I think that gun controls work to a degree, I have little issue with Hand guns being controlled the way they are, and I say that as someone who is
taking their "restricted weapons" course. If you have no criminal record and meet the requirement, you CAN own a handgun or other restricted firearm
in Canada, though I must admit, there are a few "conditions" I don't exactly agree with, but that is something I can lobby or protest against,
because I doubt they make an ultimate difference.
I think long Guns should be less controlled, but I do not agree with unfettered access to them. I was against the gun registry, not because I have any
great problem with anyone knowing (within reason) who has them, but because of the abuse of the laws by those who were charged with enforcing them. I
have heard too many stories of gun owners having their guns removed after calling the police over a neighbor dispute, because they "might" use them
for retribution, only to find out when the time came to get them back that the authorities "accidentally" destroyed them.
What I would like to see is a more reasonable law concerning the use of firearms to protect yourself. My elderly disabled father lives with me, we
have lived together ever since the passing of my mother, if someone comes into my home intent on causing me or him harm, there is little to no option
to retreat. If that person comes in and threatens or attempts to use deadly force, It would be difficult to use "reasonable force" against them in
the form of a firearm, this is evidenced by a case currently going on in Welland, Ontario.
National Post - Man faces jail after
protecting home from masked attackers
A short synopsis of the story:
Ian Thompson has been the target of an ongoing "land" dispute, a couple masked men entered his property and lobbed some Molotov cocktails at his
home, Ian being a former firearms instructor, had access to firearms, and went to his safe and grabbed a handgun, loaded it, and fired warning shots,
not actually aiming for the attackers. The police were called and found him with a loaded restricted firearm, and proceeded to charged him with a few
gun storage offenses, pointing a firearm, and careless use of a firearm. The case is currently in front of the courts and the Crown (prosecutors) are
demanding jail time. Ian Thompson did not even fire with the intent to kill, only scare off those fire bombing his property (including the dog house,
they injured one of his dogs).
I Canada, we supposedly have the right to defend ourselves with reasonable force. In this case, I absolutely agree that the use of a firearm was not
excessive, it WAS reasonable force. If the men were only rummaging through his garbage, and he shot them, that would, in my opinion be excessive
force, but this case was reasonable force.
Even politicians are calling for a "Castle Doctrine Law" which I think might be a bit excessive, to many horror stories of parents killing their
kids when the posed no danger, and were "sneaking in" after curfew. I do think however self defense and firearms laws should be changed to allow for
use of firearms to protect your home in cases where deadly force is threatened (with a reasonable fear of it being carried out) or used. On the
street, it might be a different story, but your home, the last bastion of comfort and safety, that is a different story.
Lorne Gunter: Why hang Ian
Thomson for the ‘crime’ of protecting himself?
Matt Gurney: Ian
Thomson case shows how the Crown feels about self-defence
I am not for the unfettered, wholesale possession of firearms, I am not for the unrestricted ability to "open carry", and I am definitely not for
the right to "conceal carry" by just anyone, unless there is a demonstrated need for a valid reason, not just because "i have a permit". Most off
duty police officers do not even carry here, they only carry while on duty (undercover, plain clothes, and uniform)
That is my two cents worth.