Home Defense W/ Restricted

smartbomb said:
Well, that's not my fault is it? I fear the law more than the criminal; you can blame our country for that. So what would I do in that situation? Who knows.
We're defenseless, 'nuff said. You can talk tough all you want right now, but fact of the matter is... if you kill someone in this country (even if in self-defense),
you go to jail, and you lose your gun rights. If you own a HUGE collection of guns... then you lose that too, and you'll never get them back.
Click to expand...

Dude seriously read the law!!!
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
 
robak1 said:
tried by 12 or carried by 6...I pick the first option :)
Click to expand...

lose your house to pay the legal bills, go to jail so you don't watch the kids grow up, think it thru all the way rather then tossing cliche's. In the right situation i'll use potentially lethal force, but i've spent time counting the cost, and if i can scare em off first or avoid having to , thats my first option. Sadly in this country, your house is the thugs castle, not yours....:mad:
 
Whatever goes down,all you say to the cops is" I feared for my life, and I did what i had to do" and thats ALL you say until you consult a lawyer. Investigaters will try and corner you until your lawyer shows up, so other than the above statement, keep your mouth shut!!
 
TacticallySharp said:
Dude seriously read the law!!!
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Click to expand...

Which means... not with a gun. Or any weapon.
Google it, there's too many cases out there with the bad guy ending up getting charged less than the good guy.
That's the law we have on paper, but that's not necessarily what happens.
 
This is what is wrong with our laws! Even if you or your familys life is in jeapordy, you cannot defend yourself with a firearm unless its proven that your life was in danger, ie. youre family has been massacered and youve been shot 6 times before the law would be on your side! Adopt "Castle Law" Itll end alot of heartache and BS in our court system. Why keep protecting the criminals? Becoming a Canadian gun owner has turned me into a "Canadian Citizen," no-longer a civilian! Privledges are earned, theyre not a right!
 
Either way jail or no jail if my family's life was in danger then I'd blast that mf. That's the thing though there has to be the legitimate danger of death. For all other scenarios I've got heavy elbows and mr. Louisville if needed.
 
smartbomb said:
Which means... not with a gun. Or any weapon.
Google it, there's too many cases out there with the bad guy ending up getting charged less than the good guy.
That's the law we have on paper, but that's not necessarily what happens.
Click to expand...

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

If the man has a gun then you could use a gun, if he has a knife you could use a knife.
 
TacticallySharp said:
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

If the man has a gun then you could use a gun, if he has a knife you could use a knife.
Click to expand...

Missed it by that much

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]
 
Winchester-1897 said:
Missed it by that much

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]
Click to expand...

Does this means you could use a gun if you believed you wouldn't survive the situation without it?????
 
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that there's a lot of people in Canada that don't like the thought of being "like" an American. A lot of Canadians look at self-defense with a firearm a uniquely "American" thing.

People like the woman in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApfX-RR-GHg

Fast forward to 1:30. She says she wants "the Canada that we had"... if that were true, we'd still be able to own AKs here. But fact of the matter is, many people here are like her, and that's why this country is the way it is. Too scared of being "like an American", even when self-defense has nothing to do with being an American.
 
Cocked&Locked said:
lose your house to pay the legal bills, go to jail so you don't watch the kids grow up, think it thru all the way rather then tossing cliche's. In the right situation i'll use potentially lethal force, but i've spent time counting the cost, and if i can scare em off first or avoid having to , thats my first option. Sadly in this country, your house is the thugs castle, not yours....:mad:
Click to expand...

If it can be bought it can be replaced...if I'm faced with someone inclined and equipped to harm my family last thing on my mind will be my bank account...
 
TacticallySharp said:
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

If the man has a gun then you could use a gun, if he has a knife you could use a knife.
Click to expand...

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/1319856

Then read what happened to that guy. Nevermind him firing a shot, his gun wasn't even loaded.
 
smartbomb said:
As much as I'd like to just grab my shotgun in the event of a home intrusion, I'd rather not... because if I do, I'll either be harassed by the courts, go to jail, or lose my guns and my gun license.
Click to expand...

if someone was in my home, i'd go for the gun lickety split, however, since the amount of problems i've had to solve with a gun in my life equals exactly zero, having a charged magazine and firearm at the ready isn't a huge concern of mine.
 
smartbomb said:
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/1319856

Then read what happened to that guy. Nevermind him firing a shot, his gun wasn't even loaded.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's happened. However, the outcome of this is far from over. Write your MP and let them know just how upset you are about this and you expect them to ensure that Canadians don't get charged when they defend their property.

Politicians are the only ones that can effect change on bad laws. If enough pressure is applied to politicians across Canada then change will happen, but not until we demand it. We NEED to be VOCAL about it.
 
hemingway said:
if someone was in my home, i'd go for the gun lickety split, however, since the amount of problems i've had to solve with a gun in my life equals exactly zero, having a charged magazine and firearm at the ready isn't a huge concern of mine.
Click to expand...

Mine too. I'm not particularly worried. I've lived in the same city all my life, and I've never found myself in grave danger... so that's the good news I suppose.
I'm all for CCW, but conceal carrying here would be like preparing for a meteor strike to the face. It'd still be nice to have that right though.
Home invasions aren't much of a problem either.
 
TacticallySharp said:
Does this means you could use a gun if you believed you wouldn't survive the situation without it?????
Click to expand...

Well every situation will be different. Could you shoot someone in a situation were you felt there was no other way to survive unless you use deadly force I would say yes.

However if in the street walking about when a situation as such happened,why would you have a gun unless you were carrying illegally, as I am pretty sure none of us have an ATC?

That would be a question the Police & Crown would ask that I am sure of. Were you out looking for a fight so to speak? It may be believed that you were the aggressor,I don't know but I'm it would cross the Investigators minds.

As well if it occurred in your home there would be a lot of specific questions asked relating to how you came about obtaining a gun,particulaly a Restricted or Prohibited gun which was suppose to be secured in the manner the Law says it is to be secured. If you had time to do that did why didn't you call 911 sort of questions.

That is just my spin on it.
 
So much fail in this thread. The fact that you would ever admit to breaking storage laws and having an intent to kill intruders on a public forum boggles my mind.
 
cadgo said:
So much fail in this thread. The fact that you would ever admit to breaking storage laws and having an intent to kill intruders on a public forum boggles my mind.
Click to expand...

Yep. Keep in mind, people like Wendy Cukier probably look through these threads. Watch what you say boys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom