So if someone enters your home, you can point a gun at the intruder. If the threat doesn't end, you can shoot to kill.

you may or may not get in trouble if you shoot to kill immediately

because we have a law stating that self-defense shouldn't be excessive

but in general yes that's true

Which is where the "least amount of force" comes in.

In Canada, you're fucked. Even if it was your last resort, you'll face man slaughter charges.

Canada is just fucked in general in that regard

someone breaks in here I can pick up my bow and threaten to shoot

and if he does shit and I panic shot with a bow it's pretty much 99% lethal if it hits

I was looking for info on this the other day. It pretty much is "yes, it's illegal to shoot somebody to save your life; but still, better jailed than dead."

Funny thing about bows is

and yeah it's probably easier to get a gun license than learn to shoot a bow if you doN't like bows

but you get pretty much off the hook with a bow

because it's really hard not to kill someone in self-defense with a bow

chest-dead, abdomen-dead, hip-dead, leg-crippled, shoulder-nervous shock, head-dead

which is why we're told to shoot at the arms or lower legs

but that's not exactly how self-defence works out when it happens is it

Who's told to shoot arms or lower legs? Real life isn't Hollywood.

In real life, people miss shots. Not everyone can headshot everything like The Walking Dead characters.

Always go for the center of mass.

And, a single bullet doesn't stop an aggressor full of adrenaline or drugs. Unload at least half of the magazine.

Watch Donut Operator on YouTube to see plenty of examples of criminals not stopping with the first bullet.

people say things about shooting with nonlethal intent because they don't want to think of themselves as potential killers

we're not "told" that, by any real authority anyway

tangential: https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

yee it's them pretty much just virtue signaling

like no way you could even attempt to hit a moving person's arms or legs

@Ruggwain > and the pro-gunners go "WHAT IF WE SUDDENLY LIVE IN ORWELLS NIGHTMARE AND HAVE TO DEFEND US FROM THE STATE"

The Greatest Generation did have to invoke it relatively recently for the Battle of Athens, TN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

It's happened a surprisingly large number of times throughout the 20th century

even happened in the US itself not less than 150 years ago

and could quite possibly be about to happen in SA very shortly

South African bush war when?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_legislation_in_South_Africa#Semi-automatic_rifles_and_shotguns

So between this and Cape Town running out of water, do you think they could film the next Mad Max as a documentary?

http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/28-91.pdf

EVALUATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF TASMANIAN
FIREARM CONTROL LEGISLATION: The Guns Act 1991

`Armed robbery
The number and rate of firearm robberies increased in the post Guns Act period but they appeared to peak in 1994. In the period of 3 years 4 months after the Act came into effect the number of robberies using a firearm increased by 51%.`

two armed robberies using a firearm in 1988, 15 in 1997

🤷