Self Defense


So, I've been thinking a lot lately about one question:

If confronted with a lethal force situation and it came down to you or them, could I pull the trigger?

I have pretty much concluded that, even though I value human life about as high as one can possibly value it, when it comes down to my life, or more importantly, the life of my son and wife-to-be, I wouldn't think twice. I have sworn to protect them and I have a natural right to protect my own life. If it came down to it, I'd rather spend 25 years in prison for doing everything in my power to protect myself or my loved ones than see them suffer, either from physical pain or from my own death.

The question I have is, why is it that our own government is so intent on limiting my methods of self-defence? Why is it that, because I'm Canadian, the government does not believe I should have the right to protect myself within the means of my training?

In the US, and their RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) policy is the only thing I would ever consider moving there for, you can, in most states, carry any handgun for the purposes of self defence. For Open carry, meaning there is no attempt to hide the fact you are carrying, most states require no licensing. Anyone, short of people who have had their rights revoked for criminal reasons, can do it. For a fee and some training, 40 states will accept a Utah concealed carry permit. Why does our own government not see its own citizens as responsible for their own life? Why do they insist on micro managing and insisting that the Police are the only ones who are capable of protecting us? They try, they really do, and I respect them for doing their best, but there's just no way they can be at every situation as it arises, they just don't have the manpower. The only person available to stop the situation, is the victim themselves. How would you feel if you had to watch your child or wife get raped at knife or even gun point? Now how would you feel if you or someone else were able to stop the attack? They don't have to kill the person, but just the fact that a person pulls a armament, would be very convincing to stop the attack. If the attacker runs away, great, provide a description to the Police and let them do their work. Bearing arms does not mean you will have to kill every criminal out there, but it offers alternatives and very convincing methods of stopping an attacker before they start.

There is some very convincing statistics out there that show that complete bans of handguns, and guns in general, do not lower crime, but actually raises it. Why? Think about it. Who follows the letter of the law? Why criminals of course! No, the innocent people like you and me. So disarming civilians is, in fact, disarming the good and responsible people of this country, and ensuring that when a criminal wants to commit a crime, they will have little to no resistance, since they will have guns and their victims won't.

Does that make sense? You will never in a million years stop weapons from being on criminals. They are cowards, they need some sort of advantage to make their money. Guns, knives, anything, they will have it and your only defence will be the Police, that will most assuredly show up too late.

I fully support firearms courses that show the safe way to arm yourself, that show when it is legally and morally justifiable to use deadly force, and that show the safest possible way to handle and draw firearms. Don't just license and release. Make them responsible for their actions, like a drivers license.

If you're a criminal and there's a possibility the person you are about to attack is armed, are you maybe going to think again? Maybe even give up and leave it?

It just seems to be a little more proactive than "call the Police and hope they show up in time".

Ok, comment away!


  1. I've never been a huge supporter of weapons, but Tyler and I were discussing this topic at supper, and I have to agree. When Columbine happened, if the teachers were able to carry guns, would it have happened with the student knowing full well that the teacher had just as much power as him? Would it have happened in the Universities in eastern Canada if the teachers and the students were able to carry?

    They put a law on guns, but then why not knives? They hurt people don't they? I've bore witness to situations where I'm in the Walmart cooking section and two young guys are looking at the knives. One points one of the knives out, the other says "Its not sharp enough." Now at that time in Edmonton there was a lot of knife fights happening?

    In the UK since putting the ban on guns the crime with weapons has increased... I know if I saw my son, my love, my family, hurt or even killed because they weren't able to protect themselves, my heart would be broken...

    — Melinda Kavanagh Thu, 13 Mar 2008

  2. Total guns per capita in the States is about 3 times higher than in Canada if my stats are right ... total firearm deaths per capita, is also 3 times higher... more guns = more death ... thats pretty much what it comes down to i think

    — Dan Turvill Thu, 13 Mar 2008

  3. Not necessarily. Look at the UK, they put a complete ban on all guns a few years back. Now the only people that have guns are the criminals. Take a look at this:

    Not even 4 seconds in an they show a gun. Do they really look like the kind of folks that would be following the law?

    Also, regarding your note, the United States has 10 times our population. Washington, DC, has actually gone and instituted a handgun ban, since doing so, their crime rate has skyrocketed. More guns does not equal more death. If the criminals don't have guns, they will use something else, guns are not the problem, people are the problem.

    If the Liberals had taken the $3 billion that they wasted on our gun registry, and instead used it to look for the roots of the problem, we might actually have less of a problem. Instead, they made sure it was extremely hard for us lawfully abiding citizens to get our guns. If you consider that criminals don't get their guns from legal sources, then why are we placing more and more laws on the innocent? It's a political grasp to make it look like they're doing something. Something that doesn't work. What's next? Guns are now outlawed, hypothetically, but crime is sky rocketing. What shall we ban next? Yo-yo's?

    Tyler Beckett Thu, 13 Mar 2008

  4. You bring up some valid points tyler and you've obviously done your research into handgun laws in the UK, Washington DC, and their consequences. I will agree that the Gun registry program is a huge debacle. However it is superfluous logic to assume that the rise in crime is soley because of the handgun ban. Take a look at the handgun ownership laws before the ban (self defence has not been a justifiable reason to own a handgun since 1946 in the UK) and the amount of handgun owners who kept their guns at target ranges, or the guns were simply WWII souveniers. Also you ignore other countries with similar gun laws (Japan, all of Western Europe and Australia) all who have lower firearm related crimes PER CAPITA than the UNited States. And if you argue for the 2nd amendment in the US it should be noted that the gun laws vary from state to state, the 2nd amendment only applies verbatim (as the supreme court sees fit) in Washington D.C.

    — Chris Turvill Wed, 19 Mar 2008

  5. I've been doing a lot of reading lately. Most of the states have their own constitutions. The federal constitution also states that it is "the supreme law of the land". Yes verbatim in DC only, but very influential in the remaining country. Barring no state law in the same fields, the constitution holds true.

    Japan does have a very low crime rate, agreed, but there are two factors there. One, their intense history of sense of honour comes into play. Secondly, they are, essentially, a police state. They do not have the same level of freedom as we do here in North America. I was very close, last year, to moving there. This was one of the things that came into play.

    What about Sweden, I think it's Sweden anyway, where every male after a certain age is given a state funded firearm. Granted, it may have more to do with military service, but every household has a firearm and the crime rate is very low.

    I also believe it was Hitler who made the comment to his SS and SA:

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

    Why not disarm the people, it provides much less resistance to a tyrranical government. This is exactly what the second amendment was based on protecting the population against.

    What about entertainment value? Why am I criminalized for enjoying and collecting something I find to be a marvel of human invention? Why am I criminalized for enjoying going out and shooting paper. The stress releif alone is very freeing, and it's very enjoyable to see if my skills have improved any.

    A law is a law, and a criminal is a criminal. The criminals aren't going to follow the law, all you're succeeding in doing, by putting laws banning guns of any type, is disarming the lawful populace and ensuring the criminals have no immediate threat of resistance.

    By the way, thanks for the comments everyone!

    Tyler Beckett Thu, 20 Mar 2008

  6. If its only entertainment value then there is no reason that you should object to keeping your gun at your local range/gun club, where proper security is available. and if you intend on having it in your home locked away and disassembled then its not a very effective deterrent. The easier it is to accquire guns the more criminals will have them, true they might always find a way to get them but if it were easier then a lot more band e's and robberies would be performed with them

    — Chris Turvill Thu, 20 Mar 2008

  7. I didn't say it was my only reason, just one of them, that is lawful. The issue with keeping my guns at a gun club/range, which is in my opinion, perhaps the worst idea I've heard come out of a politicians mouth in a long time, is that the liability to the club for broken firearms (due to fire/theft/vandalism), not to mention the shopping mall that would create for criminals, along with the cost to range owners would be immense, to say the least. My range dues per year at my favourite range is already $250/year.

    If they had to pay for round the clock security, environmental control, alarm systems, larger vaults, access systems, etc, etc, etc, my dues would easily hit $1000/year. Range owners are already struggling in many cases because shooting is a almost unheard of sport outside Alberta. My range for example is receiving extreme pressure from a new landlord out of Vanouver, BC. The landlord, upon buying the building that the range occupies, doubled the range's rent, simply because he doesn't like guns. Shooting just isn't that large of a sport in Canada, valid as it is.

    There are many lawful gun owners out there, have to keep their firearms stored in a locked box and apart from ammunition. Save for farmers who use their long arms as wildlife control, gun owners cannot keep a gun readily accessible for defense purposes.

    I think part of the problem is people see gun owners as vigilantes. Personally, I have no desire to go out hunting criminals. In states such as Utah, they have made themselves a "shall-issue" to Conceal Carry Permits (CCP). Anyone short of a criminal or a person judged mentally ill by a court, must be issued a CCP. CCP carriers are not restricted very far, they may even carry on school property. Ever since bringing in this legislation in, I believe, 2006, they have never once had a person with such permit abuse the rules which govern their permit. Granted it's not a long history, but it shows that in almost 2 years, people have been able to respect that they have gained a priviledge.

    I don't condone just handing them out, like I've said many times. What I do condone, though, is treating it similar to a driver's license. As far as I am concerned, it comes down to a question of why. Why is it that I am not allowed to protect myself. Pepper (OC) spray is prohibited, Tasers are prohibited, batons are prohibited, brass knuckles are prohibited and, I'm sure, my D-Cell flashlight is next. What am I supposed to protect myself. My property is not federally protected from criminals. If I give it up, the criminal wins and takes my possessions. I do not get reimbursed by the government, I can't insure every little thing, nor do I want to have to. I can't fight back, because I don't have anything to return force with. Sure, I can throw a punch, but if the criminal has a weapon, you'll be visiting my funeral or I'll be collecting disability for the rest of my life. I want to be able to experience life, not be a vegetable because someone wanted my wallet or watch.

    Don't kid yourself into thinking the Police will catch the criminal and all of a sudden your stuff will be returned. More often than not, your stuff will end up sold to someone to pay for the criminal's drug habit.

    So, again, why? Why am I not allowed to defend myself from death or grievous bodily harm? Why is it I have to rely on a Police officer to come save me like I'm some helpless princess in a fairytale? Why must I give up and rely on flight instead of fight? Why am I powerless to help my wife-to-be if some pervert decides he is going to use a weapon in the commission of a rape? Why?

    Tyler Beckett Thu, 20 Mar 2008

Please insert the result of the arithmetical operation from the following image:

Please insert the result of the arithmetical operation from this image. =

Garry Breitkreuz