Letters to the Editor

Stand on Guard legislation

October 9, 2025   ·   0 Comments

I moved to Canada two years ago, in part to raise my family away from the danger of gun violence in the United States, where I grew up. For this reason, I am deeply concerned by the push of our federal representative, Kyle Seeback, to pass “Stand on Guard” legislation.

Canadian law permits the use of force, including deadly force, if a person reasonably believes that an attacker may use force against them or another. The “Stand on Guard” proposal would presume any use of force to be reasonable if used against a person who unlawfully enters a house and poses a threat to those inside. The changes are subtle, but significant.

This proposal is modeled on “Stand Your Ground” legislation in the U.S., adopted in nearly 30 states since 2005. In the intervening 20 years, rigorous studies have consistently found one impact: more homicides. Encouraging homeowners to meet perceived threats with deadly force has tragic consequences.

Consider two incidents, occurring within 48 hours of each other in April 2023. In Missouri, 16-year-old Ralph Yarl mistakenly rang the wrong doorbell at 10 p.m. The homeowner shot Ralph in the head and arm, and Ralph’s recovery is ongoing. Two nights later, in rural New York, 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis was fatally shot after two cars carrying her and her friends turned into the wrong driveway. Ralph Yarl’s shooter later told police that he was “scared to death” of Ralph’s size. He did not allege any aggression. Kaylin Gillis’s shooter believed that the multiple vehicles turning onto his property created an atmosphere of fear and menace.

Neither shooter successfully claimed “Stand Your Ground” as a defense; both were found guilty, one of assault, the other of murder. Yet it is hard to imagine that their actions were not influenced by a national movement assuring people they can shoot first without fear of prosecution. These are only two of many stories where fear, confusion, and a firearm proved a deadly combination.

I recognize the hardship of Canadians who, in defending themselves, have faced prosecution. Prosecutors must exercise sound judgment in such cases, and recent examples raise questions about why charges were brought when facts suggested a strong claim of self-defence. But taking a human life must always face scrutiny. If the choice is between occasionally overzealous prosecutions or a policy that increases the chance of innocent neighbours killing one another, the safer choice is clear.

The very name of the proposal, “Stand on Guard,” evokes a community on edge — armed, anxious, and expecting violence. That is not the greater Orangeville I know, a community defined by warmth and welcome. I urge Rep. Seeback to address crime in ways that strengthen, rather than unravel, the fabric of our community.  

Respectfully,

Isabel Carey

Mono

Readers Comments (0)