A very quick google suggests there are more gun deaths per year in my state (Kansas) than in all of Canada.
1 Like
I donât lay in bed awake worrying about armed invaders either. I am not involved in gang or other criminal activity and I live in a safe neighborhood and I have a security system so the chances of an invasion are extremely slim.
(I do have a psycho ex, so that increases my risk a bit⌠hence the security system. Iâm pretty sure he doesnât want to go to jail, so hopefully Iâm safe from severe bodily injury at his hand. Courts are pathetically dismissive of minor injuries though.)
And no, it should not be permitted to shoot someone rifling through your truck.
It seems bat 
crazy that youâre not allowed to shoot someone who is attempting to murder you though.
1 Like
One google search led me to this.
In terms of the defences of property and person⌠The basic elements of both defences are the same and can be easily stated. Whether a person is defending themselves or another person, or defending property in their possession, the general rule will be that they can undertake any acts for the purposes of protecting or defending property or a person as long as they reasonably perceive a threat, and their acts, including their use of force, are reasonable in the circumstances.
also
It is important to be clear, however, that the criticisms of the law do not pertain to its substance but rather to how it is drafted. Self-defence and defence of property are and have always been robust in Canada. There has been a lot written in newspapers about the right to self-defence and protection of oneâs property, some of which suggests that these rights have been diminished or are inadequately protected. This is untrue. The law is robust, despite the fact that the rules as written in the Criminal Code suffer from serious defects, and despite the way the media have portrayed these issues in recent times.
Parliament has a duty to ensure that laws are clear and accessible to Canadians, criminal justice participants and even the media. That is exactly what we are proposing to do in Bill C-26, even though the actual rights of Canadians are robust and upheld in Canadian courts on a daily basis. When the laws which set out these rules are confusing, we fail in our responsibility to adequately inform Canadians of their rights. Obviously, unclear laws can also complicate or frustrate the charging provisions of the police who themselves may have difficulty in reading the Criminal Code and understanding what is and is not permitted. Bill C-26 therefore proposes to replace the existing Criminal Code provisions in this area with clear, simple provisions that would maintain the same level of protection as the existing laws but also meet the needs of Canadians today."
34.(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
- (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
- 34(1)(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force;
- 34(1)(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
- 34(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
- 34(2)(a) the nature of the force or threat;
- 34(2)(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
- 34(2)(c) the personâs role in the incident;
- 34(2)(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
- 4(2)(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
- 34(2)(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
- 34(2)(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
- 34(2)(g) the nature and proportionality of the personâs response to the use or threat of force;
- 34(2)(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
- 34(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
1 Like
Oh, so self-defense IS legal in Canada then?
With perhaps a more rational definition of what is and is not self-defense than enforced in some jurisdictions here in the U.S.
Seems a lot more reasonable than SLâs blanket statement that it wasnât ever allowed.
My understanding from what I was taught in the gun safety course, and from what Iâve seen in the news, is that if you shoot someone in âself-defenceâ, the first thing youâre going to do is get charged. Right or wrong, the police are going to charge you and figure it out after. And itâs not going to be a fun time proving your innocence.
Legal<> practical. For example, itâs quite legal to walk down the street here with a shotgun over your shoulder as long as youâre not brandishing it. But, no way you want to do that. I asked a cop buddy what heâd do if he saw that and his response was that youâd be explaining to him how itâs perfectly legal, while youâre on the ground with his service revolver pointed at you.
and thatâs perfectly acceptable here.
Similiarly for the shooting someone in self defence. Your guns are locked up, by law. So someoneâs robbing you. You what, go down to the basement into the locked storage cabinet, open the safe, pull out a shotgun, chamber a couple and shoot them in self defence? Thatâs what youâre going to be dealing with in court as you explain how it was self defence.
Same thing, having an argument, go inside and get a gun for your own safety, now youâre brandishing a gun. Also illegal.
2 Likes
The reasonable aspect of the Canadian law is awesome. It allows for people with real potential threats like known stalkers, etc. behave extraordinarily than the one that have a fantasy of foreigners coming to eat their pets.
Lack of guns is good, but what then happens is that people figure out another way to use weapons (knives).
Knife crime shot up a lot in the UK after guns were banned.
This way is much more preferable (less people die vs guns) but it does come with its own set of issues.
Only way to really enforce that is to have serious penalties for gun crimes and illegal gun possesion (I just sat on a jury trial in London that involved just that. Can get you up to 15 years in prison).
Sitting in the car listening to Matchbox 20, waiting for my older to finish soccer practice. Younger kid asks me what Dorito World is, and if we can go there.
(âI wish Dorito World would just stop hassling me.â)
7 Likes
So no presumption of innocence? I thought innocent until proven guilty applied in CN as well?
Are there prohibitions from keeping your gun cabinet in your room?
No but again, everything Iâve read/heard says youâre going to have a difficult time explaining how it was self defence when you had time to get your gun out of a locked cabinet.
I am not a gun enthusiast, just playing the devilâs advocate here.
Are gun safes with thumbprint locks not a thing in CN?
The scenario I envision is person hears an intruder break glass on the far side of the house. Gets gun out of guns safe, ammo out of ammo safe, loads clip and pauses in fear. Intruder is oblivious to person being home, and enters bedroom. Ideally, the resident shouldnât shoot without announcing âI am armed, leave nowâ but in the heat of the moment can the resident tell if intruder hears and understands? If the intruder advances what conclusion should the resident draw? It is a horrible situation any way you look at it, with life and death consequences in split seconds.
It is great that there is little gun-assisted crime in CN. The relative frequency of home invasions and gun use should form a personâs response, but the cost of being wrong is very steep.
1 Like
Respectfully, really, worrying about an armed home invasion in Canada is about as worrisome as the neighbours eating my cat. Itâs conspiracy level.
I know a cop who grew up in Trinidad where apparently that thing could be an issue. Heâs imo somewhat paranoid. And even he doesnât bring his service gun at home, because the storage requirements are too stringent. He keeps a baseball bat under the bed.
So all these points may be valid, but theyâre hypothetical and unrealized.
1 Like
I wouldnât care of soda ceased to exist but I would miss lemonade.
1 Like
isnât it right next to Lego Land?
Suze Orman Isnât Wasting Money On Insurance For Her Condo â âIâm Not Paying $28,000 A Year When The Insurer Will Probably Contest Any Claimâ
I canât wait to see the fallout from people deciding not to ensure their homes, but it does seem quite surprising to hear a financial investment celebrity advocating this, even if she can afford to self-insure
1 Like
Mental note: do not use the master bathroom when there is a contractor on the roof cleaning the skylights. 
7 Likes
While I see her point in her specific case, that isnât a very good rule of thumb for her financially illiterate followers.
1 Like
Not sure if he was paying attention or not, but if he was he got an eyeful of twig. 
In the plus column my skylights are nice and clean!
2 Likes
