• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Legality of Self Defence In Canada

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
JB 11 11 said:
As much as I enjoy shooting, CCW's are the worst idea ever. Full Stop.

Call me jaded, but there are enough dicks out there already and we want to issue more CCW permits to these people?!?!  :rofl:

I currently hold several CCW permits for the US that allow me to legally carry in most States. I jumped through all the hoops and did the training, no big deal. I really believe IF CCW was allowed in Canada and was highly regulated crime in cities as Toronto would drop somewhat. That being I doubt if we'll ever see it in Canada in my lifetime. Its pretty bad when a foreign country will trust me to carry a firearm when my own country will not.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
Beadwindow 7 said:
CCW as commonly known, in Canada it's actually called Authorization to Carry (ATC) is incredibly hard to get in Canada.

For Self-defense you have to meet to following requirements:

1) a threat assessment by a police agency clearly shows that the life of the individual(s) is in imminent danger from one or more individuals;

2) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances;

3) the applicant has successfully completed training that is acceptable to the CFO in handgun proficiency and the use of force;

4) the possession of a restricted or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual(s) from death or grievously bodily harm;

5) the CFO determines that the particular restricted or prohibited handgun is appropriate in those circumstances or for that purpose;

6) the applicant must be a holder of an appropriate firearms license; and

7) the applicant has paid the appropriate fee.

So unless someone has documented records of being attacked and proving a constant threat, as well as proving that Police protection is not sufficient, which the PD would never admit to, it's basically administratively impossible to get approved for an ATC for self-defense

And the last figure I heard was something like 7 in all of Canada. Judges and lawyers mostly. Ironically, the Quebec CFO, saw fit to issue one to Mom Bouchard of the Hells Angels ::)
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
Stoker said:
I currently hold several CCW permits for the US that allow me to legally carry in most States. I jumped through all the hoops and did the training, no big deal. I really believe IF CCW was allowed in Canada and was highly regulated crime in cities as Toronto would drop somewhat. That being I doubt if we'll ever see it in Canada in my lifetime. Its pretty bad when a foreign country will trust me to carry a firearm when my own country will not.

There are more than a few of us with foriegn CCW, and you're right Stoker, it is a shame our own country doesn't trust us with it.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Container said:
Buuuuuut....CCW is pretty far off in Canada. And by far off I mean its not happening. We still dont even want all our LEO's armed and are uncomfortable with soldiers doing ruck marches near neighbourhoods- (some of us anyways).

I'll second this - it's not a mater of it being some eventuality in Canada.  It simply isn't ever going to happen, I'm fairly confident in saying, and I suspect that to be a good thing.  I've seen no particularly convincing evidence that allowing CCW actually substantially changes crime rates.  In reality too I doubt there'd be much of a queue for permits were they available.  It seems like Canadians generally don't see the need for it, as compared for example to many Americans I know.  There's sort of a vicious circle at work there - they want to be armed to protect themselves from violent crime that seems largely to have been fueled by the proliferation of firearms there... In fact, I find it particularly rich that there's a lot of screaming there by right wingers about Mexican drug cartel violence and the concern it'll spill over the border, when those cartels are largely armed with weapons that were available to them because of such ineffective efforts to control them in America... which of course is a policy defended by... well, you get the idea.

The reality is that I have no objection to a woman (or anyone, for that matter) carrying non-lethal self-defence equipment, so long as they're properly instructed on the use of such things, because I can see disastrous results of escalations being a more likely outcome.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Redeye, a person say in Toronto is going to rape or rob a victim either male or female. Is that person less likely to rape or rob that person knowing that there is a possibility that their victim is carrying a concealed weapon and has the training and will to use it? I think in some cases yes. Simple presentation of the firearm is enough to deter a would be attacker in most cases, in the small percentage of cases where it wouldn't it may end bad for the attacker. Of course there will be times when it won't work, I would rather have my loved one have the possibility to defend themselves effectively rather than the certainty of raped or robbed.
If for some reason CCW was allowed, I think a lot of people would apply in places where the police have effectively lost control. Some of our big cities are getting just as bad as any American ones. Non lethal defense is fine, however when things such as pepper spray or mace is outlawed what are you really going to rely on? The hope that the perp is going to leave you alive or not assault you so much?
 

time expired

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
What a society we live in,where we cannot even guarantee  the safety of our citizens on PUBLIC transport

and even deny said citizen the right to defend themselves out of ridicules  concerns about the human rights

of the perpetrators.But in most of Europe`s socialist countries the same situation exists.

                                                                      Regards
 

wildman0101

Sr. Member
Mentor
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Wonderbread,
Inregard's to your friend's situation:
Under Canadian Law
You are allowed to use any reasonable
means to protect your self.
Having said that carrying a concealed
weopen of any kind under the Criminal
code of Canada is a chargeable offense.
Be it knife (blade restriction-under 3 inch
apply's). Over 3 inch is a weopon and you
can be charged just for carrying.
go with 48th's reccomendation's.
Also under Candadian Law certain Martial
Art's including Judo, Juijitsu,Karate, and
other's after year's of training are awarded
said belt's awarded. After so many years of
said training/awards depending on your
choice of Martial including Boxing your hand's
feet, leg's, head are classified as weopen's
under Canadian Law...
Capt KittyKat as a wtf taekwondo snob did
you forget this?????????
57's post33 ring's true,,, stay clear of trouble
if you can.
Just my 2 cent's....
MEOW..... BaaaaHaaaaha haaaaa...
Scoty B
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,732
Points
1,060
Classifying your hands/legs/feet as weapons after Martial Arts training is a myth.

What the courts will do, however, is hold you at a higher standard of knowledge on what specific actions will do to a human. By applying a technique and causing grievous bodily harm, you cannot pull the "I didn't know what it would do card". They will pull people far more trained than you to explain exactly how you were taught things, and why you should have known not to do it.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,060
PuckChaser said:
Classifying your hands/legs/feet as weapons after Martial Arts training is a myth.

What the courts will do, however, is hold you at a higher standard of knowledge on what specific actions will do to a human. By applying a technique and causing grievous bodily harm, you cannot pull the "I didn't know what it would do card". They will pull people far more trained than you to explain exactly how you were taught things, and why you should have known not to do it.

So, better to just lie back and think of England, then?  Bullshit.  If you know how to fuck someone up in order to stop them from fucking you up, swing away.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
669
Points
1,260
time expired said:
What a society we live in,where we cannot even guarantee  the safety of our citizens on PUBLIC transport

and even deny said citizen the right to defend themselves out of ridicules  concerns about the human rights

of the perpetrators.But in most of Europe`s socialist countries the same situation exists.

                                                                      Regards

We cannot even guarantee safety in their own homes. Which is where much of the violence against women takes place.
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
73
Points
330
Going back to the original OP, and why I asked the question about how often attacks happen. We aren't talking about about non physical harassment here. You A young women probably wouldn't pull a knife or gun, or karate chop someone because someone is making rude gestures to you, or using profane language. That isn't self defense in the sense the OP was asking about. If the attacks in and around TTC stations are rare, maybe the best defense for the OP's girlfriend is, as others have said, self awareness and confidence. As we all know, it is usually the meek and scared who are targeted, regardless of their size or sex.

As for the CCW, my argument against it is this: I don't have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I give it to him and he goes away. I do have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I pull my weapon, he pulls his, and one or both of us probably doesn't walk away.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
Kat Stevens said:
So, better to just lie back and think of England, then?  Bullshit.  If you know how to frig someone up in order to stop them from ******* you up, swing away.

No, what he's referring to is if you were to use excessive force in "defending" yourself, to the point that it was no longer just defending yourself.

For (a very hypothetical example, not an actual legal case) example, somebody with much jiu jitsu training is going to know some pretty sweet tricks for tearing a person's arm out of their shoulder, choking them out, and winding a person's elbow like a clock, etc.

When it comes to defending yourself, your only allowed to use the necessary force to do so. If you were to put somebody in a heel hook, and rip the tendons and ligaments in the persons foot clean off the bones/muscles, you have probably done all that is necessary to get away from the situation as the attacker will no longer be chasing you.

If you instead decided to rip his shoulder out too, cause hey, the f**ker deserves it.... well, you could be in some legal trouble, more than an untrained individual that ripped out the person's shoulder the same way, because "you knew better."

But, just because you are trained and "your hands are a weapon," you wouldn't be in legal trouble for using training to heel hook the person to neutralize the threat so that you could run away, the same as an untrained individual wouldn't be.
 

bdave

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
captloadie said:
Going back to the original OP, and why I asked the question about how often attacks happen. We aren't talking about about non physical harassment here. You A young women probably wouldn't pull a knife or gun, or karate chop someone because someone is making rude gestures to you, or using profane language. That isn't self defense in the sense the OP was asking about. If the attacks in and around TTC stations are rare, maybe the best defense for the OP's girlfriend is, as others have said, self awareness and confidence. As we all know, it is usually the meek and scared who are targeted, regardless of their size or sex.

As for the CCW, my argument against it is this: I don't have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I give it to him and he goes away. I do have a concealed weapon and thug asks for my wallet, I pull my weapon, he pulls his, and one or both of us probably doesn't walk away.

How do you know that if you give him your wallet that he'll go away?
If you're in your house with your wife, how do you know he won't take advantage of the situation?
Why wouldn't he, when he's holding the cards?
A crook isn't governed by law. He might have a weapon on him.
Whether he has one or not isn't the point. Wouldn't you rather have one, regardless?
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
73
Points
330
bdave said:
How do you know that if you give him your wallet that he'll go away?
If you're in your house with your wife, how do you know he won't take advantage of the situation?
Why wouldn't he, when he's holding the cards?
A crook isn't governed by law. He might have a weapon on him.
Whether he has one or not isn't the point. Wouldn't you rather have one, regardless?

What are you talking about? Try reading the posts and understanding what people are saying before blabbering nonsense. How does me in my home relate to the CCW argument.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,060
ballz said:
No, what he's referring to is if you were to use excessive force in "defending" yourself, to the point that it was no longer just defending yourself.

For (a very hypothetical example, not an actual legal case) example, somebody with much jiu jitsu training is going to know some pretty sweet tricks for tearing a person's arm out of their shoulder, choking them out, and winding a person's elbow like a clock, etc.

When it comes to defending yourself, your only allowed to use the necessary force to do so. If you were to put somebody in a heel hook, and rip the tendons and ligaments in the persons foot clean off the bones/muscles, you have probably done all that is necessary to get away from the situation as the attacker will no longer be chasing you.

If you instead decided to rip his shoulder out too, cause hey, the f**ker deserves it.... well, you could be in some legal trouble, more than an untrained individual that ripped out the person's shoulder the same way, because "you knew better."

But, just because you are trained and "your hands are a weapon," you wouldn't be in legal trouble for using training to heel hook the person to neutralize the threat so that you could run away, the same as an untrained individual wouldn't be.


I understand necessary force rules, but clearly, you don't have teenaged daughters.  My girls have been instructed that, if possible, keep kicking the fucker in the head, balls, and guts till he stops moving... Then one more just for luck.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
Kat Stevens said:
I understand necessary force rules, but clearly, you don't have teenaged daughters.  My girls have been instructed that, if possible, keep kicking the ****** in the head, balls, and guts till he stops moving... Then one more just for luck.

Haha you are right I don't have daugthers and I appreciate that point as I may feel the same way as you if I did.

But the thread is about the LEGALITY, which is what we were addressing, and if your daugthers did manage to neutralize the guy and instead of running away, decided to stomp on his head until he stopped moving, then they could be in serious legal trouble.

Taking the legal aspect of self-defense out it altogther, I'll still argue with you that the longer they stay beating up the guy, the better chance he has of recovering from the surprise/pain of the initial blows that may have stopped him initially, and getting a second wind to finish what he originally intended, perhaps with even more malice.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,465
Points
1,060
I suppose all that's true, unfortunately.  What this country needs is a good, solid "sumbitch needed killing" line of legally admissable defence.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
I see you are retired? Perhaps your calling in life is politics. I think I speak for most of army.ca when I say you'd have my vote with those kind of policies ;D
 

bdave

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
captloadie said:
What are you talking about? Try reading the posts and understanding what people are saying before blabbering nonsense. How does me in my home relate to the CCW argument.
I need to separate my sentences better.

The point is that you don't know what the crook will do, even if you give him your wallet.
Why would/should protecting yourself on the street be any different than protecting yourself at home?
So it would be better to be armed, than not.
 
Top