Gun Control is Completely Useless.

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
18 year old girl with baby, intruders trying to break in. Dispatcher knew police would not get there in time. yes, telling her to shoot was the correct response.

Actualy what the dispatcher said was "I can't tell you to do that" then went on to say "Do what you have to to protect yourself"
I know ....It's almost the same thing...but she did it the legal way:smile:
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I had problems with this one before, but after seeing this....... I call all out BULLSHYTE. I can think of no reason what so ever for a person to bring something like this up out of the blue.

Here is a little lesson in etiquette, since this comment was extremely insensitive.

You don't believe it, fine. You don't need to reply. Nobody is keeping score. It costs you nothing to let a comment slide by. Especially if you don't see the point of the comment.

But replying like this? If it was true? Incredibly insensitive, my fellow forum goer.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Here is a little lesson in etiquette, since this comment was extremely insensitive.

You don't believe it, fine. You don't need to reply. Nobody is keeping score. It costs you nothing to let a comment slide by. Especially if you don't see the point of the comment.

But replying like this? If it was true? Incredibly insensitive, my fellow forum goer.

As much as Gerry is very astute, truthful and to the point, I'm not sure that "etiquette" is at the top of Ger's vocabulary list! :lol:
 
Last edited:

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
To protect her 3-month-old son, Sarah McKinley grabs a shotgun, and asks 911 for permission to kill intruder.


Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911 - Yahoo![/QUOTE)

If she has had the course and paid for the license and has the gun registered, she has the right to fire the weapon and injure or kill the intruder. Otherwise, she can hit the bugger over the head with her baseball bat. No one gets in my house without my hearing them enter. My bats are behind many doors.

Don't shoot an intruder in Quebec without making sure you are able to prove it was a forced entry. Many who have shot people without such proof were charged.


You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.



I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
[/FONT]

You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.

[/FONT][/FONT]

I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.

Well, at face value, if you shoot an intruder in your home, you are a murderer.

It is up to you to prove in court that you were defending yourself. Self defense is a legal defense. The prosecutor may try to circumvent your defense by arguing you lured the person there.

So yes, you better be able to prove that it was a forced entry, and I shudder at the thought of country where you wouldn't need to: I'd just lure people I don't like into my home and then shoot them
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Well, at face value, if you shoot an intruder in your home, you are a murderer.

It is up to you to prove in court that you were defending yourself. Self defense is a legal defense. The prosecutor may try to circumvent your defense by arguing you lured the person there.

So yes, you better be able to prove that it was a forced entry, and I shudder at the thought of country where you wouldn't need to: I'd just lure people I don't like into my home and then shoot them

Sure, its better to be able to prove forced entry, however, we do have the constitutional right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proof, in other words they would have to prove you lured the person there, which has proven to be a bit of a tough sell considering that in one of the aforementioned cases both participants were known drug dealers.

Police and prosecutors have at times been over zealous because they share the same convictions as the abolishionists, but leaving your doors unlocked does not give one the right to unauthorised entry. It is also hard to prove forced entry if you opened the door and the intruders forced their way in, which is what happened in the drug dealer case, and happens in almost all the cases of home invasions in this part of the country.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Sure, its better to be able to prove forced entry, however, we do have the constitutional right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proof, in other words they would have to prove you lured the person there, which has proven to be a bit of a tough sell considering that in one of the aforementioned cases both participants were known drug dealers.

Police and prosecutors have at times been over zealous because they share the same convictions as the abolishionists, but leaving your doors unlocked does not give one the right to unauthorised entry. It is also hard to prove forced entry if you opened the door and the intruders forced their way in, which is what happened in the drug dealer case, and happens in almost all the cases of home invasions in this part of the country.

What I really lament is that we lost the right to booby-trap our own property.

How am I supposed to build a Tomb of Horrors in such a state?

More seriously, I love a good police bashing (notwithstanding the guilt I feel towards my uncle), but it is probably a good idea for police to always consider charging individuals where there has been a homicide. Given the expense of defending yourself in court even for something which should be easy like self defense, maybe the police need to loosen up. But at the very least there needs to be a <strikeout>public</strikeout> investigation.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
[/FONT]

You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.

[/FONT][/FONT]

I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.


Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??









.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
What I really lament is that we lost the right to booby-trap our own property.

How am I supposed to build a Tomb of Horrors in such a state?

More seriously, I love a good police bashing (notwithstanding the guilt I feel towards my uncle), but it is probably a good idea for police to always consider charging individuals where there has been a homicide. Given the expense of defending yourself in court even for something which should be easy like self defense, maybe the police need to loosen up. But at the very least there needs to be a <strikeout>public</strikeout> investigation.

I don't know that we ever had the right to booby trap, I guess you could use air-soft guns. But the problem with booby traps is that there enough people who may have authorised access to your property, i.e firefighters, police on a legitimate call, or even a passerby alerting you to a fire, (I'm assuming you meant your house) who could suffer injury as a result and booby traps lack the ability to assess a threat.

What police need to do is use discression, too often they are quick to lay not one charge, but a battery of them. The ones that seem hardest to make go away deal with firearm storage and/or careless use. A victim can be out of pocket $5000 or more even if the Crown decides not to prosecute.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
In a critical moment like that, how does she have time to ask for permission to kill?? Was it to kill or to shoot ?? Isn't she setting up the 911 operator as a co conspirator??

No, she has been programed to ask permission rather than think for herself. Fortunately for her the states does not have such repressive laws as we do and not only was she permitted to own a gun she is permitted to defend herself with it. Unlike in Canada where criminals have all the rights and this poor woman would have either found herself dead or in jail.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
No, she has been programed to ask permission rather than think for herself. Fortunately for her the states does not have such repressive laws as we do and not only was she permitted to own a gun she is permitted to defend herself with it. Unlike in Canada where criminals have all the rights and this poor woman would have either found herself dead or in jail.

The best advise in that situation is the old rule of thumb....................."shoot first and ask questions later".
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??



Yer still barking up the wrong tree. The problem with guns is criminals owning them, not law abiding taxpayers. When you can prove that every criminal in Canada has registered and insured ALL his guns I might consider registering mine. And guarantee that future governments won't use this registry to confiscate my private property like they did with automatic rifles. This is where the big difference between registering cars and rifles differ. So far no government has been serious about making previously legal cars illegal and confiscate them without compensation. Also you must guarantee that no future government will not try and tax us out of our registered guns. Taxed once is enough just like cars.





.
 
Last edited:

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??

The majority of people who "haul out a pistol and start firing" are those not authorised to legally own firearms in the first place. There are many good folks in the US who have such permits and they are not the ones starting firefights. Back when it was far easier to get such a permit here there was only one, count 'em one, case of someone with a concealed carry permit who used one, or four, criminally, (Valerie Fabrikant). The only time a legal automatic firearm was used in the commission of an offense was
when Denis Lortie used his government issued firearm to take over the Quebec Legislature, (he was a soldier with the van-doos.)

You seem to think that everyone who owns firearms is a Clint Eastwood wannabe, the reality is far from that. And What is wrong with the AK-47? Other than it isn't terribly accurate over long ranges, but the semi automatic version is legal for deer.

Again, you can own 5 vehicles, but you don't have to register them unless you drive them on public property or roads. What people own and keep on their own property is their own business, save for things with obvious nefarious purposes. Since after registering my vehicle I can drive it in public, it stands to reason that if I register my firearm, I should be able to take it out in public. The simple fact here is that owning, (not even using) a firearm that some government body arbitrarily says you can't own, is a criminal offense.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??









.


Yer still barking up the wrong tree. The problem with guns is criminals owning them, not law abiding taxpayers. When you can prove that every criminal in Canada has registered and insured ALL his guns I might consider registering mine. And guarantee that future governments won't use this registry to confiscate my private property like they did with previously legal automatic rifles. So far no government has seriously tried to confiscate any cars. Also you must guarantee that future governments will not tax my private property out of my financial abilities to retain ownership. Paying tax once on a rifle , just like on a car is more than enough. And similar to cars I do not require either registration or insurance on anything that never leaves my property.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Gun related deaths per 100,000 in the US ......15.22
Gun related deaths per " in Canada.......4.78. Only South Africa, Colombia, and Guatamala had higher rates than the US.

So what are the advantages of adopting more lenient laws??
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
If it's ok to compare gun registration to car registration ...let's compare gun related deaths to vehichle related deaths......


Why??? Everyone wants a car, not everyone wants a gun. What is the gunslinger's favourite expression?? Guns don't kill, people do.

Cars are not produced as a killing machines, but for travelling. Unfortunately, with rampant population explosion, cars have become too many for old roads to accommodate. I suspect that will happen with guns. What happens when too many guns with not enough prey, or lands are available?

The automobile industry has developed 4 wheel drive for going overland. What will gun manufacturers or gun enthusiasts recommend?? Perhaps instead of hunting deer, moose or bears, maybe setting a human hunt??

Oh but wait, isn't that what paintball ranges are all about?? Sort of a fake war. When that excitement stales, the next step would be real war...........ahhh yes we have that already too...... But it seems that is not quite fair though.....the gun owners are told what & who they can shoot at and gee whiz,nobody is exempt from becoming the target in that scenario. Ah I know, we would then move to human hunts instead of fox hunts. We can use those who use guns for criminal purposes and recklessly as the prey. Solves two problems in one fell swoop.

Perhaps, I should warn everyone, I have a nasty cold today and I am cantankerous!! Time to get my book and hit the bed.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Gun related deaths per 100,000 in the US ......15.22
Gun related deaths per " in Canada.......4.78. Only South Africa, Colombia, and Guatamala had higher rates than the US.

So what are the advantages of adopting more lenient laws??

So you're a statistician now? Stats never tell the whole story, they are often the tools of advocates because of that. I have been been trained in the art of spin, how to recognize it and how to use it. There can be little comparison between the US and Canada. Our firearms laws are federal, laws in the US vary from city to city and state to state, so these stats are useless as a comparison in defense of stricter laws. The US has 10 times our population and far more inner city ghettos. They are a major importer of illicit drugs simply because of the huge market. Why not compare homicide rates, you'll find a much higher rate in the Russian Federation than canada and the US combined, where firearm ownership is far more prohibitive than here.

You continue to focus on the tools used by criminals rather than the causes of crime. And you don't seem to get that criminals will still get their hands on firearms, all it takes is money. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop criminal use of firearms. In fact, criminals are even more emboldened when they know the chance of someone being able to shoot back is nearly non existant.