The Impact of Different Forms of Firearms Control

[Jub]

I thought of a way to reframe the tired old US gun control debate and thought that the questions I'm going to raise would get more attention in their own thread. If the mods don't feel that this is worthy of its own thread feel free to merge it with the current ongoing thread.

To state my own biases clearly, in case anybody doesn't know where I stand, I'm for very strict firearms control and don't have a firearms license or own any firearms of my own. I also live in a nation where firearms aren't a permitted form of home or self-defense.

Now onto the questions I'd like people to answer:

1a) Would nations with strict firearms controls such as the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc. benefit from an immediate switch to the enshrined rights of the US and the laws of it's least controlling state? Also, what downsides if any do you foresee because of this type of change?

1b) The same question as above but with the added thought experiment that these nations have US style laws from the time of the second amendment onward.

2) Would the United States suffer any serious drawbacks if the second amendment had never been signed and instead the same laws as Canada has had over that span of years were instead applied? Also, what upsides might there be to such a change?

3) If all by act of Q all civilian firearms - legal or illegal, actively used or stowed and forgotten - in the US were magically made to disappear tomorrow what changes?

I ask these questions to take the cost both political and social of changing modern day America out of the equation and just look at the drawbacks and benefits of US laws versus those of nations with strict firearms control.

[Batman]

As for 3) do 'only the guns' disappear or does the belief that people have a right to as many as dangerous guns as they want too? Because if it's only the first I predict a massive rise in people trying to get their hands on law enforcement/military/illegal guns

[aerius]

To state my own biases clearly, in case anybody doesn't know where I stand, I'm for very strict firearms control and don't have a firearms license or own any firearms of my own. I also live in a nation where firearms aren't a permitted form of home or self-defense.

It would help if you actually knew the laws of the country we live in. Nowhere in the Criminal Code of Canada does it say that defending yourself or your home with a firearm is illegal, and there's actual case law where people who've done so either beat all the charges or had the charges dropped.

[Jub]

As for 3) do 'only the guns' disappear or does the belief that people have a right to as many as dangerous guns as they want too? Because if it's only the first I predict a massive rise in people trying to get their hands on law enforcement/military/illegal guns

I'd say that current attitudes stay the exact same. I will clarify that guns actively in use stay until not in use, by which I mean a gun can disappear off of your hip but not out of your hand, and that guns 'saved' this way will become irreparably jammed/fused/deactivated within 24 hours even if people try to game the system by walking around weapon in hand.

To state my own biases clearly, in case anybody doesn't know where I stand, I'm for very strict firearms control and don't have a firearms license or own any firearms of my own. I also live in a nation where firearms aren't a permitted form of home or self-defense.

It would help if you actually knew the laws of the country we live in. Nowhere in the Criminal Code of Canada does it say that defending yourself or your home with a firearm is illegal, and there's actual case law where people who've done so either beat all the charges or had the charges dropped.

Technically you are correct. Realistically you'd have to have a loaded weapon at hand for another purpose or a really good lawyer to beat that rap. Our self defense laws discourage keeping weapons close at hand specifically for self/home defense which is why truck drivers here keep a big wrench in the seat beside tem and not, for example, a hunting knife or machete.

[MKSheppard]

3) If all by act of Q all civilian firearms - legal or illegal, actively used or stowed and forgotten - in the US were magically made to disappear tomorrow what changes?

300 million guns get manufactured that year.

Google Poly 80, 80 percent, etc.

[Coop D'etat]

As for 3) do 'only the guns' disappear or does the belief that people have a right to as many as dangerous guns as they want too? Because if it's only the first I predict a massive rise in people trying to get their hands on law enforcement/military/illegal guns

I'd say that current attitudes stay the exact same. I will clarify that guns actively in use stay until not in use, by which I mean a gun can disappear off of your hip but not out of your hand, and that guns 'saved' this way will become irreparably jammed/fused/deactivated within 24 hours even if people try to game the system by walking around weapon in hand.

To state my own biases clearly, in case anybody doesn't know where I stand, I'm for very strict firearms control and don't have a firearms license or own any firearms of my own. I also live in a nation where firearms aren't a permitted form of home or self-defense.

It would help if you actually knew the laws of the country we live in. Nowhere in the Criminal Code of Canada does it say that defending yourself or your home with a firearm is illegal, and there's actual case law where people who've done so either beat all the charges or had the charges dropped.

Technically you are correct. Realistically you'd have to have a loaded weapon at hand for another purpose or a really good lawyer to beat that rap. Our self defense laws discourage keeping weapons close at hand specifically for self/home defense which is why truck drivers here keep a big wrench in the seat beside tem and not, for example, a hunting knife or machete.

I'm a Canadian criminal defense lawyer, and I can tell you straight out that aerius is way closer to the mark on this than you are. Self defense by firearm isn't that hard to make out under Canadian law, so long as you have reasonable grounds to demonstrate that you had a reasonable belief that your actions were proportionate to the threat. Whether or not the firearm was stored properly at the time doesn't have anything to do with whether the self defense is valid either, although it can get you in firearm licencing trouble.

The relevant self defense doctrines in both Canada and the US have common descent from English common law doctrines, so they have a great deal of family resemblance with each other (leaving aside more novel "Castle doctrine" laws that do create a real difference). The main difference is in terms of what a civilian can own, the stringency of the gun storage laws and how tight the licencing regimes are, not in legal self-defense rights.

Now, there's definitely a cultural difference in the acceptability of using a firearm for home defense, and Canadian police forces stereo-typically take a very dim view of civilian gun ownership but those are also different things.

[MKSheppard]

I'm a Canadian criminal defense lawyer

We need a custom title for you....Better Call Coop.

[Coop D'etat]

I'm a Canadian criminal defense lawyer

We need a custom title for you....Better Call Coop.

[MKSheppard]

I had a random thought back in January after reading something on the history of the US Army.

Guns are the REVOLUTIONARY THEOLOGY of America (mostly), due to REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT over citizen soldiers vs large standing armies of freedom destroying capabilities.

Furthermore, any attempt to reduce firearms in America is seen as fundamentally anti-revolutionary; and you're an enemy of the Revolution, Comrade.

America's Little Red Book is a pocket copy of the constitution, and American firearm owners are the equivalent of the MAOIST RED GUARDS



The analogical counterpart to Neil Gorsuch is a Maoist thought theorist like Zhang Chunqiao.

Tied into this is the LOST CAUSE mythology viz. radical faction of revolutionaries.

[Tribble]

To state my own biases clearly, in case anybody doesn't know where I stand, I'm for very strict firearms control and don't have a firearms license or own any firearms of my own. I also live in a nation where firearms aren't a permitted form of home or self-defense.

It would help if you actually knew the laws of the country we live in. Nowhere in the Criminal Code of Canada does it say that defending yourself or your home with a firearm is illegal, and there's actual case law where people who've done so either beat all the charges or had the charges dropped.

While technically correct from a practical standpoint I don't see that often being the case given the restrictions on storage, particularly with restricted and prohibited weapons:

Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms

5 (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

Storage of Restricted Firearms

6 An individual may store a restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.

Storage of Prohibited Firearms
7 An individual may store a prohibited firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, and, if the prohibited firearm is an automatic firearm that has a removable bolt or bolt-carrier, the bolt or bolt-carrier is removed and stored in a room that is different from the room in which the automatic firearm is stored, that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... lText.html

Unless you are in a rural / remote wilderness area with an unrestricted firearm, if you had enough time to gain access to your firearm, take off any secure locking devices then load it, were you really in a self-defence situation where lethal force was necessary? Odds are probably not. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all, but I can't picture that being a common occurrence.

[Tribble]

I'm a Canadian criminal defense lawyer, and I can tell you straight out that aerius is way closer to the mark on this than you are. Self defense by firearm isn't that hard to make out under Canadian law, so long as you have reasonable grounds to demonstrate that you had a reasonable belief that your actions were proportionate to the threat. Whether or not the firearm was stored properly at the time doesn't have anything to do with whether the self defense is valid either, although it can get you in firearm licencing trouble.

The relevant self defense doctrines in both Canada and the US have common descent from English common law doctrines, so they have a great deal of family resemblance with each other (leaving aside more novel "Castle doctrine" laws that do create a real difference). The main difference is in terms of what a civilian can own, the stringency of the gun storage laws and how tight the licencing regimes are, not in legal self-defense rights.

Now, there's definitely a cultural difference in the acceptability of using a firearm for home defense, and Canadian police forces stereo-typically take a very dim view of civilian gun ownership but those are also different things.

While all of that is true I imagine that the vast majority of legal firearm owners in Canada store their firearms appropriately rather than having a loaded one tucked under the pillow at night, just in case.

As I said above, the circumstances where someone would have the time to access their firearm and/or ready it and load it while simultaneously being in a self-defence scenario where lethal force was necessary would be pretty unusual IMO, especially with if you are in an urban area and/or with a restricted/prohibited firearm. Home invaders were really slow breaking into your house, and still insisted on killing you? Shooters attacking from outside but not willing to go in? Someone holding you loved one hostage in one room while you happen to be in another one with the firearm? Taking your firearm out of storage right when someone attacks you?

Again I'm sure these kinds of thing happen, but not often.

[Coop D'etat]

It very much tends to be a ruralia phenomena, largely because rural people are

1) vastly more likely to own firearms
2) have bigger problems with length police response times.

In urban settings, you're right that this is uncommon, but there is still a large amount of ruralia out there, even if most people live in a urban centre these days its a far ways away from everyone.

Its also proportionately far less likely to happen in Canada compared to the US due to lower crime rates and much more stringent gun storage laws. But its also far from unheard off either. The main point I think both aerius and I were making was this isn't because of self-defense by firearm itself being inherently illegal or illegitimate, but because the Canadian law tends to put a much higher premium on safe storage/theft prevention over self defense when balancing interests. I think this preferable from a policy standpoint, but by the same token the system could stand to hassle legitimate firearm ownership a fair bit less. From what I've heard from people I'd consider reasonable and trustworthy, the whole process leans harder towards petty bureaucratic nonsense in ways that don't contribute at all to public safety.

[aerius]

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... lText.html

Unless you are in a rural / remote wilderness area with an unrestricted firearm, if you had enough time to gain access to your firearm, take off any secure locking devices then load it, were you really in a self-defence situation where lethal force was necessary? Odds are probably not. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all, but I can't picture that being a common occurrence.

It's situational and debatable. Generally speaking, it probably isn't a self-defence situation but there's a couple cases I know of where the courts ruled in favour of a person retrieving a firearm from a secured safe and then using it in self-defence. Probably the most relevant would be the Dievert’s Jewellers robbery where the Crown declined to press charges against the store owner. But yeah, that's pretty rare.

[Coop D'etat]

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... lText.html

Unless you are in a rural / remote wilderness area with an unrestricted firearm, if you had enough time to gain access to your firearm, take off any secure locking devices then load it, were you really in a self-defence situation where lethal force was necessary? Odds are probably not. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all, but I can't picture that being a common occurrence.

It's situational and debatable. Generally speaking, it probably isn't a self-defence situation but there's a couple cases I know of where the courts ruled in favour of a person retrieving a firearm from a secured safe and then using it in self-defence. Probably the most relevant would be the Dievert’s Jewellers robbery where the Crown declined to press charges against the store owner. But yeah, that's pretty rare.

There are many, many exceptions to this, but in my experience and the general reputation in the bar is that most Crown's in most situations tend not to be dinguses about dropping chargers that aren't in the public interest and particularly when they know there's not a good chance they'll win.

[aerius]

The main point I think both aerius and I were making was this isn't because of self-defense by firearm itself being inherently illegal or illegitimate, but because the Canadian law tends to put a much higher premium on safe storage/theft prevention over self defense when balancing interests. I think this preferable from a policy standpoint, but by the same token the system could stand to hassle legitimate firearm ownership a fair bit less. From what I've heard from people I'd consider reasonable and trustworthy, the whole process leans harder towards petty bureaucratic nonsense in ways that don't contribute at all to public safety.

Correct. There's a whole bunch of legal & cultural differences between the US & Canada, but despite what most people think, we actually have fairly reasonable and liberal self-defence laws. We're allowed to use deadly force in self-defence, same thing with firearms, we just can't shoot people for stepping on your land or looking at you funny.

[Tribble]

The main point I think both aerius and I were making was this isn't because of self-defense by firearm itself being inherently illegal or illegitimate, but because the Canadian law tends to put a much higher premium on safe storage/theft prevention over self defense when balancing interests. I think this preferable from a policy standpoint, but by the same token the system could stand to hassle legitimate firearm ownership a fair bit less. From what I've heard from people I'd consider reasonable and trustworthy, the whole process leans harder towards petty bureaucratic nonsense in ways that don't contribute at all to public safety.

Correct. There's a whole bunch of legal & cultural differences between the US & Canada, but despite what most people think, we actually have fairly reasonable and liberal self-defence laws. We're allowed to use deadly force in self-defence, same thing with firearms, we just can't shoot people for stepping on your land or looking at you funny.

Also, my understating is that you can't carry a firearm with you unless you are licensed to do so as an occupational requirement.

If you were carrying a firearm illegally and ended up using it to kill someone (say there was an altercation while you were walking on the street), could that still count as self-defence provided you could demonstrate you had reasonable grounds and had a reasonable belief that your actions were proportionate to the threat?

[aerius]

Also, my understating is that you can't carry a firearm with you unless you are licensed to do so as an occupational requirement.

If you were carrying a firearm illegally and ended up using it to kill someone (say there was an altercation while you were walking on the street), could that still count as self-defence provided you could demonstrate you had reasonable grounds and had a reasonable belief that your actions were proportionate to the threat?

I am not a lawyer, but I vaguely remember a case where something similar to that happened. My memory is pretty fuzzy but I think the person was convicted of improper firearms transport charges and acquitted on the self-defence shooting itself.

[Jub]

I'm a Canadian criminal defense lawyer, and I can tell you straight out that aerius is way closer to the mark on this than you are. Self defense by firearm isn't that hard to make out under Canadian law, so long as you have reasonable grounds to demonstrate that you had a reasonable belief that your actions were proportionate to the threat. Whether or not the firearm was stored properly at the time doesn't have anything to do with whether the self defense is valid either, although it can get you in firearm licencing trouble.

The relevant self defense doctrines in both Canada and the US have common descent from English common law doctrines, so they have a great deal of family resemblance with each other (leaving aside more novel "Castle doctrine" laws that do create a real difference). The main difference is in terms of what a civilian can own, the stringency of the gun storage laws and how tight the licencing regimes are, not in legal self-defense rights.

Now, there's definitely a cultural difference in the acceptability of using a firearm for home defense, and Canadian police forces stereo-typically take a very dim view of civilian gun ownership but those are also different things.

I keep forgetting that is is SDN and you literally have to spell out everything or people will try to nitpick you to death...

Obviously you can defend yourself with deadly force in Canada and that deadly force can come from a firearm. That said, our firearms storage laws, if properly followed and enforced, add an element of premeditation to active self defense via firearm which, as far as my understanding of the law goes, raises the bar for the level of force than can be applied in a given situation. If that isn't correct, then my reading and understanding of our self defense laws is incorrect.

As for how often that is even an issue here lets get into some facts. I'm drawing from Firearms, Self-Protection and Crime Prevention 1, The Prevalence of Firearm Ownership in Canada 2, and from the abstract for Armed self-defense: The Canadian case 3.

"It is estimated that about 3 million civilians in Canada own firearms." 2 this data seems to come from reports from between 1994 and 1998 which means we can use it along side the numbers in the armed self defense abstract. Doing that we find that, over an unspecified time period, "Canadians report using firearms to protect themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. More importantly, between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats." 3 This is a rate, at the highest end of what has been reported, 2.67% for self defense in total and a rate of just 1.25%, again at the high end, for self defense against other people. Not noted is the rate of active self-defense (i.e. firing at another person) versus passive self defense (showing oneself to be armed). These low usage rates for self defense seem to fit with the idea that "The proportion of Canadians who state self-defence or self-protection as their main reason for owning a firearm is very low." 1

To my knowledge there are no such numbers for the United States but "In the United States, self-protection is one of the leading reasons for owning a firearm, particularly a handgun." 1 It seems plausible that attitudes similar to those in place in Canada would have also come to dominate in the United States if they had the same restrictions on firearms ownership that Canadians have had.

3) If all by act of Q all civilian firearms - legal or illegal, actively used or stowed and forgotten - in the US were magically made to disappear tomorrow what changes?

300 million guns get manufactured that year.

Google Poly 80, 80 percent, etc.

Should I amend that to also poofing away US firearms manufacturing capacity as well? Or do you simply not want to engage with the though experiment.

GHETTO EDIT: Damn the thread blew up while I was typing this. Needless to say it seems that there is a consensus that using a firearm to shoot at another human in self defense is relatively rare in Canada and that the situations where it does happen tend to be exceptional or occur in rural areas where it is far more reasonable to keep a weapon at hand for use against animals.

Next time I'll try to remember to clarify that didn't literally mean that you can't defend yourself with a gun in Canada just that there are fewer cases where doing so is justifiable given our laws and attitudes towards self defense.

[Coop D'etat]

The main point I think both aerius and I were making was this isn't because of self-defense by firearm itself being inherently illegal or illegitimate, but because the Canadian law tends to put a much higher premium on safe storage/theft prevention over self defense when balancing interests. I think this preferable from a policy standpoint, but by the same token the system could stand to hassle legitimate firearm ownership a fair bit less. From what I've heard from people I'd consider reasonable and trustworthy, the whole process leans harder towards petty bureaucratic nonsense in ways that don't contribute at all to public safety.

Correct. There's a whole bunch of legal & cultural differences between the US & Canada, but despite what most people think, we actually have fairly reasonable and liberal self-defence laws. We're allowed to use deadly force in self-defence, same thing with firearms, we just can't shoot people for stepping on your land or looking at you funny.

Also, my understating is that you can't carry a firearm with you unless you are licensed to do so as an occupational requirement.

If you were carrying a firearm illegally and ended up using it to kill someone, could that still count as self-defence provided you could demonstrate you had reasonable grounds and had a reasonable belief that your actions were proportionate to the threat?

Yes, carrying a firearm is itself tightly regulated and licences to carry beyond transportation for approved uses are rarely issued outside of a few professions.

A self defence case using an illegal weapon isn't even that unusual thing to happen, it comes up a fair bit in gangland cases. Criminals tend to have credibility problems which makes it harder to raise the defence successfully, but whether the weapon itself was legal for you to possess or carry at the time doesn't directly enter the analysis of whether it was legally used in self-defence.

[aerius]

I keep forgetting that is is SDN and you literally have to spell out everything or people will try to nitpick you to death...

Welcome to SD.net, where you get lawyered by actual lawyers.

[Coop D'etat]

I keep forgetting that is is SDN and you literally have to spell out everything or people will try to nitpick you to death...

Welcome to SD.net, where you get lawyered by actual lawyers.

This is one of the best active threads in N+P. People are talking politely about a subject of mutual interest at a reasonably high level for non-experts at a reasonable clip. If it sprung from a nitpick, it resulted in a productive conversation.

[loomer]

We have similar laws here when it comes to self-defense. You can't (usually) buy a firearm for the purpose of self-defense with how our permitting system works, and if you wind up using one in that manner there'll definitely be some attention paid to how you happened to have it, whether it was an appropriate use of force, whether the storage conditions are appropriate and so on but so long as it's an appropriate level of response you'll usually come out fine, possibly taking a charge or two if you fucked up storage/transport.

[Jub]

I keep forgetting that is is SDN and you literally have to spell out everything or people will try to nitpick you to death...

Welcome to SD.net, where you get lawyered by actual lawyers.

This is one of the best active threads in N+P. People are talking politely about a subject of mutual interest at a reasonably high level for non-experts at a reasonable clip. If it sprung from a nitpick, it resulted in a productive conversation.

Yeah, I was shocked by how many posts of civil discussion popped up between when I started typing my reply and when I actually went to send it. If this is the result of my getting nitpicked I'll happily keep a few extra nits around for a rainy day.

[PainRack]

To state my own biases clearly, in case anybody doesn't know where I stand, I'm for very strict firearms control and don't have a firearms license or own any firearms of my own. I also live in a nation where firearms aren't a permitted form of home or self-defense.

It would help if you actually knew the laws of the country we live in. Nowhere in the Criminal Code of Canada does it say that defending yourself or your home with a firearm is illegal, and there's actual case law where people who've done so either beat all the charges or had the charges dropped.

While technically correct from a practical standpoint I don't see that often being the case given the restrictions on storage, particularly with restricted and prohibited weapons:

Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms

5 (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

Storage of Restricted Firearms

6 An individual may store a restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.

Storage of Prohibited Firearms
7 An individual may store a prohibited firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, and, if the prohibited firearm is an automatic firearm that has a removable bolt or bolt-carrier, the bolt or bolt-carrier is removed and stored in a room that is different from the room in which the automatic firearm is stored, that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or
(ii) a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of prohibited firearms and that is kept securely locked.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... lText.html

Unless you are in a rural / remote wilderness area with an unrestricted firearm, if you had enough time to gain access to your firearm, take off any secure locking devices then load it, were you really in a self-defence situation where lethal force was necessary? Odds are probably not. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all, but I can't picture that being a common occurrence.

Eh.... This gets complicated. There are thousands of DGU as measured by NCVIS where this happens. The problem is matching this up to total number of DGU to see how common this is.

Nevertheless, the opposite scenario, by Kellerman suggests that having guns in the house doesn't help with fending off an attacker either, given that a significant portion of them didn't even have time to get a weapon.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N ... 0073291506

[madd0ct0r]

Could you define dgu?