U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-26-2016, 11:40 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,070,697 times
Reputation: 1256

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post

If someone makes a sale on the Internet, they should have to go through a gun dealer as broker with background checks. I know neither would be popular among the NRA, but people selling arms really should have to see who they're selling to.

It is already this way....you cannot buy guns on the internet without going though a background check and you need to go through a dealer....bought guns on the internet quite few times....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2016, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Canada
3,899 posts, read 2,725,320 times
Reputation: 5079
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
It is already this way....you cannot buy guns on the internet without going though a background check and you need to go through a dealer....bought guns on the internet quite few times....
I think regulations may have changed. I remember back in the spring of 1999 when eBay decided to stop allowing the sale of guns on their site. The eBay chatboads were on fire with outraged sellers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 10:29 AM
 
14,195 posts, read 6,105,213 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
It is already this way....you cannot buy guns on the internet without going though a background check and you need to go through a dealer....bought guns on the internet quite few times....
Good, glad to hear it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 09:18 PM
 
Location: MA/ME (the way life should not be / the way it should be)
1,267 posts, read 982,362 times
Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
As you say this is your take, and I appreciate your honesty. I think the trouble many Canadians have, myself included is, where is the logic ? Meaning, hanging onto an amendment that was written by people who had no way of conceiving the type of weaponry or society we would live in 225 years later ( the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 ) just doesn't make sense.


I as a lurking american (and a "pro-gun" one in my local area) agree almost wholeheartidly with this statement. There is no need for machine guns, or assault rifles (although i dont think a bayonet mount should count towards being an assault rifle, which it does), but rifles, shotguns (non-sawed off), and pistols can and are useful tools when being used in a lawful purpose such as hunting or trapping. The only issue i personally could see myself having with canadas gun laws, is the lack of self defense incase it is needed (although i will admit i have not dwelved too deep into the subject). Other than that, Canada seems to be realitvly smart on the laws, and barring any changes to canadas laws, both nations shall soon have realitvly the same laws on the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 03:36 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,166 posts, read 1,750,098 times
Reputation: 2630
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKezarWoodsman View Post
The only issue i personally could see myself having with canadas gun laws, is the lack of self defense incase it is needed (although i will admit i have not dwelved too deep into the subject).
Canadian self-defence laws are often puzzling to Canadians, never mind Americans. Why can't Canadians defend themselves? Well they can--under certain circumstances.

First of all, though there are many Canadian gun owners, they do not regard guns as defensive weapons. This is attitudinal: Canadians simply do not regard guns as defensive weapons the way Americans do. To Canadians, guns are for sport shooting, competitions, picking off the varmint in the back-40. Never for self-defense.

With that being said, let's look at Canadian self-defence rules:

Rule 1: Call 911 and let the cops look after it.

Rule 2: Call 911 again, if the cops don't respond in three minutes.

That's about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 04:32 PM
 
14,195 posts, read 6,105,213 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Canadian self-defence laws are often puzzling to Canadians, never mind Americans. Why can't Canadians defend themselves? Well they can--under certain circumstances.

First of all, though there are many Canadian gun owners, they do not regard guns as defensive weapons. This is attitudinal: Canadians simply do not regard guns as defensive weapons the way Americans do. To Canadians, guns are for sport shooting, competitions, picking off the varmint in the back-40. Never for self-defense.

With that being said, let's look at Canadian self-defence rules:

Rule 1: Call 911 and let the cops look after it.

Rule 2: Call 911 again, if the cops don't respond in three minutes.

That's about it.
It varies from state to state here, but where I live you have the right to defend yourself in your home and even out in the yard. Heck, a man shot a guy breaking into his neighbor's home and was acquitted. Had he shot someone going into his own house, he probably wouldn't have even been indicted. Not sure I agree with that one.

Same goes for defending your family. We had a young father in a rural community who came upon a ranch hand raping his little girl in a barn, and beat him to death. She was about 5 years old, so it was pretty bad. The Grand Jury did not indict him. I definitely agree with this one. The guy didn't mean to actually kill him. He just wanted to beat him and let the police handle him.

I'm glad we are allowed to defend ourselves. As we saw in Orlando, when seconds count, the police could be as long as three hours away.

No Charges for Texas Father Who Beat to Death Daughter's Molester - ABC News

Last edited by katygirl68; 06-28-2016 at 05:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 05:58 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,218 posts, read 6,572,923 times
Reputation: 14148
In Canada a person does have the right to defend themself, their family, their home, their property, etc. using "reasonable force", but not lethal force if it can be avoided. If lethal force is used it would have to be because the person defending themself was in a kill or be killed kind of situation and had absolutely no other choice than to use lethal force to save the life of themself or the life of which ever other victim they might be defending.

Each case is judged on a case-to-case basis. The following article from 4 years ago goes into a little bit about various situations and circumstances and when self defense (or offense) is acceptable under Canadian law.

Self-defence: What's acceptable under Canadian law? - Canada - CBC News


Chevy, you said:

Quote:

With that being said, let's look at Canadian self-defence rules:

Rule 1: Call 911 and let the cops look after it.

Rule 2: Call 911 again, if the cops don't respond in three minutes.

That's about it.
In the above regard, and defending oneself with lethal force if necessary, I have a little story for you about the RCMP's advice to me about self defense, it's an incident that happened to me about 25 years ago.

I came home from work just after midnight to my little farm that was quite isolated out in the country. My livestock guard dogs were outside running round and round the house going crazy when I arrived and when I went into the house through the front door two of them raced through the house to the back entrance through the kitchen and barked and scratched at that door. The back entrance led to another outside door and to a pantry that, if one went into it and shut the pantry door the door would lock and they'd be locked inside the pantry if they didn't have the key to open it from the inside.

So, anyways, it turned out I had a human intruder had gotten himself inside the back entrance, then made a mistake and went into the pantry and was locked up inside my pantry. He'd been there for quite a few hours too and he was furious and making all kinds of ugly threats to me about what he was going to do if I didn't call off the blankety-blank dogs and let him out of there. I think he thought that because I'm a woman he could intimidate me into letting him out.

I told him I had a gun pointed at the door right at what I figured might be his groin to midriff level (I did) and I was calling the cops and the cops could let him out of my pantry. I called the RCMP and the dispatcher told me there had been some unprecedented problems and it might take half an hour to 45 minutes before the police could make it all the way out to my house. She asked me to stay on the line and she connected me to an officer. I told him that there was an angry intruder in the pantry beating on the door and the walls and trashing the pantry breaking jars of preserves and other things and screaming horrible threats at me and my dogs and over the phone the officer could hear the intruder screaming epithets at me and breaking things. I told the officer that I was frightened for my life if the intruder got out of there and that I had a gun and if the intruder managed to break out of there I was going to shoot him.

The officer didn't say "Don't do that". What he said was "We don't recommend you do that but if he breaks out of there before the police arrive and you fear for your life then you have to do what you have to do. Do you understand?" and then he told me it was important to stay on the line talking with him until the police arrived.

When 2 officers did arrive about 20 minutes later and they took the intruder away, they said basically the same thing to me. "We don't recommend that you use your gun but if you have to do what you have to do to save your life then you gotta do it."

I figured that was their way of letting me know that I have a right to use my own judgement on what was the best way to defend myself and to judge if I needed to use lethal force to save my life if there was nobody else there to help me.

Canadians do have a right to defend themselves but they are expected to use good judgement about it though.

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 06-28-2016 at 06:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 07:50 PM
 
Location: MA/ME (the way life should not be / the way it should be)
1,267 posts, read 982,362 times
Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
I'm glad we are allowed to defend ourselves. As we saw in Orlando, when seconds count, the police could be as long as three hours away.

No Charges for Texas Father Who Beat to Death Daughter's Molester - ABC News
I agree with that fact, that although in many areas police can be counted on within minutes if you make a call and say armed intruder, sometimes it is not as fast (most if not all hostage situations are like this). Another issue in the northern states during winter couldwhich be that the roads are all snowed in, forcing the police to snowshoe/snowmobile to you (in case they would most likely send a game warden, as i doubt police go snow-mobiles), and even that would take awhile.

And to Zolsite, that seems like a good compromise, does canada have a duty to retreat as well? (here in Ma you have duty to retreat no-matter what bodily harm retreating may cause if it is less than what the other guy was trying to do to you, mostly on a judge-judge basis, other states have Castle (no duty to retreat in your home) or Stand your ground laws (no duty to retreat ever), the first i mostly support, and the latter i do not.

For instance in MA (one of the most liberal states, and i am assuming even more liberal than some provinces), it is pretty hard to justify a self-defense shooting (even if not lethal), unless you were already shot. Even then, you can only cause as much damage as already done to you (unless you have really good proof that he was going to do more, such as video evidence).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 08:19 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,070,697 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
First of all, though there are many Canadian gun owners, they do not regard guns as defensive weapons. This is attitudinal: Canadians simply do not regard guns as defensive weapons the way Americans do. To Canadians, guns are for sport shooting, competitions, picking off the varmint in the back-40. Never for self-defense.
Canadian gun owners probably see their guns as defense tools, if the need arise, in their own homes...obviously without CCW laws they cannot carry firearms outside of their homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 08:53 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ♥ 🍁 ♥
7,218 posts, read 6,572,923 times
Reputation: 14148
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKezarWoodsman View Post

.... <snip> .....

And to Zolsite, that seems like a good compromise, does canada have a duty to retreat as well? (here in Ma you have duty to retreat no-matter what bodily harm retreating may cause if it is less than what the other guy was trying to do to you, mostly on a judge-judge basis, other states have Castle (no duty to retreat in your home) or Stand your ground laws (no duty to retreat ever), the first i mostly support, and the latter i do not.

For instance in MA (one of the most liberal states, and i am assuming even more liberal than some provinces), it is pretty hard to justify a self-defense shooting (even if not lethal), unless you were already shot. Even then, you can only cause as much damage as already done to you (unless you have really good proof that he was going to do more, such as video evidence).
Yes or no, depending on the circumstances. Again, this would be judged on a case to case basis but to the best of my knowledge there is no duty to retreat if you are inside your own home, and again depending on the circumstances, possibly also if you are outside of your home but still on your own property:

Quote:

Matt Gurney on an Ontario court’s strong endorsement of the right to self-defence | National Post

.... <snip> ..... Citing numerous precedents across Canada and the United States, the three judges ruled that there is never a requirement for any individual to flee their home when under attack. The decision to stand and fight in one’s own dwelling is entirely permitted under Canadian law and tradition, and the possibility of retreat may not be deemed relevant by a jury when determining whether the force used was reasonable or justified.

In reaching this conclusion, the judges cited (among many others) a prior case in British Columbia in which the judge had declared that, when under attack in your own home, you may stand your ground and fight because “one’s home is already one’s last line of defence against an assailant.” Exactly right.

The right to self-defence is still not absolute. There is still an obligation to retreat from a confrontation that takes place outside the home, if retreat is possible, before using lethal force. The force used must still be reasonable (so putting five shotgun slugs into someone traipsing through your garden is a non-starter). And even when defending yourself inside your home ... <snip> ... you may need to be arrested and tried before the legitimacy of your actions can be confirmed — a major irritant that should be addressed by having the law side with the homeowner by default, unless there are strong reasons to suspect the defensive act was inappropriate.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top