Offender can 'use' a handgun even without carrying one, top court rules:

[Osborn F Enready]

Funny, the court recognizes that offenders can use guns without actually using them, but citizen defenders can't use guns without actually using them because they don't have that right.

Sounds like a stacked deck to me, to empower the offenders, since they have the option to ACTUALLY obtain and use guns.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Funny, the court recognizes that offenders can use guns without actually using them, but citizen defenders can't use guns without actually using them because they don't have that right. Sounds like a stacked deck to me, to empower the offenders, since they have the option to ACTUALLY obtain and use guns.

I think you missread the subject or didn't read it to begin with.... this isn't saying criminals can walk away carrying a gun and not using it (ie: giving them permission).... it is saying that the law was past to say that if someone commits a crime and has a firearm nearby but doesn't use it, or threatens the use of a firearm in a crime, they can be charged with a weapons offense even though they didn't use it.

This isn't infringing on rights of the citizen.... this is restricting the rights of those who commit crimes even further.... as this case proves.... they basically admitted to commiting the crime but tried to get a lesser penalty by saying they didn't use a gun in the robbery..... but this law now states that they're just as equally screwed for what they did, even if they didn't use the gun..... it was readily available, they brought it to the crime scene, threatened countless times to use it.... case closed.

These guys are in jail longer now, and the victims can now worry less about them getting out earlier then they should. Seems logical to me.

[Osborn F Enready]

My point was, this is in Canada, correct?

Do you have the right to use arms for defense?

[Praxius]

Yes we do.... if you mean firearms, technically no. Neither do the Criminals.... they do not have any rights to posses a fire arm either.

But Firearm, as I have been trying to explain to you and I know where you are trying to go with this, does not replace the term Arms. Firearms because the main term to use and the main right to defend for an ego trip in my opinion.

The average citizen doesn't need a firearm for everyday life here, nor should they be allowed to stroll into any place at all with a sidearm strapped out in the open to compinsate for their inadiquacies in their pants. If you rely so much on an extension from your body as a form of defense, then you're not really protected to begin with, you just have the illusion, so that when it doesn't protect you when you need it, you can blame it on the firearm, not yourself and your inability to properly shove their gun down their throat and pull the trigger three or four times.

And for those who worship statistics, countries, including the US, who have firearms leagel for public use are always higher in gun related deaths and crimes then those who restrict or make the illegal. Most of the firearms gangs and criminals use here in Canada are actually smuggled over the US borders.

CTV.ca | T.O. police fear influx of U.S. guns into Canada

While guns purchased in Canada that are later stolen from their owners comprise a major source for the illegal trade, the coalition says smuggled guns account for more than half the handguns recovered by police that are used to commit crimes in Canada.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax, I am sorry if the term "arms" bothers you as used often in the 'States.

In this country, we often use the word "arms" and "guns" to refer to firearms, though neither is an adequate replacement.

It seems as though you are splitting hairs on your right to defense using FIREARMS.