Summations Only

I have a question regarding the Castle Doctrine for citizens in countries where it is illegal to possess a firearm in your home.For instance, the link I provided states that the Castle Doctrine stems from English Common Law. Since it is illegal for most ordinary citizens in Europe to own firearms, with limited exceptions, are you allowed to kill an intruder who is on your property and in your home? Does justifiable homicide exist, and if so, or if not, are there extenuating circumstances?Given the prevailing law in your country, do you find the laws are reasonable or unreasonable? State why you find them (un)reasonable. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

It isn't illegal in Canada but it's pretty uncommon. I think I've only seen one privately-owned handgun in my life (and it was on a boat).Living next to the U.S., we have a pretty clear understanding that the enemy is likely to be better armed than we are as well as more inclined to use his weapons. It isn't a fair fight and shooting back is likely to get more people hurt (including children) instead of "protecting" anybody.Long story short, you don't necessarily need legislation against a bad idea.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

It all depends on the circumstances, yes you are allowed to defend yourself, but not "excessively" whatever that might be. Well, I can think of an example. Say, a burglar has broken into your home, and he has a knfe, he is threatening you with it, you get hold of a baseball bat and knock him out. So far, it's fine. What you are not allowed to do, is to then beat him to a pulp. He was incapacitated, that's your job doen.However, in my country, I wouldn't be surprised of you got sued by the bastard even if you only knocked him out. Unreasonable to an extent. I do not think you have the right to kill someone just because he was illegally in your home, I do however think that say, in the example I gave above, you should be free from persecution.

So then why do your police have weapons? Also, I think "more inclined" isn't true. The homeowner is fighting for their life and the lives of their loved ones. The invader is looking for portable things of value he can easily take (like, well, handguns.) In your own home, where you know the terrain intimately and he's never been there before? Where he's potentially outnumbered? Where he's subject to the full legal ramifications of home invasion with a weapon, and you're largely immune to prosecution under self-defense and castle doctrine?Yeah, it's not a fair fight at all, it's heavily weighted in favor of the homeowner. Handguns do work for home defense in the hands of those trained to use them - that's why police, security forces, and soldiers all use them - and the training is not tremendously difficult (probably the easiest part of those professions I just named.)There are pluses and minuses to gun ownership. But the stats seem pretty clear; they're a very effective tool for the prevention of crime, though the owning of a handgun dramatically increases the risk that residents of the home will be accidentally shot by it or use it to kill themselves. I don't advocate for or against guns for these reasons - it's just not clear-cut, and people have to use their own sense about whether or not they're capable of the care and training that make gun use effective in a self-defense context.But people whose job it is to defend things, even in Canada, use guns to do so. That strikes me as pretty compelling evidence that they're effective.

From a moral viewpoint, I think I have the right to use force to protect myself from attack (if threatened) protect my home from invasion (if I catch someone in the act of breaking in) or to apprehend the criminal (he's committing a felony, I can arrest him, if I'm feeling brave that day).But only necessary force. Otherwise I'd basically be killing someone for fun.Like these guys: They shot a seven-year old boy in the head ... because they thought the law was on their side. But that's not a reason unless you're a psychopath.The Castle Doctrine seems designed to appeal to people who would like one day to shoot someone, get away with it, and feel smug about it. I am not one of those people.

Personally I hope I never have to shoot someone, but I would to protect myself or others. If I did ever have to shoot someone it would only be as a last resort to stop a threat.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The police are only allowed to use their weapons in the case of a direct threat to their own lives or somebody else's. Even the use of pepper spray by police is extremely controverisal.Home defense is not considered a legitimate reason for acquiring a weapon. Business owners can be prosecuted for firing at robbers. Since we really don't use guns to prevent crime, I don't see how your stats are applicable to Canada.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Right. So, why do they have them if a handgun isn't an effective way to protect yourself from an attack by an assailant?Do your police draw their weapons when apprehending suspects? That can happen here, too, though we give wider latitude to self-defense. The principle is that one is put at risk simply by someone else's act of committing a crime involving a weapon. You just said that they do. Isn't assaulting an officer of the law a crime in Canada? Isn't it a crime to assault a regular citizen?I'm not saying handguns reduce all crimes - it's hard to see how embezzlement or littering could be averted by a .45 Desert Eagle - but they clearly have utility as an item for personal defense. That's not one of our goofy American myths (like "health care waiting times"), that's sound science, and the reason that firearms are employed by those who have a need for protecting themselves and others.I'm not familiar with your gun laws in Canada, though. Under what circumstances can a private citizen own a modern firearm? (I'm assuming there's at least some latitude for antiques and nonfunctional replicas.)

Define "modern firearm". There are three classes of firearms in Canada: regular, restriced and prohibited. All pistols are at the least restricted and some semi-auto rifles are as well. Pistols of a barrel length of 4" or less are prohibited, as well as pistols of some smaller calibers (.32/.25/.35 i think). There are various erifles/shotguns that are prohibited (lik the AK-47 and all its variants). There are various requirements to get a licsence for a restricted weapon, and the government has stopped issuing licenses for prohibited weapons though there are some grandfathered in.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Generally, no. As far as I know, the general principle in effect is don't point a weapon at anything you don't intend to kill. It would take a fairly escalated situation for weapons to be drawn. Neither of those are actually prevented by the use of weapons. Weapons might be used after the fact.I doubt that the use of weapons in prevention of crime is common enough to draw statistical conclusions - and I doubt that foreign statistics would be relevant.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Something whose interest is primarily function (i.e. shooting), as opposed to historic, aesthetic, or personal value. Very informative. What if any are the license requirements for a "regular" firearm, and what weapons would fall under that classification?

Have to apply for a possession and acquisition license, and complete an approved firearms safety course. Some restricted weapons are listed by name (the M-16 and all its variants are restricted) and there also combinations of barrel length/overall length that would make a weapon restricted. Like all laws there are some oddities: this shotgun is non-restricted because it comes from the factory at this length but if I took a regular shotgun and chopped the barrel and altered the stock to match the length I'd be guilty of creating a restricted firearm (at least to the best of knowledge). The RCMP fact sheet on restricted firearmsA list of restricted and prohibited firearmsEdited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

That's certainly not how our police operate. I think I like it your way better. Like I said I'm not a major proponent of guns, I don't own any, and the knowledge I have about them comes solely from some target shooting in the Boy Scouts and various video games (with the result that I'm aware of the properties of a surprising amount of fictional guns.) I think the Second Amendment in our country has had the unfortunate effect of making much reasonable gun regulation impossible, and I believe that guns should be very well-regulated indeed. I don't think you have the basis to conclude that. If guns couldn't prevent the murder of a policeman, why would policemen carry them? If a firearm wasn't to some extent a deterrent to being victimized, why would police carry theirs prominently on their belts, and draw and aim them to force compliance and deter attackers? In one fairly old study, it was estimated that as many as 1.5 million incidents occur in a year where a gun owner uses a firearm to defend himself from crime in the US. In less than 8% of these cases was the weapon actually used to hurt someone.Gary Kleck , Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality.That's what I could find with a quick Google, I guess. If you want to speak specifically to home invasion, I can try to narrow it down, but of course home invasion isn't the only crime you can use a gun to defend against. If you're convinced that US stats can't apply to Canada, I'd like you to elaborate on that notion. One website estimates almost 300,000 home invasions occur in Canada every year.Also Canada's legal code seems to be somewhat different than has been portrayed here:

quote:

---

Canadian law states that in your home, you are able to defend yourself, and your household with the necessary force to prevent the attack from continuing:

​

Canadian Criminal code sections:

​

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.

​

Defence of house or real property

​

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.canadacarry.org/subdream/index.php?categoryid=12&p2_articleid=151From what is apparently Canada's gun rights lobby, for whatever that's worth. Are they wrong? Relevant to the topic, it seems worth noting that Canada must have inherited the Castle Doctrine from the same place the US did - English common law.

Any type of long arm that is not automatic and will not hold more than 3 shells if they are center fire. You also have to pass a proficiency test and background checks. It takes months.It looks like there are somewhere between 7.2 and 11 million guns in Canada. (Just a moment...) As Dr Jones points out, they are pretty much all long guns. We spent something like $2 Billion just trying to count them all and finally gave up. With governments this astute at protecting its citizens who needs a gun.The law allows me sufficient latitude to protect my home. I also feel that it reduces the likely hood that any intruder would be armed with anything more than a knife.

Its too late in the day for me to wade through the interwebs but I'm pretty sure the magazine limit is 5 rounds not 3. I've heard, though I'm not certain of it that there are exceptions for Lee-Enfields and Garands.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor