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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Don't like guns ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935402459163406359

 

[NavyShooter]

Proportional response.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

There is no "Use of Force" training required. The training only needs to be what constitutes the time when you are legally allowed to shoot. When a bunch of Canadians were pushing for ATC's for self defense, they asked for the CFO to define the "Training element" of the ATC requirement, the CFO refused to define the training, as they knew someone would design a course around that definition and people would meet the requirement, knocking another obstacle to the permit.
CCW holders in the US have a very low rate of indictments and very few problems. It is estimated that armed citizens prevent approximately 1 million crimes a year. Criminals interviewed in the US, avoid breaking into occupied homes as they fear armed citizens more than police.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Let's be frank. Canada is going to enact Castle Doctrine about 10 years after we commission our 1st nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Any push for enabling easier use of firearms for defense of self/family/home that frames itself as supporting Castle Doctrine/ Stand Your Ground or adjacent policy will be DOA, and electoral suicide for the party advancing it.


But there are clear reasonable steps that could be taken to adjust the law as to not disadvantage law abiding gun owners relative to home invaders

1. Codify "having reasonable grounds to prepare for self defense, such as a reasonable belief that a home invasion has occurred or is imminent" to be a ironclad exception to the offense Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose,
2. Codify "as an alternative to discharge while attempting to deter an attack during a home invasion" as an exception to the offense of Pointing a Firearm,
3. Codify the use of deadly force in self defence during a home invasion as exception to the offenses of Discharge with Intent / Manslaughter with a Firearm / Murder. Get rid of proportionality in home invasion situations- if the invader attacks. it's not my fault 155lb Mikey methhead brought a screwdriver to a shotgun fight with 205lb me- if he attacks I should be able to prevent him from harming me and mine without considering whether I could otherwise subdue him and/or exposing myself to the threat of harm in a physical confrontation
4. Specifically limit the duty to retreat to exclude fleeing the home.
5. Remove reverse onus- I specifically (if likely incorrectly) wrote "as exception" rather than "as a defense"- to protect PAL holders the law would need to be written such that if those elements are present/ in those situations no crime is committed, therefore for a conviction the crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that those elements did not exist, and for charges to be laid LE must have a reasonable belief that they can convict. No more charge first and sort it out later.
6. Absent probable cause that the situation was something other than a home invasion / self defense situation, no legally owned firearm can be seized from the premises other than that used in the incident (for investigatory purposes).

Allow citizens to take reasonable and appropriate steps to protect themselves and their families, as long as it also comes with a responsibility to show restraint, legislate to take the judgement calls out of the hands of activist crown attorneys and judges, and return the presumption of innocence.

 

[captloadie]

Are there not already laws on the books that allow for true self defense? Bad guy breaks into your home, attempts to harm you and yours, you use whatever means available to protect your life and limb, up to the point a reasonable group of individuals would acknowledge you used the minimum force required?

I don't want to criticize HT as an individual, but I do have an issue with the sentiment that a TV is worth more than a human life. There are many on this forum who have had to take lives, sanctioned by the state and for what we have decided are valid reasons. Some have been able to accept that and are unaffected, many others are now dealing with MH issues as a result of their actions. So I think it is a little cavalier to say taking a life to save the TV on the wall is no big thing, and anyone should be able to do so (it doesn't need to be with a firearm).

 

[mariomike]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935402459163406359

Two attorneys, representing the home owner vs the porch pirate, argued that case,

Home - Under Oath Show

Jeff Kaufman, attorney, radio host, and comic book writer

underoathshow.com

 

[Furniture]

Are there not already laws on the books that allow for true self defense? Bad guy breaks into your home, attempts to harm you and yours, you use whatever means available to protect your life and limb, up to the point a reasonable group of individuals would acknowledge you used the minimum force required?

So the victim of the crime, should be charged by police and forced to defend themselves in court for being a victim of crime?

We have had multiple examples in Canada of the courts going after the victims who had the gall to stand-up for themselves. What we need are laws that protect the victims when they protect themselves.

I don't want to criticize HT as an individual, but I do have an issue with the sentiment that a TV is worth more than a human life. There are many on this forum who have had to take lives, sanctioned by the state and for what we have decided are valid reasons. Some have been able to accept that and are unaffected, many others are now dealing with MH issues as a result of their actions. So I think it is a little cavalier to say taking a life to save the TV on the wall is no big thing, and anyone should be able to do so (it doesn't need to be with a firearm).

The person making the value judgement about the worth of life is the criminal who knowingly enters your home to take your things. They have chosen to risk your life and theirs, just to steal your stuff.

It's easy to sit back and pretend that insurance makes it all OK, but it is a violation of your sanctuary. You shouldn't be forced to feel vulnerable, just so some jackass can feel safe about stealing your things.