http://news.cincinnati.com/VideoNetwork/1822997437001/92-Year-Old-Shoots-and-Kills-Burglar
Good from him. Guns should still be illegal though.
Good from him. Guns should still be illegal though.
+13
SophisticatedBeggar
Walcott
Kuled
Grenade
menalawyerguy
SBSP
Phadunkin Donuts
crump
Gegilworld93
Sean
dena
CollieBuddz
Dan
17 posters
92 Year Old Shoots and Kills Burglar
CollieBuddz-
- Posts : 3473
Age : 34
I'm unsure on my stance on using guns to protect your property.
On the one hand, they shouldn't be in your property and they could hurt you.
On the other, burglary is done by all sorts of different criminals. Some of them mean the owners of the property no harm at all and they end up losing their life. Sometimes it's life problems that's led them to burglary and what they thought would help them get by has ended up costing their life. A blunt object is more suited to them.
Basically, I'm not against using guns against burglars who will do the owner harm. But how is the owner to judge whether they were going to do them harm or not. And if the burglar is killed, how can we prove that the burglar was being aggressive.
I mean who's to say the owner didn't catch him, and the burglar immediately apologized and asked to leave, but the owner in a fit of rage, and already holding a gun, just blasts him. That is murder. But if people are allowed to use guns to protect their homes then the owner will lie and get away with.
So actually, I don't think people should be able to use guns to protect their homes. Only bats and swords. You can't give head wounds from swords though.
On the one hand, they shouldn't be in your property and they could hurt you.
On the other, burglary is done by all sorts of different criminals. Some of them mean the owners of the property no harm at all and they end up losing their life. Sometimes it's life problems that's led them to burglary and what they thought would help them get by has ended up costing their life. A blunt object is more suited to them.
Basically, I'm not against using guns against burglars who will do the owner harm. But how is the owner to judge whether they were going to do them harm or not. And if the burglar is killed, how can we prove that the burglar was being aggressive.
I mean who's to say the owner didn't catch him, and the burglar immediately apologized and asked to leave, but the owner in a fit of rage, and already holding a gun, just blasts him. That is murder. But if people are allowed to use guns to protect their homes then the owner will lie and get away with.
So actually, I don't think people should be able to use guns to protect their homes. Only bats and swords. You can't give head wounds from swords though.
Guest- Guest
So good for him but he shouldn't of had that gun to begin with? So it's good that he killed the guy but next time he should of done it with kitchen knife? I don't comprehend your way of thinking.
He's a farmer and the weapon was .22 caliber rifle. He probably only uses it to protect his farm from harmful animals. Funny though, thanks to films and shit, everyone assumes .22's are like bb gun pellets.That caliber has killed soooooo many people though.
He's a farmer and the weapon was .22 caliber rifle. He probably only uses it to protect his farm from harmful animals. Funny though, thanks to films and shit, everyone assumes .22's are like bb gun pellets.That caliber has killed soooooo many people though.
Guest- Guest
CollieBuddz wrote:On the other, burglary is done by all sorts of different criminals. Some of them mean the owners of the property no harm at all and they end up losing their life.
How could you steal a pensioners property and mean them no harm at all? They have a choice. Take everything an elderly person has, or don't. If they decide to do it, they do mean harm.
CollieBuddz wrote:Basically, I'm not against using guns against burglars who will do the owner harm. But how is the owner to judge whether they were going to do them harm or not. And if the burglar is killed, how can we prove that the burglar was being aggressive.
It's not jut physical assault that does harm. It's the loss of possession. That does a lot of harm. If you want to take things off of an elderly person, then you deserve to be shot in the fucking head and die.
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 35
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
US will never ban arms, not in a million years. What should be banned are automatic/semi-auto's.
Guest- Guest
The only thing that should be ban are assault rifles.(and submachine guns) You can't even use the "to defend my property" excuse on those. It's in the fucking name, "assault" it's to attack not defend. There is absolutely no reason why someone should own an AK 47.
Pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles can at least be defended.
Pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles can at least be defended.
CollieBuddz-
- Posts : 3473
Age : 34
The Maestro wrote:CollieBuddz wrote:On the other, burglary is done by all sorts of different criminals. Some of them mean the owners of the property no harm at all and they end up losing their life.
How could you steal a pensioners property and mean them no harm at all? They have a choice. Take everything an elderly person has, or don't. If they decide to do it, they do mean harm.CollieBuddz wrote:Basically, I'm not against using guns against burglars who will do the owner harm. But how is the owner to judge whether they were going to do them harm or not. And if the burglar is killed, how can we prove that the burglar was being aggressive.
It's not jut physical assault that does harm. It's the loss of possession. That does a lot of harm. If you want to take things off of an elderly person, then you deserve to be shot in the fucking head and die.
If they deliberately target an older person, then yeah. Who's to say it wasn't just a random target though.
Dan-
- Posts : 680
Ché Guayaba wrote:So good for him but he shouldn't of ha hat gun to begin with? So it's good that he killed the guy but next time he should of done it with kitchen knife? I don't comprehend your way of thinking.
He's a farmer and the weapon was .22 caliber rifle. He probably only uses it to protect his farm from harmful animals. Funny though, thanks to films and shit, everyone assumes .22's are like bb gun pellets.That caliber has killed soooooo many people though.
I've no problem with people defending themselves against people unlawfully entering their property. They've every right to protect themselves against danger. However, I don't feel guns should be legal.
Guest- Guest
CollieBuddz wrote:The Maestro wrote:
How could you steal a pensioners property and mean them no harm at all? They have a choice. Take everything an elderly person has, or don't. If they decide to do it, they do mean harm.
It's not jut physical assault that does harm. It's the loss of possession. That does a lot of harm. If you want to take things off of an elderly person, then you deserve to be shot in the fucking head and die.
If they deliberately target an older person, then yeah. Who's to say it wasn't just a random target though.
doen't matter actually, it applies to robbing anyone.
He's bound to have known when he was in the house that it was an elederly persons house anyway, then to kick the door down off it's hinges.
He got what was coming to him
CollieBuddz-
- Posts : 3473
Age : 34
The Maestro wrote:CollieBuddz wrote:
If they deliberately target an older person, then yeah. Who's to say it wasn't just a random target though.
doen't matter actually, it applies to robbing anyone.
He's bound to have known when he was in the house that it was an elederly persons house anyway, then to kick the door down off it's hinges.
He got what was coming to him
He wasn't given enough time. He could have thought the property was empty.
The man said as soon as he exposed himself he shot. The robber could have seen the old guy and turned back. If he ran at the old man, fair enough. But he couldn't make his intentions clear. As soon as he entered the door he was shot.
Guest- Guest
CollieBuddz wrote:The Maestro wrote:
doen't matter actually, it applies to robbing anyone.
He's bound to have known when he was in the house that it was an elederly persons house anyway, then to kick the door down off it's hinges.
He got what was coming to him
He wasn't given enough time. He could have thought the property was empty.
The man said as soon as he exposed himself he shot. The robber could have seen the old guy and turned back. If he ran at the old man, fair enough. But he couldn't make his intentions clear. As soon as he entered the door he was shot.
I don't think you understand
Robberry isn't going into someones house and beating thm up
The taking of an elderly persons possessions is WRONG, you can't just say "Well, you don't know if he was going to go and kick the shit out of the elderly man, because if he wasn't going to do that it'd be fine." The impact burglarly has on peoples life is fucking devastating, never mind what it'd be like for an old man to deal with.
Guest- Guest
A 92 year old man would probably not be able to defend himself very well without a gun though. Add most women to that too.Dan wrote:Ché Guayaba wrote:So good for him but he shouldn't of ha hat gun to begin with? So it's good that he killed the guy but next time he should of done it with kitchen knife? I don't comprehend your way of thinking.
He's a farmer and the weapon was .22 caliber rifle. He probably only uses it to protect his farm from harmful animals. Funny though, thanks to films and shit, everyone assumes .22's are like bb gun pellets.That caliber has killed soooooo many people though.
I've no problem with people defending themselves against people unlawfully entering their property. They've every right to protect themselves against danger. However, I don't feel guns should be legal.
I understand what you mean, it just doesn't really, I don't know how to say, make sense? I guess. I'm having trouble communicating what I mean.
It's like your two ideas just don't go well together.
CollieBuddz-
- Posts : 3473
Age : 34
The Maestro wrote:CollieBuddz wrote:
He wasn't given enough time. He could have thought the property was empty.
The man said as soon as he exposed himself he shot. The robber could have seen the old guy and turned back. If he ran at the old man, fair enough. But he couldn't make his intentions clear. As soon as he entered the door he was shot.
I don't think you understand
Robberry isn't going into someones house and beating thm up
The taking of an elderly persons possessions is WRONG, you can't just say "Well, you don't know if he was going to go and kick the shit out of the elderly man, because if he wasn't going to do that it'd be fine." The impact burglarly has on peoples life is fucking devastating, never mind what it'd be like for an old man to deal with.
You shouldn't die for it though.
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 35
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
When you break the law and invade someone's private property, you're throwing a lot of things out the window. Citizens have the right to protect themselves, and guns are legal in the US, if you have a registered weapon and someone breaks into your home, you have the right to use it. You don't know what intentions that intruder has, some are just petty thieves, some are brutal killers. He should'nt have died for breaking into someone's home, but like I said when you cross that line you're making it hard for people to defend you.
Sean-
- Posts : 33857
Age : 30
Buglary may be wrong and have a big impact on people but its not worth killing someone over, I mean Ive been burgled before, but if they found the person I wouldnt wish them dead.
Dan-
- Posts : 680
Ché Guayaba wrote:A 92 year old man would probably not be able to defend himself very well without a gun though. Add most women to that too.Dan wrote:
I've no problem with people defending themselves against people unlawfully entering their property. They've every right to protect themselves against danger. However, I don't feel guns should be legal.
I understand what you mean, it just doesn't really, I don't know how to say, make sense? I guess. I'm having trouble communicating what I mean.
It's like your two ideas just don't go well together.
I just feel that no good can come from allowing people to purchase and own guns. Just look at the statistics in gun crime between the UK and the US. Yeah, in this situation, having a gun possibly saved this man's life, but how many other times has a gun that was readily bought and paid for cost one?
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 35
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
Ted wrote:Buglary may be wrong and have a big impact on people but its not worth killing someone over, I mean Ive been burgled before, but if they found the person I wouldnt wish them dead.
If the person is found guilty in court afterwords of course you don't wish the death penalty on them, but if someone invades your house you have no idea what that person is capable of, I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt who threatens my life or my families life, if I have a bat I'm going all in, if I have a wrench I'm going all in, if i have a gun it's hard to say what I would do in that situation because it's obviously easier to kill with a gun than with a bat/wrench but you're defending yourself here.
Guest- Guest
Get it, grandpa.
Gegilworld93-
- Posts : 10414
Age : 31
Location : Winterthur, Switzerland
Supports : Arsenal FC, FC Winterthur
You can keep the pistol, rifle and knife you're given in the Swiss Army, originally it was intended for defending your property as well but a few people are against it now.
Sean-
- Posts : 33857
Age : 30
Why does Switzerland even have an army? 
crump-
- Posts : 20116
You are allowed to take appropiate force on the robber.
Obviously if some 20 stone burgular is facing a fraile old man the old man is in his rights to probably seriously injure him.
If its some 15 year old rat robbing the 20 stone burglars house it's probably unessecary to shoot him unless he his bearing a weapon of similar force.
Obviously if some 20 stone burgular is facing a fraile old man the old man is in his rights to probably seriously injure him.
If its some 15 year old rat robbing the 20 stone burglars house it's probably unessecary to shoot him unless he his bearing a weapon of similar force.
Guest- Guest
crump wrote:You are allowed to take appropiate force on the robber.
Obviously if some 20 stone burgular is facing a fraile old man the old man is in his rights to probably seriously injure him.
If its some 15 year old rat robbing the 20 stone burglars house it's probably unessecary to shoot him unless he his bearing a weapon of similar force.
How would they put that rule into legislation? "You can use a gun but only if the guy is bigger than you."
Phadunkin Donuts-
- Posts : 14773
Age : 36
If your life is being threatened.
Guest- Guest
Who says a midget can't threaten your life just because he is smaller than you?
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 35
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
crump wrote:You are allowed to take appropiate force on the robber.
Obviously if some 20 stone burgular is facing a fraile old man the old man is in his rights to probably seriously injure him.
If its some 15 year old rat robbing the 20 stone burglars house it's probably unessecary to shoot him unless he his bearing a weapon of similar force.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Phadunkin Donuts-
- Posts : 14773
Age : 36
Pico wrote:Who says a midget can't threaten your life just because he is smaller than you?
I'm not talking about size. I'm just stating.. if your life is threatened.. then I'm assuming it's all good to pull the trigger.
I'm not getting into this discussion because I honestly don't give a fuck.
Guest- Guest
Get Off My Lawn: Extreme Edition.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
Rei Andros wrote:Get Off My Lawn: Extreme Edition.
menalawyerguy-
- Posts : 6547
Age : 111
Ché Guayaba wrote:The only thing that should be ban are assault rifles.(and submachine guns) You can't even use the "to defend my property" excuse on those. It's in the fucking name, "assault" it's to attack not defend. There is absolutely no reason why someone should own an AK 47.
Pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles can at least be defended.
The problem is in how they are being classified. Just because you slap "assault" on it doesn't mean the debate is over. A lot of weapons that have been classed as assault weapons aren't really assault weapons and all you do by banning them is further limit law abiding citizens on their lawful protection options.
menalawyerguy-
- Posts : 6547
Age : 111
dena wrote:US will never ban arms, not in a million years. What should be banned are automatic/semi-auto's.
Agree with you on auto but not semi-auto. A lot of handguns are semi-auto.
