The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[TimneyTime]

The only thing a homeowner can do is harden his home, but many local laws prevent that. Or you can run, after you herd all the family out of danger. Or you can have your kids traumatized while the perps beat you and the wife. If you're in bed and the bad guys kick in the door, you have seconds to react. If unarmed, your only recourse is option three and hope you get squeamish assailants. You're either dead or beat, but you shouldn't get charged. I say shouldn't because the Crown appears to have their own thoughts that home invaders aren't the problem, the people that chase them out with guns are.

Call 911, because when seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away. To Serve and Investigate.

Also, taxpayers have to pay for expanded police protection, while if firearms were allowed as a deterrent to home invasion... as in you can get killed if you break into someone's house... I'm pretty sure criminal b&e would decline rapidly.

Fun fact:  in 2012, Winnipeg was more dangerous per capita in terms of violent crime than Compton.

 

[Haggis]

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per CCC s 34(2).  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.

I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.

 

[TimneyTime]

Honestly, what's wrong with "reasonable force"? Do you understand the concept of reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not proportional force.  It is force that is reasonable in the circumstances.  It is dependent on situational factors, such as the abilities of the victim and individual perceptions as per .  For example, a smaller person may have to use very violent, disproportionate force to defend themselves against a bigger aggressor.  This force is reasonable, because proportional force would not have resulted in an adequate defense and the victim reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death and was able to articulate those fears.

I have no problem with reasonable force.  Anything more may subject me to civil or criminal liability.

What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What??  You need to open the criminal code and read what reasonable force is

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.

There's a fair amount of cases where the assailants have sued the homeowner for getting hurt after breaking in.

"I only broke in to steal his beer and he hit me with a golf club. I wasnt even armed, just thirsty."

Civilians bolting out of bed don't know how to recognise subtle aggression moves, or not. They are intent on protecting themselves and their family without consulting on the Use of Force Continuum

 

[mariomike]

The very fact that you have to use 'reasonable force' when defending yourself on your own property, when someone else is clearly breaking the law... is quite frankly totally insane.

For reference to the discussion,

The Legality of Self Defence In Canada
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/97769.75
7 pages.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yup.....and "I feared for my life" when weighed by a reasonable and unprejudiced mind allows you to do whatever you need to do....in good faith of course.    Anyone can sue anyone else for anything....that's a whole different ball game.

 

[Haggis]

What's wrong with "reasonable force" is that criminals use it against civilians who are trying to defend themselves.

Wrong, on so many levels.  A criminal who uses force to commit an offence does so unlawfully, regardless of the circumstances. 

It becomes an issue for the victim only when the force used is so wildly disproportionate as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.  Someone attacks me with fists, I cannot use force which could reasonably be expected to cause grievous bodily harm or death UNLESS I can articulate that I believed the force was reasonable for me, given the circumstances and the judge (or jury) buys it.

Civilians bolting out of bed don't know how to recognize subtle aggression moves, or not. They are intent on protecting themselves and their family without consulting on the Use of Force Continuum.

Agreed, up to the point where a firearm is used.  The use of lethal force as a "go to" in all circumstances is unacceptable.

Those who argue for concealed carry or the ability to have a firearm readily available for home defense often fail to understand that knowing how to shoot is sometimes less important than knowing when to shoot.  The US is rife with stories of homeowners who fired at sounds and shadows, only to have shot a family member, neighbour or friend.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wrong, on so many levels.  A criminal who uses force to commit an offence does so unlawfully, regardless of the circumstances. 

It becomes an issue for the victim only when the force used is so wildly disproportionate as to be unreasonable in the circumstances.  Someone attacks me with fists, I cannot use force which could reasonably be expected to cause grievous bodily harm or death UNLESS I can articulate that I believed the force was reasonable for me, given the circumstances and the judge (or jury) buys it.

Agreed, up to the point where a firearm is used.  The use of lethal force as a "go to" in all circumstances is unacceptable.

Those who argue for concealed carry or the ability to have a firearm readily available for home defense often fail to understand that knowing how to shoot is sometimes less important than knowing when to shoot.  The US is rife with stories of homeowners who fired at sounds and shadows, only to have shot a family member, neighbour or friend.

Then there's this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris some may remember when this happened
Not disagreeing, just filling it out .

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I got no issue with a firearm being used.....knife, bat, big guy, all could be lethal and therefore lethal force would be "reasonable ".  Just make sure he/she are advancing and not retreating

 

[Haggis]

I got no issue with a firearm being used.....knife, bat, big guy, all could be lethal and therefore lethal force would be "reasonable ".  Just make sure he/she are advancing and not retreating

Fully agree.  Considering  the situational factors, as per my post No. 347, above, lethal force can be quite reasonable.

 

[Haggis]

Then there's this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Parasiris some may remember when this happened
Not disagreeing, just filling it out .

I remember that well. An all-round trail of errors on the part of the police who were the the substantial authors of this tragedy. He was found guilty of the firearms charges and his wife and children recently lost their bid for compensation from the Laval Police in a decision where that judge saw the conduct of the police far differently than the trial judge in 2007.

 

[Cloud Cover]

That decision was issued just this past February, the English version is not yet available in CanLII: Gounis c. Ville de Laval, 2019 QCCS 479 (CanLII), < http://canlii.ca/t/hxm21 >

I note Basil himself is not listed as one of the plaintiffs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Humor me fellas.

In less than 2 weeks the number of Canadians killed in alcohol related vehicle accidents will surpass the NZ shooting number of fatalities. Up to 4 lives a day are lost on average.

What if, to save lives, we started implementing changes.

Require a license to drink alcohol. Lets say one licence to drink at a bar, and another licence to drink at home which involves a police check, maybe some interviews.

You have to call in to the government to get permission to transport alcohol from the store to your house, on top of having a licence.

Limit alcohol consumed at the bar to 5 or 10 drinks.

For those allowed to store alcohol at home, a locked container that's difficult to break into. Which is subject to police inspections.

Prohibit certain brands of beer with higher alcohol content. Prohibit some alcohol based on popularity or even how the bottles look.

Now I know that probably sounds obnoxious and clearly there's a difference between a bottle of beer and an AR15. Personally I get annoyed when gun owners start droning on about banning trucks and knives.

But if the big rallying call here is about saving lives in Canada, well alcohol is a factor in more deaths than firearms by a pretty big margin.
Plus I would also argue a larger factor in suicides, assault, sexual assault, maybe robbery?





On a side note every day an average of 11 people overdose in Canada on opioids. Of course someone overdosing on opioids in a mcdicks bathroom isn't as violent as someone shooting up a school (more of a someone elses problem) but again if lives are lives and suicide gets included in "gun deaths" 11 people (accidentally) killing themselves every day is a pretty huge problem isn't it?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The reason though for your ideas is saving lives.

The government gun plans are not safety related or victim related. If they were, they'd be settled by now. That is a well orchestrated curtain of deceit.

The government gun plans are being used for confiscation, not safety.

Safety is simply a convenient excuse to muddy the waters and distract from their real reason.

Simply, the government is saying, "we don't trust you with guns and we won't let you keep them"

Why would they be afraid of gun owners?

When your government tells you you don't need a gun, you need a gun.

Numerous examples exist where confiscation has led to subjugation and genocide after taking place.

Can it happen here? Never say never. The Brits tried confiscating everyone's guns just before the American Revolution. Things might have been different had the colonials complied.

More recently, we can look to Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, Mao, to name few.

 

[Haggis]

I know this article is from the CBC but it's fairly well balanced for a change.  The one point that the author misses is that the Trudeau government can also show courage and responsibility by NOT following New Zealand`s  lead and bowing to the strident cries of the anti-gun crowd and the intent of the terrorist who openly stated in his manifesto that he wanted his attack to precipitate exactly this type of assault on gun ownership in NZ (and America) so it would become a highly divisive international issue.

Trudeau desperately needs to start displaying integrity if he is to salvage his party`s future by October.  Leaving lawful gun owners alone and targeting criminals would be a great start.

 

[Cloud Cover]

That's a strategy fraught with the perils of exercising common sense in an irrational debate. 

 

[Haggis]

That's a strategy fraught with the perils of exercising common sense in an irrational debate.

True, but I'm feeling particularly optimistic today.  Must be the sunshine.

 

[Jarnhamar]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y


The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 semi-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.

$500 million for 15'000 if I'm reading that right. In Canada I believe there's an estimated 50'000 AR15s alone and a hell of alot more guns that would fall under a military style /detachable magazine clause. Litterally millions I'd guess.

NZ gun owners also want more compensation for magazines (I have 9 P226 mags at $65 a pop), expensive reloading equipment and especially ammunition.

I'd imagin Canadians would demand the same.

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property. Tough choices for Mr T.

 

[TimneyTime]

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/firearm-buyback-scheme-could-cost-500m-twice-governments-estimate-lobbyist-group-says?variant=tb_v_3&fbclid=IwAR2kDAk6E4FnCFEuzXC5AzZ6VjHv-SXBlvrnk1STAuq1hOFmas2PDCuzS8Y


The $200 million dollars  buy back the NZ government initially claimed for the 15'000 smti-automatic rifles their estimating could be as much $500 million.

$500 million for 15'000 if I'm reading that right. In Canada I believe there's an estimated 50'000 AR15s alone and a hell of alot more guns that would fall under a military style /detachable magazine clause. Litterally millions I'd guess.

NZ gun owners also want more compensation for magazines (I have 9 P226 mags at $65 a pop), expensive reloading equipment and especially ammunition.

I'd imagin Canadians would demand the same.

Liberal government is going to have to come up with a lot of money, kick the can down the road, or confiscate millions of dollars or private property. Tough choices for Mr T.

The idea of paying taxes so that the government can buy back my guns is kind of circular too.