Sorry, but at moment the radio is offline. |
|||
|
|
 |
|
Justice minister slammed for warning-shot remar |
|||
mobile version
Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
"What's reasonable in a remote com-munity in Nunavut in terms of turning that individual is not the same test for reasonableness if you were in down-town Ottawa," Nicholson said.
Ok... So what will define exactly where an "acceptable" place is? Would it be based on the population of given town/community? How remote is remote?
Ok... define "due cause". What might be a perfectly good reason to one person may not be to another. Yes, very contextual. Where would they draw the line?
Boy, they better be careful with this one.
"What's reasonable in a remote com-munity in Nunavut in terms of turning that individual is not the same test for reasonableness if you were in down-town Ottawa," Nicholson said.
Ok... So what will define exactly where an "acceptable" place is? Would it be based on the population of given town/community? How remote is remote?
Ok... define "due cause". What might be a perfectly good reason to one person may not be to another. Yes, very contextual. Where would they draw the line?
I'm willing to bet there are places in Nunavut with a denser population
that some places in Ottawa I have been.
You're right though, this sounds like lots of money for lawyers, and that's
about it.
As usual, the leftoids are whining because someone presents an opinion,
not policy, not a Bill sitting in the House.
I would be happy if we got a fairly clear Castle Doctrine in Canada.
*Facepalm*
Does Bob Rae even know what the word "vigilante" means? It applied to people who go out on the street and hunt criminals without sanction or due process. We are talking about when some punk(s) arrive on someone's property and threatened them and their loved ones, and uses a show of force to deter them.
Maybe me should use that mass of neurons and glial cells inside is skull before making asinine comments like that.
Firing head shots is a reasonable act of self defense and any licensed firearms instructor can tell you that.
There's some simple rules about using a firearm in self defense:
1) Always assume any weapon is loaded.
2) Never point a weapon at anyone you don't want to kill. Why? See #1.
3) Do not EVER fire a warning shot into the air! You do not know where that round will come down and when it does it may kill an innocent person.
4) Do not fire a weapon unless you intend to kill someone.
5) If you do fire a weapon, then aim to kill. That BS about shooting a gun out of someone's hand is made-up crap out of Hollywood.
6) Anyone who spends their day protected by armed security has no damned business telling other people that they don't have a right to the same.
Does Bob Rae even know what the word "vigilante" means? It applied to people who go out on the street and hunt criminals without sanction or due process.
I miss Charles Bronson. May he Rest in Peace.
I've got a solution for those critics who are so damned concerned about people knowing where their bullets go when they fire a gun. A marksmanship program in highschool that teaches kids about weapons safety, their capabilities, and how to use them properly. While specific material may vary, it should cover everything from archery up. Crossbows, Longbows, pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Hell, I'd even argue that you aught to at least teach the kids about assault rifles, sniper rifles, and the like, if not outright let them shoot them. People are far to ignorant of the difference between a machine pistol and an assault rifle, or the difference between a scoped hunting rifle and a .50 cal military issued sniper.
Of course, those same bleeding hearts might argue that you are militarizing your kids, and teaching them how to kill. But you teach them all the other important life lessons at a young age, including the option of self-defence via martial arts (the most of which can be deadly if the practicer of said martial arts so chooses). Why not self defence via firearm? At the end of the day, a person who wants to cause harm with a weapon by assaulting you or your home will cause harm with one whether they are formally trained or not. The difference will make itself apparent when the appropriately trained victim shoots back, either a warning shot or shooting to kill, under control, very accurately.
Oh, and have a gander at Switzerland while you are at it. Probably the most peaceful country on earth, and marksmanship is a national sport.
Something I wrote on my mom's wall when she posted a similar article, though it was in reference to some lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association that were griping.
I've got a solution for those critics who are so damned concerned about people knowing where their bullets go when they fire a gun. A marksmanship program in highschool that teaches kids about weapons safety, their capabilities, and how to use them properly. While specific material may vary, it should cover everything from archery up. Crossbows, Longbows, pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Hell, I'd even argue that you aught to at least teach the kids about assault rifles, sniper rifles, and the like, if not outright let them shoot them. People are far to ignorant of the difference between a machine pistol and an assault rifle, or the difference between a scoped hunting rifle and a .50 cal military issued sniper.
Of course, those same bleeding hearts might argue that you are militarizing your kids, and teaching them how to kill. But you teach them all the other important life lessons at a young age, including the option of self-defence via martial arts (the most of which can be deadly if the practicer of said martial arts so chooses). Why not self defence via firearm? At the end of the day, a person who wants to cause harm with a weapon by assaulting you or your home will cause harm with one whether they are formally trained or not. The difference will make itself apparent when the appropriately trained victim shoots back, either a warning shot or shooting to kill, under control, very accurately.
Oh, and have a gander at Switzerland while you are at it. Probably the most peaceful country on earth, and marksmanship is a national sport.
Agreed. Until then, having the Justice Minister suggest an untrained Joe lunch box fire off a few when he thinks he's in a dangerous situation, is scared, has likely never drawn a weapon on someone before, and has no training or experience in use of force is irresponsible and dumb. Joe Lunch box who either hits an innocent, or kills someone who was not enough of a threat to do so only ruins lives.
Agreed. Until then, having the Justice Minister suggest an untrained Joe lunch box fire off a few when he thinks he's in a dangerous situation, is scared, has likely never drawn a weapon on someone before, and has no training or experience in use of force is irresponsible and dumb. Joe Lunch box who either hits an innocent, or kills someone who was not enough of a threat to do so only ruins lives.
Then perhaps we should enact legislation that someone who hasn't taken extensive firearms training, has no business owning/brandishing a firearm.
Agreed. Until then, having the Justice Minister suggest an untrained Joe lunch box fire off a few when he thinks he's in a dangerous situation, is scared, has likely never drawn a weapon on someone before, and has no training or experience in use of force is irresponsible and dumb. Joe Lunch box who either hits an innocent, or kills someone who was not enough of a threat to do so only ruins lives.
Then perhaps we should enact legislation that someone who hasn't taken extensive firearms training, has no business owning/brandishing a firearm.
Uh, Shep...
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/gunlaws.htm