School shooting reported at a Community College in Oregon

[K. A. Pital]

The gun safes I posted are ~130 pounds (or more), hardened steel and have to be bolted into the (brick or concrete) walls of the house. Bar using a truck or hours with an angle grinder nobody is going to open those. Even the pistol box is to be bolted to the wall, and would take about half an hour of angle-grinding to open. Hardly something a burglar would attempt in a home robbery.

Thanks for confirming. We did have a safe like that and it's highly unlikely a passing burglar could even try to pry open.

[LaCroix]

You do realize that most homes are made of pine around here...not steel I beams? All it takes is One of these to get at anything bolted down in most. Not to mention they are readily available to just about anyone.

Who would even take that saw with him on a burglary? Usually, they usa acrowbar or screwdriver, get in, grab everything that can be grabbed and sold quickly and leave, while maybe vandalizing all they can't take.
Yes, they may find one in the house, but...

How many burglars will take the time using a loud power tool to saw off the struts of a wall, and then haul a ~150 lbs metal case out into a car they would need to have waiting in front of the house they are looting?

Not quite the usual way people do rob houses... They tend to try not getting caught...

Fact is, with these safes being mandatory, weapon theft is a absolute non-issue here, except for remote hunting lodges, but these usually don't hold any guns, anymore, since that happened a few times (coincidentally, it was all the same guy, the one who ran amok when they tried to arrest him for poaching, a year or two ago.)

[Elheru Aran]

Weapon theft *will* still be an issue, because there's going to be plenty of people dumb enough to not keep their guns in their safes*. Mandatory charges for criminal negligence might help towards that, though.

*When they aren't being used for hunting/concealed carry/target shooting/whatever or cleaning after use, that is. I'm thinking more people who just leave guns laying around or don't keep them in a reasonably safe place.

I mean, shit. One of the larger news items that's come up since the Oregon shooting, is some kid in Jefferson County, Tennessee-- a few miles down the road from where I used to fucking live-- had a dispute with another kid, went inside his parents' house, grabbed a shotgun and blew the other kid away. He was 11. She was 8. What the fuck.

[Lonestar]

[
I don't know, I (in Austria) can pick up a good certified gun safe for about 250 dollars, a cheap one for 150, and a pistol safe for ~30 in a local hardware store...
http://www.hornbach.at/shop/Tresore-Kas ... liste.html

And frankly, I bought mine, equal to the 105A model, for less(about 150$) in another hardware chain who don't have an online shop.

If that kind of money is unaffordable to you (30$ for a pistol case - my brother has one of those), then you probably can't afford having/firing a gun.

For some reason the website isn't popping up for me, but going by the prices I'd speculate that they are fairly similar to "stack-ons", which are nice to have and better than nothing(I have one), but I suspect it wouldn't be much of a deterrent to someone dedicated to getting a firearm. The only reason why I have a stack-on as opposed to what I would call a real safe is because I live on the third floor of an apartment building without a elevator and I suspect it would be impossible to get it up there/in. When I get a house I'll almost certainly get a real safe.

I also store my handguns in the stack-on, doesn't make sense to have a separate pistol safe for them. Then the thief could just walk off with it and open at his leisure.

For my money, I would encourage some kind of tax credit for gun safes, but whatever.

[Tribble]

A study performed on some Canadian bridge in the cold and icy frozen hellhole of Toronto that when a suicide barrier went up the rate of jumping deaths remained unchanged (though they were jumped from new and exciting locales) even if the overall suicide rate went down. Because of the fact the overall suicide rates went down while jumping splattery rates didn't means probably it was a illusory correlation, the suicide rate changes doesn't have to do with the changes to the bridge. The suicide rates went down because of others factors.

First off, as a resident of Toronto I must protest- not only are we a cold icy frozen hellhole in the winter, we are also a hot, humid and smoggy hellhole in the summer! With clouds and rain in between. Though if you really want snow, it's better to go to Buffalo than Toronto - due to lake-effect they get a lot more than we do.

Though the suicide barrier on the Bloor Viaduct was ostensibly about reducing suicide rates, nobody really thought it would do so. A jumper could always just use another bridge or building. The real reason was that the Bloor Viaduct had the dubious honour of being the #2 bridge for jumpers after the Golden Gate bridge and the barrier was put up so that jumpers would go somewhere else and be more spread out throughout the city.

The articles also makes mention of studies done in the wake of the Canadians and New Zealanders getting their guns pried from their still warm alive hands that while gun suicides went down (which is to be expected, fewer guns means fewer gun suicides just like fewer cars means fewer cars accidents and fewer clowns means fewer accidents in peoples pants from the terror.......TERROR!!!!!!) but was met with equal increases in other forms of suicide such as jumping.

Canadians have never had the right to bear arms, nor have they had the right to use firearms in self-defence save in certain professions like policing. Canadians were not "getting their guns pried from their still warm alive hands." The Canadian Federal Government has always had the power to regulate firearms. If the majority of Canadians dislike that and want looser gun controls, they could simply vote in a government which campaigns on doing so. In fact, that's exactly what happened in the last election as the Conservatives had campaigned on scrapping the long-gun registry, and they ended up winning the election and scrapping it.

What is my personal viewpoint on gun-control? IMO there is no "catch-all" scenario and it is highly dependant on the circumstances. For example, I can understand the need to have firearms in rural areas as Canada has its fair share of large predators which could kill people and livestock.

Do I feel the need to own a firearm where I live? No. Contrary to popular belief Toronto's crime rate is low, and I'm far more worried about being struck by a car than being assaulted or murdered. Also, the vast majority of homicides appear to be drug or gang related and I am more likely to be shot because I happen to be in the line of fire during some gang incident rather than due to someone targeting me deliberately via robbery or home invasion. If someone is going to steal from me chances are its either going to be via fraud or while I'm away from home rather than being knifed or shot. I can protect myself a lot more in Toronto by simply having good anti-virus software, locking my windows and doors when I leave my house, looking both ways when crossing the road and wearing a seatbelt than I can by owning a firearm. If I owned a firearm I would be more likely to use it on myself than on another person, so unless the goal was to have one handy in case I decide to blow my brains out one day I don't really see the point. From my perspective it would be better to limit the availability of firearms as much as possible because while gangs will still kill each other the less firearms are involved the less chance that a bystander is going to be killed in the process.

But again that's my perspective based on where I live. With the amount of firearms available in the USA my perspective might be different, and if I were to live there I might considering having one. Plus a bullet proof vest.

[Channel72]

Contrary to popular belief Toronto's crime rate is low

What do you mean "contrary to popular belief"? Everyone knows Toronto is like the safest place ever. It's so safe, I seriously think the leading cause of death in Toronto is losing to the Canadiens.

[Lonestar]

There have been several claims in this thread about registries being abused to help the government confiscate guns, with New York being pointed to as an example. Would one of you mind providing some evidence that this happened? A Google search only comes up with articles on right wing blogs and FOX News, which I am not inclined to take at face value. The closest thing I can find is this example from Buffalo, but it is an utterly disingenuous example to use for reasons that should be obvious to any individual with a functioning frontal lobe that reads the story.

So, can these people provide more authoritative sources for their claims?

I actually posted a link to California doing that earlier regarding SKS rifles, straight from the CA DOJ website...

Also mentioned, the NOPD began seizing guns while going house to house after Katrina, The Oathkeepers were allegedly created when Guardsmen refused to help the NOPD collect guns.

The NYC thing actually comes from the city essentially becoming "may-issue" regarding buying semiautomatic long arms in the late 80s/90s. If you had an assault weapon, it had to leave the city or be turned in.

Now, when a firearm is bought, the guns have to be turned into the NYPD for "registration" purposes and then they decide whether or not to give them back(There's a cryptome file about this order post SAFE Act, but I'm at work so I won't be putting it up). And the NYPD is pretty arbitrary about following state law regarding firearms. It's only this past 6 months or so that the NYPD finally agreed to register some guns that were completely legal in NY State and NYC, before that NY shooting messageboards were replete with stories of the NYPD taking the guns and saying "you're SOL".

[Sgt_Artyom]

Contrary to popular belief Toronto's crime rate is low

What do you mean "contrary to popular belief"? Everyone knows Toronto is like the safest place ever. It's so safe, I seriously think the leading cause of death in Toronto is losing to the Canadiens.

Or losing to pretty much every god damn team imaginable if we're looking at their last season D:

[Lonestar]

Also, the specific part about "Someone who wants to commit suicide will do so any way possible" is, from what we've been able to determine, largely not true.

According to my copy of Over the Edge: Death in the Grand Canyon "only" about a quarter of suicides are spur of the moment. The "well there's a gun right there so it's easier to do it" claim that that makes spur of the moment suicide decisions easier isn't very compelling if it's only about a quarter of the people doing it without a plan to. Admittedly, this was in the context of people deciding to chuck themselves off the South Rim into the biggest hole in the ground on planet earth.


The majority of people who decide to kill themselves aren't going to be deterred by guns not existing. They'll do it some other way.

[Tribble]

Contrary to popular belief Toronto's crime rate is low

What do you mean "contrary to popular belief"? Everyone knows Toronto is like the safest place ever. It's so safe, I seriously think the leading cause of death in Toronto is losing to the Canadiens.

Or losing to pretty much every god damn team imaginable if we're looking at their last season D:

I guess Toronto has a good reputation outside Canada? General perception I get from other Canadians visiting Toronto is that they view it as a crime hell-hole akin to Detroit. Or at least that the crime rate is above average because its a big city, therefore there must be more crime (while failing to take into account crime rate per capita). After googling, I found out that the violent-crime capital of Canada is... Winnipeg? And the murder capital of Canada is... Regina? And here I always thought that the leading causes of death in both of those places was due to boredom.

EDIT: and yes, I also suspect that at least half of the suicides over here is due to our abysmal sports teams, especially the Leafs. To be though fair the Jays seem to be doing pretty good so far this season.

[Edi]

[
I don't know, I (in Austria) can pick up a good certified gun safe for about 250 dollars, a cheap one for 150, and a pistol safe for ~30 in a local hardware store...
http://www.hornbach.at/shop/Tresore-Kas ... liste.html

And frankly, I bought mine, equal to the 105A model, for less(about 150$) in another hardware chain who don't have an online shop.

If that kind of money is unaffordable to you (30$ for a pistol case - my brother has one of those), then you probably can't afford having/firing a gun.

For some reason the website isn't popping up for me, but going by the prices I'd speculate that they are fairly similar to "stack-ons", which are nice to have and better than nothing(I have one), but I suspect it wouldn't be much of a deterrent to someone dedicated to getting a firearm. The only reason why I have a stack-on as opposed to what I would call a real safe is because I live on the third floor of an apartment building without a elevator and I suspect it would be impossible to get it up there/in. When I get a house I'll almost certainly get a real safe.

I also store my handguns in the stack-on, doesn't make sense to have a separate pistol safe for them. Then the thief could just walk off with it and open at his leisure.

For my money, I would encourage some kind of tax credit for gun safes, but whatever.

The stuff in LaCroix's link is similar to the safes you linked, and he elaborated on them on the previous page. You'd need some serious power tools and a lot of time to break them, so they will deter a burglar.

[Joun_Lord]

First off, as a resident of Toronto I must protest- not only are we a cold icy frozen hellhole in the winter, we are also a hot, humid and smoggy hellhole in the summer! With clouds and rain in between. Though if you really want snow, it's better to go to Buffalo than Toronto - due to lake-effect they get a lot more than we do.

No, thats impossible. I have it on good authority that Canada is this shore to shore, border to pole completely snow covered land like the lands beyond the Wall in GoT but with considerably nicer denizens and alot of weed.

Canadians have never had the right to bear arms

I'm aware of this. I said as much earlier in the thread that Murica is unique in the fact that it is as far I know the only cuntry, atleast 1st world, where firearms rights are part of the law. Even countries with more liberal gun laws like Canadia and Sweden firearms are not a right but a privilege.

I had heard about guns being banned from use of self defense but was unsure whether it was real.

With the amount of firearms available in the USA my perspective might be different, and if I were to live there I might considering having one. Plus a bullet proof vest.

Despite media playing up gun violence, its actually not that bad here. You are more likely to die in a car accident, in a fall, or in a truly American fashion heart disease or stroke. I live in an area with alot of guns in not the nicest neighborhood and I don't feel any need to own any firearms or armor except stuff made of plastic or ancient style. The only time I felt a real pressing need for a gun was when I lived in the local crime ridden government housing projects. Any economically devastated area is going to be a bit of shithole but generally outside of those areas America is pretty darn safe. As long as you avoid going into "the hood" while white or up "the holler" while black for the most part you'd never have a problem.

Contrary to popular belief Toronto's crime rate is low.......I guess Toronto has a good reputation outside Canada?

Actually I've never heard anything bad about Toronto beyond the insistence it is the capital of Canada. It seems like thats city's reputation in America atleast as far as I can tell is its a nice city if not a bit generic to the point you can film a movie there and have it take the place of almost any random city in the US or Canada.

[Jub]

No, it's not about "every criminal will have a gun". It's also about people who can't physically defend themselves bare handed or in close melee with a typical criminal.

So how do other nations deal with this issue without allowing civilians to arm themselves for self-defense?

We also still have substantial areas where the wildlife is hazardous. Alaska is the famous one, but places like Montana and the Dakotas still have large predators that can and have attacked humans. Unless you have a provision for people to defend themselves in areas where wildlife is an actual threat I can't go along with your notions. That is an area where North America differs significantly from Europe.

Canada, my homeland, has the same wildlife issues and has more wilderness than the United States does. If we can deal with this issue without having the same right to bear arms as the United States does I think Alaska, Montana, etc. can as well.

It's also not just about firearms - a lot of places want to or have banned things like pepper spray or tazers for civilian use. These situations are lost against the louder noise of the anti-gun crowd, but there is a segment of the population that wants to take away the ability of large groups of people to defend themselves.

I'm sorry - I'm not "consenting" to be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed for your social agenda. I do believe people have a right to self-defense.

Canada is one of these places. Tasers, pepper spray, and knives are not allowed to be carried for self-defense purposes, animal sprays designed to repel bears or dogs may be carried, but if used for self-defense you may be criminal charged. Does living in a place with such laws mean I'm consenting to be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed?

Wait, wait, wait - I thought you were going to allow existing firearm owners to continue to own their weapons? I thought you were going to allow for hunting and target shooting? Which is it, regulation or ban? Continued use or ban? Make up your mind.

Are you going to keep trying to argue semantics, or do you have a point to be made?

In other words - fuck women, the elderly, and the disabled who can't defend themselves against the typical young, male criminal. Fuck you. I don't consent to be collateral damage in your agenda.

It would be interesting if healthy, young men were banned from owning handguns and they were allowed only for women, disabled, and elderly people at physical disadvantage. Not sure it would be better but it's an interesting notion. Will never happen, though, because too many men regard their gun as an extension of their penis (yes, I know, that's part of the problem).

You keep repeating this, but the fact is that US is in the minority when it comes to self-defense and firearms laws. Other nations, my homeland of Canada included ban things like pepper spray, knives, and tasers and yet don't have a proportionally greater instance of these kinds of crimes. That goes to show that these events simply aren't a large enough percentage of overall crime to be worth addressing with more liberal self-defense laws.

Because we started as a small, weak nation whose population had to deal with dangerous wildlife, hostile natives they had displaced, hunting was the major or only source of meat for many, and for a time had to deal with a colonial power that wanted us to be a subservient colony again. It's not because Americans are crazy. There is an actual historical context for this.

Canada started off the same way, and had to deal with the hostile presence known as the United States in addition to the other issues raised. Somehow we weren't wiped out due to this lack. Thus, your argument doesn't hold water.

So you're saying people who live in Alaska and Montana aren't part of modern western society?

Beating this drum again are we... If this need is so great how can Canada, with more wilderness get by without a right to bear arms?

Contrary to rumor, it is NOT a free-for-all for guns in the US. Guns are regulated and have become harder to get within my lifetime. You seem to alternate between "more regulation for guns" and "ban guns". You might want to get more consistent with how you express your thoughts because, honestly, you seem pretty reasonable most of the time then every once in awhile "BAN GUNS!!!!" pops through. It's a bit disconcerting to those of us who think there are legitimate reasons for some people to own weapons.

Once again - the vast majority of Americans are in favor of some sort of regulation, many think current regulation could be improved (either through better enforcement, better regulations, or both). Our positions are (usually) not as far apart as you seem to think.

That's probably just an issue with language and proofreading on my part, because you'll note that I have never laid out a plan for how banning guns would even work. I've done some ground work and idea spitballing that looks at how heavily restricting pistols and backing off on the right to defend oneself with firearms would work. If you see me use the word ban please mentally replace it with heavily restrict and you'll get the idea I'm going for.

You also have to note that I don't live in a place that has the same firearms laws as you do with the same level of constant debate so I'm less sensitive to the idea that a gun ban would hurt my rights and this is likely the cause for my careless use of the word ban.

They should slavishly adhere to campaign promises even if circumstances change or new information comes to light? How is that a good for society?

If a politician comes in on a platform of clean energy and then builds oil plants because renewable is too expensive and the opposition whine over nuclear I want that politician held accountable. If a politician comes in and says he's going to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the poor and middle class and then accepts an extension on current taxes rates he's failed his voters.

But aside from that - political capital is something that has to be considered. Otherwise, you might as well say you don't care how much money something costs. In reality, money counts, you need money to build something or hire people to do something. Also in reality, political capital has a lot to do with what can and can't be done in society in regards to changing laws and culture.

Look at how much the US conservatives have managed without having the popular vote behind them. The Canadian conservatives have also done the same sort of thing with their minority government, so I don't actually think political capital is nearly as important as having a unified party.

While I do agree there are handguns than needed floating about the US, I also think removing them is treating the symptom and not the cause of violence. Treating the fever of someone with a raging infection has some merit, but it still leaves them horribly ill. Treating the cause of the infection is what will cure them.

That's why I brought up instances where, even with no guns involved, me and mine have had to deal with violent and threatening situations.

I'm all for treating both. You don't stop taking a symptom relief medicine just because you've started on a treatment program aimed at a cure, you do both.

What, you're going to criminalize someone using a weapon in self-defense? I'm not talking about purchasing for self-defense, I'm talking about using a weapon bought for hunting or target shooting for self-defense. That's like saying if you use your chef's knife, your main cooking tool, to kill someone who broke into your house you're going to be up shit creek for defending yourself.

Now, if you say it's OK to use a weapon you store in your house to defend yourself but not carry it on your person that's a little different. After all, I'm not allowed to carry my kitchen knife everywhere I go, either. If I'm carrying a concealed knife I can already have my weapon confiscated and be arrested in many places.

That's what I'm saying because that's how it works in Canada. You, as the defender, have to prove that you used the knife because you had it out for cooking rather than having grabbed it from the drawer because you heard a noise. It's why tow-truck drivers in Canada often "misplace" heavy and commonly used tools in the cab of their truck after a recovery. You're also not allowed to use violence on a fleeing criminal in Canada if the guy has your TV and is making a run for your back door you have to let him go.

The Canadian view is that it's better to let the guy steal your car/TV/money than it is for you to injure him trying to get it back.

I'd say that your viewpoint is unusually extreme on that point.

I'd agree, it's extreme even for a Canadian, but the typical Canadian view on self-defense is what I've been bringing up and having you object to. The right to violently defend yourself isn't that common outside of the United States.

Your premise is false. Population density alone does not create violence or gun crime.

Nor does poverty. It's the combination of the two that has the greatest effect. That said even the single units in a big city are massively densely packed compared to the example of the old west.

I think a difference here is that you seem to want to start with taking guns away and some other people want to start on the social systems first.

You see, for most of us, we don't worry about getting shot on a daily basis. Most of the gun violence is in particular inner-city locations that most of us can easily avoid. Some of us look at that and say it's not the existence of guns that's the problem because guns are everywhere but this problem isn't happening everywhere, there is clearly something else driving this phenomena. Maybe we should find out what that something is and fix that, because not only would it take care of the gun violence problem, it would also avoid/fix other forms of violence generated by that something as well.

I actually want to do both at once. I'm leading with the gun bit because this is a thread about a shooting and not a, how would you fix the US thread.

Then make it clear you're "spitballing", that you haven't thought it all out or that you thought would require fine tuning.

That's basically every post I make ever. I'm not literally going to draft anything I post here into law and don't treat it as such.

Actually, in parts of Canada there are just as many guns per people as the US. Those are, of course, more rural and wilderness areas than the built up southern region of Canada but that's an example of a country where they acknowledge different environments should have different rules regarding guns. Canada also has a much better social safety net than the US, which is probably a significant factor.

Even in those wilderness places in Canada they carry rifles and shotguns. It's hard to get a pistol, the most common weapon used in criminal activity, in Canada. It's not that hard to get a long gun here and even then it's going to be registered.

Chicago tried to ban them, but since it was trivially easy to walk to Indiana next door and buy one it didn't work so well.

The US really should have crushed the states rights thing a long time ago. It really harms any attempt at social reform when your laws might fail because a neighboring state is a regressive hole.

Contrast this to the US where, in frontier times, not owning a gun or not being willing to own one would have marked you as crazy because how would you defend yourself from wildlife, hostile people, or get meat for your family?

Was Canada not in the same situation as the United States back then?

And finally, the US does have control and regulation of firearms, it's is not the free-for-all you imply that it is. You might want to argue the US needs more gun control, or more effective gun control, or better enforcement, but this notion there is no regulation is a myth.

It has a woefully insufficient level of gun control and from an outside point of view it often seems as if it may as well have none at all.

There ARE people in places like Australia and Britain who think the current laws there are excessive and would like them loosened. I've spoken to them out here on the internet.

We have them in Canada too, we call them a vocal minority and our political scene ignores them.

You do realize yours is very much a minority viewpoint in the world?

Most people would find that trade-off unacceptable.

Mind you, if that is your position I can deal with it - I've got some neighbors who are so anti-violence they won't even physically defend themselves from another human being. Just don't expect everyone else to agree with your position because we don't. Most people are a lot more selfish than your stated position.

I would be willing to defend myself or another with violence only as a last resort. Outside factors aside, if it came down to my stuff being taken or me hurting somebody I'd let my things go. I very nearly broke that rule when my little brother stole from me, but, at least in my case, it's easier to hate those you're familiar with than a stranger.

Part of the reason I hold back is because if I fight I'm not going to hold back. In the heat of the moment I've lashed at people with chains, hit people in their throats, and caused broken bones. That's not who I am outside of a fight, but being taught to avoid when you can and fight only when you must breeds that style of fighting.

The issue is more one of crime than guns. We didn't use to have such high level of gun crime and random shootings, even when more of the population owned and used guns. You can start fixing the issue by addressing the root causes of violence rather than the symptoms.

I think you treat both at once and triage by treating the symptoms. The simple fact is that crime with guns is more harmful than crime with other weapons.

<snip>

I'm aware that you don't own a gun. You still advocate for the right to own them and the right to use weapons for self-defense. These things are not compatible with my world view or the laws of the nation I live in.

I find that position callous and immoral.

Yet, if you are to be believed, it's the exact choice made by nations that restrict ones ability to defend themself.

How about, instead of dismissing a difference of opinion as "childish" you actually consider the historical reasons for the 2nd amendment? How about you consider the notion that the problem isn't gun violence it's a problem of too much violence in any form in a society? How about you don't expect Americans to be British just as you wouldn't expect someone from Thailand to be like someone from Japan?

How about if I expect the US to behave like a properly civilized western nation. Europe doesn't behave that way, the commonwealth that had to face violent natives and dangerous animals doesn't behave that way either. The US behaves more like Russia or a 3rd world nation on so very many issues.

<snip>

Thus, we must find a way to survive here. I don't care to lay down MY life to make YOUR point.

You may only be one person, but you show the problem with America. There are too many people unwilling to be the one to suffer for change and thus there isn't any change. You want what's good for the tribe rather than what's good for the nation.

Frankly, sitting there where you have to worry about neither tornadoes nor violence and arrogantly proclaiming me to be part of the problem because I can neither move nor magically fix the situation just shows what an asshole you are.

I'm not in that situation, but this election cycle I'll be voting for increased taxes which will hurt me. I'm willing to look past voting for what's good for me personally and vote and make choices based on how they help society.

[Broomstick]

No, it's not about "every criminal will have a gun". It's also about people who can't physically defend themselves bare handed or in close melee with a typical criminal.

So how do other nations deal with this issue without allowing civilians to arm themselves for self-defense?

Other nations do, in fact, allow their citizens to defends themselves. The details of what you are or are not allowed to do varies from places to place, but I am not aware of any western nation that completely eliminates self-defense.

As to how to other nations deal with it - some better than others. What makes you think vulnerable people aren't targeted in your country? Have you even looked into it?

We also still have substantial areas where the wildlife is hazardous. Alaska is the famous one, but places like Montana and the Dakotas still have large predators that can and have attacked humans. Unless you have a provision for people to defend themselves in areas where wildlife is an actual threat I can't go along with your notions. That is an area where North America differs significantly from Europe.

Canada, my homeland, has the same wildlife issues and has more wilderness than the United States does. If we can deal with this issue without having the same right to bear arms as the United States does I think Alaska, Montana, etc. can as well.

The problem is that the gun control freaks in the US want a uniform ban across the nation with NO allowances for any exception whatsoever - which is a different situation that what holds sway in your nation. People in wilderness areas ARE allowed to arm themselves. You nation does allow for different areas to have different rules. You don't have inner-city dwellers trying to impose their rules on someone in a very different environment.

I'm sorry - I'm not "consenting" to be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed for your social agenda. I do believe people have a right to self-defense.

Canada is one of these places. Tasers, pepper spray, and knives are not allowed to be carried for self-defense purposes, animal sprays designed to repel bears or dogs may be carried, but if used for self-defense you may be criminal charged. Does living in a place with such laws mean I'm consenting to be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed?

I think it's a pretty appalling situation when a government says a citizen must not defend him or herself from physical attack. Yes, I think that is tantamount to saying "come mug me" if you approve of that stance..

Wait, wait, wait - I thought you were going to allow existing firearm owners to continue to own their weapons? I thought you were going to allow for hunting and target shooting? Which is it, regulation or ban? Continued use or ban? Make up your mind.

Are you going to keep trying to argue semantics, or do you have a point to be made?

I asked you a straightforward question: continue use or ban. Are you going to answer the fucking question directly or not?

Canada started off the same way, and had to deal with the hostile presence known as the United States in addition to the other issues raised. Somehow we weren't wiped out due to this lack. Thus, your argument doesn't hold water.

That only works if the US and Canada were the same during the early US period, and they weren't. Just to start, Canada enjoyed the protection of the British Empire, at least to the extent any colony did, the US did not. You don't need a militia of homesteaders when the redcoats are stationed in your town and they're on your side. If you don't have the resources of an empire you have to make do with what you have.

So you're saying people who live in Alaska and Montana aren't part of modern western society?

Beating this drum again are we... If this need is so great how can Canada, with more wilderness get by without a right to bear arms?

Actually, people in the wilderness areas of Canada DO have a right to bear arms. It's not written into a constitution, but the laws do allow them to own firearms and thus they do have a legal right to own them (provided they meet any requirements) and use them within the law. Or did you think they make friends with the wild polar bears or something?

That's probably just an issue with language and proofreading on my part, because you'll note that I have never laid out a plan for how banning guns would even work.

See - you're not talking about regulating, you're talking about an outright ban.

If you see me use the word ban please mentally replace it with heavily restrict and you'll get the idea I'm going for.

How about YOU make the goddamned effort to use the word you actually mean. Why the FUCK should we have to mentally "translate" your posts. If you mean "heavily restrict" then use that goddamned phrase or just fucking admit you want a BAN.

That's what I'm saying because that's how it works in Canada. You, as the defender, have to prove that you used the knife because you had it out for cooking rather than having grabbed it from the drawer because you heard a noise. It's why tow-truck drivers in Canada often "misplace" heavy and commonly used tools in the cab of their truck after a recovery.

So... they disregard the law because they aren't wiling to sacrifice their lives for the greater good, is that it?

You're also not allowed to use violence on a fleeing criminal in Canada if the guy has your TV and is making a run for your back door you have to let him go.

You're not allowed to use a gun on a fleeing criminal where I live, either. If he's running out the back door, away from you, and you shoot him in the back that's called murder where I live and you will be prosecuted for that crime.

The Canadian view is that it's better to let the guy steal your car/TV/money than it is for you to injure him trying to get it back.

In the US it's not about shooting people over stuff, it about assuming someone who has broken the law by busting into your house can be reasonably assumed to be a threat to those inside the home. After all, he's already demonstrated he's a criminal. It's about defending people, not toys.

Chicago tried to ban them, but since it was trivially easy to walk to Indiana next door and buy one it didn't work so well.

The US really should have crushed the states rights thing a long time ago. It really harms any attempt at social reform when your laws might fail because a neighboring state is a regressive hole.

Yeah, I live in a "regressive hole" but we have a lower general crime rate, lower violent crime rate, lower murder rate, and lower level of political corruption than the state right next door with much more repressive gun laws. So clearly it's not just about the guns, there are other factors driving them, perhaps driving crime and corruption much more strongly than guns.

Contrast this to the US where, in frontier times, not owning a gun or not being willing to own one would have marked you as crazy because how would you defend yourself from wildlife, hostile people, or get meat for your family?

Was Canada not in the same situation as the United States back then?

Nope. As I pointed out, you had the resources of the British Empire backing you (although probably not backing Canadians as much as they would have liked at times). There were also different patterns of settlement and social factors.

Yes, the two nations had much in common but they were by no means identical.

I would be willing to defend myself or another with violence only as a last resort. Outside factors aside, if it came down to my stuff being taken or me hurting somebody I'd let my things go.

In the two examples I gave it was in no way about STUFF. Nobody in this household resorted to violence until a human being was threatened. The truck thief brandished a knife and advanced on my spouse, threatening him. The guy trying to break in was threatening to "beat the fuck out of" my spouse, and what he was planning to do to me after that he never finished saying because as soon as he physically pushed the spouse he got a faceful of garden shovel. It wasn't about someone snatching a car or pickup or a TV, it was about someone threatening someone else with bodily harm.

"Self-defense" is not protecting your TV, it's about protecting yourself or another human being. Did you really need that explained?

Part of the reason I hold back is because if I fight I'm not going to hold back. In the heat of the moment I've lashed at people with chains, hit people in their throats, and caused broken bones. That's not who I am outside of a fight, but being taught to avoid when you can and fight only when you must breeds that style of fighting.

Yes, well, what makes you so special? That's most people backed into a corner. I've broken bones, tossed someone bodily onto railroad tracks, busted noses, knocked out teeth, torn out hair, clawed gouges that later required stitches into someone else's face, and twice had to fight an attacker with a knife when I was unarmed. Wah, wah, wah. You're not special.

I, too, was taught to avoid trouble when possible but the sad thing is that it is not always possible. As I have said, US society as a whole is more violent than Canada. It's not just about the guns - take guns away the society will STILL be much more violent.

It's not something to be proud of, or happy about, it's just a fact of life around here. Since I am unable to emigrant to another country I am forced to find a way to deal with the problem.

I'm aware that you don't own a gun. You still advocate for the right to own them and the right to use weapons for self-defense. These things are not compatible with my world view or the laws of the nation I live in.

Fuck your world view. Why the hell should I live according to YOUR world view?

Absolutely I advocate for the ability of a person to defend him or herself. Fuck you if you don't agree with that. You want to discuss what is an acceptable way to defend yourself, fine, but yes I absolutely do believe people should be allowed to defend themselves. If you won't even concede human beings have a right to self-defense there's no point in talking to you further.

Now, you want to talk about laws - fact is, your nation DOES allow gun ownership. Guns are not banned in Canada, even if they are not as easily obtained as in the US. I'm sure that keeps you up at night.

Yet, if you are to be believed, it's the exact choice made by nations that restrict ones ability to defend themself.

So... you're claiming that if someone broke into your home right now and started punching you in the gut and face and you clonked him over the head with a chair leg you'd be prosecuted for assault because you have zero right to defend yourself from an attacker?

Can any other Canadians confirm Jub's assertion that the laws of Canada do not permit a person to defend him/herself from physical assault?

Thus, we must find a way to survive here. I don't care to lay down MY life to make YOUR point.

You may only be one person, but you show the problem with America. There are too many people unwilling to be the one to suffer for change and thus there isn't any change. You want what's good for the tribe rather than what's good for the nation.

No, I'm not willing to "volunteer" to be beaten, maimed, raped, or murdered to prove YOUR point. What the fuck good is changing the world if I won't be there to enjoy the change?

This is yet another instance of someone deciding someone else should risk harm for the first person's agenda.

[Jub]

Other nations do, in fact, allow their citizens to defends themselves. The details of what you are or are not allowed to do varies from places to place, but I am not aware of any western nation that completely eliminates self-defense.

As to how to other nations deal with it - some better than others. What makes you think vulnerable people aren't targeted in your country? Have you even looked into it?

Canada allows for self-defense as well, but it does not allow you to arm yourself specifically for the task. If I hit you with the chair I was sitting on, or rake your eyes with my keys I'm fine, if I hear a sound downstairs and grab a baseball bat or a knife to investigate I could get charged.

You're the one asserting that not arming the weak and disabled would lead to them being targeted with even more preference than one might otherwise expect. It's on you to show that this is the case. I've personally not heard of those kinds of stories, the articles about crime for my city don't mention this as a specific problem, and it's never been an election issue.

The problem is that the gun control freaks in the US want a uniform ban across the nation with NO allowances for any exception whatsoever - which is a different situation that what holds sway in your nation. People in wilderness areas ARE allowed to arm themselves. You nation does allow for different areas to have different rules. You don't have inner-city dwellers trying to impose their rules on someone in a very different environment.

That's actually not true, in Canada the same rules apply to people in the country and in the city. If I want to buy a shotgun or a rifle I certainly can, however, the culture here is such that most people don't care to own a weapon unless they hunt or go to the range. Handguns are harder to acquire, but if you can demonstrate a dire need you can get a handgun and a license to carry it. Those rules work for the entire nation at least partially because we don't have a society that worships the gun.

I think it's a pretty appalling situation when a government says a citizen must not defend him or herself from physical attack. Yes, I think that is tantamount to saying "come mug me" if you approve of that stance..

Your best defense is handing over your goods, fleeing, or turtling. Encouraging people to fight back in anything but the most dire of situations is not desirable.

That only works if the US and Canada were the same during the early US period, and they weren't. Just to start, Canada enjoyed the protection of the British Empire, at least to the extent any colony did, the US did not. You don't need a militia of homesteaders when the redcoats are stationed in your town and they're on your side. If you don't have the resources of an empire you have to make do with what you have.

The US could have continued to enjoy said protection as well. Instead, you chose to start a war and denied yourself that support. That just shows that from the start the US favored the gun over diplomacy.

Actually, people in the wilderness areas of Canada DO have a right to bear arms. It's not written into a constitution, but the laws do allow them to own firearms and thus they do have a legal right to own them (provided they meet any requirements) and use them within the law. Or did you think they make friends with the wild polar bears or something?

That's not a right. If the government chose to change the laws or seize those weapons they would not need to change our most basic laws to do so.

So... they disregard the law because they aren't wiling to sacrifice their lives for the greater good, is that it?

Sure, some guys try it and even then it doesn't always work. They still risk criminal charges if the use the tool as a weapon in anything other than a split second, this guy is in my truck, defense.

You're not allowed to use a gun on a fleeing criminal where I live, either. If he's running out the back door, away from you, and you shoot him in the back that's called murder where I live and you will be prosecuted for that crime.

That varies from state to state, it is by no means a national thing in the US like it is in Canada. We have no province that has anything approaching stand your ground or castle laws.

In the US it's not about shooting people over stuff, it about assuming someone who has broken the law by busting into your house can be reasonably assumed to be a threat to those inside the home. After all, he's already demonstrated he's a criminal. It's about defending people, not toys.

It doesn't work that way in Canada.

Yeah, I live in a "regressive hole" but we have a lower general crime rate, lower violent crime rate, lower murder rate, and lower level of political corruption than the state right next door with much more repressive gun laws. So clearly it's not just about the guns, there are other factors driving them, perhaps driving crime and corruption much more strongly than guns.

Do you have an issue with reading Broomstick? I said, in reference to you talking about the failure of Chicago's gun laws:

It really harms any attempt at social reform when your laws might fail because a neighboring state is a regressive hole.

In short, it sucks that Chicago's law failed because a neighboring state couldn't be bothered to have stronger firearms laws.

Nope. As I pointed out, you had the resources of the British Empire backing you (although probably not backing Canadians as much as they would have liked at times). There were also different patterns of settlement and social factors.

Yes, the two nations had much in common but they were by no means identical.

As I pointed out the US did not need to go to war with the Brits, that was a choice that defined everything that came after it. I guess those social factors must have lead to the US having a history of war over diplomacy in a way that Canada never had.

"Self-defense" is not protecting your TV, it's about protecting yourself or another human being. Did you really need that explained?

That's not the view of several US states. I'm not arguing that Chicago specifically needs gun control, but that the US as a whole does.

Yes, well, what makes you so special? That's most people backed into a corner. I've broken bones, tossed someone bodily onto railroad tracks, busted noses, knocked out teeth, torn out hair, clawed gouges that later required stitches into someone else's face, and twice had to fight an attacker with a knife when I was unarmed. Wah, wah, wah. You're not special.

Where did I say I was special? I was simply clarifying where I draw the line when it comes to not fighting back.

I, too, was taught to avoid trouble when possible but the sad thing is that it is not always possible. As I have said, US society as a whole is more violent than Canada. It's not just about the guns - take guns away the society will STILL be much more violent.

It isn't always possible, and bad things happen to people in Canada as well. The difference is that we don't see the need to be armed just in case.

It's not something to be proud of, or happy about, it's just a fact of life around here. Since I am unable to emigrant to another country I am forced to find a way to deal with the problem.

You keep saying that you don't have options, but everybody has options. If your city suddenly took a nose dive and started to look like the worst sections of Detroit are you honestly going to tell me that you wouldn't find some way to move even if it involved significant hardship?

Fuck your world view. Why the hell should I live according to YOUR world view?

I'm not coming from a 1st world country that has issues with 3rd world problems. Call me when Canada runs torture programs, starts wars it can't stomach finishing all while refusing to pay for proper old age and health care while thinking that crime is solved by longer sentences and more private prisons.

Absolutely I advocate for the ability of a person to defend him or herself. Fuck you if you don't agree with that. You want to discuss what is an acceptable way to defend yourself, fine, but yes I absolutely do believe people should be allowed to defend themselves. If you won't even concede human beings have a right to self-defense there's no point in talking to you further.

You can defend yourself here as well, we just don't do it with weapons.

Now, you want to talk about laws - fact is, your nation DOES allow gun ownership. Guns are not banned in Canada, even if they are not as easily obtained as in the US. I'm sure that keeps you up at night.

I am well aware of the fact that Canadians can and do own weapons. I've looked into getting something for the range myself, but in the end I'd probably get more use out of an airsoft gun so I haven't bothered.

So... you're claiming that if someone broke into your home right now and started punching you in the gut and face and you clonked him over the head with a chair leg you'd be prosecuted for assault because you have zero right to defend yourself from an attacker?

I would have to show that a reasonable person would have feared for his life at the point and justified why I chose to escalate the situation with a weapon as opposed to another course of action. It wouldn't simply be accepted that I was allowed to wail on the attacker with a weapon.

No, I'm not willing to "volunteer" to be beaten, maimed, raped, or murdered to prove YOUR point. What the fuck good is changing the world if I won't be there to enjoy the change?

I guess you'd support America entirely disbanding her military then as well. Hell, by that logic you wouldn't have supported anybody going over to fight in World War Two. After all, soldiers who die defending their nation don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labour either. You also wouldn't have supported the workers strikes that lead to the creation of modern labour laws because the people that died during them didn't get to see things improve. Or would you be fine with them because it was somebody else eating lead for your rights?

[Tribble]

Other nations do, in fact, allow their citizens to defends themselves. The details of what you are or are not allowed to do varies from places to place, but I am not aware of any western nation that completely eliminates self-defense.

As to how to other nations deal with it - some better than others. What makes you think vulnerable people aren't targeted in your country? Have you even looked into it?

Vulnerable people are indeed targeted in our country - usually by fraud. Violence against vulnerable people (such as the disabled and seniors) seniors does happen, but it is far more likely to be caused by their care-givers than by strangers.

Canadians are allowed to defend themselves with lesser or equal force. This includes lethal force if need be. However, we are currently not allowed to carry lethal weapons for protection.

The problem is that the gun control freaks in the US want a uniform ban across the nation with NO allowances for any exception whatsoever - which is a different situation that what holds sway in your nation. People in wilderness areas ARE allowed to arm themselves. You nation does allow for different areas to have different rules. You don't have inner-city dwellers trying to impose their rules on someone in a very different environment.

This is true. To be specific, inner-city dwellers don't really care all that much about rifles and shotguns, because very few crimes are committed while using them in the city (with the Ottawa attacker being a notable exception). We do tend to concern ourselves with handguns, and if a referendum were held a majority of the population in the cities would probably prefer to see them banned (at least in the city).

Canada is one of these places. Tasers, pepper spray, and knives are not allowed to be carried for self-defense purposes, animal sprays designed to repel bears or dogs may be carried, but if used for self-defense you may be criminal charged. Does living in a place with such laws mean I'm consenting to be robbed, beaten, raped, or killed?

I think it's a pretty appalling situation when a government says a citizen must not defend him or herself from physical attack. Yes, I think that is tantamount to saying "come mug me" if you approve of that stance.

Canadians are allowed to defend themselves with lesser or equal force. This includes lethal force if need be. However, we are currently not allowed to carry lethal weapons for protection.

The vast majority of violent incidences in Canada are caused by people who know each other. The general consensus is that if you remove lethal weapons from the equation as much as possible, then the chances of someone being seriously injured or killed will decrease. And with limiting firearms in particular the general consensus is that it reduces the risk of bystanders being injured or killed in the process. Again, I am far more likely to use a firearm on myself or someone I know due to an argument than I am having to try and defend myself from some attacker so there really isn't any benefit to me by owning one, at least where I live. Perhaps in the USA it's different.

I asked you a straightforward question: continue use or ban. Are you going to answer the fucking question directly or not?]

I know this question isn't aimed at me but I'll answer it anyways - at this point in time I don't think that there is any point in regulating firearms in the USA. Firearms are so plenty and widespread down there that I don't think such regulation is possible. And the cultural attitude towards it would likely prevent any regulation from being effective anyways. Of course, a total ban is even less likely to work.

Actually, people in the wilderness areas of Canada DO have a right to bear arms. It's not written into a constitution, but the laws do allow them to own firearms and thus they do have a legal right to own them (provided they meet any requirements) and use them within the law. Or did you think they make friends with the wild polar bears or something?

I know what you're getting at, but please be careful with your terminology. Canadians do not have the right to bear arms. It would be better to say that we are permitted own certain types and use them under certain circumstances, subject to legislation. It's a privilege, just like owning a car.

That's what I'm saying because that's how it works in Canada. You, as the defender, have to prove that you used the knife because you had it out for cooking rather than having grabbed it from the drawer because you heard a noise. It's why tow-truck drivers in Canada often "misplace" heavy and commonly used tools in the cab of their truck after a recovery.

It depends on the circumstances. You can actually grab a knife out of the drawer for the express purpose of defending yourself if someone is breaking into your home and attacking you. What you couldn't do is carry a knife around with you at all times "just in case," because we are not allowed to carry lethal weapons with us for protection. And saying that you carried a knife with you at all times in the off chance that you might do some cooking while you're wearing a business suit is going to look pretty farfetched.

You're also not allowed to use violence on a fleeing criminal in Canada if the guy has your TV and is making a run for your back door you have to let him go

You are permitted to use "reasonable and necessary force" to subdue an intruder and recover your property, not only via the Criminal Code but also the Trespass to Property Act. You are also allowed to pursue him, provided it is a "fresh pursuit". Sec 494 of the Criminal Code allows for any Canadian to arrest anyone found committing an indictable offence - which includes breaking and entering and theft. Now, whether or not it's wise to do so is a separate issue. The guy may have a weapon on him and now that your chasing him he may decide to use it. And it goes without saying that stabbing him in the back when he is clearly fleeing would result in a murder charge.

The Canadian view is that it's better to let the guy steal your car/TV/money than it is for you to injure him trying to get it back.

Please see the above, case law is now quite clear on the topic. Castle Doctrine applies to an extent in Canada, though not as much as in the USA. For example, you cannot have a loaded firearm and have that firearm within easy access to defend yourself. Practically speaking you couldn't use an unloaded, safely stowed firearm either - if you had enough time to get to the firearm, unlock the firearm, unlock the ammo, load the ammo into the magazine and load the firearm, was it really an emergency, and was lethal force the only option? Technically I suppose it could happen, but you'd have a hell of a lot of questions to answer.

I will agree that culturally speaking the general consensus that it's better to let him go, on account that it could escalate a non-lethal situation into a lethal one. But that's not a requirement at law.

In the US it's not about shooting people over stuff, it about assuming someone who has broken the law by busting into your house can be reasonably assumed to be a threat to those inside the home. After all, he's already demonstrated he's a criminal. It's about defending people, not toys.

See above, the laws in Canada are fairly similar, though not to the point of permitting the use of firearms for self-defence. Other lethal weapons could be used if absolutely necessary (such as a kitchen knife if someone is breaking in to attack you), but you can't deliberately carry lethal weapons with you for protection.

[quoteIn the two examples I gave it was in no way about STUFF. Nobody in this household resorted to violence until a human being was threatened. The truck thief brandished a knife and advanced on my spouse, threatening him. The guy trying to break in was threatening to "beat the fuck out of" my spouse, and what he was planning to do to me after that he never finished saying because as soon as he physically pushed the spouse he got a faceful of garden shovel. It wasn't about someone snatching a car or pickup or a TV, it was about someone threatening someone else with bodily harm.

"Self-defense" is not protecting your TV, it's about protecting yourself or another human being. Did you really need that explained?
][/quote]

Agreed, and in Canada your actions would have been fully justifiable.

I, too, was taught to avoid trouble when possible but the sad thing is that it is not always possible. As I have said, US society as a whole is more violent than Canada. It's not just about the guns - take guns away the society will STILL be much more violent.

It's not something to be proud of, or happy about, it's just a fact of life around here. Since I am unable to emigrant to another country I am forced to find a way to deal with the problem.]

I agree with that assessment. IMO that is one of the reasons why gun control generally works in Canada, and why Canadians generally have no desire to make gun ownership a "right" (there are a minority that do, but they are usually ignored). Generally speaking Canadians are less violent than Americans, and that does influence our attitude towards things.

To be fair, crime rates in Canada AND the USA are falling at pretty much the same rate, though crime in the USA was much higher to begin with, which is why it still far outstrips Canada.

So... you're claiming that if someone broke into your home right now and started punching you in the gut and face and you clonked him over the head with a chair leg you'd be prosecuted for assault because you have zero right to defend yourself from an attacker?

Can any other Canadians confirm Jub's assertion that the laws of Canada do not permit a person to defend him/herself from physical assault?

I don't think that was his assertion, but to be clear you are allowed to defend yourself in Canada. Your just not allowed to deliberately carry a weapon such as a knife or gun with you.

[Jub]

It depends on the circumstances. You can actually grab a knife out of the drawer for the express purpose of defending yourself if someone is breaking into your home and attacking you. What you couldn't do is carry a knife around with you at all times "just in case," because we are not allowed to carry lethal weapons with us for protection. And saying that you carried a knife with you at all times in the off chance that you might do some cooking while you're wearing a business suit is going to look pretty farfetched.

I don't feel like digging, but I feel like I've seen the grabbing a knife thing go both ways in Canada.

You are permitted to use "reasonable and necessary force" to subdue an intruder and recover your property, not only via the Criminal Code but also the Trespass to Property Act. You are also allowed to pursue him, provided it is a "fresh pursuit". Sec 494 of the Criminal Code allows for any Canadian to arrest anyone found committing an indictable offence - which includes breaking and entering and theft. Now, whether or not it's wise to do so is a separate issue. The guy may have a weapon on him and now that your chasing him he may decide to use it. And it goes without saying that stabbing him in the back when he is clearly fleeing would result in a murder charge.

Again, and I'm probably more prone to looking for it, but I could swear this goes both ways pretty often. I doubt I'd want to risk standing in court over getting my stuff back. That alone acts as a deterrent to using force in that scenario.

Please see the above, case law is now quite clear on the topic. Castle Doctrine applies to an extent in Canada, though not as much as in the USA. For example, you cannot have a loaded firearm and have that firearm within easy access to defend yourself. Practically speaking you couldn't use an unloaded, safely stowed firearm either - if you had enough to unlock the firearm, unlock the ammo, load the ammo into the magazine and load the firearm, was it really an emergency, and was lethal force the only option? Technically I suppose it could happen, but you'd have a hell of a lot of questions to answer.

See above as well.

[Tribble]

I don't feel like digging, but I feel like I've seen the grabbing a knife thing go both ways in Canada.

Again you do have to justify why you used lethal force, but the Castle Doctrine is in effect. Someone breaking into your house even when he knows your there carries the implication that he intends to cause you harm. Especially because the vast majority of break and enters occurs when people are out- most thieves do not want to risk confronting a home-owner. Doesn't give you the excuse to stab him in the back if he's running though.

Again, and I'm probably more prone to looking for it, but I could swear this goes both ways pretty often. I doubt I'd want to risk standing in court over getting my stuff back. That alone acts as a deterrent to using force in that scenario.

Legislation was enacted in 2011 to specifically deal with this issue and made it clear that you can, provided that you use "necessary and reasonable force". Using lethal force to stop someone from stealing your TV would not be considered reasonable, just to be clear. Whether or not you should because you may be potentially escalating the situation is a separate issue. I personally would prefer to simply call the police, but that's just me. Although I love my TV dearly, it's not worth potentially getting a knife in the gut over it.

[Simon_Jester]

The vast majority of violent incidences in Canada are caused by people who know each other. The general consensus is that if you remove lethal weapons from the equation as much as possible, then the chances of someone being seriously injured or killed will decrease. And with limiting firearms in particular the general consensus is that it reduces the risk of bystanders being injured or killed in the process. Again, I am far more likely to use a firearm on myself or someone I know due to an argument than I am having to try and defend myself from some attacker so there really isn't any benefit to me by owning one, at least where I live. Perhaps in the USA it's different.

Again, one issue is that there is a much larger population of permanent or semi-permanent underclass in the US, people who for socioeconomic reasons that realistically can't be changed in less than a generation or two... are marginalized and in quite a few cases are criminals.

And this chunk of the population is large enough that for a distinct minority of the total American citizenry, it is not possible to reliably avoid contact with them. There are too many of them, they live in too many densely populated areas. They move around a bit, too- they may commit crimes miles from where they live.

Therefore, the risk of being randomly threatened by a stranger, or by someone you're only vaguely acquainted with, is higher in the US. Being a law-abiding citizen who doesn't deliberately interact with potentially violent people does not make you safe by itself.

That's what I'm saying because that's how it works in Canada. You, as the defender, have to prove that you used the knife because you had it out for cooking rather than having grabbed it from the drawer because you heard a noise. It's why tow-truck drivers in Canada often "misplace" heavy and commonly used tools in the cab of their truck after a recovery.

It depends on the circumstances. You can actually grab a knife out of the drawer for the express purpose of defending yourself if someone is breaking into your home and attacking you. What you couldn't do is carry a knife around with you at all times "just in case," because we are not allowed to carry lethal weapons with us for protection. And saying that you carried a knife with you at all times in the off chance that you might do some cooking while you're wearing a business suit is going to look pretty farfetched.

Jub seems to want the opposite to be the case, though- to want people to not be allowed to pick up weapons because it undermines his argument that the average citizen should rather just let a criminal hurt and threaten them rather than fight back. Although apparently that doesn't apply when HE is threatened.

The Canadian view is that it's better to let the guy steal your car/TV/money than it is for you to injure him trying to get it back.

Please see the above, case law is now quite clear on the topic. Castle Doctrine applies to an extent in Canada, though not as much as in the USA. For example, you cannot have a loaded firearm and have that firearm within easy access to defend yourself. Practically speaking you couldn't use an unloaded, safely stowed firearm either - if you had enough time to get to the firearm, unlock the firearm, unlock the ammo, load the ammo into the magazine and load the firearm, was it really an emergency, and was lethal force the only option? Technically I suppose it could happen, but you'd have a hell of a lot of questions to answer.

At this point, then, castle doctrine is meaningless because you are not permitted to use effective weapons even if you legally own them, even for purposes of convincing an intruder to go away and leave you in peace.

In the US it's not about shooting people over stuff, it about assuming someone who has broken the law by busting into your house can be reasonably assumed to be a threat to those inside the home. After all, he's already demonstrated he's a criminal. It's about defending people, not toys.

See above, the laws in Canada are fairly similar, though not to the point of permitting the use of firearms for self-defence. Other lethal weapons could be used if absolutely necessary (such as a kitchen knife if someone is breaking in to attack you), but you can't deliberately carry lethal weapons with you for protection.

One major issue with this is that an unarmed opponent CAN present a lethal threat to another human. If you get pushed and shoved and fall over you can crack your skull open and die. If another human picks up a rolling pin and hits you you can have brain damage and die. If a human starts choking you with their bare hands and you aren't strong enough to push them off you, you can die. If they grab you and twist you or push you in the wrong way they can break your bones, which could cripple you and certainly renders you unable to resist further attacks and injury.

Unarmed humans are a threat, especially to people who are not big strapping young able-bodied males. Which includes most of the population.

So a law which just assumes by default that it is never acceptable to pick up a weapon in response to a physical threat because the other party was 'not armed enough' is... nuts.

In the two examples I gave it was in no way about STUFF. Nobody in this household resorted to violence until a human being was threatened. The truck thief brandished a knife and advanced on my spouse, threatening him. The guy trying to break in was threatening to "beat the fuck out of" my spouse, and what he was planning to do to me after that he never finished saying because as soon as he physically pushed the spouse he got a faceful of garden shovel. It wasn't about someone snatching a car or pickup or a TV, it was about someone threatening someone else with bodily harm.

"Self-defense" is not protecting your TV, it's about protecting yourself or another human being. Did you really need that explained?
]

Agreed, and in Canada your actions would have been fully justifiable.

Jub seems to want to declare them NOT justified, and make it illegal for people to do what Broomstick did. And indeed his argument falls apart if Broomstick's actions are considered justifiable.

Jub just seems to have an ideological problem with other people (i.e. NOT him) being allowed to use force on others to protect their own safety.

So... you're claiming that if someone broke into your home right now and started punching you in the gut and face and you clonked him over the head with a chair leg you'd be prosecuted for assault because you have zero right to defend yourself from an attacker?

Can any other Canadians confirm Jub's assertion that the laws of Canada do not permit a person to defend him/herself from physical assault?

I don't think that was his assertion, but to be clear you are allowed to defend yourself in Canada. Your just not allowed to deliberately carry a weapon such as a knife or gun with you.

It sure sounded like he was saying that people aren't allowed to defend themselves- or aren't allowed to pick up implements for that purpose even when in imminent danger, which amounts to the same thing.

---

Canada allows for self-defense as well, but it does not allow you to arm yourself specifically for the task. If I hit you with the chair I was sitting on, or rake your eyes with my keys I'm fine, if I hear a sound downstairs and grab a baseball bat or a knife to investigate I could get charged.

Can you cite this? It sounds too idiotic to be true.

Especially because arming yourself can reduce the risk that an attacker will even try to attack you. If an unarmed man breaks into your home and you walk into the room and politely ask him to leave with your hands empty, he's liable to ignore you or be angered. Why would he respect your wishes?

If you're holding a baseball bat, or a shovel (let alone an actual designed weapon such as a crossbow or a shotgun)... they have an incentive to respect your wishes. Conflict and danger to your person may well be less likely, even if you have no desire to cause any harm to the other person and quite sincerely hope they will go away.

It's insane to say that a person who is in imminent danger cannot pick up a weapon without committing criminal assault, especially since the line between 'a weapon you happen to have on your person' and 'a weapon you picked up on purpose' is very slim. If you can pick up the chair you were sitting on, can you pick up the shovel that was leaning beside your chair? How about the axe that was on the other side of the room?

So I am skeptical of your claim, because I have always thought of Canada as a respectable nation with logical laws. The legal position you describe is insane and illogical. So I doubt that it's correct, and if it IS correct, that just means there is a gross flaw in Canadian self-defense law, which has the effect of making people less safe from physical attack.
______________________________

You're the one asserting that not arming the weak and disabled would lead to them being targeted with even more preference than one might otherwise expect. It's on you to show that this is the case. I've personally not heard of those kinds of stories, the articles about crime for my city don't mention this as a specific problem, and it's never been an election issue.

Would it?

Threats to the elderly and disabled are often neglected. Old people die in heat waves and few pay attention. It wasn't until a few decades ago that handicapped accessibility was even a concern in how disabled people physically accessed public facilities.

Just because you personally haven't heard such a thing doesn't invalidate a logical argument like "people who can fight credibly with their bare hands are less vulnerable to attack by unarmed or lightly armed criminals, compared to people who can't fight with their bare hands." It's no different than saying "a law which requires everyone to jog a mile each day or pay a fine disproportionately affects people who have no legs."
______________________________

I think it's a pretty appalling situation when a government says a citizen must not defend him or herself from physical attack. Yes, I think that is tantamount to saying "come mug me" if you approve of that stance..

Your best defense is handing over your goods, fleeing, or turtling. Encouraging people to fight back in anything but the most dire of situations is not desirable.

Is it difficult for you to understand why others might feel that having the state demand that citizens exhibit this level of fear and compliance in the face of criminals might be a bad thing?

There are a variety of philosophical objections to this.
______________________________

The US could have continued to enjoy said protection as well. Instead, you chose to start a war and denied yourself that support. That just shows that from the start the US favored the gun over diplomacy.

I assume you're not a fan of getting to vote for your own government, right?
______________________________

So... they disregard the law because they aren't wiling to sacrifice their lives for the greater good, is that it?

Sure, some guys try it and even then it doesn't always work. They still risk criminal charges if the use the tool as a weapon in anything other than a split second, this guy is in my truck, defense.

Again, this strikes me as fundamentally insane and likely to result in more innocent people becoming the victims of physical assault.
______________________________

You're not allowed to use a gun on a fleeing criminal where I live, either. If he's running out the back door, away from you, and you shoot him in the back that's called murder where I live and you will be prosecuted for that crime.

That varies from state to state, it is by no means a national thing in the US like it is in Canada. We have no province that has anything approaching stand your ground or castle laws.

Neither "stand your ground" nor "castle" laws allow you to get away with shooting people in the back. Not when construed correctly. A lying defense attorney might have somehow gotten a stupid or ideologically foolish judge or jury to accept that, but it is NOT law in any US state I'm aware of.

Your lack of knowledge about the US law system, combined with your tendency to lecture Americans on how bad their laws are, is unbecoming.
______________________________

In the US it's not about shooting people over stuff, it about assuming someone who has broken the law by busting into your house can be reasonably assumed to be a threat to those inside the home. After all, he's already demonstrated he's a criminal. It's about defending people, not toys.

It doesn't work that way in Canada.

Do you still not comprehend why defending people's lives and safety from a person who directly threatens them might be something decent, reasonable people want to be able to do?

This isn't even a 'reasonable' thing in my opinion, it's more of a 'neurotypical' thing.
______________________________

In short, it sucks that Chicago's law failed because a neighboring state couldn't be bothered to have stronger firearms laws.

But Chicago's law failing doesn't explain why Illinois has higher crime than Indiana despite Indiana's lax gun laws. At worst, if Chicago's gun law failed, it would result in guns being as common in Chicago as they are in Indiana, and gun crime being as common in Chicago as in Indiana.

If Chicago has MORE crime than Indiana, while Indiana is relatively safe, then there must be some other difference between the two areas. And that difference would still exist and still cause violence in Chicago (and not Indiana) if you removed all the guns by act of Q. Taking away a street thug's pistol doesn't make them stop being a street thug.
______________________________

Nope. As I pointed out, you had the resources of the British Empire backing you (although probably not backing Canadians as much as they would have liked at times). There were also different patterns of settlement and social factors.

Yes, the two nations had much in common but they were by no means identical.

As I pointed out the US did not need to go to war with the Brits, that was a choice that defined everything that came after it. I guess those social factors must have lead to the US having a history of war over diplomacy in a way that Canada never had.

I assume you're not a fan of getting to vote for your political leadership? Because that was the core issue that led the American colonies to rebel- they were ruled by a democratically elected legislature (well, pseudo-democratic, if you don't count the House of Lords and the rotten boroughs), that they had no votes for.

That is, of course, clearly not a motivation for the colonies to form a government they actually get to elect, right?

I mean... wait a minute. The British could literally have just let the American colonies leave. Nothing compelled them to send a small army to North America to try and restore British control over the colonies. The American colonies repeatedly sent letters and envoys across the Atlantic asking for some degree of local political autonomy, for changes in laws they found obnoxious or oppressive, and in general attempted to resolve the situation peacefully.

The British would have none of it, and sent troops, and more troops, to suppress rebellious sentiment among the colonies.

How is this a sign of the US favoring guns over diplomacy? The British could have ended the war at any time by just deciding not to rule over other people by force. The Americans could not end the war at any time, except by accepting that the British would continue to govern the colonies without giving them any votes in how their government would work, and accepting that the British would kill many American colonists who had favored independence

That doesn't sound like "we rebel because we sure love VIOLENCE!" to me.
______________________________

"Self-defense" is not protecting your TV, it's about protecting yourself or another human being. Did you really need that explained?

That's not the view of several US states. I'm not arguing that Chicago specifically needs gun control, but that the US as a whole does.

All US states allow you to defend yourself and others against imminent physical violence. You are simply not correct about this.

Yes, well, what makes you so special? That's most people backed into a corner. I've broken bones, tossed someone bodily onto railroad tracks, busted noses, knocked out teeth, torn out hair, clawed gouges that later required stitches into someone else's face, and twice had to fight an attacker with a knife when I was unarmed. Wah, wah, wah. You're not special.

Where did I say I was special? I was simply clarifying where I draw the line when it comes to not fighting back.

It seems like you draw the line at other people fighting back, or seeking ways to fight back effectively and safely, if that offends against your ideological belief that guns are icky and frightening.

But you are apparently totally okay with inflicting injury on other humans yourself, you just don't like the idea of other people doing it to protect themselves.

Gee, that actually makes you sound rather unpleasant...
______________________________

Fuck your world view. Why the hell should I live according to YOUR world view?

I'm not coming from a 1st world country that has issues with 3rd world problems. Call me when Canada runs torture programs, starts wars it can't stomach finishing all while refusing to pay for proper old age and health care while thinking that crime is solved by longer sentences and more private prisons.

None of these things have anything to do with the part of the American worldview you are criticizing.

If the Martians landed and demanded that you shave your head because Martians don't have hair, and you questioned them and they said "you don't get to argue with us because Mars is a paradise..." That would be ridiculous. The point here is that a rule that applies to Mars need not apply to you. And even if you concede that Mars is a nicer place to live, that doesn't mean you should try to ape Martians in random unrelated ways that have nothing to do with why Earth is not such a nice place to live.

You're not criticizing America's lack of public health care or excessive prison sentences. You're criticizing guns, and fantasizing about how to take them away from people, and mocking or ignoring anyone who thinks your obsession with American gun ownership is misguided.

So I don't think you're in a good position to invoke "but in my country we live in a paradise so if you do anything differently than we do, you're stupid and inferior!"
______________________________

So... you're claiming that if someone broke into your home right now and started punching you in the gut and face and you clonked him over the head with a chair leg you'd be prosecuted for assault because you have zero right to defend yourself from an attacker?

I would have to show that a reasonable person would have feared for his life at the point and justified why I chose to escalate the situation with a weapon as opposed to another course of action. It wouldn't simply be accepted that I was allowed to wail on the attacker with a weapon.

That is almost exactly the same standard applied in the US.

The main difference is that many US states explicitly define "reasonable alternatives." Because there was a rash of cases where courts said things like "well, you should have jumped out a second story window rather than risked injuring the person who invaded your home and attacked you." Which is ridiculous- you're basically mandating that law-abiding citizens accept injury and damage to their property, to protect the health and property of criminals who attack them. Which is the exact opposite of the intended purpose of any law involving safety or property.

This led to large numbers of citizens demanding (with reason) some liberalization of self-defense laws.

In a few states like Florida the pendulum has shifted a bit too far the other way, but that's the core of the matter.
______________________________

No, I'm not willing to "volunteer" to be beaten, maimed, raped, or murdered to prove YOUR point. What the fuck good is changing the world if I won't be there to enjoy the change?

I guess you'd support America entirely disbanding her military then as well. Hell, by that logic you wouldn't have supported anybody going over to fight in World War Two. After all, soldiers who die defending their nation don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labour either. You also wouldn't have supported the workers strikes that lead to the creation of modern labour laws because the people that died during them didn't get to see things improve. Or would you be fine with them because it was somebody else eating lead for your rights?

Except that people who are raped or beaten by criminals aren't sacrificing their lives to save anything. They secure no benefit for anyone... except that criminals benefit, by being free to rape and beat people.

So how you can spin that as some kind of 'acceptable sacrifice' I don't understand.

[Tribble]

At this point, then, castle doctrine is meaningless because you are not permitted to use effective weapons even if you legally own them, even for purposes of convincing an intruder to go away and leave you in peace.

There are many effective weapons other than a firearm. Kitchen knives, baseball bats, tools etc come to mind. I am referring to firearms specifically - because you are required in Canada to store your firearms and ammo separately and in locked containers, when would you realistically have the time to use one in an emergency? I suppose if a guy just starts randomly shooting into your house without going inside for several minutes, and you have enough time to call police and get your firearm loaded, and he keeps shooting from outside and you end up shooting him, then you'd might be permitted to use it. Though I've never heard of that happening.

One major issue with this is that an unarmed opponent CAN present a lethal threat to another human. If you get pushed and shoved and fall over you can crack your skull open and die. If another human picks up a rolling pin and hits you you can have brain damage and die. If a human starts choking you with their bare hands and you aren't strong enough to push them off you, you can die. If they grab you and twist you or push you in the wrong way they can break your bones, which could cripple you and certainly renders you unable to resist further attacks and injury.

Unarmed humans are a threat, especially to people who are not big strapping young able-bodied males. Which includes most of the population.

So a law which just assumes by default that it is never acceptable to pick up a weapon in response to a physical threat because the other party was 'not armed enough' is... nuts.

You are permitted to pick up a weapon if its "necessary and reasonable". For example, if someone is choking you to death and you must use a weapon against them in order to stop them, then you are permitted to do so. Again, the difference is that you can't deliberately have a lethal weapon on you at all times"just in case."

The reason for that is what I stated earlier - in Canada violent attacks are much more likely to be between people who know each-other than people who don't, and it's usually due to some kind of disagreement (particularly when it involves gangs). The general consensus is that it's better to not permit people to carry weapons because that reduces the risk of serious injury or death occurring. Yes, if you get pushed you can end up dying if you fall and crack your skull. But which scenario do you think is more dangerous and likely to cause harm? Two people getting into an argument and getting into a shoving match / fist-fight? Or two people getting into an argument and one/both of them pulling out a knife/gun because weapons are permitted for protection and thus more common place? Canadians take the viewpoint that the ladder is much more dangerous, even if one of the people is physically weaker than the other. Especially when firearms are involved due to the risk of a bystander being shot. Apparently many Americans do not share that view. I think that's a key cultural difference right there.

That is almost exactly the same standard applied in the US.

The main difference is that many US states explicitly define "reasonable alternatives." Because there was a rash of cases where courts said things like "well, you should have jumped out a second story window rather than risked injuring the person who invaded your home and attacked you." Which is ridiculous- you're basically mandating that law-abiding citizens accept injury and damage to their property, to protect the health and property of criminals who attack them. Which is the exact opposite of the intended purpose of any law involving safety or property.

This led to large numbers of citizens demanding (with reason) some liberalization of self-defense laws.

In a few states like Florida the pendulum has shifted a bit too far the other way, but that's the core of the matter.

Same as in Canada, which is why legislation was passed a couple years back to help clarify the issue.

[Tribble]

EDIT: I forgot to add that if in the USA the chances of being attacked are much greater, and the chances of the attacker being a stranger are also much greater, than that does change things. Again, IMO there is no "catch-all" firearm law that is suitable for every situation, and each country needs to adapt its own rules. If I lived in the US I'd probably own a firearm for self-defence. Though I think that owning an automatic would be excessive even by American standards.

[Zwinmar]

Canadians are allowed to defend themselves with lesser or equal force. This includes lethal force if need be. However, we are currently not allowed to carry lethal weapons for protection.

Right there is a problem. If someone is coming at you there is not such thing as equal, only lesser or greater. The only place there is anything resembling equal is in the ring. I am specifically talking about fighting here for people who have no reading comprehension skills.

As a male that is 6' tall and 240 lbs, if I go after someone I already have a distinct advantage due to sheer size, at least on average. Not to mention the training I have had. Why the hell should someone be vulnerable to me just because I am physically bigger? Weapons are an equalizer as they neutralize some physical aspects.

As for the not carrying lethal weapons: you do realize that there are many who do not need a weapon to use lethal force, right?

[Jub]

Right there is a problem. If someone is coming at you there is not such thing as equal, only lesser or greater. The only place there is anything resembling equal is in the ring. I am specifically talking about fighting here for people who have no reading comprehension skills.

As a male that is 6' tall and 240 lbs, if I go after someone I already have a distinct advantage due to sheer size, at least on average. Not to mention the training I have had. Why the hell should someone be vulnerable to me just because I am physically bigger? Weapons are an equalizer as they neutralize some physical aspects.

As for the not carrying lethal weapons: you do realize that there are many who do not need a weapon to use lethal force, right?

There's a trade-off with this system. In certain cases, the attacker does more harm than if the defender was allowed to be armed, however the Canadian system is designed to prevent escalation. First fights don't turn into knife or gunfights if those weapons aren't being carried. You don't get a Trayvon Martin situation, you don't get bystanders hit with stray rounds, and the police can be less aggressive because most people, even the criminals don't carry guns. It works well because Canada doesn't have loads of handguns floating around and the average person doesn't want or need a weapon for self-defense.

That's why any plan for a less deadly America has to start with getting guns out of hands and off of streets. As it stands the police arm up because the criminals arm up because the people arm up. The loop continues with nobody wanting to back down for fear of their own safety/effectiveness. It's not the only step, not even the first step to take, but you need to get that level of tension down so that people can start to back away from the edge.

-----

Can you cite this? It sounds too idiotic to be true.

According to Tribble, it looks like the law has been clarified on this point making it easier for a homeowner to defend themselves with items on hand. However, you still can't buy a gun, or sword, or crossbow to do it with. I wasn't aware of the change because, contrary to what you may think, I don't spend much time worrying over this sort of thing.

It's insane to say that a person who is in imminent danger cannot pick up a weapon without committing criminal assault, especially since the line between 'a weapon you happen to have on your person' and 'a weapon you picked up on purpose' is very slim. If you can pick up the chair you were sitting on, can you pick up the shovel that was leaning beside your chair? How about the axe that was on the other side of the room?

So I am skeptical of your claim, because I have always thought of Canada as a respectable nation with logical laws. The legal position you describe is insane and illogical. So I doubt that it's correct, and if it IS correct, that just means there is a gross flaw in Canadian self-defense law, which has the effect of making people less safe from physical attack.

It works from the perspective of not escalating things. You get less dead or wounded homeowners, and criminals, if neither has any added incentive to carry a weapon. Your average thief doesn't want to get violent and the average homeowner isn't going to rush an intruder with a melee weapon unless things go very sideways.

Besides, the best home defense is a good door and some outside lights anyway.
______________________________

Would it?

Threats to the elderly and disabled are often neglected. Old people die in heat waves and few pay attention. It wasn't until a few decades ago that handicapped accessibility was even a concern in how disabled people physically accessed public facilities.

Given Canada's low overall crime rate, I'd say that old people getting beaten on would make the news. Besides, walking up and physically stealing from old people is vastly less effective than scamming them or letting them invite you inside.

Just because you personally haven't heard such a thing doesn't invalidate a logical argument like "people who can fight credibly with their bare hands are less vulnerable to attack by unarmed or lightly armed criminals, compared to people who can't fight with their bare hands." It's no different than saying "a law which requires everyone to jog a mile each day or pay a fine disproportionately affects people who have no legs."

Vulnerable people are going to be targets regardless. Unless you can show that being armed makes old/disabled people larger targets than usual I'm going to have to cast doubt on it having a noticable effect.
______________________________

Is it difficult for you to understand why others might feel that having the state demand that citizens exhibit this level of fear and compliance in the face of criminals might be a bad thing?

There are a variety of philosophical objections to this.

I can understand the caveman desire of 'This mine, me keep. He hurt, me fight." However, it's a net loss for society for this to be the default. That trip to the hospital that gets taken after you fight the guy off and keep your wallet probably costs you/the state more than the contents of your pockets were worth. The only person worse off is you and with insurance, prudence in not carrying cash, you can likely make that far closer to a wash.

I've been noticing that both yourself and Broomstick are very focused on how much worse this system can be for the individual and not stepping back to ask how this works on a larger scale. I can understand that, but it still feels like the exact attitude that keeps the idea that everybody needs to be armed alive.
______________________________

I assume you're not a fan of getting to vote for your own government, right?

Can you say that Canada had it that much worse under the French and then the Brits?
______________________________

Again, this strikes me as fundamentally insane and likely to result in more innocent people becoming the victims of physical assault.

If the chances of a random assault happening are low enough, and in Canada they seem to be, the net loss from these kinds of assaults is made up for by the net gain of not escalating other types of crime with a gun or a knife.
______________________________

Neither "stand your ground" nor "castle" laws allow you to get away with shooting people in the back. Not when construed correctly. A lying defense attorney might have somehow gotten a stupid or ideologically foolish judge or jury to accept that, but it is NOT law in any US state I'm aware of.

Your lack of knowledge about the US law system, combined with your tendency to lecture Americans on how bad their laws are, is unbecoming.

I'm pretty sure we've seen some cases from Florida and Texas pop up in the news more than once. You also get shit like the citizen defending their local Walmart from theft by firing wildly and the police not immediately laying charges.
______________________________

Do you still not comprehend why defending people's lives and safety from a person who directly threatens them might be something decent, reasonable people want to be able to do?

This isn't even a 'reasonable' thing in my opinion, it's more of a 'neurotypical' thing.

On the small scale of an individual encounter, it's easy to say that the defender should be armed with the most effective thing that law allows. On the larger scale, it means that the criminal will do their best to be equally, if not better, armed than the people they intend to victimize. This means that there are more guns around to turn a fist fight into a gun fight, more guns for the random crazy of the day to shoot up a school with, more easy options for blowing your own brains out with. It's not the primary effect that we need to look at, but the knock on effect that makes every other link in the chain just that much more dangerous.
______________________________

But Chicago's law failing doesn't explain why Illinois has higher crime than Indiana despite Indiana's lax gun laws. At worst, if Chicago's gun law failed, it would result in guns being as common in Chicago as they are in Indiana, and gun crime being as common in Chicago as in Indiana.

If Chicago has MORE crime than Indiana, while Indiana is relatively safe, then there must be some other difference between the two areas. And that difference would still exist and still cause violence in Chicago (and not Indiana) if you removed all the guns by act of Q. Taking away a street thug's pistol doesn't make them stop being a street thug.

Taking away a thugs gun makes him a less effective street thug. Chicago wouldn't have tried a handgun ban if that wasn't the case. Removing guns doesn't solve crime, it just makes it fractionally less messy and when taken across a nation that adds up.
______________________________

I assume you're not a fan of getting to vote for your political leadership? Because that was the core issue that led the American colonies to rebel- they were ruled by a democratically elected legislature (well, pseudo-democratic, if you don't count the House of Lords and the rotten boroughs), that they had no votes for.

That is, of course, clearly not a motivation for the colonies to form a government they actually get to elect, right?

I'm not an expert on the divergence of the Canadian and American colonies from British rule, but Canada was equally powerless and didn't join the Americans in rebellion. In fact, we maintained relationships and used the Brits to defend ourselves from America several times either directly or due to threat of action.

I mean... wait a minute. The British could literally have just let the American colonies leave. Nothing compelled them to send a small army to North America to try and restore British control over the colonies. The American colonies repeatedly sent letters and envoys across the Atlantic asking for some degree of local political autonomy, for changes in laws they found obnoxious or oppressive, and in general attempted to resolve the situation peacefully.

The British would have none of it, and sent troops, and more troops, to suppress rebellious sentiment among the colonies.

How is this a sign of the US favoring guns over diplomacy? The British could have ended the war at any time by just deciding not to rule over other people by force. The Americans could not end the war at any time, except by accepting that the British would continue to govern the colonies without giving them any votes in how their government would work, and accepting that the British would kill many American colonists who had favored independence

That doesn't sound like "we rebel because we sure love VIOLENCE!" to me.

And yet many of the larger British colonies didn't have this problem or didn't feel as strongly about it if they did. The commonwealth simply wouldn't exist if this weren't the case. So it would seem that America was more violent than the rest of the British colonial holdings, bits of Africa excluded.
______________________________

All US states allow you to defend yourself and others against imminent physical violence. You are simply not correct about this.

Not what I was getting at... I was more looking at the overreaching castle laws that some states, looking at the south on this one, have on the books.

It seems like you draw the line at other people fighting back, or seeking ways to fight back effectively and safely, if that offends against your ideological belief that guns are icky and frightening.

But you are apparently totally okay with inflicting injury on other humans yourself, you just don't like the idea of other people doing it to protect themselves.

Gee, that actually makes you sound rather unpleasant...

Simon, the last fight I was in where I threw a punch was back when I was in my first year of highschool. The last time I used a weapon in a fight would have been middle school. The nearest of those events would have happened over a decade ago. I wouldn't judge what I have done with what I would do.

Since then the closest I've come to a fight was when some drunk dudes started chucking full beer cans at a group of my friends and I while we were on our way back from a bar. We had a legally blind dude with us so we played protect the blind dude and jogged back to my house. The worst anybody got was me with a can of beer smashed into the back of my neck and I'm not sure if anybody from our group ever threw a punch. More fights should go that way.

Even the thing with my brother involved him grabbing a golf club and my reacting by grabbing a hammer. Neither of us swung and I chased him away. Even that was enough to get me a warning from the police because he dropped the golf club at some point and I followed him off my property with the hammer. It's telling that the worst that's ever happened with me and self-defense was with family.

Beyond that, there's been nothing I haven't solved by calling the cops or sternly telling a person to fuck off and not come back. Even these cases happened years ago when I lived in a flop house. I haven't had more than stern words with anybody since that time. I'm simply not the kind of guy who looks for a fight and thankfully I'm large enough, read fat enough, that people don't look to fight me.
______________________________

None of these things have anything to do with the part of the American worldview you are criticizing.

Aren't you one of the people arguing that a better safety net prevents crime. In a thread about crime and gun control, I'd say looking at the US as a whole makes sense even if it shouldn't be the main focus of the thread.

If the Martians landed and demanded that you shave your head because Martians don't have hair, and you questioned them and they said "you don't get to argue with us because Mars is a paradise..." That would be ridiculous. The point here is that a rule that applies to Mars need not apply to you. And even if you concede that Mars is a nicer place to live, that doesn't mean you should try to ape Martians in random unrelated ways that have nothing to do with why Earth is not such a nice place to live.

You're not criticizing America's lack of public health care or excessive prison sentences. You're criticizing guns, and fantasizing about how to take them away from people, and mocking or ignoring anyone who thinks your obsession with American gun ownership is misguided.

So I don't think you're in a good position to invoke "but in my country we live in a paradise so if you do anything differently than we do, you're stupid and inferior!"

You're equatting cutting hair with the suggestion that less guns will lead to improved outcomes in violent crime... I'm not sure what to say to that.
______________________________

That is almost exactly the same standard applied in the US.

The main difference is that many US states explicitly define "reasonable alternatives." Because there was a rash of cases where courts said things like "well, you should have jumped out a second story window rather than risked injuring the person who invaded your home and attacked you." Which is ridiculous- you're basically mandating that law-abiding citizens accept injury and damage to their property, to protect the health and property of criminals who attack them. Which is the exact opposite of the intended purpose of any law involving safety or property.

This led to large numbers of citizens demanding (with reason) some liberalization of self-defense laws.

In a few states like Florida the pendulum has shifted a bit too far the other way, but that's the core of the matter.

Can you quote the cases where people were asked to jump from windows? I've heard these stories but nobody has ever shown a case where this happened.
______________________________

Except that people who are raped or beaten by criminals aren't sacrificing their lives to save anything. They secure no benefit for anyone... except that criminals benefit, by being free to rape and beat people.

So how you can spin that as some kind of 'acceptable sacrifice' I don't understand.

If that were really the case every country should be looking hard at the arm everybody angle and nations where citizens aren't armed should see an uptick in violent crime. Seeing as this isn't the case I find it hard to argue that a few people having worse outcomes in certain types of crime is a net benefit over just taking weapons from everybody and letting averages take over.

[Broomstick]

Canada allows for self-defense as well, but it does not allow you to arm yourself specifically for the task. If I hit you with the chair I was sitting on, or rake your eyes with my keys I'm fine, if I hear a sound downstairs and grab a baseball bat or a knife to investigate I could get charged.

Apparently, based on other posts, you are incorrect in the latter assertion.

It's on you to show that this is the case. I've personally not heard of those kinds of stories, the articles about crime for my city don't mention this as a specific problem, and it's never been an election issue.

So... if you haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist? If a problem isn't an “election issue” it's not validated?

How old are you? Do mommy and daddy let you out of the basement or do you stay there by choice?

I think it's a pretty appalling situation when a government says a citizen must not defend him or herself from physical attack. Yes, I think that is tantamount to saying "come mug me" if you approve of that stance..

Your best defense is handing over your goods, fleeing, or turtling. Encouraging people to fight back in anything but the most dire of situations is not desirable.

So if someone targets a woman for rape she should just lay back and make the best of it? If someone is in the act of physically attacking you, you should do nothing? You can't always solve the problem by handing over your stuff, you can't always flee.

That only works if the US and Canada were the same during the early US period, and they weren't. Just to start, Canada enjoyed the protection of the British Empire, at least to the extent any colony did, the US did not. You don't need a militia of homesteaders when the redcoats are stationed in your town and they're on your side. If you don't have the resources of an empire you have to make do with what you have.

The US could have continued to enjoy said protection as well. Instead, you chose to start a war and denied yourself that support. That just shows that from the start the US favored the gun over diplomacy.

Answered by others.

You're not allowed to use a gun on a fleeing criminal where I live, either. If he's running out the back door, away from you, and you shoot him in the back that's called murder where I live and you will be prosecuted for that crime.

That varies from state to state, it is by no means a national thing in the US like it is in Canada. We have no province that has anything approaching stand your ground or castle laws.

You fucking moron – castle law DOES NOT allow you to shoot someone in the back! Nowhere is it legal to shoot someone who is fleeing the scene and when such incidents get into the news it's because it's illegal to do such a thing.

Stand your ground does not give you carte blanche to shoot people, either, nor does it get you out of a murder charge for shooting someone in the back when they're trying to leave the area.

How about you actually learn what the fuck you're talking about before attempting to talk about it on the internet?

Yeah, I live in a "regressive hole" but we have a lower general crime rate, lower violent crime rate, lower murder rate, and lower level of political corruption than the state right next door with much more repressive gun laws. So clearly it's not just about the guns, there are other factors driving them, perhaps driving crime and corruption much more strongly than guns.

Do you have an issue with reading Broomstick? I said, in reference to you talking about the failure of Chicago's gun laws:

It really harms any attempt at social reform when your laws might fail because a neighboring state is a regressive hole.

Except that Indiana, even in the “bad” part where I live, has a lower crime rate and a lower murder rate than its neighbor Chicago, even with more guns and people being allowed to legally carry firearms. How do you explain that?

In short, it sucks that Chicago's law failed because a neighboring state couldn't be bothered to have stronger firearms laws.

It sucks for you that your argument fails because that area with more guns has less crime than Chicago.

As I pointed out the US did not need to go to war with the Brits, that was a choice that defined everything that came after it. I guess those social factors must have lead to the US having a history of war over diplomacy in a way that Canada never had.

Yeah, burning down the presidential residence as well as other parts of the US capital was completely “diplomatic”.

"Self-defense" is not protecting your TV, it's about protecting yourself or another human being. Did you really need that explained?

That's not the view of several US states. I'm not arguing that Chicago specifically needs gun control, but that the US as a whole does.

You really do have an impenetrable shield about your world view, don't you? Chicago HAD the gun control you fantasized about and turned into a murderous shithole. Meanwhile, surrounding areas (both in Illinois as well as Indiana and Wisconsin) didn't. So, apparently, banning guns in and of itself does not make a place into paradise. But don't let facts interfere with your fables.

I, too, was taught to avoid trouble when possible but the sad thing is that it is not always possible. As I have said, US society as a whole is more violent than Canada. It's not just about the guns - take guns away the society will STILL be much more violent.

It isn't always possible, and bad things happen to people in Canada as well. The difference is that we don't see the need to be armed just in case.

It seems to escape you that the vast majority of Americans don't own guns, either. Most of us don't feel a need to be armed 24/7, even those of us who don't live in the best of places. We have an option to own firearms, not a mandate.

It's not something to be proud of, or happy about, it's just a fact of life around here. Since I am unable to emigrant to another country I am forced to find a way to deal with the problem.

You keep saying that you don't have options, but everybody has options. If your city suddenly took a nose dive and started to look like the worst sections of Detroit are you honestly going to tell me that you wouldn't find some way to move even if it involved significant hardship?

I actually did leave the Detroit area at one point.... and we moved out of Chicago because our neighborhood did take a nose dive. Yes, I can move anywhere in the US. I can NOT emigrate to another country, as I have repeatedly stated. At least, not without abandoning my family, which I find unacceptable. So, I repeat: I have to find some way to survive in THIS society.

I'm not coming from a 1st world country that has issues with 3rd world problems. Call me when Canada runs torture programs, starts wars it can't stomach finishing all while refusing to pay for proper old age and health care while thinking that crime is solved by longer sentences and more private prisons.

Ah... so it's not just about guns, then. You despite the entire country. Thank you for making your bias explicit.

Absolutely I advocate for the ability of a person to defend him or herself. Fuck you if you don't agree with that. You want to discuss what is an acceptable way to defend yourself, fine, but yes I absolutely do believe people should be allowed to defend themselves. If you won't even concede human beings have a right to self-defense there's no point in talking to you further.

You can defend yourself here as well, we just don't do it with weapons.

Bullshit. You've already been contradicted by others.

I am well aware of the fact that Canadians can and do own weapons. I've looked into getting something for the range myself, but in the end I'd probably get more use out of an airsoft gun so I haven't bothered.

Which makes it ironic that my household is the one with the “airsoft” gun – which we bought for vermin control, not the range. What you don't seem to understand is that most Americans don't get hard thinking about owning a weapon, and they don't reflexively go for the highest firepower.

So... you're claiming that if someone broke into your home right now and started punching you in the gut and face and you clonked him over the head with a chair leg you'd be prosecuted for assault because you have zero right to defend yourself from an attacker?

I would have to show that a reasonable person would have feared for his life at the point and justified why I chose to escalate the situation with a weapon as opposed to another course of action. It wouldn't simply be accepted that I was allowed to wail on the attacker with a weapon.

Given that I'm a middle-aged woman who isn't particularly large, convincing people that I need a weapon against a young, male attacker is actually pretty damn easy. I'm at an inherent disadvantage there. Given that my spouse is middle-aged disabled guy who isn't particularly large, either, he's never had trouble convincing the police, even in Chicago, that his use of a weapon was justified when he defended himself. You keep saying one option is to flee but my spouse is physically unable to run away.

I think part of the problem is that you don't see where some people are at an inherent physical disadvantage.

No, I'm not willing to "volunteer" to be beaten, maimed, raped, or murdered to prove YOUR point. What the fuck good is changing the world if I won't be there to enjoy the change?

I guess you'd support America entirely disbanding her military then as well.

How the fuck do you get to that? A military is essential to the defense of the nation.

Hell, by that logic you wouldn't have supported anybody going over to fight in World War Two.

I'm all about confronting threats – WWII was all about threats and violence, staying out would have been stupid. In fact, the US did stay out – until we were attacked. We didn't start that fight so go fuck yourself.

After all, soldiers who die defending their nation don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labour either.

Soldiers actually get to carry guns and other weapons, literally having a “fighting chance”. You're talking about taking that away from people.

You also wouldn't have supported the workers strikes that lead to the creation of modern labour laws because the people that died during them didn't get to see things improve. Or would you be fine with them because it was somebody else eating lead for your rights?

Those workers didn't go about intending to up things to violence, the government did that. Again, you're blaming the one who didn't start the physical confrontation.

[Broomstick]

If I lived in the US I'd probably own a firearm for self-defence. Though I think that owning an automatic would be excessive even by American standards.

Automatic weapons are effectively banned in the US for civilians. You can own a semi-automatic, not an automatic. [/nitpick]