I very recently went to the local gunshop to pick up a Savage Arms .22 bolt-action rimfire target rifle (Father's Day present to myself), and ended up having a very informative discussion with a friend in the gunshop, with whom I deal a lot for my purchases. Home defence with firearms is a relatively taboo subject in Canada, given our legislated safe storage laws here, and it's really incredible how many people here who own firearms are mum when it comes to talking about home defence. A very different contrast, compared to our neighbours to the south, who, for the most part, can lean on second amendment rights in their constitution in order to defend their right to use firearms for home defence.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Away From Her - Film Review
Yesterday night, I did something unexpected, something that was totally against the fabric of my masculine being, something that was arguably against the way God had designed a man.
I rented a chick flick.
I hate putting down my hard earned money on crappy movies of all genres. It just so happens that based on my experience, these tear-jerker dramatic types tend to take the cake, in terms of making me realize that food digestion takes more than a couple of hours. But in the spirit of wanting to afford my wife some viewing options, I thought it best for me to not force my preference of action/suspense thriller movies onto her once more. She is pregnant, after all, and I must be sensitive to her proclivities at this point in her pregnancy.
So I scanned the new release shelves of Blockbuster for anything that would elicit a reaction that would be akin to "Like hell, will I watch that!" Just for good measure, I read the description on the back of the box, and if it was something that screamed, "You're a true homo if you watch this!", that would be my choice for the evening.
So I brought home a movie entitled, "Away From Her". Essentially, from what I remember from what the box said, the movie is about a married couple over 50, both of whom are struggling with the wife's obviously increased disposition towards developing Alzheimer's disease, and how he reconciles the fact that her affections are for another man.
If you are a truly heterosexual red-blooded male, and read that on the back of the box, I am willing to bet nine times out of ten, you'd place the box back on the shelf and run out of the store, grabbing your hair, and screaming to have dinner at Hooter's. I guess I felt like the 1 in 10 men who contemplated renting the movie long enough to actually rent it. Besides, I reasoned, this is for my wife, not for me. I'll go along and perhaps daydream about my business transactions or my investment portfolio, as I present the disposition of actually watching the movie.
Now, I did not know that this was a Canadian film. I may have suspected it, since I saw the lovely and talented Sarah Polley was producing it. And it starred Gordon Pinsent, whose Canadian films I've seen before and whose acting I admire, as well as Julie Christie, who was once a easy-on-the-eyes Russian agent in a James Bond movie.
I won't give away many plot details in case you haven't seen the movie, but for a Canadian production, it was pretty good (and I say that to not debase Canadian productions, but it's just a known fact that while Canadian movies are generally a breath of fresh air from the standard American fare, they are generally of lower caliber from all aspects from production, acting, plot and music). Away From Her was not a flashy movie, but based on the subject matter, it wasn't supposed to be. You won't be finding any stunts or explosions/light shows, or latest cutting edge music on the soundtrack. It was a wistful, contemplative movie that really relied on Pinsent and Christie's characters to roll the plot along. There were some nice supportive characters which were acted very well by their real-life counterparts, which added more rounding and substance to the story.
The progression of the plot, while some may consider a bit on the slow side, I thought was done very well in order to really delve into the characters feelings and expressions, as well as to show the slow onset of Alzheimer's. There were a number of scenes in which nothing was said, but the point was made quite clear, before the scene faded. I thought that such tools to progress the plot and enhance character development were very well done.
I did notice, unfortunately, that there was obviously some seemingly forced Canadian content (quota) that they had to meet, since they threw in names of Canadian cities and towns in the oddest places in conversation. I think from the cinematography and landscape, you can tell it was a Canadian production - they didn't have to put in all the references to Brantford or British Columbia or whatever. It was really out of place. In U.S. movies, they don't name drop U.S. towns and cities so blatantly.
Also out of place (and likely inappropriate) was the blatant anti-American sentiment seen when the characters are watching coverage of the war in the Middle East. This is obviously Polley's severe left-wing bent that is making its appearance, but for a movie with this topic, it neither added to the plot nor added to the characters.
Sadly, in today's films, the producers and writers just cannot get away from swearing or using cuss words. Unfortunately Away From Her was not immune to this. There were several instances where characters used f-words liberally (the only person who used a swear word that was somewhat believeable was the teenage gothic girl who sat on the couch beside Mr. Anderson, at one scene. To have a frail old woman on a walker, who obviously had some horny hormones going, using the term, "claustrof*ck" seemed not only out of place, but it was seen as a cheap stunt to be on par with typical Hollywood productions. Take out all the swearing and the film would be so much better.
Overall, however, I found the film to be...oh my gosh...heartwarming. My wife made liberal use of the Kleenex box throughout the movie and I must admit, I did develop some moist eyeballs at several points (probably due to my house being so damn dry in the fall). I thought they they explored the progression of Alzheimer's in a respectful and realistic way. The actors did a fantastic job in bringing out the emotions of the characters and that only added to the admirable job in how the characters were developed. My wife wished that the ending was a bit neater (it left a few loose ends), but I think it was deliberately done like that as to not follow the typical American film formula. Away from Her is definitely worth your consideration, and no, I won't think you are a homo if you watch it.
I rented a chick flick.
I hate putting down my hard earned money on crappy movies of all genres. It just so happens that based on my experience, these tear-jerker dramatic types tend to take the cake, in terms of making me realize that food digestion takes more than a couple of hours. But in the spirit of wanting to afford my wife some viewing options, I thought it best for me to not force my preference of action/suspense thriller movies onto her once more. She is pregnant, after all, and I must be sensitive to her proclivities at this point in her pregnancy.
So I scanned the new release shelves of Blockbuster for anything that would elicit a reaction that would be akin to "Like hell, will I watch that!" Just for good measure, I read the description on the back of the box, and if it was something that screamed, "You're a true homo if you watch this!", that would be my choice for the evening.
So I brought home a movie entitled, "Away From Her". Essentially, from what I remember from what the box said, the movie is about a married couple over 50, both of whom are struggling with the wife's obviously increased disposition towards developing Alzheimer's disease, and how he reconciles the fact that her affections are for another man.
If you are a truly heterosexual red-blooded male, and read that on the back of the box, I am willing to bet nine times out of ten, you'd place the box back on the shelf and run out of the store, grabbing your hair, and screaming to have dinner at Hooter's. I guess I felt like the 1 in 10 men who contemplated renting the movie long enough to actually rent it. Besides, I reasoned, this is for my wife, not for me. I'll go along and perhaps daydream about my business transactions or my investment portfolio, as I present the disposition of actually watching the movie.
Now, I did not know that this was a Canadian film. I may have suspected it, since I saw the lovely and talented Sarah Polley was producing it. And it starred Gordon Pinsent, whose Canadian films I've seen before and whose acting I admire, as well as Julie Christie, who was once a easy-on-the-eyes Russian agent in a James Bond movie.
I won't give away many plot details in case you haven't seen the movie, but for a Canadian production, it was pretty good (and I say that to not debase Canadian productions, but it's just a known fact that while Canadian movies are generally a breath of fresh air from the standard American fare, they are generally of lower caliber from all aspects from production, acting, plot and music). Away From Her was not a flashy movie, but based on the subject matter, it wasn't supposed to be. You won't be finding any stunts or explosions/light shows, or latest cutting edge music on the soundtrack. It was a wistful, contemplative movie that really relied on Pinsent and Christie's characters to roll the plot along. There were some nice supportive characters which were acted very well by their real-life counterparts, which added more rounding and substance to the story.
The progression of the plot, while some may consider a bit on the slow side, I thought was done very well in order to really delve into the characters feelings and expressions, as well as to show the slow onset of Alzheimer's. There were a number of scenes in which nothing was said, but the point was made quite clear, before the scene faded. I thought that such tools to progress the plot and enhance character development were very well done.
I did notice, unfortunately, that there was obviously some seemingly forced Canadian content (quota) that they had to meet, since they threw in names of Canadian cities and towns in the oddest places in conversation. I think from the cinematography and landscape, you can tell it was a Canadian production - they didn't have to put in all the references to Brantford or British Columbia or whatever. It was really out of place. In U.S. movies, they don't name drop U.S. towns and cities so blatantly.
Also out of place (and likely inappropriate) was the blatant anti-American sentiment seen when the characters are watching coverage of the war in the Middle East. This is obviously Polley's severe left-wing bent that is making its appearance, but for a movie with this topic, it neither added to the plot nor added to the characters.
Sadly, in today's films, the producers and writers just cannot get away from swearing or using cuss words. Unfortunately Away From Her was not immune to this. There were several instances where characters used f-words liberally (the only person who used a swear word that was somewhat believeable was the teenage gothic girl who sat on the couch beside Mr. Anderson, at one scene. To have a frail old woman on a walker, who obviously had some horny hormones going, using the term, "claustrof*ck" seemed not only out of place, but it was seen as a cheap stunt to be on par with typical Hollywood productions. Take out all the swearing and the film would be so much better.
Overall, however, I found the film to be...oh my gosh...heartwarming. My wife made liberal use of the Kleenex box throughout the movie and I must admit, I did develop some moist eyeballs at several points (probably due to my house being so damn dry in the fall). I thought they they explored the progression of Alzheimer's in a respectful and realistic way. The actors did a fantastic job in bringing out the emotions of the characters and that only added to the admirable job in how the characters were developed. My wife wished that the ending was a bit neater (it left a few loose ends), but I think it was deliberately done like that as to not follow the typical American film formula. Away from Her is definitely worth your consideration, and no, I won't think you are a homo if you watch it.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
What Is Gary Bettman Trying to Prove?
I don't know about you, but if you're a hockey fan like me, don't you get sick of hearing about the constant woes of the Nashville Predators? Without going into painstaking detail, the owner of the Predators, Craig Leopold, has been trying to sell the Predators for months. In the time he has owned the Predators, they have been a consistently losing investment. Yes, the team is talented and has put a good product on the ice, and has been in the upper echelon of teams in the NHL, but come on, the team is in friggin' Nashville, for Pete's sake. Hardly a bastion of hockey fandom. Case in point - last year in the playoffs, when Nashville was ranked #1 or #2 or #3 in their conference, local Nashville papers and sports programs didn't even cover or talk about the playoff games in progress. That's because no one cares about hockey down there.
Earlier this year, the CEO of Research in Motion, Jim Balsillie, offered to buy the team and was willing to essentially overpay for the team. Talks were set in motion and they were close to a deal, when Balsillie tipped his hand and started to sell season tickets in the Hamilton area for a hockey team that had yet to relocate there. The NHL and it's commissioner, Gary Bettman found out about this, and persuaded Leopold to pull the plug on the deal. Since then, no one has offered anything even close to what Balsillie offered.
I am disappointed that Balsillie got railroaded by the NHL. Yes, he didn't play it smart and kept his mouth shut until the deal was done, but why the NHL nixed it because of his clear intentions to re-locate, I will never understand. Moving it to Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo would be a huge boost to the local economy, but more than that, it would breakdown the monopolizing power of Maple Leafs Sports Entertainment (MLSE) and would immediately force the Leafs to put a competitive product on the ice (as we speak, the Leafs are in familiar territory this year - mediocre to suckedness). Hamilton/KW would have easily supported another NHL franchise - OK, so the Leafs (and possibly Sabres) will feel some pressure, but so what? Competition is good. Monopoly is bad.
What I find strange is that Leopold wants to sell the team - he is desperate to do so. But he won't sell to Balsillie, because of Balsillie's clear intent to move the team. Balsillie is not a dumb guy - he knows the team won't survive in Nashville, and he also knows that Leopold lost a truckload of money over the years. But somehow Bettman convinced Leopold not to sell (my guess is that the NHL offered to top off any lower offer to make it worth Leopold's while). Nowadays, a consortium of people are trying to save the Preds but putting together an offer, complete with arena rights and so forth.
Why can't Bettman just realize that pushing professional hockey in the U.S. will be a long-term losing proposition. He is too proud to admit that his experiment did not work, that's why. His cronie, Bill Daly, the NHL Vice-President, was on a radio talk show this past summer and he was asked point blank whether Bettman is anti-Canada. Daly skirted the issue and refused comment.
Fact of the matter is, there is not really a whole lot of success stories to report on the expansion teams. Why they stuck a team in Columbus, OH, I will never know. Even some seasoned teams like the Chicago BlackHawks are having problems drawing people into the game. Rather than focussing on existing teams, Bettman seems to have this otherworldly mentality that he must expand, and now his crazy head is looking at over the pond in Europe and Scandanavia.
If you look at the other commissioners in sports (David Stern for the NBA, Roger Goddell for the NFL), they are doing things right. They make sure that the current teams are not flat broke, and they are ensuring that they don't expand if the conditions aren't right. And they are not afraid to yank teams from markets that are simply not working. Bettman needs to take a look at these successful commissioners who are out to better their respective leagues, not just make themselves look good.
Earlier this year, the CEO of Research in Motion, Jim Balsillie, offered to buy the team and was willing to essentially overpay for the team. Talks were set in motion and they were close to a deal, when Balsillie tipped his hand and started to sell season tickets in the Hamilton area for a hockey team that had yet to relocate there. The NHL and it's commissioner, Gary Bettman found out about this, and persuaded Leopold to pull the plug on the deal. Since then, no one has offered anything even close to what Balsillie offered.
I am disappointed that Balsillie got railroaded by the NHL. Yes, he didn't play it smart and kept his mouth shut until the deal was done, but why the NHL nixed it because of his clear intentions to re-locate, I will never understand. Moving it to Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo would be a huge boost to the local economy, but more than that, it would breakdown the monopolizing power of Maple Leafs Sports Entertainment (MLSE) and would immediately force the Leafs to put a competitive product on the ice (as we speak, the Leafs are in familiar territory this year - mediocre to suckedness). Hamilton/KW would have easily supported another NHL franchise - OK, so the Leafs (and possibly Sabres) will feel some pressure, but so what? Competition is good. Monopoly is bad.
What I find strange is that Leopold wants to sell the team - he is desperate to do so. But he won't sell to Balsillie, because of Balsillie's clear intent to move the team. Balsillie is not a dumb guy - he knows the team won't survive in Nashville, and he also knows that Leopold lost a truckload of money over the years. But somehow Bettman convinced Leopold not to sell (my guess is that the NHL offered to top off any lower offer to make it worth Leopold's while). Nowadays, a consortium of people are trying to save the Preds but putting together an offer, complete with arena rights and so forth.
Why can't Bettman just realize that pushing professional hockey in the U.S. will be a long-term losing proposition. He is too proud to admit that his experiment did not work, that's why. His cronie, Bill Daly, the NHL Vice-President, was on a radio talk show this past summer and he was asked point blank whether Bettman is anti-Canada. Daly skirted the issue and refused comment.
Fact of the matter is, there is not really a whole lot of success stories to report on the expansion teams. Why they stuck a team in Columbus, OH, I will never know. Even some seasoned teams like the Chicago BlackHawks are having problems drawing people into the game. Rather than focussing on existing teams, Bettman seems to have this otherworldly mentality that he must expand, and now his crazy head is looking at over the pond in Europe and Scandanavia.
If you look at the other commissioners in sports (David Stern for the NBA, Roger Goddell for the NFL), they are doing things right. They make sure that the current teams are not flat broke, and they are ensuring that they don't expand if the conditions aren't right. And they are not afraid to yank teams from markets that are simply not working. Bettman needs to take a look at these successful commissioners who are out to better their respective leagues, not just make themselves look good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)