Should you be able to defend your property with a gun?
61 Replies to “Poll Spotting!”
The poll has gone from 57% for yes to 48% in less than 30 minutes. I guess the CBC staff are tweaking the results again.
Who are these people who actually vote “I don’t know” on these polls? I mean, why would you go out of your way to respond to a question on which you had no opinion?
Should you be able to defend your property with a gun?
YES. Cased closed.
Shot shovel and shutup. Only way to live.
I went to this site to vote and then read some of the comments.
Folks who follow CBC sure are a strange bunch. They are so anti conservative that some of the comments don’t even make any sense.
I guess they’d rather be robbed, raped and pillaged then admit that a conservative government makes some sense.
The commenters on the CBC “warning shots” story re: Bob Nicholson don’t seem to know what “warning shot” actually means. They’re talking as if it means to shoot AT someone, presumably in the leg or something.
Another great example of how insulated and crazy these people are.
It’s surprising that 41% at the poll don’t favor allowing you to defend yourself.
Must be Torontonians.
That would be the 41% who think property is theft. Some of the comments are amazing.
I asked myself, “what kind of person would say that you shouldn’t be entitled to defend your property with a gun?”. I think I have it figured out. The CBC commentors who voted “no” don’t have a gun and can’t see themselves ever having a gun. So they won’t ever have the opportunity to defend themselves with a gun. So they don’t want anybody else to have that opportunity. That’s it. It’s that simple. It all comes back to the politics of resentment. No actual thought, just childish resentment.
I live in a castle-doctrine state.
I can have weapons in my home or car without any license.
To carry weapons in public, either openly or concealed, I must have a carry permit.
The state MUST issue me, said permit, provided that I am not a felon, or mentally ill.
I can kill anyone who threatens bodily harm, AND, I am immune from civil prosecution if I lawfully kill someone under such conditions.
When ya think about it, this is the only sensible way to run a society.
When I lived in Ontario, I had so many B&Es that I could no longer buy home theft insurance.
Here, B&Es are unheard of.
Looked at another way, this poll isn’t just about self defense. Its about how many people believe the anti-gun hype machine and get their worldview from the mainstream press.
41%. I’ll take it.
For a CBC poll I’m actually surprised that the results are as much in favor of using a gun as they are. Must drive Pat Martin nuts.
“Must drive Pat Martin nuts.”
Not a long drive.
The poll is now 63.4% yes, 34.5% no, almost 2- in favor. The moderators must be sleeping or out to lunch. mid island mike
This “self-defence” bill is being oversold.
The Harper government’s Self-Defence and Citizen’s Arrest bill has no mention of firearms, so the Firearms Act and Regulations will still over ride it.
By choosing to keep the Liberals C-68 where simple possession of a firearm is a criminal offence(the first time in Canadian history), and retaining the ability to prohibit any and all firearms via an Order-in-Council without Parliamentary debate or approval, the Harper government continues with the Prime Directive of civilian disarmament.
Current gun law orders the rejection of application or revocation of a firearms licence, and seizure of firearms, if any person may be deemed at risk by that possession. Currently interpreted as including violent criminals.
The Harper government is agreeable to continue this policy, rejecting further reform.
As of January 1st, 2001, 2-3 times as many Canadian firearms owners became criminals as compared to the 2,000,000 who had acquired a 5 year lease for their own property, a Possession and Acquisition Licence.
Now that 10 percent of the 2,000,000 licencees failed to renew their licence filling the new prisons is just a single secret directive away.
Any of the 2-4 million honest citizens who are now in illegal possession of a firearm know better than to call 9-11 and have their property stolen, or have their attacker either no charged or released from prison before they are. Thus free to again attack their family.
“Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”-Lord Acton
Couple of warning shots fired into the ground is just fine.
As long as you put the rounds right between the perps feet.
Makes them pay attention to the reality that you are serious.
Reading the comments in the article….. wow
You know.. some of them are the same people that endorse red light cameras and photo radar because the law is black and white and “they” never speed so they have nothing to worry about.
Although they get a rush out of the perceived control over me and my driving habits.
Follow that train and since “they” will never break and enter, “they” will never get shot.
I don’t have a gun but there is a bat under the bed, grandpa’s old K-bar knife and my dog.
I would never hurt anyone ever…. but come into my house in the night and all bets are off.
“They” would monday morning quarterback how many times I hit a punk with bat. And was it reasonable.
Frustrating even reading that way of thinking isn’t it?
Just tried to vote “YES” and it said “Sorry you can only vote once”. Hmmm
Yes, we should fire warning shots into the air………in the criminal’s lungs.
Only an idiot fires warning shots. You have no idea where they are going, even if you “think” they are going into the ground. If you are in danger you display the firearm. Often this will cause the criminal to rethink his actions. If that fails to work, you do your best to shoot the assailant, not in the leg, not in the arm, but center mass, where you have the most likelihood of killing him or her. Only in movies do you fire warning shots or to wound.
Now that we have reached a this certain level of political maturity, perhaps we can expunge all sign’s of that troublesome P. Elliot Trudeau’s impact on our country. A worthy target me-thinks.
My property = my life. I have to spend my finite life-time working to be able to earn money and acquire property. The time I spend working is time that I can not spend on more enjoyable pursuits. Therefor, my property is directly linked to my life. I will defend my property as I would my life. Case closed.
I have a record for doing this. The only reason I didn’t do prison time is because the judge knew the intruder was a career criminal due to a prior appearance.
I have a record for doing this. The only reason I didn’t do prison time is because the judge knew the intruder was a career criminal due to a prior appearance.
Vote is now at 73% for yes. Certain to pi*s off the lefties.
I would fire a warning shot. It would be the second one.
a@c “I would fire a warning shot. It would be the second one.”
If the first shot is a hit, immediately afterward fire the warning shot. A criminal who ignores a warning shot must be irrational, probably on drugs.
In rural Missouri, you don’t answer the door to strangers at night without your gun. It’s understood.
Uh oh, there’s another poll going horribly wrong.
In any event, if I ever need my gun for such a purpose I will use it and I will not be asking permission…
Don’t you realize how much good news a great home invasion generates? Days and days of coverage at the scene, through the whodunit phase and then the court case follow ups. Home invasions are CBC news gold.
Why would you want them to stop?
For me, with five little ones under my roof, there would be no warning shot and it would be me getting dragged past the CBC news cameras in handcuffs. And it would be worth it everytime.
Remember the old rule….you have to give a warning.
It goes….”stop or I’ll (bang) shoot”
CBC polls and comments usually start off in favor of the liberal viewpoint as the out-of-work leftard kids in their mom’s basements play on their computers. Later in the day when working conservatives come home from work the tide shifts, and by evening when the leftards are out at the clubs and conservatives are at home the comments and the polls shift to the conservative viewpoint.
What a stupid question.
The last three words – with a gun – are just a silly appendix for the purpose of detraction.
Minus that nonsense, the majority of honest responders would post a resounding ‘Yes’.
And, given the additional conditions of reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, etc., the ‘yes’ would still apply up to and including shooting the bastard.
So the defence question for adults is concerned not with method, but rather, circumstance and degree.
This seems apropriate from the Jewish World News about the Anti-Gun Male. The last pargraph: //In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man’s containment.// http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
Poll now at 77% in favor.
Says I have to join Facebook to be able to vote on the poll. F**k that noise.
It’s very difficult to protect property with a gun.
Now, bullets, on the other hand….
the judge knew the intruder was a career criminal due to a prior appearance
What did he look like before you shot him?
I’ve got a S&W .44 magnum.
When I’m empty, there is more hole than body.
@ gordinkneehill at February 10, 2012 12:36 AM
No need to join facebook. Just pick your circle and hit the vote button.
Its freaky reading the Lib/ NDP comments, how can one possibly rationalize what goes through their minds?
One commenter said that we’re going to turn into the US with ALL their gun crime. Hello, welfare + drugs + lax prison sentences + early release = crime. Yes we are going to turn into “them” if we keep feeding liberal laws into our society and nurturing crime. You won’t get rid of the guns, you simply put them in the wrong hands you simple knobs.
What I love is how some commenters believe that the CBC posting this poll is one of the tentacles of PM Harpers scary conservative agenda. I’m sure that Mr. Solomon was under the influence of the PMO’s JournoMindControlBoard when he posted the question! Or those lefties who worry that Canada will become just like the USA. Considering that both countries legal systems have descended from the English Common Law and it Statutes the legal rights should be very similar, no?
Anyhow here is my comment.
This question is not correctly worded. It should be ‘Do you have the right to protect your property with a gun?’ since law is always a question of rights not capabilities. A fit 20 year old male is more capable to do so than his 80 year old arthritic grandmother but both have the same right.
Also the question does not state the extent to which said property is under threat. You would not be justified to use deadly force if someone were stealing a broken lawn mower but you would if someone were attempting to burn your house down, yet in both cases a property crime is occurring.
Al_in_Ottawa: I like your ‘capabilities’ comment. However, stealing a lawn mower or burning your house down, what’s the difference?
I’m not being argumentative. I think you have no way of knowing what is in someone else’s head. The best way of NOT being shot would then be to not steal or harm someone or their property.
a wise old Officer once told me, a very long time ago, “as long as you can produce one more empty casing than there are holes in the body, the warning shot’s covered”
That said, the question of deadly force in defence is a tricky one. You have to prove that there was an intent on the intruder’s part and the courts aren’t likely to accept “he was in my house so I shot him”…you have to be sure that an intruder is in a position to cause you or someone else death or grevious bodily harm, simple theft isn’t punishable by the death penalty, yet, this isn’t shar’ia law and you must allow a chance for escape (if reasonable).
However, if an intruder makes a threat or moves to a position or adopts a posture where I deem a threat to be imminent, all bets are off. Studies and training films used in law enforcement have shown that if you allow an armed assailant within 21 feet (7 metres) then you WILL be struck before you can draw and fire, period. My bedroom is only 14 feet long at the absolute maximum so the danger zone starts at the doorway.
Oh, and we never, ever, ever fire warning shots into the air…God is on our side, remember ? that and you don’t want to put one into someone else’s bedroom…and the ground isn’t much better, things tend to richochet off rocks, concrete and frozen earth…the Criminal Code makes no mention of ‘warning shots anyway’… and always aim for the centre of visible mass, remember, almost all house walls are easily penetrated by most bullets, use a shotgun and be safe.
When I was in the military I won both crossed pistols and crossed rifles with a crown, I always aim a little higher than center of mass.
…and remember it is always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I might have seen this here, or maybe at Bloggingtorries, can’t find the original link.
Google this…The Gun Is Civilization,” by USMC Retired Maj. L. Caudill.
excerpts…paraphrased,
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang-banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
The poll has gone from 57% for yes to 48% in less than 30 minutes. I guess the CBC staff are tweaking the results again.
Who are these people who actually vote “I don’t know” on these polls? I mean, why would you go out of your way to respond to a question on which you had no opinion?
Should you be able to defend your property with a gun?
YES. Cased closed.
Shot shovel and shutup. Only way to live.
I went to this site to vote and then read some of the comments.
Folks who follow CBC sure are a strange bunch. They are so anti conservative that some of the comments don’t even make any sense.
I guess they’d rather be robbed, raped and pillaged then admit that a conservative government makes some sense.
The commenters on the CBC “warning shots” story re: Bob Nicholson don’t seem to know what “warning shot” actually means. They’re talking as if it means to shoot AT someone, presumably in the leg or something.
Another great example of how insulated and crazy these people are.
It’s surprising that 41% at the poll don’t favor allowing you to defend yourself.
Must be Torontonians.
That would be the 41% who think property is theft. Some of the comments are amazing.
I asked myself, “what kind of person would say that you shouldn’t be entitled to defend your property with a gun?”. I think I have it figured out. The CBC commentors who voted “no” don’t have a gun and can’t see themselves ever having a gun. So they won’t ever have the opportunity to defend themselves with a gun. So they don’t want anybody else to have that opportunity. That’s it. It’s that simple. It all comes back to the politics of resentment. No actual thought, just childish resentment.
I live in a castle-doctrine state.
I can have weapons in my home or car without any license.
To carry weapons in public, either openly or concealed, I must have a carry permit.
The state MUST issue me, said permit, provided that I am not a felon, or mentally ill.
I can kill anyone who threatens bodily harm, AND, I am immune from civil prosecution if I lawfully kill someone under such conditions.
When ya think about it, this is the only sensible way to run a society.
When I lived in Ontario, I had so many B&Es that I could no longer buy home theft insurance.
Here, B&Es are unheard of.
Looked at another way, this poll isn’t just about self defense. Its about how many people believe the anti-gun hype machine and get their worldview from the mainstream press.
41%. I’ll take it.
For a CBC poll I’m actually surprised that the results are as much in favor of using a gun as they are. Must drive Pat Martin nuts.
“Must drive Pat Martin nuts.”
Not a long drive.
The poll is now 63.4% yes, 34.5% no, almost 2- in favor. The moderators must be sleeping or out to lunch. mid island mike
This “self-defence” bill is being oversold.
The Harper government’s Self-Defence and Citizen’s Arrest bill has no mention of firearms, so the Firearms Act and Regulations will still over ride it.
By choosing to keep the Liberals C-68 where simple possession of a firearm is a criminal offence(the first time in Canadian history), and retaining the ability to prohibit any and all firearms via an Order-in-Council without Parliamentary debate or approval, the Harper government continues with the Prime Directive of civilian disarmament.
Current gun law orders the rejection of application or revocation of a firearms licence, and seizure of firearms, if any person may be deemed at risk by that possession. Currently interpreted as including violent criminals.
The Harper government is agreeable to continue this policy, rejecting further reform.
As of January 1st, 2001, 2-3 times as many Canadian firearms owners became criminals as compared to the 2,000,000 who had acquired a 5 year lease for their own property, a Possession and Acquisition Licence.
Now that 10 percent of the 2,000,000 licencees failed to renew their licence filling the new prisons is just a single secret directive away.
Any of the 2-4 million honest citizens who are now in illegal possession of a firearm know better than to call 9-11 and have their property stolen, or have their attacker either no charged or released from prison before they are. Thus free to again attack their family.
“Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”-Lord Acton
Couple of warning shots fired into the ground is just fine.
As long as you put the rounds right between the perps feet.
Makes them pay attention to the reality that you are serious.
Reading the comments in the article….. wow
You know.. some of them are the same people that endorse red light cameras and photo radar because the law is black and white and “they” never speed so they have nothing to worry about.
Although they get a rush out of the perceived control over me and my driving habits.
Follow that train and since “they” will never break and enter, “they” will never get shot.
I don’t have a gun but there is a bat under the bed, grandpa’s old K-bar knife and my dog.
I would never hurt anyone ever…. but come into my house in the night and all bets are off.
“They” would monday morning quarterback how many times I hit a punk with bat. And was it reasonable.
Frustrating even reading that way of thinking isn’t it?
Ted Nugent’s take on the right to defend makes sense to me.
http://tinyurl.com/77r2cto
Just tried to vote “YES” and it said “Sorry you can only vote once”. Hmmm
Yes, we should fire warning shots into the air………in the criminal’s lungs.
Only an idiot fires warning shots. You have no idea where they are going, even if you “think” they are going into the ground. If you are in danger you display the firearm. Often this will cause the criminal to rethink his actions. If that fails to work, you do your best to shoot the assailant, not in the leg, not in the arm, but center mass, where you have the most likelihood of killing him or her. Only in movies do you fire warning shots or to wound.
Now that we have reached a this certain level of political maturity, perhaps we can expunge all sign’s of that troublesome P. Elliot Trudeau’s impact on our country. A worthy target me-thinks.
My property = my life. I have to spend my finite life-time working to be able to earn money and acquire property. The time I spend working is time that I can not spend on more enjoyable pursuits. Therefor, my property is directly linked to my life. I will defend my property as I would my life. Case closed.
I have a record for doing this. The only reason I didn’t do prison time is because the judge knew the intruder was a career criminal due to a prior appearance.
I have a record for doing this. The only reason I didn’t do prison time is because the judge knew the intruder was a career criminal due to a prior appearance.
Vote is now at 73% for yes. Certain to pi*s off the lefties.
Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up Illegal Guns.
I would fire a warning shot. It would be the second one.
a@c “I would fire a warning shot. It would be the second one.”
If the first shot is a hit, immediately afterward fire the warning shot. A criminal who ignores a warning shot must be irrational, probably on drugs.
In rural Missouri, you don’t answer the door to strangers at night without your gun. It’s understood.
Uh oh, there’s another poll going horribly wrong.
In any event, if I ever need my gun for such a purpose I will use it and I will not be asking permission…
Don’t you realize how much good news a great home invasion generates? Days and days of coverage at the scene, through the whodunit phase and then the court case follow ups. Home invasions are CBC news gold.
Why would you want them to stop?
For me, with five little ones under my roof, there would be no warning shot and it would be me getting dragged past the CBC news cameras in handcuffs. And it would be worth it everytime.
Remember the old rule….you have to give a warning.
It goes….”stop or I’ll (bang) shoot”
CBC polls and comments usually start off in favor of the liberal viewpoint as the out-of-work leftard kids in their mom’s basements play on their computers. Later in the day when working conservatives come home from work the tide shifts, and by evening when the leftards are out at the clubs and conservatives are at home the comments and the polls shift to the conservative viewpoint.
What a stupid question.
The last three words – with a gun – are just a silly appendix for the purpose of detraction.
Minus that nonsense, the majority of honest responders would post a resounding ‘Yes’.
And, given the additional conditions of reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, etc., the ‘yes’ would still apply up to and including shooting the bastard.
So the defence question for adults is concerned not with method, but rather, circumstance and degree.
This seems apropriate from the Jewish World News about the Anti-Gun Male. The last pargraph: //In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man’s containment.//
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
Poll now at 77% in favor.
Says I have to join Facebook to be able to vote on the poll. F**k that noise.
It’s very difficult to protect property with a gun.
Now, bullets, on the other hand….
the judge knew the intruder was a career criminal due to a prior appearance
What did he look like before you shot him?
I’ve got a S&W .44 magnum.
When I’m empty, there is more hole than body.
@ gordinkneehill at February 10, 2012 12:36 AM
No need to join facebook. Just pick your circle and hit the vote button.
CBC is running another poll inquiring whether it’s OK to shoot abover someones head to scare them away. At 67% for yes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/02/should-firing-warning-shots-over-suspected-thieves-be-allowed.html
Its freaky reading the Lib/ NDP comments, how can one possibly rationalize what goes through their minds?
One commenter said that we’re going to turn into the US with ALL their gun crime. Hello, welfare + drugs + lax prison sentences + early release = crime. Yes we are going to turn into “them” if we keep feeding liberal laws into our society and nurturing crime. You won’t get rid of the guns, you simply put them in the wrong hands you simple knobs.
What I love is how some commenters believe that the CBC posting this poll is one of the tentacles of PM Harpers scary conservative agenda. I’m sure that Mr. Solomon was under the influence of the PMO’s JournoMindControlBoard when he posted the question! Or those lefties who worry that Canada will become just like the USA. Considering that both countries legal systems have descended from the English Common Law and it Statutes the legal rights should be very similar, no?
Anyhow here is my comment.
This question is not correctly worded. It should be ‘Do you have the right to protect your property with a gun?’ since law is always a question of rights not capabilities. A fit 20 year old male is more capable to do so than his 80 year old arthritic grandmother but both have the same right.
Also the question does not state the extent to which said property is under threat. You would not be justified to use deadly force if someone were stealing a broken lawn mower but you would if someone were attempting to burn your house down, yet in both cases a property crime is occurring.
Al_in_Ottawa: I like your ‘capabilities’ comment. However, stealing a lawn mower or burning your house down, what’s the difference?
I’m not being argumentative. I think you have no way of knowing what is in someone else’s head. The best way of NOT being shot would then be to not steal or harm someone or their property.
a wise old Officer once told me, a very long time ago, “as long as you can produce one more empty casing than there are holes in the body, the warning shot’s covered”
That said, the question of deadly force in defence is a tricky one. You have to prove that there was an intent on the intruder’s part and the courts aren’t likely to accept “he was in my house so I shot him”…you have to be sure that an intruder is in a position to cause you or someone else death or grevious bodily harm, simple theft isn’t punishable by the death penalty, yet, this isn’t shar’ia law and you must allow a chance for escape (if reasonable).
However, if an intruder makes a threat or moves to a position or adopts a posture where I deem a threat to be imminent, all bets are off. Studies and training films used in law enforcement have shown that if you allow an armed assailant within 21 feet (7 metres) then you WILL be struck before you can draw and fire, period. My bedroom is only 14 feet long at the absolute maximum so the danger zone starts at the doorway.
Oh, and we never, ever, ever fire warning shots into the air…God is on our side, remember ? that and you don’t want to put one into someone else’s bedroom…and the ground isn’t much better, things tend to richochet off rocks, concrete and frozen earth…the Criminal Code makes no mention of ‘warning shots anyway’… and always aim for the centre of visible mass, remember, almost all house walls are easily penetrated by most bullets, use a shotgun and be safe.
I’d protect my family with a gun, hell, I’d even use bullets.
But would I protect Bob Rae with a gun. No, and judging by his stupid, inane comments, he wouldn’t want me to.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/09/matt-gurney-memo-to-bob-rae-self-defence-is-not-vigilantism/
When I was in the military I won both crossed pistols and crossed rifles with a crown, I always aim a little higher than center of mass.
…and remember it is always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
I might have seen this here, or maybe at Bloggingtorries, can’t find the original link.
Google this…The Gun Is Civilization,” by USMC Retired Maj. L. Caudill.
excerpts…paraphrased,
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang-banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.