Why is it in Canada there is no concept of the right to self-defense,?

The Mackenzie Institute, Toronto, Ontario

Unlike the United States, the Canadian federal government is responsible for criminal law and the provinces are generally responsible for enforcement - although most provinces rely upon the RCMP to act as the provincial and local police force. This introduces a further element of national uniformity. Despite disavowals by police officials, the Canadian Criminal Code does include the right of citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves (sections 34, 35, and 37).

In Canada, the key provision in the criminal code is that no one may use "more force than is necessary" and then only when "he believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." In section 35, the code goes on to require that one must show that, "he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself ... arose." Moreover, the right to use physical force to defend non�family members is more limited than it is in many states, as are a Canadians' rights to repulse trespassers on one's own property, or to use force to stop the commission of serious or violent crimes (Sections 24, 40, and 41).

Self defense is severely circumscribed by more conditions than are typically found in the United States. A wide range of self defensive weapons (e.g., Mace, pepper spray, small handguns, tasers and stun guns) are prohibited, ownership is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. For all practical purposes, it has been impossible to own a handgun for self protection since 1977. Recent firearms legislation now requires firearms to not only be unloaded when stored in one's residence but must also be put under lock and key. Judging from news reports, many of those who use a firearm to defend themselves, are charged with one or more criminal violations �� unsafe storage, careless use of firearm, or possession of a prohibited weapon �� and then they have to prove in court that the firearm had been used in self defense.

Another important difference between the United States and Canada is enforcement. Anyone who uses a weapon in self defense is likely to be charged in Canada and have to defend themselves in court, even if the attacker is not injured seriously. The charges may be "possession of a prohibited weapon," or "careless use/storage of a firearm," rather than "assault" or "attempted murder." The Crown apparently is determined to discourage people from forcefully defending themselves.

I suggest you read up a bit on Canadian Law before asking questions like this. Canada is more lienent as far as self defense laws go than the USA. Im from USA my wife is Canadain so I know both laws.

If the same situation occured in USA and Canada ...

3 men armed with knives try to mug my wife and I....

In USA I would be held by the police for killing all three.
In Canada I would be given a medal for killing all three.

In USA I would be sued by the survivor if I killed two and let one live.
In Canada I would be notified that a suit was being filed aginst me by the survior and in the same envelope would be the notice that the suit was rejected

They are suffering from the same delusions that the English government has been laboring under for years.

Apparently its OK for a criminal to kill you, but its illegal for you to try and stop the criminal from killing you.

In my opinion, that attitude violates the International "Rights of Man" which dictates that all people are entitled to protect themselves against violence by others.

is that true? I didn't know that, seems stupid, defend yourself anyway, the person who throws the first punch etc, is the one who will get charged with assault, so....
One of Canadas dumber laws for sure

Different country, different leaders, different ideals, and it may be that not enough people in "gun-control" countries believe in the same idea of "self-defense," as you do.

It may seem a little bit backward in thinking to you, as it does me, and we may not agree with it, but if that's really how Canada as a whole operates, then that is just how it is.

Honestly, having only my opinion and being on the outside, not really knowing their laws, I would see it as a form of control over the people. And to me, the reasoning behind that choice seems false. But it could also be that they would be so set on protecting the lives of criminals, that they'd forgotten that the victims have a right to life too.

But I just can't definitively say, without knowing their minds, or the laws. I've based my entire answer on your question and the "information" presented there in, and the small fact that other countries do practice gun-control or other similarly inhibiting laws.

1

There looks distinctive fake impression approximately what "no longer responsible via reason fo self defence" potential. struggling with skills and self defence are not a similar element. working example, a "black belt long previous undesirable" might kick your butt to rob you or basically for the relaxing of it. in case you're strolling down the line and a few stranger walks up and punches you, this does not grant you with a criminal top to punch back. The regulation says you may desire to evade the war of words if available -- run, conceal, call for help, etc. The regulation excuses you for employing violence in self defence provided which you haven't any longer the different thoughts. i basically can not provide it creedence that the Canadian government expects electorate to stand and be overwhelmed relatively than clunk assailants with a reachable chair leg or frozen pizza. If I have been forced to act in self defence, to shop myself from severe injury via whacking my assailant excessive with a 50 pound bag of heroin, it does no longer make the heroin any much less unlawful. basically while you evaluate this is utilized in self defence does not make an unlawful weapon any much less unlawful. back, this is previous concept that Canada might evaluate tried homicide a miles less severe crime than possession of a Taser.

there is seld defense just no with guns. there are course in self defense taught to women in the U.S. as well unarmed self defense. also might point out those who thought their weapons would protect themselves could not at Waco many were l killed at the siege same with Ruby Ridge or Marion. guns are not enough alone need the quill to defend yourself . need to use media to help educate about situations so when behaviors lead to problems they can be averted. not all violence is caused by strangers it is said in some books the violence is done by familiar people. could be wrong . here is a question i would like to ask would an American citizen volunteer for a peacekeeping mission and use a gun owned by that citizen to defend a person in a country at war if it was allowed to use own gun after peace training . use right to do so . does this have to apply just to U.S citizens what about others who have no guns and are in a country involved in a civil war. and UN is having trouble would U.S citizens help with their own guns if they could. not criticism just wondering what arrangements could be made for peacekeeping mission by citizens using that right after training for those of them that require it i mean using those guns most suited to it. there are alot of guns in the U.S so i was wondering if by showing the world they cared and defending others by extent would be defending themselves not saying do not care just would help. defend or protect humanity is to protect themselves is all and wars are infinitely worse than street muggers so what about it possible

hmmmmmmm to this question, personally i think canadians just want to be different from the rest of us...but that alone doesnt help much does it when it comes to your rights!..consider seeking legal advice & if no help there then move out from canada. Good LUck

There are only isolated crimes in Canada and this is the reason that there is no need for the right to self-defense because there minimal threat to defend.