Pennsylvania town mulls recommending guns for all

[Alex+R 0]

i find it amazing that you find nothing wrong with an armed criminal breaking into someone's home, yet you take great offense with the homeowner defending his home and probably his life and his family. jeesh.

Charles, where on earth did you get he idea that I find nothing wrong with an armed criminal breaking into someone's home!? You can't, Can't, claim I said that. That's ridiculous.

Even more still ridiculous is the idea that I'm demonizing the guy who has the gun to protect his family. I'm just saying he's more likely to get shot if he has a gun. That his plan can result in more death rather than less.

You can't just make stuff up. Charles.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

i find it amazing that you find nothing wrong with an armed criminal breaking into someone's home, yet you take great offense with the homeowner defending his home and probably his life and his family. jeesh.

Charles, where on earth did you get he idea that I find nothing wrong with an armed criminal breaking into someone's home!? You can't, Can't, claim I said that. That's ridiculous.

Even more still ridiculous is the idea that I'm demonizing the guy who has the gun to protect his family. I'm just saying he's more likely to get shot if he has a gun. That his plan can result in more death rather than less.

You can't just make stuff up. Charles.

if you are not saying such, then why the grave concern for the armed burglar?

you are presuming that someone armed breaking into a house is there for milk, cookies, and perhaps just a few valuable items aren't you?

you're presuming an awful lot about the homeowner being shot due to having a gun in his possession. i'd put my money on the homeowner. do you think that if a man broke into your home he'd just leave with your valuables? or would you worry about being raped?

myself, i'll be realistic and take my chances with being able to defend myself rather than hope said burglar is there for nothing other than my tv

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, you have so completely missed my point that I can't even begin to respond.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Charles, you have so completely missed my point that I can't even begin to respond.

no surprise, you're anti gun. which i've never understood about women. the ones who have the most to gain from being armed and able to defend themselves are the most against firearms.

[cheeky^Wolf 0]

We have guns in the house that are used for hunting.

One of the first things hubby showed me when I arrived here was how to load one and where the bullets are.

I'm home alone til 4am every night and if someone got in the house I would have no hesitation in loading the gun and shooting at em! I don't particularly like guns, but if they're going to save my life in a situation like that....

[Identity 0]

This is a divisive issue and I cannot take sides. I can see both arguments. If I was living in this town in Pennsylvania, then I'd be very concerned about the thoughts, values, and attitudes of my neighbour. Moreover, with so many in the United States on anti-depressants or other drugs, then that takes my level of concern to an even higher level.

When I think of America and the culture of paranoia, I am reminded of that Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are due on Maple Street"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes, that story is a demonstration of someone who had one illegally too i bet

that about a person taking the law into their own hands is complete nonsense. to be licensed to carry a concealed handgun, you must complete (at least in texas and kansas that i know of) an eight hour course which specifically covers situations when deadly force is authorized in the eyes of the law. furthermore, i feel safer being around those who are law abiding and have completed some form of safety training rather than some yahoo criminal who acquired his firearm thru theft and has no clue as to the ramifications when he or she pulls the trigger.

you can ask all you want about police and why there are not more. the easy answer is if you want more, pay more taxes.

Well I'm sure she did have it illegally. The point is she was still able to acquire one.

The people who have gone on shooting rampages owned their guns legally, or borrowed a relatives legally acquired firearm. They also tend (in the main) to be mentally ill. I guess that will prompt all sorts of comparisons to motor vehicles and other objects that can potentially kill. Prince Philip after the Dunblane massacre said in his usual tactless manner that "banning guns was like banning cricket bats". Unfortunately no-one challenged him to see how many people he could kill in 5 minutes with cricket paraphenalia Vs. pistols and high powered rifles.

The sense of security to me seems to pale almost into insignificance when situations like Dunblane and Columbine arise. Either the wrong people are being able to acquire guns, or those people aren't taking sufficient precautions with their own weapons, which I think, raises questions of criminal liability on behalf of the owner.

[DeadPoolX 9]

While it's true that the media does in fact inflate crime for ratings (in actuality, crime rates have been going steadily down since the 1990's), it's also true that most criminals today are also armed. They do not, despite what many anti-gun proponents think, purchase their weaponry from firearm stores -- they get their guns due to illegal means. So looking at anti-gun legislation only hurts the law-abiding citizen who wishes to protect his or her family.

Does having a firearm increase the risk of getting shot by a criminal? It depends on the psychological makeup of the criminal. Some might be more prone to shoot if you're holding a gun; others would shoot anyway. Unfortunately, in a situation where you are protecting your family and home, you cannot realistically wait and see what the criminal in question is about to do. You must make a decision within seconds.

I'm from Texas. In this state, the police urge the people to own firearms to protect themselves because the police know they are, by and large, overworked, underpaid and understaffed. The police also say to flat-out kill an intruder (I believe that if you merely wound the criminal, he can come back and sue you as well) and to not attempt any Hollywood-style fancy shooting, such as shooting someone in the kneecaps, which is incredibly difficult to do, and almost always meets with undesirable results. Furthermore, in Texas, a homeowner is legally allowed to kill someone who illegally enters their home. They are not, however, allowed to set traps, shoot outside of their home, or chase after the criminal.

Having said all of this, I do believe there is a limit to type of firearm that a homeowner should be allowed to own. For instance, handguns, in my opinion, are okay; assault rifles or machine guns are obviously not. Thankfully, no one in the U.S. needs that sort of firepower to protect their home.

[derekkj 0]

Just an update. Sorry, Charles.

Pennsylvania Town Rejects Ordinance Proposal Recommending Guns for All Households

CHERRY TREE, Pa. — Council members in this tiny borough voted overwhelmingly Wednesday night to dismiss a contested ordinance that recommended all households keep weapons and ammunition to prevent crime.

In the 6-1 vote, only Councilman Henry Statkowski, who proposed the Civil Protection Ordinance, objected to a motion to drop it.

"This would ... make a statement to the rest of the community and criminals in this area. If you want to break into a home in Cherry Tree, you might not like the consequences," said the 59-year-old retired U.S. Army master sergeant and Vietnam veteran.

But other officials questioned how the ordinance would be enforced and whether it might open the borough to litigation.

"We don't want Cherry Tree to be known as a gun-toting town," Councilman Drax Felton said.

The Cherry Tree measure would not have been the first gun-related ordinance in Pennsylvania. In 1994, Franklintown repealed a law enacted 12 years earlier requiring each household to own a gun and ammunition.

Gun-control advocates have said such measures risk putting guns into the hands of criminals and increase gun violence.

Statkowski has acknowledged that Cherry Tree, a one-time logging center about 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, does not have a crime problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234978,00.html

[BJZags 17]

I'm just saying he's more likely to get shot if he has a gun. That his plan can result in more death rather than less.

You can't just make stuff up. Charles.

As a gun owner and someone who has a conceal/carry permit, I have to agree with this statement. If someone breaks into your house and you have a weapon, you had better be willing to use it, because if you don't it will likely be turned against you in a struggle.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm just saying he's more likely to get shot if he has a gun. That his plan can result in more death rather than less.

You can't just make stuff up. Charles.

As a gun owner and someone who has a conceal/carry permit, I have to agree with this statement. If someone breaks into your house and you have a weapon, you had better be willing to use it, because if you don't it will likely be turned against you in a struggle.

I own a .44 cal. and will pretty much avoid any kind of struggle

[almaty 19]

I always owned a gun.....grew up with them..taught sanita how to fire it...

as george harrison sang..' happiness is a warm gun"

[Dr_LHA 3]

This thread just shows the difference between the US and UK attitude towards gun ownership.

To the UKers in this thread, you may never get the US obsession with guns, and why its so totally ingrained into the culture to be able to own one.

Personally I have learned to accept it, because after being here for a year and having people around me with guns freak me out, I learned to accept it. 6 years later its normal to me.

IMHO the US is a much less violent culture than the UK to an ordinary middle class person such as myself. In the UK the risks of being burgled (or "burglarized" as yanks would have it), mugged or just being beat up in a pub are much higher than they are in the USA. In the UK I would face the threat of real violence every time I went out on a Friday night, in the USA that's just not the case. Is this linked to the fact that people pack firepower? I think it just might be.

Edited December 7, 2006 by dr_lha

[Dr_LHA 3]

as george harrison sang..' happiness is a warm gun"

Lennon sang that one didn't he?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

This thread just shows the difference between the US and UK attitude towards gun ownership.

To the UKers in this thread, you may never get the US obsession with guns, and why its so totally ingrained into the culture to be able to own one.

Personally I have learned to accept it, because after being here for a year and having people around me with guns freak me out, I learned to accept it. 6 years later its normal to me.

IMHO the US is a much less violent culture than the UK to an ordinary middle class person such as myself. In the UK the risks of being burgled (or "burglarized" as yanks would have it), mugged or just being beat up in a pub are much higher than they are in the USA. In the UK I would face the threat of real violence every time I went out on a Friday night, in the USA that's just not the case. Is this linked to the fact that people pack firepower? I think it just might be.

Its true you never know who might be packin!