In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 — “on the limits of necessary self-defense” — according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense led to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got … ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” [emphasis added]
…
The state, in its Criminal Code, forbids citizens to have firearms or other weapons [emphasis added], but does not itself undertake to defend them! The state turns its citizens over to the power of the bandits — and then through the press dares to summon them to “social resistance” against these bandits.
The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2, p 431
Canadian citizens have a fundamental right to safeguard themselves and their property, and this right must be upheld as long as their defensive actions are reasonable and proportional to the circumstances. However, it is crucial to note that injuring an intruder or using lethal force is only justified when it is the only available option for self-defence against a perceived threat of severe bodily harm or loss of life. [emphasis added]
Any actions taken beyond what is deemed reasonable and necessary will not be condoned by the law.
…
Additionally, in relation to firearms, the use of firearms is generally prohibited for the defence of self or property. [emphasis added]
“Self-Defence Laws in Canada: Understand Your Rights”, StrategicCriminalDefence.com