So this is the power of cuckanada

Too bad it'll take you a minute to properly load the powder, wadding and shot

Attached: loyalists.jpg (886x625, 121K)

Leave

You are a naive fool. Time and time again we see Monday-morning-quarterbacking in court determines that the defendant was "never really in danger," no matter what happens. Your options are die or go to jail, and your post is pure COPE

ebin

You're an idiot. Judicial matters hardly ever end in such black and white terms, especially with regards to "die or go to jail". You can even look at something like drunk driving incidents, where someone can be charged with manslaughter rather than murder. Things aren't black and white. In a situation like a home invasion, it's all about intent and reasonable use of force. Try fucking growing up at some point instead of just claiming that the guberment is out to get you, so you can justify spending your entire welfare check on MREs to "prep" with.

Attached: 1541809791911.jpg (800x450, 58K)

I love how people who make these threads conveniently ignore the several recent cases where the person defending himself was acquitted.

I wish I had an omnipotent understanding of everything happening in my home and the intentions of every living being inside of it.

So that I will never have to risk confronting someone to prevent them from going into my children rooms! I can simply just sit there hiding in my closet 100 percent content in the knowledge they wont go anywhere else in the house.

Luckily canadian children also have this ability and instantly know when the noise in the living room is a home invader.

Canadians are truly lucky

I'd say enjoy prison but you're such a good little cucknadian I'm sure you'll take the knife in the ribs rather than burden her majesty's court :)

They get acquitted because for now, like in the UK, the average citizen has a broader acceptance of armed self defense than the law. Luckily this is rapidly changing with your demographics!

Nothing like proving your point by being completely hyperbolic and facetious :^)

The exact same scenario can be applied to an American household, even one with Castle Doctrine, and it would play out the same as a Canadian household. If someone can enter your home and get to your children before you can, they are going to be dead either way. But assuming you can get to your children before the home invader, do it. The reasonable force law also applies to those within your immediate surroundings. If you're children's safety is in immediate danger, you can do what you can to mitigate the harm caused to them, WITHIN REASON.

Are you able to grab the children and run out of the house? Then do it. If this option is deemed possible in your current state of situational awareness, and is deemed the safest outcome, then do so. However if running out of the house with your children is possible, but you instead stick around and hunt the home invader down, this is murder.

it's called reasonable force for a reason. The amount of force you apply to an individual MUST be reasonable for it to be justified. Is someone in the room beating your child? Shooting them is justified as they are actively harming the person. Is the criminal in the basement snooping around and you're on another floor with everyone, able to escape? Then escape. Standing at the top of the steps with your rifle aimed at the bottom waiting for the criminal is murder. Your intent and reasonable use of force would not be justified.

Use cognitive thinking for fucking once in your goddamn life. The scenarios will always change, and so will the reasonable use of force. Act accordingly.

>prevent homeless people from dying

Why would I want to do this?

Attached: 1444002715140.png (566x482, 508K)

Great retort. Sure proved me wrong.

I'll enjoy never spending a day in prison, because it's also never going to happen. I'll spend more time thinking about buckling my seat belt then I will about a home invader, but keep living your life in a retarded state of fear and frothing at the mouth when someone whispers "stopping power".

Attached: Me.jpg (453x604, 65K)

>reasonable
>restrictions

oof, user...not helping your story

That’s why you have a bayonet

LOL, every single one of the shootings detailed at the end of that article sound like they could have been ripped right from the headlines of my city. Ain't diversity grand? Aren't you canucks so glad you ignored the violence south of your border and blamed it on easy access to guns and now you see it in your own cities? You can thank your politicians the next time you line up to suck their cocks.

5rnd mag limits are also off the table nigger

that's why he said loaded numbnuts

>thinking that having restrictions on someone's actions is a bad thing

Yeah you're right. Laws are retarded anyways.

Attached: 1549661424322.jpg (301x306, 12K)

We have 10 round mags too

I forgot that violence never happened before firearms came under more control. I saw a spaghetti western once where everyone was jacking each other off

You were that fucking nerd we fucked with in high school arent you little faggot leaf?

> If someone can enter your home and get to your children before you can, they are going to be dead either way.
>un ironically using this in an argument and expecting anything you say to be relevant

Repeat after me: cucknadian

Nah, I was that friend in high school that everyone got along with because I treated people with respect and just wanted to have a good time. You're the one who called everyone a faggot because he didn't want to come to terms with this own prevailing homosexual tendencies. Admit it user, you like traps, b-b-but only the ones that look like girls!!!1!

Attached: Georgie Boy.gif (500x376, 485K)

Unlike you chastity-wearing cucknadians, I can seek and destroy anyone who breaks into my home regardless of whether or not I'm in immediate danger. Face it, USA > Canada, but I know thats a redpill too big even for a cocksucking faggot such as yourself to swallow.

Attached: 1550088275722.gif (311x210, 118K)

Why do people here hate Jow Forumsanadians so much? I thought gun owners would usually get along no matter where they're from

WOOOAH WATCH THE FUCK OUT

Attached: 1550906283183.jpg (590x775, 104K)

>not understanding that the sentence was used as an ironic argument towards the lack of difference two laws can cause in an unwinnable scenario

Imagine having zero reading comprehension. American literacy systems at work.

Attached: 1537016959422.png (600x600, 455K)

You know there are states that are more restrictive than canada in terms of gun laws, right?

>Tfw Canada will become Rio de Janegro 2.0 in our lifetime.

I, for one, cannot wait.

Attached: Pepe Rio de Janegro BTFO.png (923x713, 44K)

Lmao that hyperspecific insult, coming from a canadian no less, is in no way, shape, or form, projection im sure. And nah you were the guy we ripped on repeatedly cuz he wouldnt do shit back.

Attached: 1550104552966.jpg (289x372, 10K)

we're gonna be worse but at least we won't be as faggy and excited to be destroyed

Nerd faggot, confirmed

This is the power of a KEK.
This is what I think of when I imagine Canadians. Utterly divorced from reality, sheltered, uneducated, and then smug about it.

Sure but our whole country isnt equivalent to one big giant lib shithole like yours is

Attached: 1551147015011.jpg (211x238, 15K)

People don't. Literally 90% of the hate comes from a small sect of people that just fling shit to fling shit. If you actually meet any /hasguns/ out in real life, everyone gets along, regardless of where they are from or what guns they have. It's just random internet hatred, which is always retarded to read anyways.

Just head to a local range and you'll see everyone talks and just has a good time. If anyone actually starts being difficult, they are ostracized from the group, like any other societal group would do. Remember user, it's Jow Forums, not real life.

honestly what is wrong with you people. some guy is trying to bust in your door to murder you and you helplessly yelp out "p-please stop" so that you can be justified in not dying. Hopefully he doesn't get to you before you read him his rights or else you just gotta let him kill you!

>Reasonable
Lol, enjoy asking the man with a butcher knife if he wants to make a sandwich fir kill you. Hope he cooperates.

You would legit let Jamal plow your wife instead of shooting him because that would be "unreasonable" huh? Fag.

Traps are hot. I can admit it user. Can you? Don't worry, your dad will always be disappointed with you.

Attached: 78c.gif (480x270, 3.78M)

This user knows what's up.

Lot of spicy anger this early in the morning. My good golly gosh.

Or maybe, just maybe
Someone out to steal someone else's shit in full knowledge of it being wrong and the possibility of consequences forfeits their natural rights as a result of a knowing decision to infringe upon the rights of others. Thus, they deserve to be shot, regardless of what a bunch of bleeding heart cuckolds who weren't actually in the situation at all, but instead perfectly safe telling other people "You have no right to feel in danger because it's never happened to me!". If you want to live in such a fucking dystopia where the right to property is not respected and the life of a criminal is valued higher than a law-abiding citizen, then feel fucking free to do so, but don't try and tell others that it's not the flaming pile of garbage it is nor drag anyone else down into hell with you.

Attached: 1539884588808.jpg (1200x640, 128K)

>My good golly gosh he says as his woman is raped by a group of brown people right in front of him.

Daily reminder that the US has an intentional homicide rate 3 times higher than Canada. It's also higher than in almost all Europan countries, with the exception of Russia and Ukraine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Fair but we aren't arguing about that. We have guns here, so what's the big deal

Indeed, but that is because of black people. Remove all of the murders committed by the niggers and you'll see that the US suddenly becomes as safe as any other civilized country.

Or wait for Canada to become brown and see for yourself what I mean. :^)

>the right to property is not respected and the life of a criminal is valued higher than a law-abiding citizen

This statement itself is so misguided on what American values were founded on, and subsequently on how other countries (Canada) deal with the same problems.

The idea behind American laws/freedoms are that the life of a criminal and the life of a law-abiding citizen are the exact same. This is why you have things like public defenders, even for those who have been convicted of a crime, or those on death row. for example. The idea being that each and every single person, regardless of what they have or haven't done, should have their lives and freedoms judged/valued at the exact same level. I don't understand how you can be so oblivious to this concept that American values have tried so hard to entrench?

The idea is that someone shouldn't have their life so carelessly lost because of them trying to take, what is only a mere object. It's a valuation on life over property. I, as well as Canada, is not saying that you can just take from others without due punishment. We are merely trying to say that stealing something, of small value, is not worth the taking of a human life. Even the picture you posted agrees with this exact sentiment. The moment you value the wealth of your properties over the value of a human's freedom (their life), is the moment we no longer want you in our society.

The fact you are so willing to remove a human life for the defense of mere property, is extremely alarming. Your values are backwards, and are no longer in line with even your own American values. You no longer see the forest for the trees.

>The life of a criminal is worth as much as mine.

Attached: Trudeau Cuck.jpg (228x351, 18K)

>Canadians think they understand America
Wow please post more.

What about my norico m305(Chinese m14a1)?

>Americans think they understand Canada
Wow please post more.

At the very least, you should take it as a compliment. American values, from the founding fathers, was revolutionary enough to shape not only the modern age of democracy, but how countries modeled themselves. We cared enough about American values to study them, even outside of American borders. That itself should be something to be proud of, rather than chastising others for trying to dissect it.

I'm Canadian. We can own guns, and people usually get aquitted for shooting intruders to death when that is the reasonable response. Americans have it better in both instances for the most part. So what is the big deal?

>The idea being that each and every single person, regardless of what they have or haven't done, should have their lives and freedoms judged/valued at the exact same level. I don't understand how you can be so oblivious to this concept that American values have tried so hard to entrench?

This is progressive revisionism at its finest.

There is no place in civilized society for those who break the very lax laws on society. If you break into someone's home to steal something they own, they payed for, you are no longer at the same level as the person who's house you broke into like a nigger. Once someone breaks the law the moral limits shouldn't apply to them, because the went out of their way to be a dumbass nigger and break the law. If someone is in your house without you permission, and you don't know who it is, what the fuck do they mean to you? For all you could care that person was a fucking rock or something because you don't know them, and they're trying to steal your hard earned property. Just shoot the fucker and there will be one less law breaking nigger to steal again

>This is progressive revisionism at its finest.

It's a mere interpretation of American, and subsequently Canadian, values. Even if it were progressive revisionism, is that so much of a bad thing? It's important to question the values we have established ourselves on. The only way to strengthen ourselves is to remove the rotting foundation. Not saying the foundation is currently rotting, but it's important to check. Blind faith has never resulted in a positive or lasting outcome. Being able to say that you have never changed from your beginnings is never a good thing. It's like when someone tells you that you are the same from when you were in highschool. It's an insult more than a compliment.

>Once someone breaks the law the moral limits shouldn't apply to them, because the went out of their way to be a dumbass nigger and break the law.
>what is adequacy
Would you also like cops to stop giving tickets and just shoot people on the spot for speeding?

Death is not an adequate punishment for stealing a TV. Even in self-defense, killing an attacker is not meant to be a lawful punishment, it's merely an effective and often the only way to stop them from causing you harm or taking your life.

If some crackhead junkie values his life so little that he would risk it for a TV, why should I value it any more?

>It's a mere interpretation of American, and subsequently Canadian, values.

Yes, one possible interpretation which has significant historical evidence to contradict it.

I agree with you that there are many things about our society that need to be changed. Although I have diametrically opposite ideas about how they should change. And I think you will find that the consensus behind neoliberal progressive values is not quite as strong as you think, even in Canada. And those who may vote for politicians who espouse those beliefs may do so for very different reasons.

>law breaking nigger
>like a nigger
>dumbass nigger

So eloquent.

>There is no place in civilized society for those who break the very lax laws on society.

You are correct. That is why we have a jail or prison. There already exists forms of punishment, where those who do wrong can be rightfully punished, and allowed room to adjust their behavior accordingly. Killing someone for stealing your TV is no different than hanging someone for speaking out against the king. Your punishment does not fit the crime. THIS IS THE EXACT VALUE THAT AMERICANS VEHEMENTLY TRIED TO ESTABLISH. The founding fathers literally came from a monarchical controlling country where citizens would be faced with outlandish punishment for committing small, unfavorable acts. Parts of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights were written to avoid this exact scenario.

>Once someone breaks the law the moral limits shouldn't apply to them

The law specifically states the exact opposite of this. Even in times where someone is charged with a crime, we must treat them fairly as we would all else. It is the very basis that you're judicial system is founded on. It's why vigilante justice is outlawed. It's why you can choose Jury as a form of judgement.

Because you're civilized, and not a monster. You value their life as much as you value your own, regardless of their decision making. This is what makes justice valuable. You hold others to a higher standard, even when they themselves don't hold to that standard.

>all those apostrophes
Kys

Imagine a hat trying to tell you what you think.
>the life of a criminal and the life of a law-abiding citizen are the exact same
Except that's wrong and you have no fucking clue about America other than what you have personally decided to think it means for the sake of your own confirmation bias. Criminals are in prison for a reason. The entire point of public defenders and the right to a fair trial is to do it's best to ensure that only criminals are sent. Thus, as a criminal, they are already accepted as no longer having the same rights as a normal citizen, hence their imprisonment. If you imprison someone who has committed no crime, that's either kidnapping or wrongful imprisonment. A private entity is not obligated to give someone a fair trial, nor should they be. If the perpetrator in question is blatantly committing a crime by breaking into their home, they have established themselves as an entity that does not care for the rights of the homeowner, no different than an animal. Thus, the homeowner has no guarantee that the criminal in question will stop only at theft, nor should they be required to risk their lives and livelihood in order to ascertain that for the sake of the survival of an entity which would likely work towards the death of the homeowner with glee. Unironically pic related.

>Death is not an adequate punishment for stealing a TV
Real fucking easy to say when it's not your TV and when you conveniently forget the whole "Breaking into someone's domicile" bit.
>Even in self-defense, killing an attacker is not meant to be a lawful punishment
Maybe not in Soviet Canada, but anyone who gets shot while willfully threatening the safety of another is at best simply the way things are in the event of that person having a good reason, or at worst, exactly what they fucking deserved.

>Implying

Attached: 1547794912346.jpg (889x960, 218K)

>which has significant historical evidence to contradict it.

In what capacity? American independence support the exact values I'm discussing, which happen to be American/Canadian values. The idea that someone can be outlandishly punished for a crime that isn't comparable, is exactly what the founding fathers sought to disengage from. The crown would systematically dole harsher punishments for those it deemed "lesser" than itself. The exact lack of equality between the royalty and plebeian is what the American value sought to dissolve.

>those who may vote for politicians who espouse those beliefs may do so for very different reasons

I think this would apply to all parties, not necessarily those that apply to neo-liberalism. Those who vote for one do not always share the same sentiments as though who vote for the same. That's a larger discussion anyways.

Why should I not be able to defend my property with force? I sweat blood and tears to gain what I have. Fuck off. Castle doctrine exists.

>Real fucking easy to say when it's not your TV
So would you also like cops to stop giving tickets and just shoot people on the spot for speeding or not?

>and when you conveniently forget the whole "Breaking into someone's domicile" bit.
It's adequate to use lethal force if you feel your life is being threatened, which can be the case if the burglar is trying to approach you or at least facing you, not when you see him running away in the opposite direction with both of his hands on your TV.

>Maybe not in Soviet Canada
Not in the US either, hardly anywhere as a matter of fact. No, killing someone to protect your property is not passing a lawful judgement and punishment on them, that's what the courts are for. It's merely a way to stop them. Work on your reading comprehension.

>but anyone who gets shot while willfully threatening the safety of another is at best simply the way things are in the event of that person having a good reason

I have been explaining the entire time that this is exactly the scenario where you are defended in Canadian law. When you're safety is jeopardized and violence is the only option for securing safety, you are justified in murder. It's reasonable force. You had no other option.

>Real fucking easy to say when it's not your TV and when you conveniently forget the whole "Breaking into someone's domicile" bit.

I'm not talking about TV for murder in a vacuum. I'm explaining that the situation at hand, and your subsequent actions, determines your punishment (or lack there of). Having someone break into your home is not a blanket decision to have their murder justified. This may be American values, which I disagree with, but it's not Canadian. Canada affords you quite a wide length to deal with intruders in a reasonable manner. Again, someone sneaking around downstairs? Call the police and try to escape. If escape is not possible, hold in position until further help arrives. If someone is actively trying to break your safe position and cause harm, you're well within your rights to end their life. It leaves murder as the last possible scenario to solving a situation, not the fucking first.

>The entire point of public defenders and the right to a fair trial is to do it's best to ensure that only criminals are sent.

Same in Canada.

>Thus, as a criminal, they are already accepted as no longer having the same rights as a normal citizen, hence their imprisonment

Also the same in Canada. Some rights have been suspended for punishment, but their value as a human has not diminished. This is what I'm arguing. I'm not trying to say criminals shouldn't be punished, I'm trying to say that giving so little value to human life, even when they have done wrong, is categorically wrong.

Anywhere in the US you can shoot someone for breaking into your house and get off scot-free.

>The laws are in place to prevent shit like some homeless dude losing his life because he tried to steal your bike, or someone getting stabbed because they slapped you at the bar. You're more likely to die from slipping in the shower or choking on your fucking cheetos, so stop jacking off over castle doctrine.
So the laws are in place to protect criminals and facilitate repeat offenders.

Life, liberty, and property. Threatening any of those should be grounds for lethal force. If more tweakers and niggers got blown away because they stole a bike, they'd steal less bikes.

>my wife and kids were just kidnapped
>better not shoot the guy driving the van because it's not my place to judge him
you are retarded

This is the line of thinking that turned Brazil into one of the biggest crime-ridden countries in the world, just so you know.

Things took a nose dive to the worst after all this 'they are people too' garbage.

They aren't. A good bandit is a dead bandit. If you don't want to be cut in half by a 12 gauge don't brake into somebody's house, if you don't want to have your heart punctured by a .38 special, don't try to kill, rob, rape or whatever the fuck else. How fucking hard is that?

Criminals are scum and must be treated accordingly.

The person isn't getting shot for stealing a TV. If somebody comes home and their TV is stolen, they don't track down the person that did it to shoot them. They got shot for breaking and entering, which you (((conveniently))) ignore every time it comes up. By breaking and entering, they make known their willingness to do harm to the homeowner, whether it be financial or otherwise, and in the midst of the very place where they should have no obligation to feel threatened in. You don't get to fucking decide that people don't have a right to defend their homes simply because the perpetrator is some "disenfranchised urban youth". To think you have the right to do that and that you think such things so readily merely shows absolute, all-encompassing arrogance. Saying that violence has no place in a society is the mark of a naive fool who has never once been forced to take matters into their own hands, but has instead lived completely dependent on the safety the toil of others afford them.

Attached: 1548347872121.jpg (563x450, 42K)

>Anywhere in the US you can shoot someone for breaking into your house and get off scot-free.

>willing someone to protect your property is not passing a lawful judgement and punishment on them, that's what the courts are for. It's merely a way to stop them.
>merely a way to stop them.
You are not even trying to understand what you read anymore.

>kidnapping multiple family memebers is equal ot stealing a TV
You either have a really bad family or a really awesome fucking TV. You also do not understand what "adequacy" is.

>Criminals are scum and must be treated accordingly.
I don't see you answering the question.

Can I post videos of police shooting criminals or is Jow Forums really that blue of a board?

>someone sneaking around downstairs? Call the police and try to escape.
Lol. Imagine being this much of a faggot.

Attached: Nazi Gun.webm (800x450, 511K)

Imagine being so insecure you feel the need to make a thread to flex on fucking canada

Well Jow Forumsommandos, I'm out of here for the day. It's been real fun arguing with everyone on here regarding Canadian Reasonable Force laws, and even more fun angering everyone.

As a final note, understand that Canada runs on reasonable force. If you truly feel your life is in danger, and violence is your last resort, you will be protected under the veil of law. Despite what people like to think or joke about, Canada is fine. Good luck to my neighbors in the south.

Remember, you're more likely to die on your morning commute, than you ever will in a home invasion. So buckle up everybody.

Attached: 1547080680108.png (268x261, 185K)

it's the same logic retard ergo someone taking something that isn't theirs

>it's the same logic
>what is severity
Yeah dude a kid stealing some candy is totally the same as armed robbery, both should be shot.

>someone taking something that isn't theirs
>family members are property
k

>hijab
>intended to cover women as they're precious
>tranny wears hijab
Lmao

> a kid stealing candy in your house at 2 am should be shot
i would think
>family members are property
>just like you are their property
k

Have fun prepping the bull chang

>Implying that utilizing taxpayer funded law enforcement to shoot people for speeding is the same as a private citizen shooting someone who decided to break into their home with malicious intent

>If you feel your life is bring threatened
And who gets to decide that, huh? Because it sure seems to me that you think "Heh, only the crown gets to decide that! Off to the pillory with ye!" Depending on one's views of economics, the value of a dollar can be directly defined as the time and labor utilized in it's earning and as a measure of how much that person has contributed both in time and effect, towards the will of others. By stealing something from another, it could very well be understood as slavery after the fact, because the time and effort put into working towards the material items in question are now worthless to the person who did it. Would you so readily dismiss the right of someone forced to work against their will to fight against those wishing to force work upon them? Whether they're a nigger in chains or someone in a soviet shithole fighting back against the politburo is irrelevant.

>That's what the courts are for
Guess my understanding of your grasp of law and right to self-determination in the previous paragraph was correct, then.

>When your safety is jeopardized
Except you don't seem to get the concept that the opinions of a bunch of limp-wristed ivory tower cocksuckers shouldn't have any fucking bearing on whether or not someone feels they need to perforate someone.

>Having someone break into your home...murder justified
>Murder
>Implying
Murder is a legal term which is entirely based on whether or not the killing in question was legally justified. To use it for the sole purpose of making a killing sound worse by using a scarier word is fucking pathetic and the exact sort of shit people do when they talk about "Assault weapons". Killing someone who breaks into your home is justified.

>syrup faggots seething that they have to run through a 10 step verification process to make sure they can shoot Jamal who has broken in and is raping Mrs. Syrup

>tfw im canadian and murdered some chug faggot that broke into my shed and buried him in a swamp
Stay mad nigger loving cucks

>to prevent some homeless guy from dying for stealing your bike.

Fuck you, nigger! I worked two months to save for that bike, and some fucking crackhead just comes and snips the cable with a pair of bolt cutters in the middle of the afternoon. I had to walk 35 min there and back to work over the summer in 35C weather. Castle doctrine is morally right, and objectively superior to a law that protects criminals from violent and righteous retribution. "Reasonable force" is fucking moronic.

There should not be any legal impetus on a victim of a crime to try and mitigate the damage they do to their aggressor in the event they are presented with force or the threat of force. You should not HAVE to leave, even if you are able. Life can be replaced just as easily as stuff can.

Daily reminder that the US is full of NIGGERS.

No, the reason we have public defenders is that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and being able to pay for an attorney or not pay for an attorney isnt something that should determine your guilt, you fucking gay.

I bust my fucking ass for everything I own. NOBODY has the right to take my shit from me. The fact that you value all life the same speaks volumes of your naivety and upperclass snobbery. Surely you wouldn't preach from your Ivory tower if you actually had to work your hands bloody to make a living once or twice. Fucking pink handed goof.

Speeding is a victimless offense, and the government sets traffic speeds below the natural flow of traffic in order to extort even more money from the already over burdened populace.

Criticism=/=theft you stupid fool. It is different, because people spend hours of their lives doing things that they hate in order to make money to buy things that they need or things that they do like. Critics. Is just disagreement with a reason why attached.