I live in Canada and this is our law concerning self-defense

I hear ya. The truth is, I feel much safer out in the middle of nowhere (even without bear spray) than I ever did when I lived in the city.

Wait, so what I’m hearing here is that if my family lived in Canada, it would be illegal for my wife or daughter to carry pepper spray to defend themselves? Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes, under our current laws, you're not allowed to carry any type of "noxious spray" or weapon to defend yourself with unless it's for an animal attack. If you live around where there are bears, you're allowed to carry bear spray but you are not allowed to use that spray to prevent a human from attacking you.

In the city, you are allowed to carry dog spray to defend against dogs but if the contents don’t meet Canadian regulations, it’s considered a "concealed weapon." and you can be charged for just possessing it.

You will hear some Canadians refuting this but the laws say that you are not allowed to defend yourself with anything that is considered an "Illegal weapon."

The truth is, if it can put down your attacker before they can kill you, it's technically prohibited from carrying on your person.

Bottomline is this:

“It is illegal to carry a product designed for personal protection against a human attack, according to the Criminal Code of Canada.” (Not my words.)

I could go off on a multi-paragraph rant, but I'm going to choose just to say.......WOW!

NO, you shouldn't have to find a "work around"......That's the whole point.

You're wrong re: the bolded part above. It ALL comes down to intent.

I carry every single day: A hunting knife hanging from my belt. Everywhere I go in public, (except the bank) it is legal to carry. Because it's a utility knife. It's purpose is cutting things. Not self defense.

I don't mean a folding knife. I carry a SOG NW Ranger II.

So Self-defense is frowned upon? That is the message I'm receiving.....

I don't know whether people don't understand the concept or just ignore it.

This is exactly right. The Criminal Code of Canada gives everyone the right to defend their lives or property, but the force used to defend your life or property must be proportional to the force being employed by someone who is attacking you, or attacking someone else who is nearby, or attempting to steal your property.

For instance, if you have a gun and someone who has a knife rushes you, you don't have time to figure out whether the guy with a knife is simply threatening you or intending to kill you. In that split second of time, any reasonable person would conclude that their life is in danger, and would be justified in shooting the guy wielding the knife.

On the other hand, if you surprise a burglar and he runs away (with or without your property) and is not threatening your life, you don't have the right to shoot him. However, if you surprise the burglar and attempt to detain him using a low degree of force and he attacks you, you have the right to use force to defend yourself, but no more than is necessary under the circumstances.

Agreed, it's not cut-and-dried as there are many variables that come into play when determining whether your attempts at self-defence were legitimately self-defence.

FFS, if someone breaks into your home and you have a wife and kids, you don't have the luxury of trying to determine how they are armed or what their motivations are. They get shot dead and you should not have to worry about the consequences. Actually, its your responsibility as a Father/parent to do just that. Anything else is irresponsible.

There was a guy working as a security guard that shot and killed a guy and the guy was not even on the property he was guarding so he moved the body.

Yea that guy got guilty of murder.

That sounds shady and I don't have a problem with that outcome.

It is the laws that put victims or potential victims at a disadvantage that I have issue with.

Last Edited by Setheory on 04/27/2017 12:10 PM

yea its one of those where he was shot from a distance and was not armed so the guy really was not a threat basically. It goes to show that even with make my day laws that we have, if a shooter basically takes a life that can't be justified as a self defense type scenerio they can be held responsible.

The spirit of the law is to protect against victimization not to grant authority to a new kind of victimizer imo.