Canadian gun rights..

S

Starseeker

Vault Senior Citizen
Don't shoot me. :P

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/07/bc-jewellershooter.html

But a case in Canada is sparking a gun rights debate in Canada.

A jeweller from Port Alberni, B.C., who shot an armed robber five times is taking a public stand for stronger rights to bear arms in Canada.

"The police can't control the crime anymore," Dennis Galloway said. "The government isn't controlling it anymore. We are relying on the politicians and the RCMP to take care of us — and we should all be responsible for our own safety and security."
Click to expand...

What's somewhat disturbing is that if you read farther down, the RCMP/and some of the residence is trying to charge the man with public endangerment and or careless use of firearm.

Of course, the incompetence of RCMP isn't news anymore, but should Canadians get more gun rights? Would the perceived moral high ground Canada has on guns crumple under police incompetence and increased crime rates?

Another disturbing thing about RCMP is that how many of them watches TV, esp CSI. :roll:

ps: btw, if any mods want to merge this with the existing gun rights thread, feel free to do so.
 
Sounds like he should be charged with use of excessive force. The cop is right, shooting the robber in the back as he tried to run away was using more force than was required. A trial would allow for a proper investigation and a proper determination of whether or not he did commit a crime. I also fail to see how this is any proof that the Canadian Police are incompetent, it's like saying that a non-premeditated murder proves that the police aren't doing their job, it's not something they can exactly preemptively prevent. Add in that the message the guy is sending seems to be, "...we should all be responsible for our own safety and security," and he hardly seems like the most rational person.
 
I think more gun rights is not a bad thing for Canada but to be fair I don't understand them. I live in the USA which largely ignores outside cultural influences and this results in a degradation of our understanding of the rest of the world. So the best I can do is try to compare and contrast what I do know (US) with what I've been told over the years about Canada.

Canada as I understand it is quite similar to US culture with the exception of a lack of fear. Those that I know in Canada and have spoken at great length with seem to have a very easygoing philosophy about life. They do not fear that a neighbor on one side of their home is a child molester and the other a serial killer. The answer as to why this is may be anyone's best guess. I feel it has allot to do with the lack of the "boogieman" aspect. In the US there tends to be the "bad guys" who are met by that generation and supposedly defeated only to see another big threat take the previous ones place... A new challenge for the people to overcome!

"Fear, fear of this battle station will keep the republic in line."

As in starwars, the empire ruled by fear as countless empires have done throughout human history. So combine that on top of the American evening "If it bleeds it leads" news, you've got a populous saturated with fear. Naturally, we humans do some pretty psychotic stuff when we are scared, especially when we are scared from day one.

This probably does not have much merit on the situation but I find it interesting. Canada also does not share the USA's bloody founding / history although it can be said that Canada doesn't really have a solid foundation when it comes to its conception. It really was several nation states loosely tied together out of necessity over mutual interest in becoming one nation. The nation in a way was haphazardly put together but has fortunately stayed that way despite threats of provinces succeeding. That to me would give me a sense of having no identity. If I am to look back on that foundation as a Canadian, well that would make me feel a might pensive but, there is not the ugly civil war and countless other wars for power. A bit more of a peaceful birth in comparison.

So should Canada get more gun rights? Sure, why not, statistically they don't go around OK-Corral-ing it up like many in the USA do. Then again, Canada is very sparsely populated (something like 30 million compared to the US's 350 mill) so I think it a little difficult to line the two up side by side.


Starseeker, I wouldn't worry about the RCMP's general television watching habits. It's a form of media that is embedded into society of most Westernized cultures. Much like radio was 70 years ago.
 
issue is, more gun rights do not only count for the sane citizens but also the criminals or those that have nothing better to do then just shoot something. If you would get suddenly the right to get a "machinegun" what would stop a criminal to buy one as well?

I know some dont agree with the "gun control" prevents crimes. But its a fact that you also cant let everything just run witihout ANY laws at all. Its always the extreme opinions that I dont like. Just as overregulating everything isnt the correct answer to never enforce any kind of restrictions cant be the correct thing either.

I mean if one would reall use "safety" as argumentations what will we do when robers decide to arm themself like a tank? Should we allow banks and jewelers to equip their stores with trip wired explosives or something? Maybe anti tank guns? I know its extremly exagerated what I say now, but its just to to make the point.
 
I think that the Neuromancers should run the Sprawl free with their Cobras and Automatics in tow, making a life for themselves that is as entertaining as humanly possible.
 
Personally, I'd prefer getting robbed and live than getting shot and then robbed.
 
Letting the citizens enforce law themselves is very dangerous. You can't call that justice anymore.
I fully agree with Kahgan, if a robber knows that a shop owner is very likely to be armed, won't he shoot at the first suspicious move?
Besides, what good did it bring to the US to have guns available everywhere? Don't they have one of the highest homicide rate in the world?
 
This guy also fired an entire magazine at the robber, sending bullets flying through the store windows. It was dangerous and silly.
 
police can only react to crime. crime prevention itself comes from society and the ways criminals are dealt with.

there was a recent case of a jeweller in Antwerp being denied his gun permit (he had one for 27 years and had been an army weapon's instructor ages before that), because he did not need one to protect himself. no 'threat' was real enough for him to own a gun, according to the governor who reviews these kinda cases.

the armed jeweller not so much wishes to protect his jewels. he didn't care. he had insurance. but that same insurance forces him to lock away all his jewels each night. this means that in most cases a thief will need to force the jeweller (who lives above his store) to open the safe... he has a family, wife & 2 kids he wishes to protect from that.

if someone rams down his secured front door, goes up to the first floor, forces another secured door, they're in the man's living room. then, he could very well be forced to defend himself from assailants. i think that's pretty much a bloody goddamn right.

the irony is that I as a sportshooter have a right to own a gun. the jeweller apparently has to become a sportshooter before he can legally defend himself with a firearm.

that's madness as far as i can tell.

now, mind you, i'm talking about protecting PEOPLE with lethal force, not GOODS. there has been a case a few years back where a jeweller shot 3 thieves from his first story window as they were making a getaway from his store. the jeweller was no longer in danger, yet he shot them anyway. (I could even understand that, but that's illegal in our justice system, as there must be a clear threat to your personal welfare before you can resort to deadly force)
 
You people have obviously not been in a life-threatening situation before if your opinions are that ridiculous. "Besides Suaside".

Pansy, pussy, helpless system worshipers.
 
Dopemine Cleric said:
You people have obviously not been in a life-threatening situation before if your opinions are that ridiculous. "Besides Suaside".

Pansy, pussy, helpless system worshipers.
Click to expand...
Bernie Goetz, Testify.
Bernie said:
Myra, in a situation like this, your mind, you're in a combat situation. Your mind is functioning. You're not thinking in a normal way. Your memory isn't even working normally. You are so hyped up. Your vision actually changes. Your field of view changes. Your capabilities change. What you are capable of changes. You are under adrenaline, a drug called adrenaline. And you respond very quickly, and you think very quickly. That's all. [...] You think! You think, you analyze, and you act. And in any situation, you just have to think more quickly than your opposition. That's all. You know. Speed is very important.
Click to expand...
 
Honestly, as I've said before in the gun thread already in contrast with Welsh's legal arguments, is that guns are not an issue because they allow you kill someone or kill someone easily, it's that they allow you to kill large amounts of people easily.

But in the review of this case and the evidence presented with the footage from the security camera and the accurate testament from the shop-owner, this case was justified and needs to be dropped immediately.

Any circumstantial evidence presented as a defense in the name of public safety and the state is void due to the state's inability to prevent criminals from acquiring weapons themselves in the first place. This goal is far sighted and impractical due to various factors that have been stated before, and a violent confrontation being handled in this manner is admirable and justified, and the result of which is one of the best outcomes possible after the criminal in question used force of leverage against the store owner.

Any argument against the store owner's use of a weapon in the name of public safety is another tactic used in media manipulation to keep the states power in balance and have no accountability for its own failures.

And anyone agreeing with the state's defense is either:

1. Under questionable judgment due to factors of socializing agents manufactured by the state to adjust public opinion.

2. Not privy to any necessary information to accurately judge or analyze this case.

3. Agenda motivated and too biased to accurately judge or analyze this case.

4. A troll.

Survival is your number one motivation when shit hits the fan. If the store owner did not act with such prejudice as he did, he was running the risk of getting himself killed. Restricting the use of power in these situations is foolish and blind, and has no bearing on reality or logic.
 
He shot the theif in the back after the theif was trying to run away, thus no longer endangering the shop keeper. He unloaded a full magazine at the two theives, of which only five rounds hit their target, the rest went through the window in front of his shop. No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with lethal force when faced with lethal force, I'm just saying that the man continued firing his weapon after he was out of harms way and recklessly into the public.

I understand what happens when you panic but that doesn't change the fact that he was reckless with his firearm. Add to it his comments which express his belief in people taking justice into their own hands instead of leaving it to the state and the panic excuse looks awfully flimsy.

Shooting the thief after he was no longer endangered could go either way in court, his reckless use of his firearm really shouldn't.
 
SuAside said:
police can only react to crime. crime prevention itself comes from society and the ways criminals are dealt with.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Heck, this is what always bothers me in pro-gun right arguments. I'm not anti-gun rights myself, but there's a certain historical ignorance about "the individual's right to defend himself."

That right is a cornerstone of more primitive concept of civilization than we now live in. The harsh reality of today's world is that the monopoly on the use of force is absolutely essential to the modern nation-state functioning. I don't know if the constant building of half-way houses is a good idea when the integrity of rule of law hinges on that monopoly.

Don't get me wrong, individual helplessness in the face of crime is horrible. Thing is, it's nothing compared to a society in which the monopoly of force is no longer an accepted standard. Part of the disjoint in any consideration of gun-slinging laws is always between the individual situation versus societal integrity. Which is, I guess, why so many appeal to emotion fallacies are made by pro-gunners, like SuAside, while anti-gunners carefully dance around the truth of individual situations not necessarily being a reflection of universal reality.

Still. The argument bugs me. But I wouldn't like to live in a society where the concept of monopoly of force, one of the main founding keystones of the modern nation-state and democracy, is bankrupt. I don't know what kind of society would follow.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
He shot the theif in the back after the theif was trying to run away, thus no longer endangering the shop keeper. He unloaded a full magazine at the two theives, of which only five rounds hit their target, the rest went through the window in front of his shop. No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with lethal force when faced with lethal force, I'm just saying that the man continued firing his weapon after he was out of harms way and recklessly into the public.

I understand what happens when you panic but that doesn't change the fact that he was reckless with his firearm. Add to it his comments which express his belief in people taking justice into their own hands instead of leaving it to the state and the panic excuse looks awfully flimsy.

Shooting the thief after he was no longer endangered could go either way in court, his reckless use of his firearm really shouldn't.
Click to expand...


He still bared a weapon at the time, and 16 rounds of 9millimeter ammunition fired in rapid succession did not kill the suspect. I don't understand why you think that a suspects back being turned justifies the idea of him being no longer a threat.

He acted very well for a civilian in this situation. Why persecute him? It's stupid. The case was reviewed, and everything that happened is not suspect of anything falling out of the context of self-defense.

And you've obviously never fired a handgun at a target before. 5 rounds on target is damn good in a very fast and dangerous situation like that.


Brother None:

The idea of blind monopoly of force is not the answer. The answer is a systematic checks and balance system regulating the use of force to be even and balanced throughout society. This civil system is a system of the people. Even non-democracies are run by the consensus of the general public.

Situations like this one are of course ones we try to build states to be able to avoid and prevent from happening. The problem with total monopoly of force is that it takes too much power out of the hands of the general public. Nothing that has happened after this case should change from the way it has been prior to the incident. Every detail of it was checked by the system of law, the problem is the state wanting to press charges. The ritual was done, but the result from what was suppose to be an article and tool of the people "The State", has become its antagonist.

We do not live in societies where this monopoly is completely omnipresent, because the functioning qualities of these laws requires a qualitative experience with pragmatism utilising utilitarian ethics.

Prevention should be the states priority. 100% prevention is not possible at this time, and the review of incidents is required for the good of the people, but limiting the actions of a person in these types of situations when they happen is amoral and agenda oriented towards a powerless society.
 
Dopemine Cleric said:
The idea of monopoly of force is not the answer. The answer is a systematic checks and balance system regulating the use of force to be even and balanced throughout society.
Click to expand...

Funny. You make it sounds as if monopoly of force is an idea yet to be executed and not - y'know - something that was conceived of a couple of centuries ago and is - again - a cornerstone of the modern nationstate.

That's muddying the issue. Monopoly of force already exists and is in force in every modern nation state. The idea of "sublicensing" this monopoly to individuals is something some states have or are trying, and whether or not that works is a matter of debate. That is less of an issue than the angle of political organizations challenging the existing legitimacy of monopoly of force.

Dopemine Cleric said:
The problem with monopoly of force is that it takes too much power out of the hands of the general public.
Click to expand...

Actually, taking power out of the hands of the general public is exactly why we have a monopoly of force. You may not have noticed this, but the general public is not equipped or trained to deal with force on the same scale governments are.
 
We already have good and necessary restrictions of the use of force for the general population due to its monopoly and the modern principles of the state, but this incident involves self-defense.

The biggest motivational force for the in-statement of monopoly of force is the idea of civil/common law to prevent crime "Which crime is defined by the people of the state" and to have political process move through the state rather than uncontrolled and dangerously within the hands of the public in the form of mobs and syndicates and corporations. When that system has failed in the prevention of crime it is going into uncharted territory that starts to alter the rights granted to an individual.

As I said the issue is a difficult one, but stripping away the rights of defense in this era of civilization is a one way ticket to the eventual elimination of the individual as an entity.
 
I would not want to live in a society though that needs armed civilians on a large scale to protect itself. Just by the way.

Doesnt mean one has to remove weapons from those that want to own them and get the idea to protect themself. All I want is that no side either pro or anti only demandes the extremes.
 
I'm not completely against people owning guns, hell, I have several sharp swords and axes laying randomly around in my apartment, my father owns a rifle, and I don't think society is less safe because of things like that. The problem is when you have these morons who think that if they carry a gun around in public and have loads of weaponry at home for self defense, that they are preventing crime.
 
A hick town in Canada is just as hick as a hick town in the States. Just on average colder. A lot colder.

Not saying this because I like the States, but because I want Canada to try harder to be better then the States. :)

As far as guns, in Canada it's more hunting oriented, keeps the situation more controllable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top