I was talking about a last resort for extreme cases. Naturally you try other things first.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I was talking about a last resort for extreme cases. Naturally you try other things first.
I was talking about a last resort for extreme cases. Naturally you try other things first.
Yeah, like making gun law restrictions easier for people to register and obtain a firearm... "LEGALLY."
Allow a firearm for IN HOME PROTECTION. Some Thug lurking around your home, shoot first, ask questions later.
Silly man,1000' of Canadians own illegal guns???. Probably but under our laws, they cannot use them without being jailed or sued. We can do nothing about the idiots who worship guns above all else but our laws do stop the gung ho nitwits who want to play superman.
So, now explain the difference between the per capita homicides between the US. and Canada.......could it possibly be as a result of our laws. If you kill a person in your home with an illegal or legal gun you will be held responsible unless you can absolutely prove there was NO other way to handle the situation. Oh and in Canada, the victim (the one shot) is favored.
As for your other advice ........How stupid is that! When I moved onto this farm, there was a scruffy looking elderly man wandering around my back kitchen window. My husband went out,,,,,,alone,,,,,,,without a gun......and found out he was a mushroom collector. My husband learned how to tell edible mushrooms from deadly ones from that encounter. We have enjoyed fresh mushroom right out of our fields for many, many years.
If he had rushed out with a gun and did as you suggest, he would not only have been jailed but we would have not have enjoyed our barbecue steaks for over 40 years. So don't keep giving stupid free advice!!.
Oh, as an afterthought, while the Canadian Customs do a bang up job stopping the influx of illegal guns, it might be smarter to institute more rigorous screening of returning Canadians, who are gun lovers. I know they do check a lot of the Americans and what they are bringing in. Perhaps they should be checking more of our own??
Last edited:
CBC News spoke to Cohen and criminal lawyer Stacy Nichols about different legal scenarios that outline what an individual's rights are under current Canadian law. Here are some excerpts from the interview:
CBC News: You hear a noise and go downstairs in the middle of the night and find a burglar, and you can't tell if he's armed. Legally, what are your options?
"Your dwelling house seems to be the property you’re allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.
Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."
Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.
"This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. "… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."
"You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."
Nichols says the words "as much force as is necessary" are one of the things taken into account by judges.
"It might depend on where the person was, and what they were doing. A judge would look at what degree of force was used and where you struck the person," Cohen says.
"There's a ton of case law out there where people have been charged in these types of situations," Nichols adds, referring to situations where an intruder has entered and a dwelling occupant has used lethal force.
"Generally they're treated very, very leniently, or the charges are dropped altogether," she says.
Cohen says the judge's decision revolves around the specifics of the individual situation.
"Every scenario in criminal law tends to be very unique, so that's a judge's job is to sift through the facts and make a determination based on them, and all kinds of factors play into it," Cohen says.
Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law? - Canada - CBC News
CBC News: You hear a noise and go downstairs in the middle of the night and find a burglar, and you can't tell if he's armed. Legally, what are your options?
"Your dwelling house seems to be the property you’re allowed to protect the most," Nichols says.
Under Section 40 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the defence of dwellings, Nichols says, "everyone who is in possession of a dwelling house is justified in using as much force as necessary, to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or entering the dwelling house without lawful authority."
Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.
"This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. "… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."
"You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."
Nichols says the words "as much force as is necessary" are one of the things taken into account by judges.
"It might depend on where the person was, and what they were doing. A judge would look at what degree of force was used and where you struck the person," Cohen says.
"There's a ton of case law out there where people have been charged in these types of situations," Nichols adds, referring to situations where an intruder has entered and a dwelling occupant has used lethal force.
"Generally they're treated very, very leniently, or the charges are dropped altogether," she says.
Cohen says the judge's decision revolves around the specifics of the individual situation.
"Every scenario in criminal law tends to be very unique, so that's a judge's job is to sift through the facts and make a determination based on them, and all kinds of factors play into it," Cohen says.
Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law? - Canada - CBC News
Yes of course Canadians have the most rights within their own homes, but once again, you need absolute proof you had to defend yourself. That means, you do not shoot, unless you see a weapon, even if the guy is wearing a mask.
An RCMP officer once told me, if you have to shoot or otherwise kill someone in your house, better break the door or a window in and make sure all the rest of the evidence lines up.
As I remember it, only farmers, country d'wellers and natives had guns or needed guns before. Some like hunters, did buy rifles and hunt. There was not the proliferation of guns amongst city dwellers, or street gangs. It was a much gentler time, before so many people felt they had to prove their worth by acting tough, One of the favoured ways of disposing of people, in the cities, it was cement overboots and knifings.
Quote "No. The difference pre-existed our gun control laws."
So you are attributing the differences to what?? Canadians are less blood thirsty than Americans??? Come on who on earth will attribute the difference to anything else but the laws in both countries. After all before Canada beat the Americans in the war of 1812 we were one country, so that blood thirsty bit doesn't stand!!
As always, you have no clue what you are talking about.
I live in the same city in which I was born and brought up.
In New Brunswick, back in the late 60s and early 70s, all our family's friends had guns. My father was a deacon at the Baptist church, and the deacons and pastor went on annual hunting trips. One of the deacon's carried his pistol (He was licensed, as a Lt. Col in the reserves) It was not at all unusual to see a handgun taken out and fired at cans in the woods by one of our other friends, although it was technically against the law. A very minor offense.
At my first job, I worked at a plumbing/hardware wholesale warehouse.........a couple of the customers came in to pay their bills (in 1000s of dollars) carrying handguns for which they were (I assume) licensed. Cash was the order of the day. BTW, I made $3000 per year.......so $1000 was a LOT of money.
Everybody had guns.
This idea that the "gun culture" in Canada is something new and nefarious is simply looney......and not in line with the facts.
Really...... well I lived i Montreal from 1935 to 1955 and I still live less than 30 miles outside of it. Believe me, no pastor, minister nor priest ever went hunting with my father Also the city was full of immigrants. I lived on a street with Italians, Danes, Blacks from the US, Swiss and even some from Newfoundland. Aside from my maternal grandmother, grandfather, mother and 8 of her siblings none were born in Canada. Oh and that was before Newfoundland became a Province (1949.)
I never saw a handgun until the middle 50's when my father bought one to use at his gun club, which he went to every Thursday evening until he died. He was in his mid-eighties then. My paternal grandfather bought a lot of land on a lake in the Laurentian Mountains when I was about six. That is when my dad and his friends took up hunting. That in case you have a problem with math was early 40's. I might mention that our house was the first one on that lake!! Now that lake has streets and wall to wall houses.
I worked when I was 11 on the Gaspe coast as a cook in the summer home of a stock broker. on my summer holidays. I got a ride in the car of a very young Peter Molson and knew a great many other rich from Montreal. The next year I worked in the local general store. You know, that store had a man go to those mansions to collect from the cooks they grocery list for the week......it was filled by us and the groceries delivered to the homes. The head of house brought in cash to pay for the groceries for those mansions and nary a gun in sight. Oh and those homes had up to 12 to 15 staff alone they fed over and above the dinner parties they hosted. I made $200.00 for the whole summer. It paid my room and board and bought my first bike along with small presents for my family. Oh and the train ride to and from Montreal to the Gaspe. I graduated 11th grade at 15 and went to work as a secretary in the now defunct Northern Electric Company.
Nobody had guns!! Coming home on the streetcar one evening, I overhear two young guys talking about a ?friend, ?acquaintance who had vanished. One guy informed the other that he was in the St-Lawrence wearing cement overshoes. So, guess who is wrong!! Your experiences do not go back far enough!!
The gun culture is "NEW and would be as NEFARIOUS as the US's if we did not have the laws we do.
So guess who has no clue of what they speak.....and it ain't me
I never saw a handgun until the middle 50's when my father bought one to use at his gun club, which he went to every Thursday evening until he died. He was in his mid-eighties then. My paternal grandfather bought a lot of land on a lake in the Laurentian Mountains when I was about six. That is when my dad and his friends took up hunting. That in case you have a problem with math was early 40's. I might mention that our house was the first one on that lake!! Now that lake has streets and wall to wall houses.
I worked when I was 11 on the Gaspe coast as a cook in the summer home of a stock broker. on my summer holidays. I got a ride in the car of a very young Peter Molson and knew a great many other rich from Montreal. The next year I worked in the local general store. You know, that store had a man go to those mansions to collect from the cooks they grocery list for the week......it was filled by us and the groceries delivered to the homes. The head of house brought in cash to pay for the groceries for those mansions and nary a gun in sight. Oh and those homes had up to 12 to 15 staff alone they fed over and above the dinner parties they hosted. I made $200.00 for the whole summer. It paid my room and board and bought my first bike along with small presents for my family. Oh and the train ride to and from Montreal to the Gaspe. I graduated 11th grade at 15 and went to work as a secretary in the now defunct Northern Electric Company.
Nobody had guns!! Coming home on the streetcar one evening, I overhear two young guys talking about a ?friend, ?acquaintance who had vanished. One guy informed the other that he was in the St-Lawrence wearing cement overshoes. So, guess who is wrong!! Your experiences do not go back far enough!!
The gun culture is "NEW and would be as NEFARIOUS as the US's if we did not have the laws we do.
So guess who has no clue of what they speak.....and it ain't me
Last edited:
Again, demographics is the elephant in the room that that progressive politically correct Liberals do not want to acknowledge...
The "gun Culture" was with us from the start..But the lack of assimilation of different ethnic groups that immigrate to Canada is fairly recent...
Orientals and different European ethnicities adapted quite well to the Canadian way of life...and they used to talk about the old country with a dreamy fondness without trying to change their new one.
But in the last 40 or 50 years we have seen a definite change in immigrant adaptation....
They seem to want to keep what they are running away from.....
The "gun Culture" was with us from the start..But the lack of assimilation of different ethnic groups that immigrate to Canada is fairly recent...
Orientals and different European ethnicities adapted quite well to the Canadian way of life...and they used to talk about the old country with a dreamy fondness without trying to change their new one.
But in the last 40 or 50 years we have seen a definite change in immigrant adaptation....
They seem to want to keep what they are running away from.....
Phooey......We live i a democracy and all groups can have their say. It is a consensus of all groups that run this country. The only elephants in the room are those who want to see changes that will satisfy their need to feel in charge. Well, it doesn't work that way. Many immigrants come from countries where the gun rules and it is rather short sighted to think they will approve of laws that led to their leaving their home country.
There are without doubt radical groups who threaten our way of life, but that is a reaction to some of the more wealthy countries trying to change religions and politics without realizing, it is a journey each country must travel in their own way. If the well off countries would simply help and try to change by example rather than working to change such things by force, the world would not be so divided, and we would not have to contend with threats to our way of life.
Our country has a strong history of diplomacy and the majority of us would rather negotiate a settlement rather than change things by force. For goodness sake, many in our own country still do not approve of women having an equal say in society and yet bewail the plight of women in other countries. So you can take your excuses about demography being the cause of why our gun violence is so much lower than the US's and shove them.
Last edited:
Byrdie needs new glasses...................
The first pistol I bought when I was still living with my folks at the ol' farmhouse was a .22 six shooter,....real cute looking...
the next one I bought was a target pistol "Ruko Margolin" target pistol wi adjustable front sight for elevation and adjustable rear for windage, a beautiful piece that could fire short, long and long rifle from adjustable magazines....
The first thing my mother said when she saw it was "What an ugly looking gun"
But being a level headed woman, who could shoot with the best of men, when I explained all the characteristics of the firearm, she changed her mind, and when she tried it out, she definitely approved.
Here is a google pic of that "ugly gun".
I didn't have much use for the bottom "tail" piece....and mine came with two magazines
What Ezra's guest says is true....they ban guns because of their look...
The first pistol I bought when I was still living with my folks at the ol' farmhouse was a .22 six shooter,....real cute looking...
the next one I bought was a target pistol "Ruko Margolin" target pistol wi adjustable front sight for elevation and adjustable rear for windage, a beautiful piece that could fire short, long and long rifle from adjustable magazines....
The first thing my mother said when she saw it was "What an ugly looking gun"
But being a level headed woman, who could shoot with the best of men, when I explained all the characteristics of the firearm, she changed her mind, and when she tried it out, she definitely approved.
Here is a google pic of that "ugly gun".
I didn't have much use for the bottom "tail" piece....and mine came with two magazines
Black Man Vs. White Man Carrying AR-15 Legally
[youtube]BKGZnB41_e4[/youtube]
comments:
What happens when a white guy walks down the street with a AR-15 versus what happens when a black guy walks down the street with same gun and same laws. I'm in shock!
interesting and scary
The militia is regulated, not the rights of the people. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Right wingers, Tea Baggers, and Constitutionalists should be enraged because of the criminal conduct of these police.
[youtube]BKGZnB41_e4[/youtube]
comments:
What happens when a white guy walks down the street with a AR-15 versus what happens when a black guy walks down the street with same gun and same laws. I'm in shock!
interesting and scary
The militia is regulated, not the rights of the people. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Right wingers, Tea Baggers, and Constitutionalists should be enraged because of the criminal conduct of these police.
LOL .of course, but it seems many whities seem to feel blacks are not people and should not have the same rights under the constitution as a a white person.
Concealed permit holder frees woman held hostage for 20 hours
On May 15, concealed carry permit holder Henry Oppenheim saw his female neighbor being beaten and intervened by drawing his gun and holding the attacker at bay until police arrived.
What Oppenheim did not know at the time was that his neighbor had been held hostage “for more than 20 hours” and was only outside where she could be seen because she was trying to escape.
The incident occurred in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
According to WTAJ News, Henry Yancey held his ex-girlfriend hostage for over 20 hours prior to the attempted escape. While she was captive, he “allegedly physically assaulted her…threatened to kill her and stabbed her in the leg.” Yancey was naked when the ex-girlfriend tried to escape.
One neighbor said the noise from Yancey chasing his ex-girlfriend down sounded like a “stampede.” Another neighbor, Nicky Mimikos, said that when Yancy caught the fleeing woman, he got on top of her and started “punching her in the face. [Then] he got up and started stomping her in the face.”
That is when Oppenheim retrieved his gun and ordered Yancey to stop. Neighbors moved the ex-girlfriend to safety while Oppenheim held Yancey at gunpoint.
Yancey is expected to face “a number of charges including attempted criminal homicide, terroristic threats and stalking.”
The ex-girlfriend received treatment at a local hospital and was released.
source: Concealed Permit Holder Frees Woman Held Hostage for 20 Hours - Breitbart
On May 15, concealed carry permit holder Henry Oppenheim saw his female neighbor being beaten and intervened by drawing his gun and holding the attacker at bay until police arrived.
What Oppenheim did not know at the time was that his neighbor had been held hostage “for more than 20 hours” and was only outside where she could be seen because she was trying to escape.
The incident occurred in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
According to WTAJ News, Henry Yancey held his ex-girlfriend hostage for over 20 hours prior to the attempted escape. While she was captive, he “allegedly physically assaulted her…threatened to kill her and stabbed her in the leg.” Yancey was naked when the ex-girlfriend tried to escape.
One neighbor said the noise from Yancey chasing his ex-girlfriend down sounded like a “stampede.” Another neighbor, Nicky Mimikos, said that when Yancy caught the fleeing woman, he got on top of her and started “punching her in the face. [Then] he got up and started stomping her in the face.”
That is when Oppenheim retrieved his gun and ordered Yancey to stop. Neighbors moved the ex-girlfriend to safety while Oppenheim held Yancey at gunpoint.
Yancey is expected to face “a number of charges including attempted criminal homicide, terroristic threats and stalking.”
The ex-girlfriend received treatment at a local hospital and was released.
source: Concealed Permit Holder Frees Woman Held Hostage for 20 Hours - Breitbart
How about this.....
.Turf Rivalry Looms Over Waco, Texas, Biker Gang Shooting, Experts Say - WSJ
Interesting what guns do to some people isn't it. War in the streets. Of course the finances of the town will improve. if even a few of those arrested make the million dollars bond. However, none of the dead will care.
.Turf Rivalry Looms Over Waco, Texas, Biker Gang Shooting, Experts Say - WSJ
Interesting what guns do to some people isn't it. War in the streets. Of course the finances of the town will improve. if even a few of those arrested make the million dollars bond. However, none of the dead will care.
