I'm assuming that this statistic is based on what happens in the States. I would bet my life that this is absolutely not the case here in Canada. I can't recall (over the last 6 months) hearing about a single crime being thwarted by a gun toting vigilante.
Sure, in the states where there are more than 3 times as many guns per person I believe it. This doesn't mean that guns ACTUALLY make things safer. This just means that in a country filled to the tits with guns, you're probably better off owning a gun of your own.
Since the Canadian government makes it so much more difficult for people to own firearms, I believe it is much more likely for criminals to possess and use them in Canada than law abiding citizens using them to defend themselves from assault, rape or murder. So that may be true. In any case, even if someone did defend themselves, they would be unlikely to report it because it seems to be illegal to defend yourself in Canada especially with a gun. You would likely be charged with several criminal offenses.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers
Firearms prohibitions skyrocket in Canada
2012 01 24 - In the Media
By Jeff Davis, The Vancouver Sun
Tens of thousands of Canadians are being slapped with firearms prohibitions each year, often at the request of police or for crimes that do not involve firearms.
Since 1999 there has been an explosion in the number of weapons prohibitions issued by Canadian courts, with the number of Canadians subject to such orders rising from 18,774 in 1999 to a cumulative total of 301,048 in 2010. In 2010 alone, almost 22,000 such orders were issued to Canadians, according to data from the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program.
Firearms experts attribute this 16-fold increase to Crown prosecutors seeking such prohibitions as a matter of course, in a misguided attempt to crack down on gun violence.
Canadian Shooting Sports Association executive director Tony Bernardo said that these days "the courts are handing out firearms prohibitions like candy."
Bernardo said Crown prosecutors routinely tack firearms prohibitions onto tens of thousands of court cases, including many cases where firearms were not involved in the alleged crime at all.
He said he is familiar with a case where a man was slapped with a prohibition after an impaired driving charge, and another where a 14-year-old boy received a five-year weapons ban after being convicted of a minor assault in which no weapons were used.
Both the Conservative party and the NDP voiced their support Tuesday for the increasing number of weapons prohibitions.
A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the government will ensure only qualified individuals will have access to firearms.
"Guns in the hands of law-abiding Canadians are simply another piece of property, however guns in the hands of dangerous individuals or the mentally ill will only lead to tragedy," said Mike Patton. "We will continue to insure that dangerous criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to firearms."
NDP Public Safety critic Jasbir Sandhu said the courts are acting in the best interests of the public by limiting the number of people who can own guns.
"This is a tool that courts use to keep weapons out of hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place," he said. "It improves public safety, and decreases violence against women."
Canadians with prohibition orders cannot possess any firearm, ammunition, crossbow, fireworks or other explosives. They may, however, possess blades.
Registered gun owners, if issued a prohibition order, face the immediate revocation of their firearms licence and the seizure of their collections.
On the first instance, the maximum duration of a prohibition order is five years. On the second instance, the duration can be anywhere from five years to lifetime.
The Commissioner of Firearms 2010 Report says this huge rise in prohibitions is due to "new mandatory prohibitions for certain drug offence charges and convictions which came into effect" in 2005 and 2006. The RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program declined to speak with Postmedia News Tuesday.
Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer Ed Burlew has successfully defended over 600 firearms owners, and is among Canada's leading experts on firearms law. Burlew said police and Crown prosecutors have many ways to impose a prohibition on an individual.
Prohibitions are mandatory for such crimes as criminal harassment or growing marijuana plants. Prosecutors may also request a "discretionary" prohibition in which violence was threatened, attempted or used.
Burlew said Crown prosecutors now almost always request a discretionary prohibition from the courts, even in the case of minor assaults such as shoving matches.
"Crown attorneys, when they deal with a domestic assault, for example, their mandate is to get a weapons prohibition as well as a finding of guilt," he said. "And that is done with regularity whether someone used a weapon or not."
Most troubling, Burlew said, is Criminal Code Section 111 which allows police officers to request prohibitions be imposed even when no crime has been committed. The threshold he said, is simply that a peace officer "believes on reasonable grounds" an individual may be a threat to himself or others.
Burlew said many firearms owners have had prohibition orders issued against them, and their collections seized and destroyed, after such applications were made by police. If the prohibition request is granted, the firearms owner can do little more than watch.
"As soon as judge agrees, Jack's guns are immediately forfeit to Her Majesty," he said. "End of story. No compensation."
Ottawa based criminal defence lawyer Solomon Friedman said Crown prosecutors have come to see the issuing of weapons prohibitions as a "victory" in and of itself.
"Crown attorneys are increasingly operating under policies that require them to seek discretionary weapons prohibitions even when there was no weapons used," he said.
Friedman said very frequently, during plea bargaining, the Crown will offer a very light charge if the defendant voluntarily accepts a weapons prohibition.
Bernardo agreed.
"The Crown is using prohibitions as a plea bargain," he said. "They will arrest somebody for some minor charge, and say: 'We'll make the charge go away if you accept a prohibition."
Bernardo said the huge rise in the number of Canadians banned from owning guns can be traced back to political efforts to get tough on gun crime.
"My understanding is a lot of this is reflected in Ontario and Quebec, where Crown attorneys have been instructed by the Attorney General's office to prosecute firearms crimes vigorously," he said.
In an email, a spokesman for the Ontario Attorney General said his office does not have statistics on weapons prohibitions orders, and did not offer an explanation for the dramatic rise in the number of prohibitions issues.
"The authority to impose such an order rests with the presiding judge based on a consideration of all of the circumstances of the case and the conditions set out in the relevant section of the Criminal Code," wrote Brendan Crawley.
Particularly active in requesting weapons prohibitions, Friedman said, is the Toronto Guns and Gangs Task Force. He said he has defended numerous Toronto gun collectors whose homes have been raided after the Task Force requested a discretionary prohibition order. In such cases, police often recommend charges such as unsafe storage of a firearm.
"I have many clients who are in that situation, who face no substantive charges that they used their firearms in any illegal way," he said. "They are simply in technical non-compliance with the Firearms Act."
Read more:
http://www.canada.com/news/Firearms+prohibitions+skyrocket+Canada/6045847/story.html#ixzz1lng9XTlG