UnidentifiedFlyingTard
Vault Fossil
Canadian gun rights..
- Thread starter Starseeker
- Start date
Vault Fossil
BN, the state has the monopoly in OFFENSIVE force. the individual should always have a (limited) right to the use of defensive force.
Society must focus on prevention (through stability, properity,...) and the state must take care of justice & punishment. It can however never 'protect' individual citizens at all times. That is impossible. As such, the individual should have certain rights to defend himself, in certain circumstances.
Several courts in several countries (USA, Belgium,...) have already judged that the police has no duty to protect each & every citizen. Therefore, in my eyes, the right to defense defaults to the person itself. If the state fails to provide it, the individual must be allowed to take such steps as required. (mind you that i'm not a fan of concealed carry and such within our society, however if a certain threat can be defined, the person should be allowed to have appropriate means of self-defense, like the jeweller in my example)
In my country, to own a gun:
- the police needs to ok it (they check your past + how you will store it),
- a doctor must declare you mentally fit and physically able to safely handle a gun,
- a licensed instructor must make sure you pass theoretical and practical exams regarding gun laws and gun usage,
- the governor must approve it. (his/her job is to make sure all of the above is ok + checks if public safety is in any way endangered)
And even then, if I do use any force (deadly or otherwise), I will be investigated to see if the force was warranted.
This is true for firearms, but the same for unarmed combat. Afterall, a firearm is a means to an end, not the end itself.
A couple of years back, a kickbox champion's house was broken into, and as he came to his staircase, he was greeted by a thief coming up. In a panic reaction, he kicked the man down a flight of stairs. He died because he landed badly on his back. The champion was prosecuted and found guilty of unvolentary manslaughter using a 'deadly weapon' (his feet). He was (amongst other things) forced to pay alimony for the thief's two minor children until they turned 18. That's just plain bloody retarded.
While I think that violence in self-defense should always be proportional to the threat, it remains a fundamental right to defend yourself.
But I digress...
people with an arsenal are usually people with a passion, scared of loosing the rights to continue carrying on their passion (if i commit a crime, it is highly likely that i will loose the right to own guns). and people who say they have loads of weapons for self-defense are usually lying.
Society must focus on prevention (through stability, properity,...) and the state must take care of justice & punishment. It can however never 'protect' individual citizens at all times. That is impossible. As such, the individual should have certain rights to defend himself, in certain circumstances.
Several courts in several countries (USA, Belgium,...) have already judged that the police has no duty to protect each & every citizen. Therefore, in my eyes, the right to defense defaults to the person itself. If the state fails to provide it, the individual must be allowed to take such steps as required. (mind you that i'm not a fan of concealed carry and such within our society, however if a certain threat can be defined, the person should be allowed to have appropriate means of self-defense, like the jeweller in my example)
In my country, to own a gun:
- the police needs to ok it (they check your past + how you will store it),
- a doctor must declare you mentally fit and physically able to safely handle a gun,
- a licensed instructor must make sure you pass theoretical and practical exams regarding gun laws and gun usage,
- the governor must approve it. (his/her job is to make sure all of the above is ok + checks if public safety is in any way endangered)
And even then, if I do use any force (deadly or otherwise), I will be investigated to see if the force was warranted.
This is true for firearms, but the same for unarmed combat. Afterall, a firearm is a means to an end, not the end itself.
A couple of years back, a kickbox champion's house was broken into, and as he came to his staircase, he was greeted by a thief coming up. In a panic reaction, he kicked the man down a flight of stairs. He died because he landed badly on his back. The champion was prosecuted and found guilty of unvolentary manslaughter using a 'deadly weapon' (his feet). He was (amongst other things) forced to pay alimony for the thief's two minor children until they turned 18. That's just plain bloody retarded.
While I think that violence in self-defense should always be proportional to the threat, it remains a fundamental right to defend yourself.
But I digress...
be wary of the man who only owns one gun, for he is far more likely to use it...Kahgan said:
people with an arsenal are usually people with a passion, scared of loosing the rights to continue carrying on their passion (if i commit a crime, it is highly likely that i will loose the right to own guns). and people who say they have loads of weapons for self-defense are usually lying.
Canada has a right to bare arms, edible delicious candy arms.
I think that what we need is a restructuring of our police forces more than anything. I once had a cop who I called to inform of a burglary accuse me of stealing the very items i was calling for(!)
I think that what we need is a restructuring of our police forces more than anything. I once had a cop who I called to inform of a burglary accuse me of stealing the very items i was calling for(!)