Canadian Prime Minister does not believe self defense is a right

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, in the summer of 2022, that Canadians do not have a right to self-defense with the use of a firearm:

"And we have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting, or for sports shooting in Canada, and there are lots of gun owners, and they're mostly law respecting and law abiding... But you can't you can't use a gun for self protection, (smiling) ... in Canada; that's not a right that you have, in the Constitution or anywhere else. If you try and buy a gun and say it's for self protection, no, you don't get that. You get it for hunting, you can get it for sports shooting, you can take it to the range, no problem, as long as you go through our rigorous background checks... But there's a difference around the culture. And one of the things we're seeing with the debate in the states is, you get more and more of the American-style right to carry, self defense arguments filtering up through... through... you know... the usual more Right wing communications channel."​

'It's not a right you have': Gun owners react to Canada's non-existent self defence laws - Rebel News, Andrew Chapados, September 13, 2022
(see second video in link)

This is very concerning, although it's not entirely completely altogether clear exactly what Candian Prime Minister Trudeau meant. Self defense is THE MOST IMPORTANT reason for gun rights. Discounting the importance of self defense is pretty much tantamount to admitting that guns in general are not a right.

So let's say a person shoots another person, even though that shooting was entirely in self defense, and by all other measures completely justified. Well, if being able to have or use the gun was against the law, when law enforcement officials arrive that person will go to prison. Law enforcement will find out and that person will go to prison because they did something good and completely justified.

 

Good to see the US has a positive influence on Canadian "gun culture".

 

I think what many conservatives do not realize is that the push for gun control is not merely only all just about guns. It's part of a larger ideological worldview, with a broader scope. It's actually not just guns that are the issue; it is the right of individual private citizens to be able to use self defense. This is something most conservatives take for granted, assuming it is obvious and that no one could possibly be specifically against that idea.

Now of course you'll not find anyone who is completely and totally against the concept of self defense, but a huge swath of progressives have very different views on it from conservatives. I mean there are situations that, too a conservative, would be obvious self-defense, whereas to the majority of progressives, would be viewed as a serious crime, or even murder.

To most progressives, self defense is not anywhere close to being the absolute right which conservatives view it to be. I think this is something which a lot of those on both sides of the aisle don't realize, that there are so many people who view the issue very differently from the way they do. In fact I think most conservatives and progressives don't even realize it is an issue. It seems so obvious to them, they just never think about it. And besides, these self defense cases are most often decided on a case by case basis, in the courts, without very specific laws to define them.

And so the issue is not merely just about guns. Even if the gun is totally legal to have, the issue is not merely just the gun itself but how that gun is used. Supporters of gun rights need to understand that. The other side not only wants to take those guns away but also wants to prevent those guns from being used a certain way--a way in which most conservatives view as perfectly fine and justified. It's not only obvious crimes that gun control supporters want to prevent. What they want to prevent extends further than that. They want to prevent private citizens from being able to use force, specifically in situations where all of society is not in agreement about whether the use of that force in those situations is good or bad.

I've said this several times before in other discussions... Oftentimes conservatives are unable to see insanity because it seems so insane to them they are not inclined to believe that could actually exist, or that large swaths of the population could actually believe that. This prevents most conservatives from being able to see patterns or recognize the existence of a spreading belief in society. In a way, most conservatives are living in a bubble--a bubble of sanity, perhaps, yes, but still a dangerous bubble to be in. To use an analogy, it's like someone inside a submarine with a healthy atmosphere of air, but who does not realize the submarine is in the ocean, surrounded by water, sinking deeper and deeper into the ocean down to crushing depths. Eventually the walls of the submarine won't be able to take the increasing pressure and will rupture. The person inside is living in a state of ignorance and doesn't see any water.

 

As exercised by others.
Few of these people will argue they will not kill someone to protect themselves, their kids, their spouses or their parents.

"Ladies, ask you man how may people he would kill to protect you. If he does not immediately answer 'all of them', get rid of him find an actual man"

 

You're making a generalized assumption, and extending that far more than it warrants. That was my point.

I know it's very difficult, but you need to recognize there is a very large percentage of society and powerful political forces who do not see things the way you do.

You won't be able to fight something if you are not able to see it until the last moment after it is too late.

What seems like it should be obvious to you is not to many others.

People like you will be on the losing side if you continue with that attitude.

It's like a defense lawyer who doesn't bother putting up any argument because they don't believe there's any chance their client could be convicted.

 

Might be, but not in the situation I presented.

 

But that situation you presented is definitely not characteristic or representative of all self defense situations.

Don't imagine this is "obvious".

Here's just one example, albeit kind of an extreme one: Consider how Travis McMichael assumed he had the obvious right to shoot in self defense because someone else, whom he had been following, suddenly charged and ran up to him and violently tried to grab his gun away from him, while punching him. But he got sentenced to life in prison, for something he assumed he had the obvious right to do.

I think people like you and me will assume he should have had the obvious right to do that. But we would be naive and ignorant to assume that what we see as obvious would also be obvious to everyone else.

Does that make sense to you? Are you able to understand?

 

Might not be - but it demonstrates the agreement with be basic premise of self-defense - I have the right to kill someone to protect myself (etc).
As I said, the "you don't have the right" position is reserved for others.

The situation you present is definitely not characteristic or representative of the large majority, let alone all, self defense situations.

 

The other side agrees with the premise of self-defense on some basic level. No one disputes that.
That however does not mean there does not exist a huge controversial issue here.

If you ask a progressive "Do I have the right to kill someone to protect myself?", if they're being accurate I don't think they'll be able to give you a simple answer to that. They'll agree yes, in the most extreme and obvious cases. But they won't want to extend that logic anywhere near as far as someone like you would.
For an analogy, it would kind of be like asking a moderate Pro-Lifer whether they approve of Abortion. The answer could technically be "yes", but only with a big degree of limitation and some huge caveats. It would be a very reluctant and hesitant "yes", not a clear and resounding "yes".

 

This sounds like a very modern perspective. Guns were not very useful for self-defense until the invention of the revolver (that happened after the Second Amendment was written). Unfortunately, the same technological advancements that have made guns useful for self-defense have also made them even more useful for criminal purposes.

 

And yet, the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use such weapons from infringement.

 

Well, before guns it was swords, and there were many repeated attempts at sword control throughout history, in certain situations. Especially oppressed or conquered groups of people. The helots in Sparta, or the Scotts in Britain (see the Disarming Act of 1716 for more information). It can also be pointed out that the UK passed a law to ban (or strictly control) swords in 2009, which is relatively recently in modern times, due to mass immigration from other foreign parts of the world leading to social problems and knife violence on the streets.

 

Everyone supports the right to self defense ...once they have to defend themselves. Its just that a lot of people seem to think its somehow possible to make it so they'll never have to. Its just more belief in magic of the 'if you believe hard enough, it will happen' variety.

 

Even earlier, all the way back in 1695, England imposed a statute on Ireland titled "An Act for the better securing the government, by disarming papists", which forbade arms and ammunition possession by Catholics. This was part of what is commonly referred to the "Penal Laws" of the 17th century. It was one example of how England had subjugated Ireland.

 

Of course it is fine for armed guards to use guns to protect a man who does not think the little people have a right to self defense. There is an old saying that applies. Like father like son.

 

I think one of the main issues is, these people put their faith in government.
(Some conservative writers even say of them that "Government is their God")

They are collectivists. So of course there will be plenty of double standards between collectivist (government) and individual rights.

But I think many times they hold unrealistic expectations and standards, which explains why they are so angry all the time at police, and lay the blame for bad things happening on them, even when it was an accident and wasn't really the fault of any of the officers. Because government should be able to be perfect, and they'll never blame the laws for their unintended consequences. So the fault must be with the police officers, this reasoning goes.

They want to put all the "dirty work" into the hands of police, and then want to crucify them when things inevitably go wrong.

With security guards and bodyguards, rich important politicians can have someone else to take the blame if things go wrong.

If their bodyguard ends up shooting someone, and it is later decided--either rightly or wrongly--that shooting was not fully justified, no one is going to blame the person whom the bodyguard was protecting.

 

The first firearms were made out of hollowed-out goards and used by chinese(?) peasants to overthrow their oppressive feudal lord who had banned them from having any metal weaponry or even the means to manufacture weaponry. They had goards, flashpowder and rocks tho. Reportedly the weapons were weak and could injure but not likely kill, but were so scary and surprising that the lords martial forces mostly fled and the revolt was a success.

 

It's not only just shooting guns. Look at that St. Louis couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey who were arrested and charged just for standing outside holding guns on the lawn of their mansion, after a mob had broken through a gate and was standing on a private street right in front of their property. (June 2020)
(The wife waved her gun at the crowd but the husband only held his, yet he was still arrested and charged along with his wife)

If any of you remember the debates on this forum about the story, there were many on the Left saying that was not the homeowner's right to do that and that "brandishing" is and should be a crime.

The point is, this is yet another example of something that conservatives believe people should obviously have the right to do (in this situation), but progressives do not. An issue which does not just concern the legality of guns themselves but how they are used.

 

many on the left want to outsource all personal responsibility to the government, but at the same time, eliminate the individual freedom of choice that comes from those duties. Self defense being one

 

These days in America if a white person is forced to defend himself from a minority he needs to just slip away before the police arrive and let the event be chalked up to gang violence.

Unless they are in a place like Texas where I assume people are still reasonable. Or live in a rural area where "shoot, shovel, shut-up" is likely to be the best way to handle such a self defense incident.

 

Nonsense. Sure they were.

Granted, revolvers are much superior to single shot weapons. But single shot weapons still work for self defense when that is all that is available.