• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

We have MANY laws and if the current laws aren't enforced the point to making new ones is?
One of the many reasons I have a zero tolerance policy on new gun laws.
Polysesouvient has already written to the PM asking that a new, more zealous Public Safety Minister be appointed to finalize the Liberal election promises and more as quickly as possible.
 

Attachments

  • Scandal.jpg
    Scandal.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 1
Polysesouvient has already written to the PM asking that a new, more zealous Public Safety Minister be appointed to finalize the Liberal election promises and more as quickly as possible.
And yet they still haven’t put China’s Peoples Liberation Army’s standard-issue assault rifle, the Norinco Type 97, on the list of banned weapons.

#DoubleStandardForChineseDictators

#LiberalsSoftOnChineseAssaultRifles
 
And yet they still haven’t put China’s Peoples Liberation Army’s standard-issue assault rifle, the Norinco Type 97, on the list of banned weapons.

#DoubleStandardForChineseDictators

#LiberalsSoftOnChineseAssaultRifles
The SKS and Tavors aren't on the list, either, yet. I suspect when Bill C-21 redux is tabled, all semi-auto centrefire rifles will be bound for reclassification to prohibited.
 
The SKS and Tavors aren't on the list, either, yet. I suspect when Bill C-21 redux is tabled, all semi-auto centrefire rifles will be bound for reclassification to prohibited.
Probably. Frankly, I think a campaigning opportunity was *missed by O’Toole not to point out the hypocrisy of Trudeau/Blair on the whole issue.
 
Last edited:
They also missed the opportunity to point out how the Liberals own policies (Bill C75) is what is causing this explosion of crime in our cities.

The true irony is that most gun crime in Canada is drug related. Those same drug users and dealers the Left actively protects and even tries to decriminalize the usage of. Most people though can't understand how their usage of illegal drugs (including Marijuana before it was legal) was fueling the very crime they were most terrified of.

Obviously there is no quick solution to drug usage, if there was it would be done by now, but it is our societies tolerance of it which is becoming a serious problem. Where I live there is druggies strung out on our main streets and all over the place now, it wasn't anything like this 10 years ago, still was lots of usage never this public. They go house to house at night stealing whatever isn't bolted down. Absolutely amazing there hasn't been any street justice administered yet. We are at least watching a social experiment in action, how long can we go without the government providing order before some other group steps in and creates it.
 
Frankly, I think a campaigning opportunity was *missed by O’Toole not to point out the hypocrisy of Trudeau/Blair on the whole issue.
O'Toole bungled the gun file completely during the French debate and never recovered. He could've skewered Trudeau and seized the initiative at that point by simply stating that "assault weapons have been banned for 43 years. All you did was plan to spend a billion or more tax dollars to ban sporting and hunting firearms owned by licensed Canadians while letting gangs with illegal guns off scot-free.".
 
Too bad there is a minimum length restriction on bows. Think how much less damage could be done with 6 feet of yew.
 

Just consider a few recent cases where people were acquitted:

R. v. Peter Khill - summary of facts from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on his case: [6] Mr. Khill and his then girlfriend, now wife, Millie Benko, lived in a single-story house in a rural area near Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Khill was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. on February 4, 2016 when Ms. Benko woke him up and told him she had heard a loud banging. Mr. Khill listened and heard two loud bangs. He went to the bedroom window. From the window, he could see his 2001 pickup truck parked in the driveway. The dashboard lights were on indicating, to Mr. Khill, that some person or persons were either in the truck or had been in the truck
...
[7] ... Mr. Khill loaded the shotgun he kept in the bedroom and, armed with the shotgun, went to investigate the noises.

[8] Using techniques he had learned as an army reservist, Mr. Khill stealthily made his way through his house, ending up at the front door of the breezeway connecting the house to the garage.

[10] Mr. Khill said in a loud voice, “Hey, hands up.” Mr. Styres, who apparently had not seen Mr. Khill, began to rise and turn toward Mr. Khill. As he turned, Mr. Khill fired a shot. He immediately racked the shotgun and fired a second shot. Khill said he thought the deceased had a gun and was reaching for it.

Mr. Khill was acquitted by a jury. I'm not sure that I would have acquitted him ... sneaking up on a guy who's ransacking your truck and shooting him twice when he turns around does not seem like a reasonable use of force. Personally, while I think people should have wide latitude to defend themselves inside their homes, if someone was stealing from my car I'd call police but otherwise let them have whatever is in my car. Neither my life nor the thief's life is worth whatever is in my car.

But the point is he was acquitted.
In today's news.

 
In my view, it is actually very unlikely for someone to actually be convicted of defending themselves inside their own home. They will most likely be charged and have to pay a lawyer lots of money and go through the stress of the court process, but they will most likely be acquitted in the end. Just consider a few recent cases where people were acquitted:

R. v. Peter Khill - summary of facts from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on his case: [6] Mr. Khill and his then girlfriend, now wife, Millie Benko, lived in a single-story house in a rural area near Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. Khill was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. on February 4, 2016 when Ms. Benko woke him up and told him she had heard a loud banging. Mr. Khill listened and heard two loud bangs. He went to the bedroom window. From the window, he could see his 2001 pickup truck parked in the driveway. The dashboard lights were on indicating, to Mr. Khill, that some person or persons were either in the truck or had been in the truck
...
[7] ... Mr. Khill loaded the shotgun he kept in the bedroom and, armed with the shotgun, went to investigate the noises.

[8] Using techniques he had learned as an army reservist, Mr. Khill stealthily made his way through his house, ending up at the front door of the breezeway connecting the house to the garage.

[10] Mr. Khill said in a loud voice, “Hey, hands up.” Mr. Styres, who apparently had not seen Mr. Khill, began to rise and turn toward Mr. Khill. As he turned, Mr. Khill fired a shot. He immediately racked the shotgun and fired a second shot. Khill said he thought the deceased had a gun and was reaching for it.

Mr. Khill was acquitted by a jury. I'm not sure that I would have acquitted him ... sneaking up on a guy who's ransacking your truck and shooting him twice when he turns around does not seem like a reasonable use of force. Personally, while I think people should have wide latitude to defend themselves inside their homes, if someone was stealing from my car I'd call police but otherwise let them have whatever is in my car. Neither my life nor the thief's life is worth whatever is in my car.

But the point is he was acquitted. Also there's the case of Gerald Stanley, also acquitted. I could give lots of other examples, but it seems that unless the case is very clearly not one of self defence (like repeatedly striking someone once they're already unconscious, or stabbing someone in retaliation for them saying something offensive) people are most likely to be acquitted. In the case of your friend, I suspect that there was more to the story than what you heard if he was convicted.
You weren't there and neither was I. The SOB won't be robbing anyone else.
 
There are second order effects because of the unique characteristics of the participants.
 
Welcome to Canada.
Common Law across the world has always been based on the principles of Self Defense.

There are second order effects because of the unique characteristics of the participants.
Yes non White Guy shot non White guy...

The Ontario Court of Appeals has some interesting ideas on reasonableness - which if it plays out without an acquittal will really rock the Canada.
 
Because the time for edit went by what I meant was:

The Ontario Court of Appeals has some interesting ideas on reasonableness - which if it plays out without an acquittal will really rock the Canada Criminal Code and how force is applied across the board.
 
"In this case, I am satisfied that a properly instructed jury could find that Mr. Khill's prior conduct, leading up to his use of lethal force, was excessive"

That's awesome. "Excessive prior conduct".
 
"In this case, I am satisfied that a properly instructed jury could find that Mr. Khill's prior conduct, leading up to his use of lethal force, was excessive"

That's awesome. "Excessive prior conduct".
So much for the moment in time that can't be looked at with the benefit of hindsight...

Honestly "Excessive prior conduct" - was it illegal? No, was it wise - maybe not, but it was within his rights as the homeowner.
It was not illegal for him to attempt ascertain the intentions and identify of the deceased.
It wasn't illegal for him to attempt to detain the deceased once he realized the deceased was trying to break into his home.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides everyone the right to use reasonable force up to and including deadly force to protect ones self and others life.

Defence — use or threat of force

  • 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
    • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
    • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
    • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.


That to me is the main issue at stake.

I believe that it is reasonable to believe that one would be open to being assaulted with deadly intent if when one confronts someone at gun point - and ordered them to raise their hands, that then the attempted detainee makes a sudden movement in low light for their body that the person means to do me harm.
 
So much for the moment in time that can't be looked at with the benefit of hindsight...

Honestly "Excessive prior conduct" - was it illegal? No, was it wise - maybe not, but it was within his rights as the homeowner.
It was not illegal for him to attempt ascertain the intentions and identify of the deceased.
It wasn't illegal for him to attempt to detain the deceased once he realized the deceased was trying to break into his home.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides everyone the right to use reasonable force up to and including deadly force to protect ones self and others life.

Defence — use or threat of force

  • 34(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
    • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
    • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
    • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.


That to me is the main issue at stake.

I believe that it is reasonable to believe that one would be open to being assaulted with deadly intent if when one confronts someone at gun point - and ordered them to raise their hands, that then the attempted detainee makes a sudden movement in low light for their body that the person means to do me harm.
The Crown will likely argue that this is Canada, not the US; people don’t carry guns therefore you should not reasonably expect someone breaking into your car at 3:00am in your driveway to hurt you, when confronted…
 
Back
Top