Canada and guns

The Windsor Star, a major newspaper in southwest Ontario, reported the other day that Canadian Prime minister Stephen Harper has caused a firestorm in Canadian politics by asserting that there is a connection between guns and personal security. This has rattled some of our northern friends, and prompted the Canadian Bar Association to advise Canadians that, should they shoot a home invader who is unarmed, they could be charged with murder. Canadians, said Eric Gottardi of the CBA, don't have the legal right to defend their homes with guns.

We'll be what many Canadians believe the typical American and say incredulously, What do you mean they have no legal right to defend their homes with guns? It's a home invasion, for crying out loud. Isn't that threat by itself enough to warrant self defense by whatever means? How are you supposed to know how big of a threat the intruder might be? He's broken into your home; certainly that demonstrates he has no scruples about you and your family.

We simply don't understand that line of thought at all. Obviously, it invites home invasion. What's to be afraid of when the homeowner cannot effectively do anything about a burglar but, apparently, run? We have to presume that's the case, because if you can't shoot an unarmed home invader then wouldn't it equally qualify as murder if you hit him over the head with a bat?

Really, now. Your home, indeed all of your personal property, is an extension of you. You have the moral right to protect it as much as the moral right for self protection of your family and friends. Aggression must be seen as exactly that; presuming that aggression will not necessarily result in the need for deadly force is just plain naive. You're better off presuming that aggression, especially that such as home invasion, will end up a deadly threat and treating it that way.

But no legal right to protect your home with firearms? We can't fathom that attitude at all.

It's Okay to Stand Your Ground

The Ann Arbor City Council wants to see the repeal of the Michigan Stand Your Ground law. But why?

Is self defense wrong? Because if it is, it won't be long until the criminals rule the roost. If an assailant of any type knows that you cannot fight back without endangering yourself before a more omnipotent force (which is the law), he will press harder and become bolder. Common sense tells us as much.

Because of Trayvon Martin? Zimmerman was found not guilty, folks. If anything, the case supports stand your ground.

Because some people will push the law to the limit? Yet that can happen with almost any law; if such is the basis for repealing laws, then repeal them all, for they all might be abused.

We will readily concede that there are times when common sense tells you to back down, to retreat, even, if circumstances demand that. We will even concede that some folks will make poor judgments which could lead to escalating rather than diffusing a situation. Yet we will at the same time assert that poor judgment by others doesn't mean a law, and that means any given law, is bad.

People do bad things; they make mistakes. If human perfection is your demand in anything, whether law, morality, or practical matters, are decided upon, you were born in the wrong universe. Humanity is not perfect; neither with its laws be. You simply cannot tie the hands of the reasonably rational majority for the sake of the stupid or evil. At that point, stupid and evil win.