Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 62
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against
    criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13
    seconds.151 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that
    they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
    Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

    151 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995
    ,

    Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a
    warning shot to scare off their attackers.

    Fact: When using guns in self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.155

    155 National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000
    All well and good but I do not understand what it has to do with my post.

  2. #41
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,301
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    All well and good but I do not understand what it has to do with my post.
    it seemed your assertion was that by brandishing a firearm was dangerous and counterproductive.

    When if fact, in times of danger brandishing a firearm can save your life
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    474
    http://www.nationalpost.com/related/...608/story.html

    Canadians don't have a right to bear arms. Much less restrain a theif.
    ENJOY THE RIDE

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    It appears we are playing spin games now...

    I clearly stated in my post the issue of no respect for other's property... and we have been talking about fire-bombing one's personal property...

    Now somehow the topic gets changed to kids playing hide and seek... Sounds suspiciously like someone is more of a spin-master than seeking to learn.

    When all parties learn to respect each other in discussion (rather than play games), I may (or may not) return to the discussion.

    Respect is a two way street Printer... when you show it to me... you may get it back.

    For now, I am out of this thread.
    No it is not spin games. The quote about the kids and the guy with the shotgun was brought up and I responded to it. Now as far as what steps the law (In Canada) allows you to take depends on the circumstance. In that context my post makes perfectly good sense. You have a right to take actions on your property to protect it and yourself but it must be a measured response. If you do not understand this concept then you will not be able to understand why I brought up kids playing in your yard, kids having no respect for your property, someone destroying your property, someone threatening your safety. I actually think you understand this concept but feel that it does not apply to yourself so you are going away mad.

  5. #44
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,301
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    No it is not spin games. The quote about the kids and the guy with the shotgun was brought up and I responded to it. Now as far as what steps the law (In Canada) allows you to take depends on the circumstance. In that context my post makes perfectly good sense. You have a right to take actions on your property to protect it and yourself but it must be a measured response. If you do not understand this concept then you will not be able to understand why I brought up kids playing in your yard, kids having no respect for your property, someone destroying your property, someone threatening your safety. I actually think you understand this concept but feel that it does not apply to yourself so you are going away mad.
    I think we have boiled this down to the fact that Canada doesn't have the freedoms we do in America.

    Even in the most restricted parts of America, one can defend your property from a Fire bombing and not worry to much about whether your going to be arrested for something as lame as brandishing, especially after the firearm has been secured
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    it seemed your assertion was that by brandishing a firearm was dangerous and counterproductive.

    When if fact, in times of danger brandishing a firearm can save your life
    You still seem to mistake my stating the law's view of thing with being my own.

    Stop that.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    I think we have boiled this down to the fact that Canada doesn't have the freedoms we do in America.

    Even in the most restricted parts of America, one can defend your property from a Fire bombing and not worry to much about whether your going to be arrested for something as lame as brandishing, especially after the firearm has been secured
    I never disputed that fact. Mind you somehow we ended up with a less violent society, not sure if the lack of rights has anything to do with it.

    Oh, and don't forget, the Crown has not made any of the charges stick yet.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,301
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    You still seem to mistake my stating the law's view of thing with being my own.

    Stop that.
    your country, your law. your view of that law may differ, but still
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Criminal Code of Canada

    What is a common assault? The Great YCJA Debate 2011
    Assault Sections

    Defence of Person

    Self-defence against unprovoked assault


    34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

    Extent of justification


    (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

    (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

    (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

    Self-defence in case of aggression


    35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

    (a) he uses the force

    (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and

    (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

    (b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and

    (c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

    Provocation


    36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.

    Preventing assault


    37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

    Extent of justification


    (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.



    Assault


    265. (1) A person commits an assault when

    (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

    (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

    (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

    Application


    (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

    Consent


    (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

    (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

    (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

    (c) fraud; or

    (d) the exercise of authority.

    Accused's belief as to consent


    (4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 244; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 21; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

    Assault


    266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    R.S., c. C-34, s. 245; 1972, c. 13, s. 21; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 22; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

    Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm


    267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

    (a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

    (b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

    is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 267; 1994, c. 44, s. 17.

    Aggravated assault


    268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

    Punishment


    (2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

    Excision


    (3) For greater certainty, in this section, "wounds" or "maims" includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where

    (a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or

    (b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.

    Consent


    (4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 268; 1997, c. 16, s. 5.

    Unlawfully causing bodily harm


    269. Every one who unlawfully causes bodily harm to any person is guilty of

    (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 269; 1994, c. 44, s. 18.
    http://www.lawyers.ca/statutes/crimi...da_assault.htm

  10. #49
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,301
    Quote Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
    I never disputed that fact. Mind you somehow we ended up with a less violent society, not sure if the lack of rights has anything to do with it.

    Oh, and don't forget, the Crown has not made any of the charges stick yet.
    Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of
    gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By
    1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a
    significant increase. 40 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of
    the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).41

    40 Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, at 360

    41 Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  11. #50
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,301
    so to boil it down to it essence: If you defend your self in Canada, your going to jail, probably for a long time
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  12. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    so to boil it down to it essence: If you defend your self in Canada, your going to jail, probably for a long time
    Homeowner gets 9 months in jail for assaulting intruder

    A 26-year-old man apologized before being taken into custody Friday to start serving a nine-month jail sentence for defending himself and his property too aggressively.
    http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/ne...22d0d4&k=32225

    Nurse avoids jail in killing

    A male nurse who made a citizen’s arrest by grabbing a cocaine-intoxicated robber by the neck, unintentionally causing his death has been given a suspended sentence.
    http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/299599

    Again the law seems to look at the application of force in context of what is excessive.

  13. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Fl
    Posts
    154
    In Florida the homeowner would not be in any trouble. You should be allowed to protect youself without fear of going to jail.
    HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY???

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event