Sure self defense is technically legal, but if you use a gun to defend yourself they'll get you with an "Unsafe Storage" violation, even if you actually did have your weapon "safely" stored and somehow had enough time to unlock your safe and make ready.
Witness this case:
Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm? Mr. Thomson is the Port Colborne, Ont., man currently standing trial in a Welland, Ont. courtroom after he and his home were attacked by firebombers in August, 2010. (That's correct, in the topsy-turvy world of Canadian criminal justice, Mr. Thomson and his home were the ones attacked and yet he is the one on trial.)
Having dropped other more serious charges - such as dangerous use of a firearm - because they concluded there was no reasonable chance of winning a conviction, Crown prosecutors have nonetheless bullied ahead with unsafe storage charges against Mr. Thomson.
Nevermind that Mr. Thomson has proven that he could have unlocked his safe and loaded his guns in the given time frame. The Canadian government has decided to see fit to punish a man for defending his house from attacking arsonists.
Via Clayton Cramer.
I suppose they don't want to send the message that self defense is acceptable. Because then Canadians might start using their guns to defend themselves on their property, and even worse demand carry permits be given to normal citizens, instead of an elite few.
As Weer'd said Self Defense and protection against tyranny are the main reasons for firearms ownership.
It's telling that in Canada they use the latter to punish the former.
Right now, the Canadian government would prefer guns merely be hunting and sporting implements.
It makes them that much easier to ban.
At least there's been some progress up there.