• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Furniture said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

Couldn't put it any better. Thank you.
 
IKnowNothing said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think there is far more support for this across the country then is suggested.

To be clear, the LPC/NDP party absolutely does not support, but my WAG is the public supports this to the tune of about 70%.
 
IKnowNothing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jim Carrey Chance GIF
 
captloadie said:
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).
Click to expand...
The problem is the onus shouldn’t be on the homeowner to determine if they are there for the TV or a loved one.

That sort of what if pontificating just gets good guys killed or injured.

Now I’m not suggesting one have a free fire zone in one’s living room, but one clearly articulates that the intruder(s) have two options;

1) Adopt the prone position with their hands empty and outstretched
2) If not, they are becoming a reactive target as I secure my home.

If they flee, then depending on what they have done or attempting to take with them, will determine my level of force used to deal with them on the way out.
 
KevinB said:
Now I’m not suggesting one have a free fire zone in one’s living room, but one clearly articulates that the intruder(s) have two options;

1) Adopt the prone position with their hands empty and outstretched
2) If not, they are becoming a reactive target as I secure my home.

If they flee, then depending on what they have done or attempting to take with them, will determine my level of force used to deal with them on the way out.
Click to expand...

I am perfectly fine with those constraints.
 
KevinB said:
The problem is the onus shouldn’t be on the homeowner to determine if they are there for the TV or a loved one.

That sort of what if pontificating just gets good guys killed or injured.

Now I’m not suggesting one have a free fire zone in one’s living room, but one clearly articulates that the intruder(s) have two options;

1) Adopt the prone position with their hands empty and outstretched
2) If not, they are becoming a reactive target as I secure my home.

If they flee, then depending on what they have done or attempting to take with them, will determine my level of force used to deal with them on the way out.
Click to expand...

You're right. The reason shouldn't matter... if they are breaking into a home that act in itself should be recognized as a violent act that can be repelled with deadly force. It can be reasonably acknowledged that any person in their own home has nowhere to retreat to beyond the threshold of their home. The home is your castle, dwelling...no person has any other place that is sacrosanct like their dwelling.

Fleeing or taking a bound to another position? Might be hard to tell...
 
QV said:
You're right. The reason shouldn't matter... if they are breaking into a home that act in itself should be recognized as a violent act that can be repelled with deadly force. It can be reasonably acknowledged that any person in their own home has nowhere to retreat to beyond the threshold of their home. The home is your castle, dwelling...no person has any other place that is sacrosanct like their dwelling.

Fleeing or taking a bound to another position? Might be hard to tell...
Click to expand...
Down here States have their own rules.
Basically there are 3 main types of rules for ones home.
1) ‘Stand your ground’ Castle Doctrine states.
When Florida adopted this there was a lot of talk about blood in the streets. Pretty much turned out to be a nothing burger, as reasonable people where not suckering people into their houses to kill them (shocking I know).

2) Duty to Retreat: yeah believe it or not some states don’t support any defense of property (mostly those New England hand wringers like MA, CT, NY, ME - but not New Hampshire with its Live Free or Die moniker!)
Where you need to actively withdraw deeper into your domicile if pressured. Albeit you still have self defense protections, and no state requires you to leave your property.

3) No Deadly Force for Property. Most states are generally like this, in that one cannot use Deadly force in defense of property, but Duty to Retreat isn’t codified. So you can confront an intruder while armed but can’t proactively engage if they aren’t a threat to you or your family. Note: in the US we have fleeing felon laws where deadly force can be used to stop a felon from fleeing (some states however limit this to LE application only). With that in mind, in some states, property offenses can become felonies due to nature or dollar value - and thus the offender can be legally shot dead.

—
Which all leads into what I call Kevin’s Rules for property defense:
1) Dial 911
2) Be a Good Witness
3) Don’t try to be a Hero
4) Avoid direct confrontation of possible
5) Only confront if defending life or limb (and yes I will shoot people for my dog’s safety).

6) If you do use force: Get a lawyer and do not speak to LE without a lawyer, other than to tell responding officers:
- your name
- safety situation (family okay in bedroom, attacker is in foyer bleeding etc)
- location of any weapons used.
- you have an attorney on the way, and won’t be able to give a statement until talking to them (same for ones family).

None of the LEO’s responding should take that personally, if they do, well sucks to be them, as pretty much all LE Unions/Associations and collective agreements allow for 24-48hrs after a UoF incident, and meeting with attorneys before making a statement.
 
IKnowNothing said:
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
Click to expand...
jim knows what circumstances they are facing at the time. How can anyone that was not experiencing the same know that better?
IKnowNothing said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think there has been a number of cases recently where the Crown has stepped back or lost in court on this issue

there is a simple solution to the issue if discovered. The invader was found to have in his possession a shotgun which he had fired and hit the wall having missed the homeowner
captloadie said:
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).
Click to expand...
it seems to me a mistake to think the criminal will limit themselves to a crime you are comfortable absorbing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
QC Muslim 1st woman charged under 9/11 terror law for shipping wpn parts to LBN
Replies
2
Views
10K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Ex-Dragoon
Wierd But Supposedly True News Stories:
Replies
0
Views
7K
Ex-Dragoon
Ex-Dragoon
Mike Bobbitt
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla (Book review)
Replies
2
Views
12K
Mike Bobbitt
Mike Bobbitt
Back
Top