enough of that.

All we’ve done so far is opened the door to commit increasing volumes of often violent property crime with barely any public legal consequences. Right now people who lose property to theft are stuck with all of the costs and consequences. That needs to change completely and ruthlessly. Elbows up, eh?

Agreed on all points.