Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So this story came out yesterday in the news:

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

Personally, I think it is ludicrous that the shop owner had to take the time to retrieve and load his handgun instead of having it on his person, but at least he had one to use, and scoring 5 out of 9 in a hurry seems pretty reasonable too.....considering the circumstances.

The comments about the 'incompetent law enforcement' and "Canadians are defenceless. And it's the law." are the most disturbing aspect of it all.....makes me boil.

Unfortunately, the hand wringers would be much happier disarming the citizens entirely, so that society is composed of ready-made victims. I wonder why it is easier for the police to investigate the murder of a victim, but they really frown on investigating the killing of a criminal in the commision of a crime??:mad2:

Reading the comments made by readers on the story is also not good for my blood pressure.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
The shop owner is very right in his actions and statements. Here in Indiana we have the right to defend life and property.
 

·
R.I.P.
Joined
·
29,113 Posts
I have no problem with him defending life and property and the article does state we are entitled to do that. I do have one concern however: I'm glad there wasn't anyone walking by when it happened. No harm done there, thank God, but still an important reminder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,015 Posts
Here's what I think !

I have no problem with him defending life and property and the article does state we are entitled to do that. I do have one concern however: I'm glad there wasn't anyone walking by when it happened. No harm done there, thank God, but still an important reminder.
There's alot scenarios that could of happened ,let's stick with what happen as that's what counts after the fact !:eek:

Way too many felons have guns ,so I'm for armed citizens anytime, anyplace, all of the time !:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
769 Posts
Good for the shop owner.....he defended his property, himself and his wife. Who knows what those robbers would have done.

The police are already making excuses and plan to take away his handgun.

Canadian justice system is messed up; they rather charge the victims than go after the criminals. A few months ago a well known shop-lifter operating in Toronto's Chinatown was tackled and bound and put in a van (To wait for the police) after video showing him stealing pots of flowers. The govt' is now trying to charge the shop owner (Hero to that shopping area) with assault and forceable confinement. Not only that.....they gave the shop-lifter a few months off for his help to testify against the shop keeper!!!!!

The police and justice department are basically saying that we are not allowed to protect ourselves........let the police protect you.....in failing that we will try to prosecute the criminal while you're healing in a hospital or dead in a mortuary.
 

·
R.I.P.
Joined
·
29,113 Posts
There's alot scenarios that could of happened ,let's stick with what happen as that's what counts after the fact !:eek:

Way too many felons have guns ,so I'm for armed citizens anytime, anyplace, all of the time !:mad:
True, but as much as I hate hand-wringing, I'm very leery of the trigger-happy syndrome. Thankfully , Twisted is not one of those guys:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
True, but as much as I hate hand-wringing, I'm very leery of the trigger-happy syndrome. Thankfully , Twisted is not one of those guys:cheers:
You are right, I'm not trigger happy....but if a criminal put a gun to my wife's head (as stated in the news story), I would be only too happy to give him a round or two of 00 Buck, right in the center of his boiler works. I think I'd probably have nightmares from doing it (hey, I cried when Mickey died in Rocky II, I'm a wicked sensitive guy!), but I sure wouldn't shed any tears over mopping up the mess from protecting the wife.

It is too bad some rounds went stray out the building, glad no one innocent was hurt.

But to reiterate, it frosts my butt that the police are more adamantly opposed to citizens protecting themselves from criminals, than in forcefully protecting said citizens from criminals......

'Don't protect yourselves from criminals holding a gun to your wife's head, give them what they want and hope no one gets hurt......:mad:' Great philosophy, but there is always that part about not leaving a witness to a crime behind......

I'm not interested in promoting an armed citizenry, I think that can get out of hand. But on one's own property/business, I believe a person should have the right to carry a loaded firearm if they feel that there is a need, such as in the situation of the jewellry store that has been repeatedly robbed. I also think that if a person has taken the required safety courses, passed stringent criminal check etc, and can show reasonable need to carry, that the law would make allowance for such. (For instance, there is currently a provision for folks working forestry/oil patch to carry handguns in areas that have bears....though why you would carry a handgun instead of a 12 guage I don't know. My nephew has a permit to carry when he is out doing logging work.).

Just saying, the Law is an Ass to quote some famous guy.....
 

·
R.I.P.
Joined
·
29,113 Posts
You are right, I'm not trigger happy....but if a criminal put a gun to my wife's head (as stated in the news story), I would be only too happy to give him a round or two of 00 Buck, right in the center of his boiler works. I think I'd probably have nightmares from doing it (hey, I cried when Mickey died in Rocky II, I'm a wicked sensitive guy!), but I sure wouldn't shed any tears over mopping up the mess from protecting the wife.

It is too bad some rounds went stray out the building, glad no one innocent was hurt.

But to reiterate, it frosts my butt that the police are more adamantly opposed to citizens protecting themselves from criminals, than in forcefully protecting said citizens from criminals......

'Don't protect yourselves from criminals holding a gun to your wife's head, give them what they want and hope no one gets hurt......:mad:' Great philosophy, but there is always that part about not leaving a witness to a crime behind......

I'm not interested in promoting an armed citizenry, I think that can get out of hand. But on one's own property/business, I believe a person should have the right to carry a loaded firearm if they feel that there is a need, such as in the situation of the jewellry store that has been repeatedly robbed. I also think that if a person has taken the required safety courses, passed stringent criminal check etc, and can show reasonable need to carry, that the law would make allowance for such. (For instance, there is currently a provision for folks working forestry/oil patch to carry handguns in areas that have bears....though why you would carry a handgun instead of a 12 guage I don't know. My nephew has a permit to carry when he is out doing logging work.).

Just saying, the Law is an Ass to quote some famous guy.....
:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,884 Posts
Nine shots fired and five hit one crimminal. How many shots hit the second crook? The one that got away and still hasn't been found thirteen months later? We don't know.


Once I started shooting, he turned and he ran. Galloway said he kept firing until the magazine in his gun was empty. Surveillance video shows accused robber James Gumbleton collapsed in the store entranceway. His alleged accomplice got away. Gumbleton had been shot five times in the shoulder and torso.

Staff Sgt. Lee Omilusik told CBC News he doesn't think Galloway should have opened fire the way he did. "[The accused robber] was leaving the building, and he got shot," Omilusik said. "Is that 'as much force as is necessary?'


The Staff Sgt. seems to be confused about the facts in this case. :dontknow:


Canadian law says guns must be registered and stored, unloaded and safely(?). Citizens are allowed to fire their guns in self-defence but only with as much force as necessary.

I don't understand statements/laws like this. How much "force" is necessary??? And who decides? Galloway needed nine rounds. I think he used as much force as was necessary.

Too bad he didn't drop the other one in his tracks also.

:cocktail:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I'm not interested in promoting an armed citizenry, I think that can get out of hand. But on one's own property/business, I believe a person should have the right to carry a loaded firearm if they feel that there is a need, such as in the situation of the jewellry store that has been repeatedly robbed. I also think that if a person has taken the required safety courses, passed stringent criminal check etc, and can show reasonable need to carry, that the law would make allowance for such.
I think its a shame that people have to get the government's approval before having the tools to be able to defend their life.

IMHO its not like taking a test to driving a car. That's a privelidge. Defending your personal safety is more than a privelidge, its a right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I think its a shame that people have to get the government's approval before having the tools to be able to defend their life.

IMHO its not like taking a test to driving a car. That's a privelidge. Defending your personal safety is more than a privelidge, its a right.
I concur. Unfortunately, having the right to defend yourself, and having the intelligence and ability to do so without stupidly endangering others is not the same thing. I agree that it is a right to defend yourself, but as such, an individual needs to be responsible to have the training and ability to do so in a manner which is effective and directed. The right to own firearms has been excercised by too many people who have no formal training, and no damn common sense, which has led to many unfortunate injuries and deaths.

If a person is not mentally or emotionally equipped to handle firearms, let them keep a baseball bat close by for self defense, which will effectively protect innocent bystanders and civilians. It is an effective tool for self defense, and may even be more satisying??:)

Keeping in mind, that I do own firearms, and have had civillian and military training in their use, and am teaching my children same. A restricted firearms permit is and should be considered a priviledge that one earns. IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I concur. Unfortunately, having the right to defend yourself, and having the intelligence and ability to do so without stupidly endangering others is not the same thing.
I disagree. The basis of a right is that it is not contingent on your intelligence or abilities. By their very nature, rights are some of the few things that people can not decide who does and does not qualify for them. The only caveat being that I do believe that a person can forfeit their rights by action or choice, such as committing a violent crime.

I agree that it is a right to defend yourself, but as such, an individual needs to be responsible to have the training and ability to do so in a manner which is effective and directed.
I do agree that if a person is going to make the choice to use a firearm they need to be adequately trained in the proper and safe use of that firearm. However, I don't think that's the government's job. I believe that is a personal responsibility. If someone uses a toaster incorrectly it could burn down their apartment complex, damaging the property of their neighbors and possibly killing them. That doesn't mean the government should mandate people get training on how to properly use a toaster before they can buy one. (I hope you forgive the tongue in cheek example.) ;)

The right to own firearms has been excercised by too many people who have no formal training, and no damn common sense, which has led to many unfortunate injuries and deaths.
The right to free speech is used by thousands of people with no common sense every day. That doesnt mean we should start awarding the freedom of speech only to those who are deemed worthy.


If a person is not mentally or emotionally equipped to handle firearms, let them keep a baseball bat close by for self defense, which will effectively protect innocent bystanders and civilians.
I agree with the mentally equipped part of your statement. If a person is not capable of handling the weapon safely or has expressed a desire to hurt themselves or others, then they should not be sold a weapon. But many laws like this already exist in the US.

How do you suggest we determine if someone is emotionally equipped though? Age? Education? IQ tests? A mandatory visit to a psychologist for an evaluation? And who decides what is classified as emotionally equipped? It gets to be a slippery slope when people start classifying who qualifies for something and who sets that qualification, especially when politicians are involved.

It is an effective tool for self defense, and may even be more satisying??:)
Compared to a criminal with bare hands, yeah its pretty effective. Compared to a criminal with a knife, its not bad. Compared to a criminal with a gun, its not very effective at all. I'd rather not take the chance that the criminal (who naturally won't obey the gun laws that were written to protect me) who breaks into my house may or may not have a gun. I don't want to be stuck with a sub-par tool if the time ever comes for me to defend myself. (Which I pray it never does.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Good points made 99, I won't address point by point as my time is short. I'm not dying, getting ready for a weekend hockey tournement....:wink:

You and I would probably agree more than disagree on most of this, while both having our own biases. My own strong bias is that the whole concept of 'rights', while all well and good, often ignores the concept of 'personal responsibility'. I'm all for personal rights, but sometimes when I see those 'rights' being excercised by complete idiots, to the detriment and danger of others around them, I get annoyed. Particularily where firearms are concerned (as an aside, a hunter in our province put two rounds into his hunting partner, because he didn't identify his target, and after the first round heard his target still thrashing around....his second round killed the other hunter. This person was under a legal prohibition to own/use a firearm at the time....A case in point.)

I'm not strongly for the government to mandate or test who or who can't own firearms....while at the same time, I think there should be training and testing in place before an individual can obtain and own firearms. A bit of a dichotomy, but not insurmountable. As far as people being mentally fit, a training testing scenario would suffice.

As far as emotionally fit, yeah, tough call. But if someone has a recorded history of instability, for the love of society don't let them buy firearms just because it is their 'right'.....Screening on this level may be near impossible, but some kind of screening in place wouldn't be a bad thing IMO....don't ask me how, I'm not a 'shrink'......

OK, gotta go pack, but thanks for taking the time to respond to this thread. Next round is on me, chum!:darkbeer:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Please send our congress to Canada..... With a one way ticket
No thanks, we have our full quota of useless politicians....but thanks for the very generous offer!:) Maybe you could send some of the good made in the USA stuff, like Snap On Tools, or a decent Rigid pipe threader....you know, something we can use!:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Good points made 99, I won't address point by point as my time is short. I'm not dying, getting ready for a weekend hockey tournement....:wink:
Yeah, its nice to have a discussion about a sensitive topic and it not end in screaming obscenities!

I'm all for personal rights, but sometimes when I see those 'rights' being excercised by complete idiots, to the detriment and danger of others around them, I get annoyed.
I had a high school teacher who phrased it well.

"Your rights end where someone else's begin."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Yeah, its nice to have a discussion about a sensitive topic and it not end in screaming obscenities!



I had a high school teacher who phrased it well.

"Your rights end where someone else's begin."
Agreed, on both points. I've heard the saying too, and when practiced life is generally fine and safe.....Have a good weekend, folks!
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top