It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada's Self Defense Policies and Owning Arms.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I am literally confused about self defense in Canada for 17years now. My views on Canada's self defense policies is that if someone attacks you with or without (a) weapon(s) you don’t attack back because you’re the one going to jail or simply die while the media says "it is a tragedy" while the state says "it is a statistic". I look at most common wealth country as being this controlled society where you can’t even justify the means of carrying a knife or a gun to defend yourself unlike the U.S. you guys have the right to own any type of guns and knives here we do not. Apparently "I carry a knife to defend myself if incase my life is being threatened with violence or death by another person" is not a legitimate excuse or reason to carry a knife in Canada. Personally I think it’s Orwellian like, since when did arming oneself to preserve his or her own life when threatened by another person go out the window? The U.S. got a better policy on self defense and it’s straight forward.

Let’s consider multiple scenarios:
1. Aggressor uses unlawful attacks against you. What degree of force should you use if you are armed (knife or gun) or unarmed?

2. Aggressor threatens to kill you and uses unlawful attacks against you. What degree of force should you use if you are armed (knife or gun) or unarmed?

3. Aggressor has a knife and uses unlawful attacks against you with the knife? What degree of force should you use if you are armed (knife or gun) or unarmed?

4. Aggressor has a knife and threatens to kill you and uses unlawful attacks against you with the knife? What degree of force should you use if you are armed (knife or gun) or unarmed?

5. Aggressor has a gun and he uses unlawful attacks against you by shooting at you or hitting you with the gun? What degree of force should you use if you are armed (knife or gun) or unarmed?

6. Aggressor has a gun and threatens to kill you and he uses unlawful attacks against you by shooting at you or hitting you with the gun? What degree of force should you use if you are armed (knife or gun) or unarmed?

7. If you have a legally licensed gun can you use it in self defense or should you die? If you have bought a knife legally at a government approved licensed retail store can you use it or should you die?

Every time I ask questions about these things people literrally have these mixed and contradictory answers. I am confused help me.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Elmocall911
 


Canada is a feudal monarchistic oligarchy. In any monarchistic oligarchy, the general population has to be disarmed, otherwise, the population will rise up and out the monarchs and the oligarchy. Canada's laws are structured to protect the "janitors" of crime, the police, they are not designed to protect the citizenry. A simple example is civil law during the commission of a crime; a burglar enters through the roof, falls and breaks his leg. He may now sue his intended victim (and win) for damages and it has actually happened. How f**ked up is that?

Have you ever seen the police prevent an initial crime? I know I haven't, they are just "janitors-with-a-gun," like that drain cleaner, "janitor-in-a-drum." They operate after the fact and do not protect the people. Look at their logo, "To serve and protect." It doesn't say what they protect. It's not the people though, they serve and protect the law.

To make matters worse, the Queen gave royal accent to joining the EU and now one has to wonder, is Canada still a colony or is it a country? Is the Governor General even a valid position anymore, or still just another useless twit? That goes for Lieutenant Governors for the provinces as well? The monarchy it seems has left an awful lot of useless pork hanging around. But one must also question the role of Harper, is he PM or President? PM means second in command as the Governor General was the Queen's viceroy (and therefore head of state/Canada) under the 1947 Letters Patent by King George. There's a lot of stuff the sheople don't know yet....

Anyway, US law under the 2nd amendment appears to be a protection for the citizens against criminal activity, both inside and outside the government as well as a mediation tool against tyranny. It was also set up that way to prevent any foreign power from trying to invade the US which is a bloody smart move. An invader wouldn't want to fight a defensive population where every man and women can shoot you dead in the streets during an invasion. Switzerland also has a better rule, every household has to have at least one fully automatic weapon, just in case of invasion. But going back, the US was set up as a Republic with the Rule of Law (so was South Africa before the Mandela/ANC stupidity).

One of the differences between a socialist democracy and a republic is how law is dealt with. Canada uses a mix of Common Law and written statutes, which allows for a great deal of interpretation. Right now I would say that probably every Canadian citizen is a criminal in one form or another according to the laws and precedents. In the US, they operate under the Rule of Law. The law is the law and there is some allowable interpretation, but not like Canada where they can make things up as they go along.

I have some experience with the US and South Africa, and I live in Canada. In South Africa, if someone broke into your house and threatened you or stole from you, you were expected to take action, lethal or otherwise because it helped the police maintain order and reduce taxes. Most of us were armed to the teeth and carried multiple semi-automatic weapons, so everyone as a consequence was polite and generally well mannered because someone is always faster or has a better aim.

If Canada allowed conceal carry laws, then there would be a positive attitude shift. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" as is the case with most here today. "When the government fears the people there is liberty" which is how it should be. Plus, there would be an increase in consumerism, eg. gun sales, which would increase employment and at the same time, decrease the taxes we have to pay because there would be more criminals in the ground than in jail. Personally, I much prefer the US/SA Rule of Law system to the Canadian Kommunistik Kommon Law system.

On your scenarios 1 through 7, it doesn't matter what you do, you will end up being charged in criminal court and/or sued in civil court. It's a win win for the criminals (both the one attacking and the politicians) as they get to transfer your money and/or your time from you to them by way of the courts and lawyers.

I could give you many example of situations where common citizens obeyed the rule of law in South Africa and saved the government and taxpayers many millions of dollars, but, that's another thread and would be a very long one.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 1/3.2010 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The US is not so wide open as you would expect, I guess.

Have you ever watched an episode of that crap show "COPS"? They'll pull a folding knife out of someone's pocket and call it a concealed weapon.
The laws are not what they should be. The Second Amendment obviously means that the citizens should be the guys with the good guns, and we are limited by later "laws" saying we can't have this or that, depending on which particular nanny-state we take residence in.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I currently make my residence where it is relatively easy to own a gun, but the laws for a handgun are much more strict. If I were to have one "illegally", there would be a stiff penalty.

To relate this to your subject, you have to do what you have to do, knowing what the consequences are for erring on either side. To know what they are involves research at your local government level, I would think.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Dave,

How long ago did you live in SA? I moved here in 2007, and can tell you that it isn’t as simple as being able to fire to kill. It’s circumstantial. It was only recently (past few years), that the police were given the ‘right’ to use deadly force. I think Jackie Selebi gave the order.

As a citizen, you can use only use deadly force if you feel your life is threatened. And if you put the person ‘away’ as such, there has to be substantial proof (that you have to provide) to validate your actions.

However, if you can prove it, it’s case closed. I had a friend who shot and killed a hijacker, and was acquitted, as he made sure to ask first hand witnesses to corroborate the story to the police.

What gets my goat, is How the HELL do these young kids in Canada get guns illegally? I can understand SA with the corruption, but here?? It dumbfounds me.

Nice to chat to a fellow “Safer” Dave!



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
If there is a threat of harm to my person by one or more individuals, I will do everything in my power to remove said threat. Period.

I always have a concealed weapon on me, but have never had the need to use it. My anger has been enough.

And yes, the police in this city have seen the knife I carry but have just told me to be careful in using it. I really don't think of the consequences about my actions when faced with danger. It distracts one from survival.

I have only been in court once due to my protecting myself and the Judge dismissed all charges against me.

By the way I live in Sudbury,Ontario,Canada.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
My friend who is an RCMP told me a couple weeks ago in a conversation about just this sort of stuff, that in Canada, you are legally allowed to use the minimum amount of force required to get out of a situation.

In cases where you actually kill someone in self defense, he said that he is aware of maybe a dozen cases in his career (he's like 40 or so) where the defender was charged with manslaughter or something similar, but in every single case was acquitted.

He also said that if you ever end up in such a situation, be very careful what statements you make to police and in court. For instance, make sure you say you didn't intend to kill or that you shot aiming at a nonlethal place or something. Also, don't shoot someone more than maybe once or twice; if the attacker has 30 bullets in his torso, you're going to jail even if you didn't initiate the attack, because you used more than the minimum amount of force required.

As for owning arms, I'm not sure exactly the laws regarding gun ownership (I didn't ask him that and don't own a gun) but I did ask him about conceal and carry. He told me that it is almost impossible to get that in Canada, and you have to demonstrate a very legitimate reason why you would need to carry a gun with you. I don't personally know anyone who can conceal and carry who is not also in law enforcement.

For owning knives and such, there are certain types of knives that are banned even for sale in Canada (switchblades, butterfly knives, etc) and some others that you are allowed to own but cannot display in public. For instance, I asked him if I could legally own a sword and hang it on my wall. I am legally allowed to do that, but I can't walk around outside with the sword in hand or at my waist. (I'd probably have to put it in a closed case for transport or something if I had to move it) I think there was a size limit to the knife you can carry around, too. For instance, the smaller knives that Sikhs carry around as part of their religion are legal here, though I think there are certain restrictions on how it is to be carried (not sure on the details).



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
The Canadians a once proud people have been reduced to the progressive way of thinking lead by what I believe is a minority of the population that used fear and threats to bend the rest of them over to rape the very freedom that lets them defend themselves away. Hmm I wonder how many times in history once a government takes away a persons right to defend themselves it uses it to kill the very population it promised to protect?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Oh Canada!

It's always entertaining to listen to people 'debate' about what they should do if (their) life is threatened.

Listen, fellow Canuck, if someone is trying to kill you, by all means go ahead, kill them first.

You'll feel better about yourself in the morning.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by univac500Listen, fellow Canuck, if someone is trying to kill you, by all means go ahead, kill them first.


If push came to shove, that's what I'd do, though I certainly wouldn't feel good about it in the morning. (but at least there would be a morning!) I'd rather knock somebody out or something instead, but in the extreme case, I think I'd be capable of killing in self defense. I've never been in that situation, though, and likely most of us won't. The mountie I mentioned earlier told me in that conversation that there have only ever been two times where he didn't think he would make it home at the end of a shift, and as an ordinary civilian, I'll see a lot less crazy things than he does.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join