George Jonas picks up the theme of The Brave One, currently topping the charts:
Some bad guys make the mistake of killing the Jody Foster-character’s intended before her eyes, which triggers (as it were) her shooting spree. This may leave connoisseurs of subtle plots and witty dialogue unenthusiastic, but they’re outnumbered. Everyone else makes a killing — the post-feminist heroine on the screen and the moviemakers at the box office. The only people complaining are urban liberals who are put off intrinsically by both self-defense and guns.
Okay, I’ll make a point to go see this movie.
The urban liberals can go suck a fart.
I posted a comment about this movie on another blog; excuse the copy and paste but I though I’d share it with you guys/gals……….
I saw a trailer of Jodie Foster’s new movie, “Brave One”, and was pretty annoyed. Although I should expect this from the Hollywood Idiots the title of the movie particularly annoyed me, not to mention the fairytale storyline.
The vicious gang of youths that kills her husband/boyfriend in the movie are not young north African muslims who torched cars for hundreds of days, rioted and set a woman on fire in France or flew airliners into our buildings murdering thousands, nor was it latino gangs like MS-13 that are terrorists on our own soil. A latino gang in LA was convicted of conducting “ethnic cleansing” [term used by the prosecution] against the black residents. Nor were the perpetrators portrayed as black gang bangers like the crips and the bloods that were a plague on the nation and have since splintered into thousands of smaller gangs.
The perpetrators in the movie were of course white boys.
“Brave One” my ass. Jodie Foster, like the other Hollywood idiots, is a blatant coward. When was the last time you heard about a gang of white boys committing gang violence? Yet any night, in virtually any city, you can hear stories about latino or black gang bangers committing murder. The Brave One’s are those like Bill Cosby who say enough to excusing black on black crimes and blaming whitey. If Hollywood wants to be brave come out with movies showing the barbarism of islam, the despicable treatment of women by islam, the rampant illiteracy outside of the Koran, the deranged despotism of the theocratic leaders, etc.
Let me say it again … “An armed society is a polite society”
Self defense is the most basic of human rights.
Any government who tells you they will protect you is lying. Police are called to write up a report on the violence perpetrated up on an individual or family. Not much more. In fact why not hire a 12 dollar an hour clerk to do that job instead of two or three high paid cops.
If the police were actually going to track down and arrest the violent criminals, that would be nice, but which one of several thousands or more each year should they track down first. And while they are doing their sleuthing, who will be manning the radar traps?
Self defense is best left to those who need to defend themselves because you are the one who is there. Your phone is not a good enough weapon in the heat of the violence. A gun or a good cricket bat is infinitely more effective.
We should all be getting self-defense training and the right to bear arms instead of a fund raiser to help defray the cost of recovering from our losses.
Even if some of you to prefer to put yourselves at the mercy of violent criminals without any resistance, at least don’t oppose your neighbors from thinking and doing differently. Who knows, they may be able to come to your aid in a time of need a lot faster than the police.
I saw the Jody Foster movie and even though it was a bit unrealistic, I enjoyed it and I label it a feel-good movie for those of us who are tired of the outrages of present day rapper, druggie, gansta gang infested society and it’s do-gooder judges and social workers.
We’ve had the illusion that we were no longer living in the jungle for a time, but indiscriminate immigration and a liberalization of the courts has ended that fantasy.
It’s time to get real about what’s going on around us. If our government won’t do anything about lawlessness, drugs and even annoying aggressive pan-handlers, then we have to do it ourselves.
.
It’s time to get real about what’s going on around us. If our government won’t do anything about lawlessness, drugs and even annoying aggressive pan-handlers, then we have to do it ourselves.
John: I think our government is trying to do something about this, but the opposition and senate have other (non)ideas
Police are called to write up a report on the violence perpetrated up on an individual or family.
West, they also need to draw the chalk outline of the body. I have a gun in th house; I think it’s irresponsible not to. Liberal diversity coupled with coddling criminals, isn’t it grand? Get a gun.
Interesting enough, NFA expert Dave Tomlinson thinks that the Firearms Act does not preclude the Canadians from carrying a loaded concealed antique handgun. This has never been tested in the court of law however, so don’t hold me and him liable if you try and get busted. But it is still an interesting point of view.
Also, antique handguns do not need the BATFE form #6 in order to bring them to the US and if one has a CCW, they only need a form #6 once to bring some handloaded ammo to the States and leave it in a mailbox somewhere. This way one can travel back and forth w/o any problems with a gun.
Antique handguns are not necessarily anemic from firepower standpoint – there are some pretty powerful Webley RIC, MK1 and MK2 that make fist size holes in 2×4. Think about it if you want to carry for protection.
Also keep in mind, that inside your dwelling-house all your guns are NOT IN STORAGE when you are at home – they are in use and unloaded and locked requirement do not apply. When a firearm is in use it can be unlocked, loaded and within reach.
Charter of [No] Rights and Criminal Code DO give Canadians opportunities to defend themselves, however limited.
Please, do yourself and everyone in this wonderful great country a favour: buy several guns, ammunition and go to the range regularly to hit the bulls eye. To the arms, Canada! Long live NFA, CSSA, NRA and JPFO!
Jodie Foster is a man-hating family-hating America-hating narcissist psycho. Why support her with your hard-earned dollars?
On a related topic there was a multiple murder suicide in Victoria about a month ago. Husband killed his wife, her parents, and his son, then committed suicidde. There was a court order issued against him, the police said that they couldn’t post officers at every residence that under the protection of a court order. The result is a 911 call at three o’clock in the morning, two police departments that answer the call cannot secure the building until almost five hours later and they find the five bodies inside. It is obvious that the police cannot protect the citizens of this country, all they can do is help clean up the mess. Protection like charity should begin at home. Canadians have to understand that past liberal feel good legislation will not protect you from the ‘animals’ that are allowed to roam. As the writers above have stated it is time to protect ourselves.
Ladies, let me sort of combine a post that addresses both this thread and the one about the disparity between male and female upper body strength.
Regrettably, today’s TV series and movies are chock-full of women (often petite women, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer) who regularly beat the stuffings out of cold, hardened criminals.
This is a horrible message to send to our daughters, because as the thread below this one points out, in most cases women do not have a fighting chance.
So, the prescription in respect to home invasion would be as follows:
1. Purchase a good quality Smith & Wesson, or Colt, or Ruger, or some other good firearm that will stand up to plus-P ammunition. (Have one of your friendly gun nerds explain about all that.)
2. Make sure to tell your husband or boyfriend never to come directly back to the house or apartment at night from a trip without telling you. There should be no ambiguity when you are alone at night in respect to some dark figure fooling with the locks and coming into your abode.
Have your husband spend the night in a hotel or motel if he comes in late from a trip. You want to be certain that if anyone is roaming around your house in the dark, they absolutely should not be there.
3. If you have designed some obstacles at doors and what have you that alert you to an intruder, you should do the following:
a) get your gun and go lie down someplace in the dark that offers the opportunity to silhouette the target. For example, someone coming through a doorway that clearly shows you where he is.
b) as soon as you see him, shoot him at least twice in the thickest part of his body.
Your motive is to “stop” him. You’re ambivalent about whether he dies or not. Your action is done to stop him from the many horrible and nightmarish things that he could do.
Beyond this little crimestopper tip, I believe that a loaded .38 should be standard operating equipment for a girl, along with her lipstick and compact.
Aaron:
If you think there’s any chance in hell you will stay out of jail after even waving any kind of a firearm in self defense, I’d encourage you to look up the name Jonathan Logan.
This is not a free country, you don’t really have any rights. They are just pretending you do.
This is an inferior version of the old Charles Bronson movie Death Wish. Jodie Foster’s previous movie was Panic Room, another self-defense fantasy.
Don’t forget about the tried-and-true 12 gauge shotgun. Great for nasty work in close quarters and you don’t need to be a great shot. Miscreants don’t like the unmistakable sound of locking and loading a pump shotgun. Some have been known to leave after hearing it.
Stop it. -Lance
who said hollow points are illegal? perhaps in the Geneva convention as pertaining to war ammo, but definatly not for sporting ammo. I believe I still have a box or Remington HP’s for my .357, most hunting rifle rounds are expanding slugs of some type, although actual hollow points are rare (I have some for my 30-30 too)
I also *knew someone* that also had some explosive tipped .357 rounds, you can buy them stateside in 8 packs. Some police forces use them as they lessen the chance of collateral damage from ricochets, the bullets disintegrate on first contact.
The info. from Greg in Texas is about right. A well thought out ambush, calm nerves and it “might” work. There are very few guarantees in a gun fight. As far as the “you don’t have to be a very good shot” business with a shotgun, forget it. It’a all close range stuff and at the kind of ranges were talking about, even the wad will go through gyproc and the spread, a few inches, maybe 5.
Tough stuff fighting and nobody is born with the ability. Train the way you will fight because when you fight you will fight the way you have trained.
Strange Brew
“An armed society is a polite society”
No doubt only nice things will be said about muslims when they’re all packin’.
For handguns, most instructors will advise a .357 with a 6″ barrel. You can load this with .38 SPL, .38+P (best choice) or .357 Magnums (way overkill, but something astounding -recoil and noise- to be experienced at the range).
A .38 has not much more recoil than a .22. Going up to .38+P is a bigger punch but still easily controllable.
I once shot .357s for an extended period and I was frazzled at the end, it was just too much “shock and awe”. Maybe I’m a just pussy though.
Um, guys, this is getting a little over the top (technically, not politically). There is a significance chasm (hugely different)between ranting like a techno-wierdo about ricin-tipped bullets and deadly force urban self-defence. Don’t let the movie fantasy get in the way of the right headspin for the real thing. Buckets of blood are messy to clean up, and it will change the rest of life, even if you are the defender.
“There are very few guarantees in a gun fight.”
Except that, assuming you survive it, in Canada, you will get charged, you will get bad press, and you might get more time then the perp. Doesn’t change the rationale, however. 911 is great for car accidents, but won’t save you in a home invasion, or a mugging.
For those who haven’t heard, David Tomlinson passed away last week.
It’s shocking to hear from ‘right wing’ Phantom that self defense with a gun is an alien thing for Canadians. You already lost and don’t even realize that.
Aaron, its just that I have no illusions about the cops and the courts in this province (Ontario- yours to discover!). They are NOT on the side of the armed citizen. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Jonathan Logan is still fighting in court against the OPP, they are appealing his exoneration. The RCMP will charge you for illegal storage/transport even if your storage is legal, they did it to two hunters the other day. Caledonia is still simmering and looks like it will continue to do so… etc.
Bottom line Aaron, the police are MUCH more dangerous than the robbers around here. There are more of them and they are actively looking to crush gun owners. Welcome to the New Century in Canada, make mine a Maglight. I’ll take my chances hand to hand if they survive meeting the dog.
Incidentally the situation is not much better for armed defenders in the USA. The Castle Doctrine is being passed lots of places specifically because people were being ruined by lawsuits after righteous shootings of armed criminals. The Arizona concealed carry course is very explicit in warning you that IF you do shoot somebody with your permit-allowed pistol, even if they are Satan, even if they shot you first, you are most likely going to lose your shirt to court costs and lawyers. There’s insurance for this, that’s how bad it is.
The one thing the Yanks have over us is that mostly it isn’t their own government trying to crush them, just cut-throat lawyers.
“he only people complaining are urban liberals who are put off intrinsically by both self-defense and guns.”
Isn’t it the sad truth….and this detached, zombie-like self-destructive pacifism has been jumped on by politicians who want nothing more than a disarmed, cowed and reliant population to manipulate….of course so do armed criminals.
When our current social mores (political cirrectness) are examined by future archaeologists in the sanitizing light of time and reason, we will see that this self destructive pacifism ….this indoctrinated idiom that it is more moral and politically pious to die at the hands of an armed miscreant than fight back with armed self defense,…this modern suicidal altruistic idiom, which makes us sacrificial lambs on an alter of self destructive social engineering….(that which tells us it’s better to be killed to placate errant romantic idealism than fight and use morally justified violence against assailents)…this will prove to be a vast killer in modern society, rivalling AIDS in its toll of victims….Sadly it is a social ailment which is almost totally preventable by empowering the right of responsible and justified armed civilian self defense.
This indoctrinated self loathing which has made us devalue our worth and lives as not being worthy of the power of self defense…this ridiculous myth that nothing justifies violence, not even your own survival, is probably the greatest attempt by big brother’s social engineers to reprogram human nature…to condition the self preservation reflex out of us and to vilify the self evident ethos of rational self interest which holds justifiable violence ( self defense) as a right of the natural human condition.
Essentially we have, over 3 decades of intense media/political/NGO conditioning propaganda, been told it is immoral to defend yourself against an armed criminal with a armed self defense….we have been told violence of any kind (even self preservation) is immoral….this is suicidal altruism for the mases…we not our rulers have heavily armed gusrds near them at all times…so one can conclude self defense is only for the political elite and not the masses.
The reality is the state makes armed self defense illusory with its justice policy and regulations and yet cannot/will not be responsible for your self defense against armed criminals. They have disarmed the victims, forbidden them to fight back and have no way to protect you from armed crime. Essentially the sate claims a monopoly on the use of defensive force but cannot possibly protect us all.
That is the textbook definition of state sanctioned immorality. and injustice.
Greg in Dallas.
your advice b) is gonna get someone in trouble.
Shooting without knowing your target is WRONG!
and you could very likely see murder charges AGAINST you.
caveat emptor if anyone wants to follow that advice.
the anny state is wrong, unjust and uncivil in its anti civilian self defense agendas…it knows this…it has spent decades of propaganda convincing Canadians they are nirally superior to denoiunce armed self defense and to take a bullet for the nanny state when its romantic myths of crime and justice come home to roost.
Regardless of the political atmosphere or the level of government tyranny, I will ALLWAYS claim my human right to self defense with whatever means I see fit to stop the threat against me.
Isn’t this movie just a remake of Deathwish? Does Charles Bronson make a cameo appearance?
“Never trust a government that does not trust it’s own citizens with guns.”
My parents told me that when they were in Russia the first thing the Bolshevik’s did was take away everyones guns, then they came back and slaughtered the defenseless people.
Apollyon – “When was the last time you heard about a gang of white boys committing gang violence?”
er.. the Mafia, Hell’s Angels, Aryan brotherhood, Dick Cheney’s hunting party…
Yes you can legally shoot, and kill, someone in self defence in Canada. It’s in the Criminal Code under Defense of Person if you want to look it up. Just make sure you allow the intruder to create an ‘evidence trail’ by having a locked door or gate between your front door and your bedroom. When they break through that, there’s no question they were trying to kill you. Home invaders generally go first to the bedroom in order to ‘control’ the occupants, so you can figure out your strategy from that.
As a minimum step, ladies, for heaven’s sake, don’t sleep with sliding glass doors open in your bedroom and do install a lock on your bedroom door. Please!
Yes you can legally shoot, and kill, someone in self defence in Canada. It’s in the Criminal Code under Defense of Person if you want to look it up. Just make sure you allow the intruder to create an ‘evidence trail’ by having a locked door or gate between your front door and your bedroom. When they break through that, there’s no question they were trying to kill you. Home invaders generally go first to the bedroom in order to ‘control’ the occupants, so you can figure out your strategy from that.
As a minimum step, ladies, for heaven’s sake, don’t sleep with sliding glass doors open in your bedroom and do install a lock on your bedroom door. Please!
May I suggest that if you happen to shoot and intruder in your home, just shut up about it, make sure he is dead and carefully dump the body in some back alley or country toad.
It is unlikely you will ever be caught since there is no not motive or connection to the dead POS.
If you don’t have the balls for this kind of action, then let the intruder possibly kill you, rape your wife and maybe the kids too, because if you cannot rise to whatever it takes to defend your family then you will be okay with option #2 … right?
And don’t worry, a full report will eventually get filed.
Phantom:
Oh, boy… I met quite a few ‘martial arts, hand to hand’ types, who did not believe in handguns. Most turned out to be closet liberals, some did not even admit it to themselves and voted right wing.
You surrender monkey approach to living in Ontario is pouring water on the liberal mill of disarming. If even a conservative thinks that handguns are bad, than they must ban them! Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban!
No, mate, sorry to disappoint you: handguns are deadly. Getting shot hurts like a dickens and a threat coming out of the darkness: ‘Get out of my house or get shot!’ works in 90% cases.
We do have rights, it’s in Magna Carta and BNAA and the CR did not cancel those, no law has canceled those. It’s the politicians who want to make us think that we don’t have a right to carry and unfortunately what I am seeing here is that you are helping them.
The right of the royal subjects to keep and bear arms has been inherited by Canada from English common law. What’s left of that in England is a sad caricature, however.
John West: idiotic comment. I won’t quote it as yours will soon be deleted by the mods. Don’t ever suggest that we should commit crimes – we are not criminals and self defense is our right to life. You disgusted me.
Canadians have a right to arrest any person trespassing on their property for any offense.
A person conducting an arrest has authority to use all means necessary to enforce the arrest.
When not on their property, we have a right to arrest anyone committing an indictable offense, i.e. can’t arrest someone for a misdemeanor.
So, if you find an intruder in your home, your first words should be ‘You are under arrest!’ – that gives you authority equal to police over that person. And resisting arrest is a crime by itself.
er.. the Mafia, Hell’s Angels, Aryan brotherhood, Dick Cheney’s hunting party…
You’re a fool.
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
-Sigmund Freud
I come from a family of city-dwellers; my childhood did not feature any access to or training with firearms. When I reached my early 20s, I took it upon myself to go through the FAC/PAL process as I reasoned that loading, unloading, and discharging firearms was something everyone should know how to do. I currently possess a number of long guns which I ostensibly shoot recreationally, but lingering quietly in the back of my mind is the very un-Canadian (by the standards of contemporary values) notion that I want these guns around should I need to use them to defend myself.
The problem, however, is that current Canadian firearms regulations make it _impossible_ to legally store firearms in such a way that they could ever be used for self-defense. If I heard a menacing tap-tapping at my chamber door followed by the sound of someone trying to make entry, I’d have to grab my keys, run down a couple flights of stairs to the basement, unlock the safe storage cabinet, fumble for double-aught shells, grab the cylinder-bore security shotgun, load it, run back upstairs, and then proceed to threaten whomever was responsible for the incursion. It is not as though the government has literally revoked my natural right to self defense; they’ve merely made it exceptionally difficult to exercise that right with anything other than a kitchen knife or bat. Criminals naturally refuse to respect these regulations and the police, from whom I am expected to beg protection and mercy, are immune from civil sanction if they don’t show up in time. Earlier this week, the SCC ruled that private citizens could in fact sue the police for negligence, but taking five minutes too long to arrive at the scene does not negligence make.
Worse still is the attitude of well-heeled city-dwelling Canadians towards firearms. I can say with some confidence that unless they have used them previously, they irrationally fear them in a manner reminiscent of how vampires fear garlic. I was up at a friend’s country property a couple of months ago. Once we’d finished all the yardwork we proceeded to set up a couple of cans on the fence-rail 70yds distant and knock them off with the .22. It was great fun until his sister and her University of Toronto-type friends showed up, at which point we had to stop because not a few individuals were becoming unreasonably uncomfortable at the presence of a firearm in the first place and the minimal report issued by the rifle. I attempted to reduce the discomfort of his sister, who was spinning out worse than the rest of them, by offering to show her how to load, rack, aim and shoot; I knew full well that if she actually _handled_ a firearm she would come to understand that they are no more intimidating than any other inanimate object. She steadfastly refused, displaying the attitude of one who thought she might turn into a pumpkin if she raised a rifle to her shoulder.
It goes beyond that, though: the current culture of gentility, ie. “what people of our sort do and don’t do” amongst the university-educated set dictates that any connection with firearms, the military, hunting, etc. is indicative of mental instability and a confirmation that one is a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather. Upper-crusty types do not work with their hands or perform any manual labor and they disdain any connection with violence even if it is completely peripheral (ie. firearms ownership). It is as though pacifism and an irrational belief in the inherent goodness of one’s fellow man are now hallmarks of intellectual sophistication, and I say this with the certain knowledge conferred by mixing with individuals of this type on a daily basis — I am a graduate student in a humanities program at one of Canada’s more leftish universities. What I find consistently amazing is that students of history, who should be cognizant of the fact that stable, non-barbarous, basically non-violent societies are anomalies and that the depravity of human beings is held in check only by the Leviathan, choose instead to believe that everyone is nice and friendly and wonderful and those who are not can be reasoned with if one is willing to simply lie down in front of them.
The Canada of my grandfather, a nation of self-reliant men who clearly understood that some people are simply evil and that it is occasionally necessary to fight, is dead. Ours is a culture in decline.
we dont need big guns for self deffence.a puny little 22 derringer at 10or15 ft range is more than sufficient for a head shot in a bedroom.It can be concealed and be carried any where with no one ever knowing you have it.Even if you miss the bad guy will probably run away because they are usually cowards. these guns are so cheap even to poor could protect themselves.
*
adrian said… a puny little 22 derringer”
great… more bullets in a drill press expertise.
hey, rambo… it’s fairly obvious you get your vast
firearms knowledge from drugstore thrillers.
stop embarrassing yourself.
*
mcgrimm: Someone has beat it into your head, that you need to STORE your firearms such as to have easy access to them should need be.
When you need a firearm for self-defense, it is NOT IN STORAGE. It is in use. When you are in your home, and your loaded 12g shotty is by your side on a couch, it is not in storage – it’s in use. Uses can vary: they can range from cleaning, admiring, inspecting, repairing, taking down, reverse-engineering to carrying for protection.
Storage is nuisance, but you have to abide by the storage rules. The good thing is that storage rules NOT ALWAYS apply. There was a court case that ruled, that having a loaded shotgun in a drugstore was not illegal, as the shotgun was not stored there.
And Derringer is a prohibited weapon, sorry to rain on your parade, Adrian. You are inviting people to commit crimes, please don’t. There are legal ways to defend yourself, we don’t need antis to come screaming that conservatives are plotting savage crimes.
Lot of that going around today Neo. People think its -easy- to get a head shot on a moving target with a derringer.
I shot one once. Couldn’t hit a bull in the a$$ from ten feet with it. Its a knife-range weapon. Insert derringer in bad guy’s ear, pull trigger three times, hope for the best.
mcgrimm, the “made in Canada” solution would be to leave your hockey stick in the bedroom 😉
I guess the young people these days are different than when I was growing up in Northern Ontario (and dinosours roamed around Drumheller). Went to cadets and learned to shoot, got my first shotgun at 16 at the barber shop where I could also get my fishing gear. A lot of kids I grew up with has .22s or bird guns and it wasn’t a big deal. Went to university during the hippy era but all they complained and protested about was Vietnam. The pinkos never said boo about anyone’s guns and rifles back then. How times have changed.
One of the “urban liberals who are put off intrinsically by both self-defense and guns” is – Jodie Foster. Who will make a bundle off this film.
Nice juicy bit of irony there.
Posted by: Apollyon at October 4, 2007 10:03 PM
Apollyon, the misrepresention of violent miscreants by Hollywood is nothing new. Look at the disgraceful 2002 screenplay of Tom Clancy’s “The Sum of All Fears”, whereby the fiends set upon detonating an A-bomb were none other than…
… militant skinheads! Because stump-toothed appalachian cave-dwellers (as the left would have you perceive them) have the education and wherewithal to fabricate & detonate a nuke; that doesn’t challenge the realm of the possible at all.
Anyone who’s not read the book, betcha can’t guess who the real bad guys were.
“Jodie Foster is a man-hating family-hating America-hating narcissist psycho”
CJ, that’s rather harsh. Although rumours abound concerning the relationship between Jodie & her partner, all four family members are reportedly doing well: Jodie, her 2 sons, & the turkey baster.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Frank said: “Yes you can legally shoot, and kill, someone in self defence in Canada. ”
Yes it certainly is legal and Canadian criminal code sections 25 – 31 authorize a civilian to make an armed self defense, citizens arrest and to act as an agent of the law if a breach of peace threatens himself or fellow citizens…it sets out the terms and conditions.
The catch 22 here is that one of the conditions is “reasonable” justification..in other words what would a normal person do under such circumstances.
Problem is, we have a manipulative social engineering political elite in government, it’s justice dept. bureaucracy and it’s legal(justice?) system who have adopted this uncivil coerced civilian pacification/disempowerment/disarmament agenda….they have reinterpreted the terms of “reasonableness” in adjudicating armed self defense cases (there should actually be no armed self defense cases as crown charges to a citizen exercising self defense rights is not a crime)…but they automatically charge you if the crook gets the worst of the confrontation.
Under the court’s current agenda-driven reinterpretations of CCC sections 25-31, armed self defense as a right and civil liberty is ILLUSORY!
You WILL be charged with any number of federal weapons charges and assault charges in an armed confrontation with an aggressive criminal assailant…. the court protects the criminal’s “rights” and prosecutes his intended victim….many times using the failed robber/rapist/mugger/burglar as a crown witness for the prosecution.
I have followed armed self defense cases in Canada for over 2 decades and I have yet to see a the crown NOT prosecute the intended victim who is successful in stopping his assailant with a weapon…particularly a firearm…there are now ALWAYS gun charges to the defending victim and at the very least you will have the state steal your lawfully owned and used firearms from you….and probably place yo on a gun prohibition order.
I have known many good cops in my day and they are at deep odds enforcing this machiavelian anti self defense agenda the government has taken on.
I have been told by an ex-cop privately and off the record that if you are ever confronted with violent lethal criminal attack in your home (in Canada)…shoot to kill and leave no witness for the crown prosecutor to parade as a wounded victim of gun violence before an anti-civilian defense federal lackey judge….then rely on the empathy of 8 of your peers to ponder what they would have done in your position.
We live in a dystopia where justified civilian armed self defense is a legal right the state does not recognize.
Mhb, I stopped going to movies years ago except occasionally with my father. We have a company here called Netflix where you can order dvd movies for rent via mail. It’s phenomenal and that’s how I watch most of the Hollywood trash. I refuse to put my money into the pockets of those America-hating high school dropout drug addicts.
Nightmare, if you say that a person who followed my advice would be charged with murder in Canada, I have no reason to doubt you.
In Texas no jury anywhere would find a citizen guilty of murder who shot an intruder who broke into their house in the middle of the night. In fact, it would be extremely unlikely that they would be charged. Down here self-defense is regarded as an understandable consequence of natural law.
Phantom, you crazy Irishman! Naturally, the strategy that I suggested could not be used if you still had kids coming in and out of the house. In the event of other people with legitimate reasons to be coming and going, one would necessarily have to resort to another strategy. Forgive me if I thought that to be obvious.
Aaron, I fully appreciate that Canada has some sensitivities relative to this issue that are not germane in my part of the country. However, I must say that one who shouts, “You’re under arrest!” to an intruder gives up a lot of power.
You have alerted the criminal to the fact that he is being scrutinzed, and he now knows your location. You have given him an opportunity to respond to your provocative threat and thereby possibly taking the initiative away from you.
“Freeze! You’re under arrest,” says the homeowner.
“Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang-Bang!” responds the intruder.
The suggestion I made in my original post depends on the homeowner not giving away any of her power. Not location, not the fact that she is awake and waiting, not the familiarity with her own home, not the darkness. You give absolutely no power to the intruder. Then as soon as they come through the door or hallway you retain initiative and first strike capacity and double-tap them before they have an opportunity to size up the situation and come to a conclusion that could turn the tables.
I’d would have tried to put a warning shot over his head.
“Honest your honour, I thought I was being attacked by a midget.” \rimshot\
BTW, as a Texan I prescribe by the accepted Texan response.
Sorry, came in late. To Adrian, you are an uninformed idiot. I mean that nicely. As one who actually owns Derringers, they are fun to shoot and I can, mostly, hit what I aim at. That said, they would be MY LAST CHOICE for defense. A shotgun is optimal for personal defense. For close range in a crowded area, furniture not people,a good quality handgun may be a better choice. Practice, practice, practice! Be very familiar with your choice.
Greg, I’m a belt and suspenders kinda guy. You don’t know who that shape in the dark is until you know who it is. Scottish by the way. ~:D
Unfortunately I live in Canada, where the law says one thing but the Crown does another. It would not be worth it to even -injure- an intruder to protect your property. The lawyers are going to cost a lot more than your computer and entertainment system. That assumes you are 100% in the right and did everything 100% by the book.
Aaron would seem to be under the mistaken impression that he has rights in this country. He hasn’t been paying attention to freak show in Caledonia and it seems he won’t look up the references I keep giving. Jonathan Logan is one example, Bruce Montague is another. There are more.
It makes not a damn bit of difference what the statute says as a practical matter. The cops and the courts will find a way to jail you, or possibly make one. Those are their orders right from the top. What Dalton wants, Dalton gets.
That’s a hell of a lot more tragedy than I’m willing to put up with in my life. So I go shooting only on holidays in Arizona, where even foreign visitors have rights. Here at home I’m strictly under the radar baby.
Any you brave guys wanna call me a pussy for that, go to ‘er. Don’t call me to donate to your legal defense fund after they take your house.
Here is the one, important, salient fact: IF you have to ask for permission to defend yourself, or protect your *interest*, you have most likely already lost the encounter.
Persons with less than honorable intent love for the response time to be measured in minutes, not seconds.
In Canada, deadly force is not a defence for the defence of property. It is any kind of a defence only when you actually and truly fear for your life, and are in imminent danger of losing it. The moment imminent danger ceases, so does your option to use it. Being fearful doesn’t count.
A burglar standing at the bottom of the stairs with a knife is not a scenario in which you may use deadly force. A burglar coming up the stairs with a knife, MAY be a scenario in which deadly force may be considered. A burglar lunging at you with the knife would probably entitle you to use deadly force, but you would likely be charged, assuming you survived. If you used a firearm you would likely be charged whether the burglar lived or died. If you beat him senseless with the baseball bat, mitt and ball you keep for an impromptu game of whack-a-mole, you probably won’t be charged.
The actions of a “reasonable person” in Canada to such a scenario unfold like this:
1) leave by the safest exit.
2) If unable to leave, call 911
3) Advise the burglar that you have called 911 and request that he leave. Discuss with the burglar if he is intending you harm, or simply stealing property. If the latter, you are expected to let him take it. The Police will fill out a report and give you an occurrence number for your insurance company.
4) If the burglar indicates he intends to do you harm, then advise the burglar that if he doesn’t leave, you may be forced to use force to restrain him. You must advise him that you have a firearm and if persists you may have to consider using it.
5) If he decides to leave and stomps your dog on the way out, or punches your wife, then see item 3.
6) If he continues to persist, you may shoot him, but if you wound, be advised he will sue you. If you kill him, be advised his relatives will sue you.
7) The media will report on his untimely death and comment extensively that he was turning his life around. There will be TV pictures of his family stating that very thing. The only pictures of you will be being lead off to a police car in handcuffs, followed by a shot of a police officer holding your gun out in front of him as if it had fleas.
8) Two years later there will 3 column inches on page A6 of your eventual acquittal, with the comment that civil suits by the victim’s family are still pending.
9) In Canada, this is known as the “Castle Doctrine”….
It’s too bad that some of the comments made above reflect so well the idiot arguments of the left to take away our guns “Rancin bullets”? “Midnight special to the ear”? If you want to keep our guns, please don’t comment publicly this way. Better yet don’t think this way! Without a doubt gun ownership provides added security to your home along with many other sensible reasons to own them. The old saying “guns don’t kill people” has never been wrong, the blame for what ails our society(s) today need to be focused on the human element not the wood and steel in our homes. Owning guns, and the ability to form militias is a wider part of our histories that can’t be ignored, if not in our lifetime possibly in our dependence time. History calculates that our current insular bubble of well being will not last forever. Look no further than the rapid decline of our culture today as it implodes from within (ex: gansta rap) and then eaten away at the fringes (Muslim invasions) with the inevitable take over of Islam in our societies. It’s all just a matter of time and their numbers. Again no surprises – as with Rome our society is doomed to follow the same social evolution from greatness to decadence to decline proved repeatedly throughout history. I for one will simply hold my own ground and if a choice was made whether or not it’s legal to defend your loved one’s in your home. That choice was personal and made a long time ago.