91 year old man gets beaten like a red-headed stepchild! Disgusting!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im afraid thats something you are incapable of.
When automobiles are registered with the government as dangerous weapons Ill consider your explanation. Until then ANY weapon other than those used by farmers for pest control is a weapon that needs to be destroyed. I dont buy the simplistic version of needing a weapon that you seem to have.

I don't want to start a ****ing match but I think you may also have a very simplistic view of the matter.

What about responsible gun owners who use them for hunting?
What about Olympic Bi-athletes, or trap shooters?

What about the police officer who gets attacked and his gun is stolen? His gun was on his hip and not locked. If his gun is taken from him and used to kill someone is he more or less of an accomplice than me the responsible hunter who has my guns with trigger locks on, inside a 400lb safe?

Why should the farmer be allowed to own a gun but not me? What if I live in the subburbs and raise kittens? Should I be allowed to own a gun incase coyotes come trotting into my backyard and try to kill my kittens?

The fact of the matter is, that this is another one of those debates where one side will never convince the other. So either fortunatly, or unfortunatly (depending on which side of the debate you're on) the status quo will remain, which in this case means people get to keep their guns. The real issue is teaching people how to responsibly own, keep, and use their guns, something that is becomming more prevalent with the new laws pretaining to aquiring your PAL (posession/aquisition licence), and I think that is a very good thing.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Actually, that lawsuit was ruled against by the supreme court, so it is just the very opposite of what you said.

I was already aware of that, as soon as I posted it ken0042 posted a link to the article about the whole ordeal, and I have already read it but thanks for letting me know again

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Sure, but you could use it if you wanted to. What really get's my panties in a twist is people tellign me that I should not be able to.

That's scary stuff in my opinion. Not everyone has t liek guns, but to tell me what I am able to own one for is a police-state mentality.

I'm not telling you that you should not be able to. If you think it's a good idea then fine. What you shouldn't be able to do is to keep a loaded gun by your bed just in case because I think that is clearly an even bigger risk than someone breaking into your house.

I have no problem with people who think that they can responsibly store a firearm and still use it to protect their family in an emergency, but I doubt that they will be able to do it, so I don't think it is a very good reason to own a gun.

[White Doors]

So the answer is to ban them?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

White Doors, can you name a use for a gun besides inflicting harm on a living being?

Knives- I use them every day to prepare dinner.
Cars- I use them every day as a means of transportation
Baseball Bats- OK, not every day- but most of the time I use them to play sports.

The thing is almost anything in the world could be used as a weapon. For that matter a pillow could be used as a weapon; even if it's a feather pillow.

Guns on the other hand have one purpose. And when used for their intended purpose they kill things.

Guns do not have to be used to kill things.
My father used to be a very competetive trap shooter and I'd say probalby only 50% of the guys I know who did this were hunters so, half of those guys were not using their guns to kill things does that mean they were using them improperly?

Yes, guns were originally created to kill things and that is certainly what I use mine for. I won't go on a "let's ban all knives" tirade because that is clearly not a fair comparison, but I will put this out there because I think it is a perfectly fair comparison. Should we ban bows and arrows? They have the same purpose as guns. Hell you don't even have to take a course or get a licence to get a bow and arrow, but they were created for and used for the the same purpose as guns. Many people use them just for shooting targets and many use them for hunting. Sure you don't see many armed robberies with them but if we're using that criteria then we probalby could start to use knives as a fair comparison.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So the answer is to ban them?

I really hope that wasn't directed at me.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm not telling you that you should not be able to. If you think it's a good idea then fine. What you shouldn't be able to do is to keep a loaded gun by your bed just in case because I think that is clearly an even bigger risk than someone breaking into your house.

I have no problem with people who think that they can responsibly store a firearm and still use it to protect their family in an emergency, but I doubt that they will be able to do it, so I don't think it is a very good reason to own a gun.

Exactly!

I also agree with this:

"The real issue is teaching people how to responsibly own, keep, and use their guns, something that is becomming more prevalent with the new laws pretaining to aquiring your PAL (posession/aquisition licence), and I think that is a very good thing"

for the record, I do not have a gun in my home. I grew up with them and learned to use them responsibly but alot of people's attitudes towards guns really baffles me. What baffles me further is that their inexperience and attitudes translates into them thinking that no one else can have them either. Fear born out of ignorance at it's best.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I really hope that wasn't directed at me.

No it was directed to Ken

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Maybe I shouldnt pry Homer...but maybe you ought to talk to someone about your rages before someone or something gets seriously hurt...including yourself.

probably, I have had anger managment in the past but to no avail. Also take into consideration my statement of a killing spree is exaggerated at the time due to the anger of the thought of a 91 year old man getting beaten to a pulp as I have a relative who is around that age and it disturbs me.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by White Doors

for the record, I do not have a gun in my home. I grew up with them and learned to use them responsibly but alot of people's attitudes towards guns really baffles me. What baffles me further is that their inexperience and attitudes translates into them thinking that no one else can have them either. Fear born out of ignorance at it's best.

And what baffles me is people that presume to know how someone has arrived at their belief about a certain issue. Don't assume that its ignorance or inexperience. There are many different angles that this issue can be looked at - not just yours.

[ken0042]

I never suggested that we should ban all guns. I was just stating that having a loaded firearm within reach at all times is irresponsible; and I see by your more recent posts that you tend to agree.

I was mainly getting at the fact that a gun is intended to inflict harm; and should be treated with a certain level of respect. The analogy of cars and baseball bats was flawed, IMHO.

BBS- any type of competative target shooting is still designed for accuracy of firing a weapon. Don't get me wrong; I have fired guns at targets before as well. And I'm sure you will find that in general most target shooters are responsible gun owners.

I think all of us are dancing around the main point; that owning a gun is a huge reponsibility. I just went one step further in saying that I don't think that if this 91 year old was a responsible gun owner; that his gun would have helped him in this case.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I never suggested that we should ban all guns. I was just stating that having a loaded firearm within reach at all times is irresponsible; and I see by your more recent posts that you tend to agree.

I was mainly getting at the fact that a gun is intended to inflict harm; and should be treated with a certain level of respect. The analogy of cars and baseball bats was flawed, IMHO.

BBS- any type of competative target shooting is still designed for accuracy of firing a weapon. Don't get me wrong; I have fired guns at targets before as well. And I'm sure you will find that in general most target shooters are responsible gun owners.

I think all of us are dancing around the main point; that owning a gun is a huge reponsibility. I just went one step further in saying that I don't think that if this 91 year old was a responsible gun owner; that his gun would have helped him in this case.

Would a knife have helped in that situation? If he used it, he would have been liable under the Criminal code of Canada.

Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor who would charge a 91 year old man no matter what the consequences are, even if he had killed someone in self defense. But if the man had say been someone in his Mid-20s, there is a good chance he could go to jail.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Would a knife have helped in that situation? If he used it, he would have been liable under the Criminal code of Canada.

Probably not. Which is why I never suggested that the man arm himself in the first place. All I was saying that a responsible gun owner would not have been able to use said gun in this case.

Personally I think anybody who inflicts pain on a weaker person for the purpose of committing a crime should face a very tough punnishment. But that's another thread all together.

[theJuice]

At least they didn't rape him.

[Scorponok]

See, the way I see it is this: 91 year old man, 4-5 burley men break in. Well, the best way he could defend himself at this point is to have a gun, loaded and ready to go on his hip.

I know there will be people who use them for nefarious purposes, but until we get personal shields and transporters to protect or materialize us out of danger like in Star Trek, it seems guns are the only way this old fogey could have protected himself. Of course, there is the theory of escalation, i.e. the 4 men would come armed when attempting to rob the man, but for that, they would have to risk one of their friends potentially not making it back. Thieving innocent people should be a hazardous occupation, IMO. It's not hazardous enough in Canada.

[Eastern Girl]

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Ottawa...67856-sun.html

Heres an article about it from the Sun for any interested. It's been all over the news here. It's really sad, hearing him tell what happened, it just makes you sick.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by J pold

Couldn’t agree more, my family owns guns and my father puts an extreme amount of emphasis on being responsible with or around guns, he keeps them locked in a locker to which I don’t even know the code, and keeps the ammo in a separate safe we go hunting occasionally and every since I was a kid its “never take the safety off until you have a shot and its safe to shoot” or “Always point a gun to the ground when you aren’t using it” him and I would never think that are guns would help us if someone broke into our home, as long as you are responsible about it guns are fine but not as a means for protection

My dad was/is a duck hunter and he always taught us respect for firearms. I remember him always saying "Guns are not toys and toys are not guns." I always thought it sounded a little crazy but I bet it kept my brother and I from accidentally killing each other, ourselves or someone else because we knew better than to treat guns lightly.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Scorponok

See, the way I see it is this: 91 year old man, 4-5 burley men break in. Well, the best way he could defend himself at this point is to have a gun, loaded and ready to go on his hip.

I know there will be people who use them for nefarious purposes, but until we get personal shields and transporters to protect or materialize us out of danger like in Star Trek, it seems guns are the only way this old fogey could have protected himself. Of course, there is the theory of escalation, i.e. the 4 men would come armed when attempting to rob the man, but for that, they would have to risk one of their friends potentially not making it back. Thieving innocent people should be a hazardous occupation, IMO. It's not hazardous enough in Canada.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that in his first 91 years this didn't happen to him and if he lives another 91 years, it won't happen again. Should he have been carrying around a gun in holster all his life just in case?

Should I carry a heavy shield around 24 hours a day to protect myself from a falling block of frozen feces mistakenly dropped by a passing aeroplane?

The reason this story is getting so much attention is because this kind of thing is extremely rare. Strapping Ma and Pa Kettle with a six-shooter as a means of defense in case of home invasion would cause a hell of a lot more problems than it would solve. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, "my grandfather is 76 years old and we don't even trust him with the remote control".

[White Doors]

Yeah, a big bullmastiff would have done the trick.

I agree, home invasions should be more hazerdous to the perp's health.
It would be at my place

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by White Doors

So you are for destroying all knives? How about baseball bats?
I mean why not?

A gun has no other purpose than to kill. Anyone who actually believes that they are also intended to take down someone in a non-lethal manner is really just kidding themselves.