I believe that, legally, there are 2 differences in the use/ownership of firearms between Canada and the US.
The first is that the right to "bear arms" is mentioned in the US constitution, but not in the constitution of many other countries. Obviously, someone like myself sees interprets the related phrase "well organized militia" as being some form of restriction to gun ownership while others don't see a connection.
The second is what I believe is a massive difference in the interpretation of defense of one's home and real property. So, I have a question for my American friends:
In Canada, defense of the home is limited to the amount of force needed to remove a trespasser from one's home. Lethal force is not acceptable. The only time that lethal force is acceptable is to protect yourself and others from imminent harm when no other options are available. Basically if you can escape, then you have to do that. And imminent harm is a lot more stringent than merely having an intruder in your home: they have to point a gun at you (or appear to do so) or something of that nature. Use of lethal force to protect real property is not self defense and is not legal. Basically if an armed intruder breaks into your house and starts to steal your Big Screen TV and you blow him away, you will be charged. Similar to a bank robber who merely hands you a note: there's no imminent danger. You would have to prove that something more than a mere robbery happened.
Am I mistaken in thinking that this is very different in the US?
Last edited by Bones; 12-22-2012 at 07:36 AM.