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.
The problem in the US is trust.
The citizens with guns don't trust the government to be forth coming with gun laws and still back the 2ed Amendment and the goverment just doesn't trust its people.
Lack of trust is a problem but I don't think it's just confined to citizens mistrusting government over gun laws and the government mistrusting the people. I think it's reached a point where none of the people and the government feel they can trust or count on anybody anywhere for any reason ...... not anybody. Except maybe their guns. Like that's going to do them any good to solve the bigger problems. Not.
That's a sad thing. People and governments gotta have trust and confidence in each other.
Only none of this solves Canada's problems with criminals with guns and I'd sure hate to see that lack of trust and paranoia seep into the fabric of Canada because of proximity.
A simplistic attitude like that is pretty much why the US does have a gun problem and will always have a gun problem.
Nobody is saying that guns should be banned outright (impossible in our entitled society), but to argue that we shouldn't be more stringent about gun laws / ability to buy guns and type of guns is ignorant and just perpetuates the violence.
The problem is that extreme views on both sides of the political arena stops ANYTHING to be done. Instead of sitting down and admitting that there is a problem, they argue, bicker and use it to advance their own party.
BTW, the fact that the US has only 2 political parties is part of the problem.
I think countries should have "moderate" parties than can see both sides of the issues and compromise so we can find solutions.
There are more deaths involving vehicles in the U.S. than deaths involving guns. So does the U.S. have a vehicle problem?
There are more deaths involving vehicles in the U.S. than deaths involving guns. So does the U.S. have a vehicle problem?
Your statement and question is what's called a red herring. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The definition of a red herring is: A red herring is something that attempts to succeed in misleading, detracting or distracting attention away from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.
The topic here is about criminals with guns in Canada and the USA, it isn't about idiot doofuses driving cars in USA.
Lets try to pay attention to the real issue being discussed and stay on track with it.
One of the biggest problems in Canada is that you can't defend yourself with a gun in Canada.
LOL. You haven't been in Canada for long, have you?
Defend yourself against what, and where, and when? Maybe you should explain where you got that idea.
Are you possibly confusing your idea with the law that civilians can't buy, own or carry guns for the intended purpose of personal self defense?
Sure you can defend yourself with a gun or any number of other deadly tools you have on hand if you absolutely have to in order to save your own life because you know if you don't defend yourself you are going to be killed by whatever it is that you need to defend yourself against.
There is no law in Canada that says that anybody has to just stand there and allow somebody or something else to kill them. Of course you would still have to report it to authorities and be able prove that you had been under imminent threat of loss of life and that you had no other choice but to defend your life with a deadly tool.
You need to look up Canada's firearms regulations and laws before you go making statements like that again.
You should be able to defend yourself in your house in Canada.
Are there any legal exemptions in Canada for this?
Yes, of course there are certain exemptions and you have a right to defend yourself, but a person defending theirself and home/family is required to do so using reasonable actions and use of force regardless of what kinds of tools they might use for self defense, and they will have to be able to prove it in court. Under section 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code, you are within your rights to defend yourself and your home from unlawful entry, but each case is assessed in court on the unique facts of the case. Some of the many types of questions that will come up in court would be:
What was the nature of the threat or force?
How imminent was the threat to our safety (i.e. is the danger just about to happen or do we have time to avoid a physical altercation)?
Did we have other options to respond to the threat, other than physical force?
Did either my attacker or I use a weapon?
What was the relative size, age, gender and strength of the two parties involved in the incident?
Do the parties involved have a prior relationship or a history of disagreements or fighting?
Was my response to the threat or attack relatively proportionate to the attacker’s action?
Was the threat or use of threat against me authorized by the law? (i.e. if police are lawfully entering your property or detaining you, you cannot use force to defend yourself against them.)
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.
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.
People and governments gotta have trust and confidence in each other. 
