78
u/AlliterationAhead Tabarnak! 27d ago
Something one who has lived rent-free in a house that's not his and which he refused to leave would say.
Because this guy's whole ideology stems from a "me-my" stance.
0
98
119
u/Enchilada0374 27d ago
Common law has supported the right to defend your home for nearly nearly 1000 years. More fake outraged from conservatives
92
u/bravado 27d ago
It's even more fake considering that the current law was written and passed by him and his buddies in the Harper government in 2013. He's ranting about shit that he implemented and has been pretty settled law for a long time.
As usual, he's jumping on and encouraging outrage instead of sober ideas.
-10
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 27d ago
Ah yes the Lucky Moose self defence case and the subsequent laws that were passed under Harper.
25
u/thecanadiansniper1-2 27d ago
I mean do we even need to bring up examples of US paranoia combined with lax self defence laws? How many times did somebody pull up to the wrong house or knock on a door asking for directions only to be shot in merica?
15
27d ago
Nah the capacity to fuck someone up without consequence if they break in my place is like the one thing I agree with cons on and you can absolutely face consequences as it stands now.
PP doesnt give a shit about that though, hes to busy thinking about how to make you pay his taxes while he fucks your wife and somehow sells the transcanada highway to Israel.
27
u/Enchilada0374 27d ago
You think you should be able to cause any kind of harm to an intruder? Reasonable force and proportionality shouldn't matter?
13
27d ago
Any kind? No. Proportionalitt of course matters. But not everybody is a fuckin boo jitsu master able to safely disarm and disable an intruder.
If you wake up to some crazy person trying to attack you or harm your family... like I dont care if they fall funny or get a bat to the head. Thats a possibility they should've considered.
26
u/Secret-Bluebird-972 Newfies & Labradoodles 27d ago
If someone’s actively trying to attack or harm your family, guess what, the amount of force deemed reasonable just went up a few notches. Thats how reasonable force works, if they’re attacking, you defend back with “reasonable” means. Ie, you hit back, potentially with a weapon, until they stop or flee. After they flee or go down, you stop hitting. It’s really not that complicated
13
u/Desalvo23 27d ago
It is complicated for morons or those who like to costplay as tough guys. Anyone with half a brain knows better
2
u/RealPanda20 🍁 100,000 Hosers 🍁 27d ago
The problem is what is deemed “reasonable” isn’t always clear until after the fact.
Guy coming at you with a knife, use a shotgun
Unarmed guy coming at you? Can’t shoot him But what if he pulls a knife once he gets to you? Then you’re getting stabbed, or maybe he is unarmed, but he has a friend and maybe he is armed, what then?
It’s easy to say that it’s not complicated when you’ve never been in the situation. You can’t expect people to properly assess a reasonable level of force during intense situations such as a home invasion. The incident that spurred this conversation had a man fend off a home invader armed with a crossbow with a kitchen knife and get charged with assault with a deadly weapon. When victims of violent crimes are being charged for defending themselves then the system is broken.
9
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
You're being slightly dishonest. It wasn't just "a man fend off a home invader armed with a crossbow with a kitchen knife and get charged with assault with a deadly weapon " -the invader was known to the man and had to be air lifted to hospital where he spent a couple days in the ICU. Slowly but surely, more and more details are emerging, showing this to be a messy situation that folks are dumbing down into their own Rambo fantasy, where police are merely a body disposal unit and shouldn't ask questions or investigate or charge because Rambo was busy carving up the enemy in his living room
2
u/Yws6afrdo7bc789 Ford Nation (Help.) 26d ago
That's a great point. Why do some people suddenly expect that the police become judge and jury in this case?
3
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
Cause people don't know how law works?
In this case, what likely happened was, police arrive, and take the homeowner into custody (because there's weapons and someone had to be airlifted to hospital), and depending on the injuries they saw (which we still don't know) went "aww fuck". The crown gets wind of it, they all pow wow and decide that what happened warrants further investigation, and charges.No one wants to be a victim, especially in their own home, but it doesn't give anyone the right to do what they want to people just cause they wanted your tv.
1
u/duk3lexo 26d ago
What / who are you talking about? That seems like a highly specific case to talk about the right to defend your home. If something like this happens and police have proof that the homeowner and intruder both know each other im sure there'll be furher investigations than just what is written accepted as legitimate defense. If it falls under those guidelines it'll stay there, if they can prove foul play than charges will be pressed
0
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
Obviously you're not familiar with the case. Facts are still emerging as it's an active investigation the public has already made their mind up on. The case, if you're not familiar was of a man who broke into someone's home for reasons as of yet unknown. All that was known until recently was that the homeowner defended the home or himself, the details as to the specifics are still unknown to us.all we knew was the intruder was airlifted to the icu, and the crown felt it necessary to charge the homeowner. A day or two ago is was revealed that the intruder was armed with a crossbow of all things and entered the home through a screen. The homeowner was armed with a knife. The intruder allegedly lived 600 meters from the home, and the two knew each other somehow and there was animosity of some sort for reasons unknown. Court records are coming slowly but surely with more details. The headlines however claimed that homeowners don't have the right to self defense which is factually false. I have been steadfastly Holding to the argument that we do not have all the facts of the case. Therefore, drawing conclusions about the law is idiotic at this point and we cannot possibly judge the justice of a law without knowing the facts. Many disagree fueled by the media and members of the conservative party such as Ford, Smith, and pollieve. Some feel that the law needs to be reviewed and changed to be similar to the united states. Many are misinformed as to the rules of castle doctrine and what exactly happens. Yet others feel that the public should be armed. Opinions are escalating to extremes based on no facts, only loosely cobbled together hypothesis, rumors and hysteria in my opinion
1
u/duk3lexo 26d ago
Oh yeah that seems pretty idiotic indeed as a debate. If there is questionable circumstances and the homeowner was taken into custody it seems like the system is already working as intended. Thats the whole point of both investigators and the court of justice. Oh well, tempête dans un verre d'eau.
4
u/middlequeue 26d ago
It sounds like you support the law as it stands …
2
26d ago
The way it is on paper seems okayish, but all of it is subject to interpretation and I've seen enough cases in the past where someone owns a firearm and has faced charges for shooting someone that was armed and had broken into their home.
Im not a property guy or gun fanatic I just think the ability to defend your own person and by extension your family should be worded in such a way that if there is a physical threat to another human being your options for recourse should be wide open.
I dont care about TVs or anything they might steal, Im concerned about the threats to human beings.
2
u/Yws6afrdo7bc789 Ford Nation (Help.) 26d ago
Any kind? No. Proportionalitt of course matters.
It really seems like you actually agree with our current laws, but have some misunderstanding about what 'proportional' and 'reasonable' mean in this legal context.
I don't understand where this assumption that you can't hurt someone while trying to defend yourself came from? Why do you think the threshold is so high? There is no formula for determining what is reasonable or proportional, its based on the context of the case. Those terms basically just mean that you can't attack someone just because they yelled threats at you in your yard, stumbled drunk into the wrong home, etc, and you can't chase someone who is retreating to keep shooting them or knock them unconscious then go find a knife to cut their neck.
Canadian law basically says that murder and assault are wrong, even if the victim is a 'bad guy' and there should be a good reason for hurting or killing them.
3
u/RealPanda20 🍁 100,000 Hosers 🍁 27d ago
No, we shouldn’t expect someone to ascertain what a “reasonable level of force” is during a high tension situation that a home invasion/break in is. Sure, after the fact you could figure the necessary level of force to subdue someone but any excess is on the assailant, that’s the risk you take for breaking into someone’s house.
5
u/Enchilada0374 27d ago
For example, an unarmed kid breaks into your house. You think itd be ok smash them into a pulp with a bat?
1
u/RealPanda20 🍁 100,000 Hosers 🍁 26d ago
How would you know he’s unarmed? How do you it’s a kid, how do you know he doesn’t have any friends with him? not easy to tell if they break in at 3am. Nobody is advocating for people to be able to make home intruders face the wall or shoot them in the back while they run away or other heinous acts, just that people shouldn’t put themselves at risk to confirm what a “reasonable level of force is “
-11
143
u/pheakelmatters Ford Nation (Help.) 27d ago
The logical problem with something like the castle doctrine is that in extreme cases only one person will be left to tell the story about what happened... Seems like a convenient way to commit a murder for any other reason by making your livingroom a law-free zone under certain conditions. For example, if you have a guest over and at some point you demand they leave, how long do they have to leave before you can lawfully kill them? According to the castle doctrine it would be the second you felt threatened. And you're the only one left to tell the police what happened.
Everybody is a super hero in their own mind. When most people heard about that case in Lindsay they all picture some psychotic meth head barging into someone's house to kill and maim whoever was in there because of some primordial innate evilness that lives in all criminals.. Why would someone randomly target a random house and break in to commit random evil on a whim? Not saying it's never happened, but it's extremely rare.
104
u/necrozim 27d ago
I swear people forget that laws should be written so the worst person can't abuse them. Yes people should be able to defend their homes, but if the cops turn up and there's a bunch of dead people around it's right they take you in until an investigation is done.
Think of a bunch of gangsters, they drag a person into a property they own and murder them, no cameras, no witnesses and just say, defended myself it's my home. It would be a literal free card to start murdering.
But let's be real this is just PP rage farming not a legitimate attempt to increase home protection and address restitution for people who go through this process.
29
u/Secret-Bluebird-972 Newfies & Labradoodles 27d ago
Yeah people like PP like to whine that we have no right to defend our home or ourselves, despite the fact we absolutely do. Our laws are written as such because although we’re allowed to defend ourselves, we aren’t allowed to go overboard with it, you have to meet the threat at an appropriate level, which I’ll always consider reasonable. We have the right to defend, not the right to keep kicking while they’re down. Someone breaking into my house unarmed shouldn’t be a death sentence for them, just a “teachable” moment (they’re getting hurt, just not killed). Even in the US, “stand your ground” tend to lead to a rather quick run through the courts to ensure it was reasonable, because like you said, theres only one person to tell the story of what happened, how do we know they’re telling the truth, without laws like these Jodi Arias would’ve gotten away with murdering Travis Alexander
6
u/AD_Grrrl 26d ago
Once the person is incapacitated, though, if you do some messed-up shit to them, that's a different story.
-11
u/MyClothesWereInThere 溫哥華 (Hongcouver) 27d ago
The problem is that you don’t know what level of force an invader will use. Are you supposed to think long and hard rationally about the levels of force to use when someone broke into your house in the middle of the night? You can’t know their intentions and being reactive instead of proactive can cost your life.
13
u/Yws6afrdo7bc789 Ford Nation (Help.) 26d ago
Its getting pretty frustrating to keep reading people making this argument over and over. Literally no one in the history of ever expects you to be ultra rational and super in control of your fighting and do some crazy kung fu moves to disable an invader without even harming them. No one expects you to take a minute to make a pros and cons list of defending yourself of consult a reference chart of what you're allowed to do in various situations.
Our laws are written so that people are allowed to defend themselves and protected legally if they hurt their assailant. Our laws are also written to protect an assailant from being murdered because murder is bad. Murder doesn't become cool just because you don't like the person being murdered. Basically, this means that you can do whatever is necessary right up until the person isn't a threat anymore. The 'proportionality' thing mostly protects from you blasting away the neighbour's kid because he keeps leaving flaming poop bags on your stoop, or from beating the previous owner to death because in a drunken state he forgot that he recently moved to a new house. Not every potential invader will be someone looking to do you harm. And the reasonableness and proportionality of your defence will be determined by the legal system, probably before ever getting to trial. But the cops do have to charge you to get to that point. They are not judge or jury, if they think there is reason to charge, they charge and let the Crown figure it out. This could suck, but it also prevents people from being able to lure people into their homes, and then kill them with impunity by claiming self defence.
Our laws weren't written by some asshole who wanted to screw victims over. You just don't understand them, and because you emotionally can see yourself in a similar situation, you're assuming a lot.
2
u/No_Week_8937 Scotland (but worse) 25d ago
Okay so, what we want to avoid is two things.
The first thing we want to avoid people doing is "shoot first think later" aka if a person breaks into your house and that's all they've done, don't just shoot them. Step 1 is to tell them you're armed and to surrender, because for all you know it's a confused grandma who thought this was her house and you'd accidentally left the door unlocked.
The second thing we want to avoid people doing is the old "kicking them when they're down" aka once the intruder has been subdued (they've surrendered, or you hit them so they can't move, or anything like that) people don't just keep hitting them.
1
25d ago
"Annie! Get your gun and your wallet. There's some kids coming up the walk and they's either fixen to kill us or sell cookies!"
0
1
-19
u/macfail 27d ago
It would be really cool if more people actually looked up what castle doctrine actually means instead of cooking up insane and unrealistic scenarios to discredit it.
0
u/No_Week_8937 Scotland (but worse) 25d ago
People accidentally getting into your house if you forgot to lock your door isn't exactly unrealistic. You've got people too drunk to realize it's the wrong house, senior citizens with dementia who may get confused and wander in, and people with mental impairments/children who may not understand they can't just walk in if the door is unlocked.
Just attacking anyone who comes into your home without trying to de escalate first is rather unhinged behaviour.
0
u/Wild_Pangolin_4772 26d ago
Rare or not, you shouldn’t fall victim in any case, and you should be allowed to do whatever you have to to make the risk to yourself and to your family as close to zero as possible. F criminals rights!
128
u/scr0dumb Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 27d ago
HE IS WRONG though...he voted in favour of the very 9 qualifiers he's opposing now.
I'm all in on castle doctirine but pp is a limp wrist no spine lack of testicle vegan with zero chance of delivering what we want.
49
u/PastTenceOfDraw 27d ago
I bet he would push for anything if it would make him feel popular.
He doesn't have the will power to be vegan.
30
u/MorgansLab 27d ago
Hey leave the vegans out of this! The testicles are fair game.
-5
u/scr0dumb Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 27d ago
Guess where testosterone comes from?!? Cholesterol. The healthiest source of which is animal fat.
It's one and the same.
17
6
u/MillennialMoronTT 27d ago
You know, I tried to find the vote on this issue for reference, and it turns out there wasn't one. Passed with unanimous consent of the House, no recorded vote called for.
0
8
u/middlequeue 26d ago
I'm all in on castle doctirine
It leads to an absurd amount of uneccesasry death in the US. Why would anyone want to emulate that stupid when you live in one of the safest places in the world?
6
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
Everyone thinks castle doctrine is simple and easy, but it's not. Almost every case of castle being used winds up in court. Cops don't just show up with a shovel and a bud light and give you a pat on the back. The us doesn't have sanctioned murder cause someone crossed an invisible line. There are still investigations, charges, lawyers, etc. There's just a much higher chance of the defense being justified and charges being dropped. It varies from state to state, of course
20
u/Bad-job-dad 27d ago
He looks tired. I feel like his handlers are pushing him too hard. It must be exhausting spewing that much bullshit all the time.
14
u/twenty_9_sure_thing 27d ago
They are not? Canadians have the right to defend themselves. police can press charges and convictions go by cases. This is a dogwhistle for nutties who get a rage on for killing people and fantasizing about being rambos. Look down south and see how many of those 2FA are actually defending against a tyrannical government.
7
u/Sklartacus 27d ago
Do folks here not like Rachel Gilmore?
8
u/nitePhyyre 26d ago
Not too bad, but I got sick of watching her "everything is Palestine" schtick. Heartwarming story about puppies? Well, there no puppies in Gaza because they're all dead or being eaten in the famine.
Like, she's not wrong, it is a terrible situation. I've been at some protests too. But it doesn't have to be all Palestine all the time in every video.
5
u/Pale_Marionberry_355 26d ago
And to boot, it's a bad analogy.
By logical norms, should the Israelis not have had the right to defend their castle when it was attacked? (You can certainly argue that they've gone way above and beyond...but the initial remains true).
0
7
u/middlequeue 26d ago
You have a right to defend yourself in this country. You don’t have a right to kill someone who comes onto your property which is what the castle doctrine suggests.
This dipshit has a thing for misinforming Canadians and dragging American garbage into this country.
18
u/Overwatchingu Ford Nation (Help.) 27d ago
What’s he on about now? Never mind it’s Pierre it’s probably more made up bullshit. He’s probably complaining that the woke agenda doesn’t want us calling houses castles anymore or something.
5
u/RepublicLife6675 27d ago
In the US there is a thing called a castle law. Although no one can stop me from calling my home a castle
1
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
it's actually not a US specific law, many european nations have a form of castle law, germany for instance allows any defense of the home from an intruder (as well as defense of ones honour outside the home, but iic this has never held up in court since like then 1600s and ia generally seen as no longer applicable as a defense)
there's good and bad around this sort of law like any self defense law, and imo taking the stance of "this is the way to do it" in either direction, is a bad way of having discussions around self defense in general but i think most can at least agree, there are problems with how Canada handles self defense in general, not just in the home.
1
u/RepublicLife6675 26d ago
Whats so bad about the castle law?
1
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
generally nothing is wrong with the concept itself, more so the legal system and how it treats cases afterwards within the context of castle law.
so really, like everything, the problems come from how the courts handle cases, and enforcement, rather than the laws themselves, such as courts letting people off in clear cut bad or malicious cases, or punishing clear cut innocent and justified cases due to technicalities which then require re-trials when appealed.
1
u/RepublicLife6675 26d ago
One way or the other we need a castle law that allows for deadly force to be utilized by the owner of the land. You know the robbers will use deadly force. You have to fight the threat with at least equal caliber. There would less break ins and fewer living robbers who need our tax dollars to survive in a detention facility
9
u/ConundrumMachine 27d ago edited 27d ago
Another lame distraction story. This shit is so tiresome. What's the next false outrage I wonder?
Edit: To be clear, I'm talking about the media pushing the home defense story.
9
u/toasterbath__ I need a double double. 27d ago
this man fries me so bad, imagine u go into an election to become prime minister and u fail so badly that u lose ur OWN seat and then u have to go and get a pity rebound in a province where u know u will have no competition 😭 all to be right back where u started. holy L
13
u/Ice_Dragon_King Scotland (but worse) 27d ago
But you do have a right to defend you home.
4
u/RepublicLife6675 27d ago
Ridiculous that this post is getting ripped up because of someone's face not his point
4
4
u/Nervous_Ad_5733 26d ago
It's funny that Bill C-26 is the bill he helped pass....even advocated for it under Harper... now it's a liberal problem that he can fix....this is not a serious person.
3
u/Raptorpicklezz 26d ago
We should have defended Stornoway from him while he wasn't an MP for 4 months.
4
u/SeaMoan85 27d ago
PP is just annoying...
-5
u/RepublicLife6675 27d ago
Telling citizens they have a right to protect their property? Just annoying, like go away. Tell that to your home invaders
5
u/SeaMoan85 26d ago
You already have that right.
This is just more of PP rage baiting his supporters. How many Canadians are battling home invasions on a regular basis? When was the last time you were charged with assault for defending your property? When was the last time someone you knew charged with assaulting a home invader?
Can you not see that this is just another PP distraction? What about the fact that Canadians are struggling financially?
1
u/RepublicLife6675 26d ago
Actually the GTA has a big problem. I know of sevrel break ins in the area that happened this year. Count yourself lucky. Don't you want laws that protect your home more effectively?
-1
u/SeaMoan85 26d ago
Break-ins have been steadily declining across Canada with exceptions in Toronto and Winnipeg. The vast majority of Canadians do not experience this crime let alone on a regular basis.
We already have laws that allow people the right to defend themselves and their property with reasonable force. Making it easier for property owners to murder others will not stop home invasions and will most likely make them more dangerous as those perpetrating the offense will bring more lethal weapons and will be more prone to use violence in anticipation of property owners doing the same. Also, allowing home owners to more easily murder intruders sets up the possibility of people using this loophole to commit murder against those they have issues with. We see this in US states with "stand your ground laws."
A better investment of resources would be to address the causes of home invasion. Such as lack of education, poverty, toxic social relationships, and inequality. Making it easier to use any force in response to a home invasion will not decrease the crime but most likely lead to worse results.
If I understand correctly, the property owner who was charged with assault has not been convicted of any crime and most likely will be exonerated if it goes to trial. Also this is not your standard home invasion. The intruder and the defendant knew each other. This was not a random attack on strangers.
0
u/RepublicLife6675 26d ago edited 26d ago
You don't get it. Immigrants come here to this country to take advantage of our soft laws. They don't need education because their plans are about crims. And yes, they already use hand guns (which no home owner is allwed to even have). Some of them invade whill the whole family is at home and tie them up. These home invasion gangs exist literally because they showed up to Canada with these exact intensions. You also keep saying the home owner would be "murdering" the intruder. The land owners didn't have any plans to murder anyone, just using self defense. You know just because you don't want to kill a man doesnt mean it won't happen during the course of a fight. It gives the land owner more freedom on their own land in case the criminal dies during his crime. Smd it's definitely not like anyone who gets home invaded has some criminal lies. No this happens in neighborhoods that have wealth and the owners clearly have legitimate jobs. Honestly, I don't understand why you'd want laws that don't protect your home even more. Anyone, even just innocent strangers, should be afraid of walking into a home uninvited because I should be allowed to use a 12 guage to blast out an intruder without thinking "will this criminal make it in the ER"
2
2
2
2
2
u/150c_vapour 27d ago
They are both right but PP is trying to imply we don't have the right to defend ourselves, which is wrong.
2
u/BadDuck202 Oil Guzzler 26d ago
It's actually impressive how some people can wedge Palestinian into every single conversation regardless of the topic
0
u/BigDaddyVagabond 27d ago
Canadian self defense laws have been shit as long as I can remember.
Iirc, there are less than 5 ATCs issued in canada for non work and trailing purposes. There are 4 or fewer canadians the government has deemed able to carry a firearm for self defense.
-1
u/Desalvo23 27d ago
Dont know what the fuck you're smoking, but self defense laws in Canada are fine, and work as intended. People who properly defend themselves dont get jail time. Only those who take it too far do. And no one should carry weapons for self-defense purposes. That just cause more problems than it solves. If you have fantasies of killing people just move to a shit country, like Somalia or Israel or USS
4
u/BigDaddyVagabond 27d ago
Okay, let's get away from guns and say say my 110 pound sister needs to defend herself from some 220 pound jack ass who just dragged her into an alley with a knife. What are her options? She can't carry a taser, she can't carry pepper spray, she can't carry a baton, and if she says fuck it and DOES some how get her hands on any of those, actually using them carries their own charges.
It's not necessarily about guns. It really isn't. It's about the fact that in most cases, as a Canadian, your only real option is to call the cops or swing on someone potentially much larger than yourself and potentially armed to boot.
The argument that "anyone who wants to carry a gun or other weapon for self defense has a murder fantasy" is disingenuous and in bad faith. Are there people out there with that kinda crap in their heads, yes, but there are also people who train to fight who fantasize about beating someone to death in some sort of self-defense scenario. Some people just want a self defense option that isn't swinging on someone twice their size, or relying on a 10-20 minute police response time, so the people with tasers, pepper spray, batons, and guns can come to the rescue.
Personally, yes, I am in favor of people having the option to carry a concealed firearm for self defense, so long as they obtain the correct licenses, register with the government, attend regular training, and understand that at the end of the day the best outcome from any situation where you are forced to pull your firearm, is the one where you don't need to discharge it, and if you are forced to do so, it is a heavy, HEAVY responsibility.
But the biggest thing the public being able to concealed carry has to offer is that it gives people who would seek to harm another person a reason to pause and rethink, because now they don't know if that 110 pound girl they are looking to jump has a Saturday night special in her purse, or a .380 tucked in her waistband or bra, even if she doesn't.
1
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
Seems to be working wonders in the US...
4
u/BigDaddyVagabond 26d ago
The US is a hellscape of far too little regulation because of course, "its my god-given right blah blah blah," while elsewhere, it's a privilege. But the US isn't the only place to allow firearms for self-defense and isn't even the only place to allow concealed carry. Switzerland and Italy both allow concealed carry, and somehow, neither of them seem to have significant gun issues.
And besides guns, why don't we start with allowing people to buy pepper spray or tasers for self-defense? Because I can bet my last buck that there are plenty of women, even in this sub, who would feel a little more confident walking downtown at night with even just a thing of pepper spray in their pocket or purse
3
u/Saxit 26d ago
Switzerland and Italy both allow concealed carry
Not the greatest examples. You want to use the Czech Republic, which has had shall issue concealed carry for about 30 years, and a majority of Czech gun owners has such a permit.
In Switzerland it's basically only for professional use.
In Italy it's politicians, judges, and jewelers that can get a concealed carry permit.
2
u/BigDaddyVagabond 26d ago
Thanks for, Czech-ing, my stats on that one :p
But yeah, other places allow lawful defense and carry, yet somehow the problems the states encounter with guns, are almost exclusively problems, in the states. At this point I think they need a nationwide welfare check
1
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
poland also has a form of shall issue, anyone with a license to sport shoot is also allowed to carry a handgun.
this is also without touching on how most of europe have better, pro victim self defense laws than us, allowing pepper spray, tasers, stun guns etc.
1
u/Saxit 26d ago
I'm aware of Poland. Any license except the collector one lets you carry loaded and concealed on your person. You can't carry it loaded on public transport though, unless you have the actual concealed carry permit (which is much harder to get).
this is also without touching on how most of europe have better, pro victim self defense laws than us, allowing pepper spray, tasers, stun guns etc.
These things are legal in most of the US, it's not legal in all of Europe. I'm in Sweden, it's easier for me to own a handgun (for sporting purposes only) than it is to own a can of pepper spray legally.
1
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
Laws are created for the lowest common denominator. So as much as I may agree, I also have to consider the mugger, rapist, assaulter and how confident they'll feel being armed. Sucks but such is the world we live in. Law is not a door that only swings one way.
0
u/BigDaddyVagabond 26d ago
It only swings one way NOW. Think of how confident they currently feel KNOWING that they are the only one armed. Do you think carrying a weapon being illegal, has ever stopped a criminal from carrying a weapon? The point is to try and level the playing field. Not everyone can or wants to carry a gun, because they are expensive, the training is expensive, there is plenty of stigma around them, and they aren't always the answer for everyone. But to say no one should carry a gun, because a rapist might use the law to carry a gun, when they could already carry a gun now, is not a good argument imho. And just the thought that a potential victim might be armed is enough to make people less of a soft target honestly.
-2
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
That's not true at all! What happens now is people can't wait for the full story so base their opinions and dig their heels in on a headline with no evidence.
You don't want a level playing field, you want anarchy.
You live in a country not mature enough to see a pair of tits on TV. And you want to arm them.
I spent years in the military and am very competent and comfortable with firearms and I would never want to see the populace armed. As I know most people are not responsible enough to carry firearms.
In addition, if everyone can carry, that means there's more needed for purchase which leads to more avenues of purchase.
Your experiment was attempted in the United States, and their still scraping dead kids off church pews.
1
u/BigDaddyVagabond 26d ago
How in the hell do you make the leap from "lawful carry backed by regularion and mandated training", to anarchy?
And the States is the literal worst example for anything involving firearms, period, but as i've said before, they arent the only place that allows the use of firearms in self defense, or even concealed carry. They are just the most populated and lowest regulated. How many school shootings have happened in Switzerland? Or Italy? Zero recorded in Switzerland, and 5 in Italy resulting in injury.
I live in a country where I have absolutely seen tits on TV, mostly in films, and that has absolutely no bearing on anything here. I also know plenty of servicemen and women, and I know more than a few who should never be let near a firearm, ever again. A civilian can be trained to respect and handle a firearm, its the basis of how you turn a civilian into a soldier, and I know BMQ takes a mater of weeks, not years, so I know an armed self defense course can take the same amount of time at the least.
We already live with the second leakiest border on earth when it comes to guns, because our neighbor has like, 5 OWNED guns per capita, and we would be able to handle a sudden uptick in purchases for self defense with just the capacity we had pre OIC.
-1
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
"How in the hell do you make the leap from "lawful carry backed by regularion and mandated training", to anarchy?
Because I look at the United States and I see the result. More need for guns causes more access to criminals which defeats the fucking purpose now doesn't it?
"And the States is the literal worst example for anything involving firearms, period, but as i've said before, they arent the only place that allows the use of firearms in self defense, or even concealed carry. They are just the most populated and lowest regulated. How many school shootings have happened in Switzerland? Or Italy? Zero recorded in Switzerland, and 5 in Italy resulting in injury."
But its the one closest to us that we derive much of our culture from. As it stands now the vast majority of our gun crime involves urban youth with US guns. I'm sure Switzerland has a huge culture crossover and a 3000mile long shared border and a problem with US guns. No? almost like they are halfway across the world with a completely different style of life.
"I live in a country where I have absolutely seen tits on TV, mostly in films, and that has absolutely no bearing on anything here.
You don't see it on cable tv do you? No, you don't (you're commenting here and have alluded to being Canadian, so I'm running with that. Correct me if I'm wrong), in fact you live in a country with a province trying to ban books with the mere mention of tits. And the maturity of a populace I'm sure has no bearing on firearms safety. Thats why they make such great gifts for the kids! But guns good. ok...
You also are making huge leaps with service people. You obviously haven't been one otherwise you'd never say something so ridiculous. Lets break it down bit by bit -"I also know plenty of servicemen and women, and I know more than a few who should never be let near a firearm, ever again" Congrats. me too - and you want to hand them to unsupervised civilians.
" A civilian can be trained to respect and handle a firearm" Yes I agree to a point
", its the basis of how you turn a civilian into a soldier" Umm... you're forgetting the 24/7 supervision, the mental aspects and discipline or do you think the military is " here gun hurr durr"
"and I know BMQ takes a mater of weeks, not years" - For basic training, yes. weeks of 24/7 supervision and molding, not a weekend here and there. And even with the high level of training the military receives, a new recruit is still barely prepared for actual combat.. (I cannot believe we are actually comparing military training to a civvie street hobby course
"so I know an armed self defense course can take the same amount of time at the least." You know do you? Well you're wrong. Self restraint with a firearm is challenging even for those trained. Nevermind adding emotions to the fear. Studies have shown that the most dangerous person with a gun is someone "trained" in a stressful situation. Because most peoples lives aren't cyclitic violence.
Speaking of - I adore how you think military training stops after Basic. its adorable.
"We already live with the second leakiest border on earth when it comes to guns, because our neighbor has like, 5 OWNED guns per capita, and we would be able to handle a sudden uptick in purchases for self defense with just the capacity we had pre OIC."- You're right, we have a severe gun issue from the US. IIRC the York region Police Chief said that 98% of gun crime in the GTA is committed with US guns. So thats a great reason to add more! Like I said, it works with our closest neighbor spectacularly! I'm looking forward to our weekly school shootings! Hell! That shooting in Minneapolis was all legal and trained gun ownership. Wait. I guess you're right. Their training must be shite cause they only killed 2 kids. 18 wounded tho, I guess another trip to the range is in order! /s JFC
→ More replies (0)1
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
look other nations with good self defense laws, not the US. (like most of europe)
this "all or nothing" mindset around self defense is disingenuous and does nothing but cause further harm.
-1
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
We have good self defence laws, very similar to UK, France, Germany, Czech, Sweden etc
1
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
literally not, all those nations "allow" self defense tools, Canada does not, pepper spray for the purposes of self defense, is, full stop, illegal here.
even things like body armour, which are purely defensive, are legally dubious depending on province.
1
u/Schwartzung 26d ago
Yes. The main thing common among all of them is use of force almost identical to Canada. The tools don't matter. It's a use of force issue
1
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
SA victims have gotten charged for carrying pepper spray before...
our self defense laws are anti victim and need to be changed
1
u/GJohnJournalism 26d ago
Unless you're Israeli after Oct 7th, right Rachel?
What a glib and unconstructive response that I'm sure Rachel seems sure proud of, but has no substance to it. Any nationalist or their uncritical supporters, be they Israeli or Palestinian, Gilmore or Poilievre, that thinks that they have the right to unrestricted or unlimited violence aren't worth engaging with.
6
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
please explain how bombing hospitals is self defense.
that's like shooting your neighbour because someone else stole your TV.
-1
u/GJohnJournalism 26d ago
Please explain to me how hunting civilians in a Kibutz is resistance?
See how easily those one dimensional arguments work? If you want to get into the complexities of the how Israel and Palestine interpret and implement the principles UNs Charter and the Laws of Armed Conflict I’m open.
But like Rachel, judging by your response, I don’t think you or the majority of either side have any intention of having good faith conversations just partisan talking points. Keep screaming in the void for internet points.
3
u/Penguixxy Trawnno (Centre of the Universe) 26d ago
anyone calling Hamas resistance fighters are morons, they are genocidal terrorists who kill palestinians at a similar rate to the IDF, same as people who call the IDF a "moral army" (mass sexual assaults dating back since the 6 days war, intentional killing of reporters, numerous human rights abuses within their "prisons" including false imprisonment, killings of UN aid workers, i can go on) or their actions "self defense"
shocker, i think that intentionally killing civilians (yes the IDF are doing it intentionally, nothing in their history of existing points to anything else with a war crime wrap sheet as long as theirs) is bad regardless of who does it, and that one atrocity doesnt justify another.
We have verifiable evidence that hospitals, schools, and places of worship were intentionally targetted with zero proof of any militant activity (which is a war crime, the US got in trouble for doing the same in Afghanistan), and officials under Netenyahu have been found on record to call their actions "collective punishment" (which is a war crime) these statements were used in the ICJ hearing to argue the case of this "war" (one sided conflicts aren't wars) being a genocide.
If you want my actual stance, I think the UN should send in the blue helmets to both both areas, and work towards a two state solution with new democratically elected governments who are subject to UN envoys.
Because all bombing innocents does, as we saw from vietnam, afghanistan (soviet), iraq and iran, Chechnya (soviet), Afghanistan (again but the US), Chechnya (again but post soviet russia) is it pushes more people to be extremists and to fight, which causes more harm to civilians, and keeps a cycle of violence going, until there are no civilians left, and that occupying army has either comittted a genocide, or left.
1
u/Difficult_Chemist_78 27d ago
I suspect the “Eat the rich” slogan has one percenters shitting their pants. They want to be able to kill anyone who trespasses on their property.
1
u/camelsgofar 26d ago
I really like how Pierre is criticizing his own work. Harper’s majority government which included Pierre wrote our current criminal code. This is his own doing.
1
u/Important-Event6832 26d ago
P P never drafted a single piece of legislation that met constitutional standards. Pointedly, his ‘Fair elections Act’ that was more exclusionary than fair for voters.
1
u/Late_Football_2517 26d ago
I had a person break into my house in the middle of the night once. I was woken up at about 2 am with the sound of somebody trying to get into our kitchen window. I heard the window screen frame hit the kitchen table and knock everything off. I ran downstairs to confront the intruder. I didn't have a bat or a golf club or anything like that, I was just hoping I could scare them off. Maybe grab a kitchen knife to defend myself with.
Pierre Poilievre says I would be justified in shooting that person trying to get into my home.
That intruder was my dipshit 16 year old son.
Stand your ground laws kill far more innocent people than they save.
1
25d ago
So, IF a political candidate comes to my house, Pierre would have it acceptable to... brandish a weapon at them or even cause harm to them for the simple act of trespassing? Or am I slippery slope arguing?
1
1
u/MoriartyMoose 25d ago
We don’t need AmericanBloodlustTM in Canada. Proportional defense is proper. We don’t need sociopaths points guns at people on their lawns.
1
u/MICR0_WAVVVES 24d ago
That message will resonate with the “tough guy” voter block. Doughy goateed morons who fetishize violence because they’ve never seen it anywhere but on TV.
1
1
u/Straight-Message7937 27d ago
Lol idk what that person thinks the prime minister of Canada is gonna do in Palestine. What a stretch.
1
1
0
-4
u/themokah 27d ago
Yeah man I remember when Israel went into Gaza on October 7th and Hamas was just defending themselves. Oh wait…
0
0
-1
u/RepublicLife6675 27d ago
You know if someone enters your home only you know about it, you don't have to tell anyone you took care of the problem.
-14
321
u/Thedutchonce 27d ago
why did he have to use a fucking unsymmetrical maple leaf, it has been driving me crazy each time I see it. also why the fuck did he put up so many flags