PA town may ask all residents to own firearms

[ScarabDrowner]

found this interesting story this morning on CNN:* LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/12/08/town.guns.reut/index.html)

[bubbacatfish]

Sounds like common sense to me. Mumble, grumble, stupid Canada, grumble mumble...

[RGNY]

works for me.

we had a Swedish exchange student explain how he was going home to do his required two years in the military (which i would also support), then he'd keep his rifle and ammo and be considered part of the militia. this was the late '80's, don't know if Sweden has changed this or not.

[laurent]

I like that idea. No freedom without responsability.

[Sharpdogs]

Finally a politician with some logical thoughts, In written comments, Statkowski said homeowners have a right and a responsibility to defend against intruders rather than calling police and waiting for help to arrive.

[TKC]

I think it is great that Cherry Tree, PA. is going to ask it's residents to own a gun. I hope that passes. That is common sense to.

[oceanbeamer]

I think the list includes sweden, switzerland&Israel...And there mostly assault weapons,full auto,large mags..and no killings and very few b&e's makes you wonder about bans on handguns&assault weapons,,,,

[ScarabDrowner]

I once heard it said that an armed society is a polite society. If you believe those around you are packing, the less likely you are to start any trouble.

[TKC]

oceanbeamer: If you think a gun ban is a good idea, look ay England & Austrailia. Only the bad guys have weapons.

I wish more town in the US would do what that town in PA. is doing!! I think that is a GREAT idea!!

[RGNY]

i'm also on glocktalk.com, and over there people are against the law because it's still the 'govt' telling you what to do.

i can see the point, but i was brought up to believe that citizenship=responsibility. i think too much of the US has lost a sense of community.

[greenLED]

i'm also on glocktalk.com, and over there people are against the law because it's still the 'govt' telling you what to do.

i can see the point, but i was brought up to believe that citizenship=responsibility. i think too much of the US has lost a sense of community.
I totally agree with RGNY, and don't really see this as a good idea. Trying to implement a gun ban, or "ask" for ownership smells the same to me.

We've not only lost the sense of community, but our society is full of people with no sense of responsibility ("I'm overweight because McD uses trans fats"...). :(

[Lee1959]

I am not against everyone owning firearms, but, I would hope that those without the disposable income are helped with the purchase, and that some decent training is provided to everyone. If they require ownership, they should make sure they provide for informed, trained owners as not everyone will do it themselves. And personally, I would not wish to live in a city where everyone owns a firearm yet have no training in their responsible use.

[AndyTiedye]

You think this would force people to be more "responsible"?

How responsible is it to try to "help" in this manner when one has no expertise with firearms?

Your neighbor fires his trembly Webly (which he hasn't touched since he bought it). Who's he gonna hit? You or the bad guy?

Obviously, the town council had concerns as well. The measure was defeated 6-1.

[mightysparrow]

How do you know that the lower B&E rates in the two or three countries mentioned are the result of gun ownership? What about the fact that many places in the U.S. where lots of people have guns have high gun-crime rates -- not low rates? Until gun training is universal and people actually do what they are told to do, you also have to admit that there will be more accidents with guns if everyone is required to own one. That cost could be steep in relation to the amount of crimes that would be stopped by gun-wielding citizens.

What are the statistics on how often crimes are stopped by gun owners using their guns, versus how often guns are stolen and used by perpetrators of crimes? I believe my sister's research on gun accidents in the home several years ago showed that there are more casualties from accidents than foiled crimes. Does anyone have recent statistics on this?

[Bullzaye]

mightysparrow said :

you also have to admit that there will be more accidents with guns if everyone is required to own one
No, actually I don't have to admit that. I'm unable to research further than this since I'm at work, but I was able to find that 2% of the total accidental deaths in the U.S in 1992 were caused by firearms, while firearms only accounted for .8% of accidental deaths in 1999, even though there were more guns owned in '99. I cannot quote a source, but I recall reading that accidental death by firearms was much greater in the 1930's and has continually declined from then until the present, despite the increased numbers of guns owned. Might I suggest that you try reading John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". This scholarly tome will enlighten you more than I could in a lifetime of trying.
Frankly, I was surprised to read a post such as yours on what is a forum dedicated to self reliance, a topic generally not subscribed to by those with a more liberal bent. It sounds like it has been cut and pasted directly from some anti-gunners rant. But I must agree that having a government agency...state, local, federal, or otherwise, telling me what I can't, or what I must own, does not sit well with me. However, how about this? Why not steal a page from "Molon Labe" (by Boston T. Party)? Give people a tax break for firearm ownership. Give them a further tax break for demonstrating proficiency with that firearm. This way, if you choose not to own a gun, that's fine. But if you do decide to own one, you'll get a tax break. And people will be encouraged to become safe and proficient with their firearms so as to qualify for the second (probably more substantial) tax break.
That's my $.05 (inflation).
* Tim

[glockstersharp]

How do you know that the lower B&E rates in the two or three countries mentioned are the result of gun ownership?* What about the fact that many places in the U.S. where lots of people have guns have high gun-crime rates -- not low rates?* Until gun training is universal and people actually do what they are told to do, you also have to admit that there will be more accidents with guns if everyone is required to own one.* That cost could be steep in relation to the amount of crimes that would be stopped by gun-wielding citizens.

What are the statistics on how often crimes are stopped by gun owners using their guns, versus how often guns are stolen and used by perpetrators of crimes?* I believe my sister's research on gun accidents in the home several years ago showed that there are more casualties from accidents than foiled crimes.* Does anyone have recent statistics on this?


Everyone's entitled to their opinion - but I don't have to like it. >:( :P :o ??? :crazy2: :boo: :nyah:

[Lugsalot]

Some thoughts:

Mandated gun-ownership is just as much a threat to freedom as the abolition of our right to keep and bear arms. A person who arms himself with a weapon of his choosing is free, as is a person who decides NOT to arm themselves at all; a person whose government denies him the means of defending himself is one step away from slavery, and a person whose government requires him to keep a weapon for the safety of the (police)state is nothing more than a conscript. It must be bad enough being sworn to protect government officials who put power over liberty and justice. Now imagine having to do that kind of dirty work for free!* >:(

Self-reliance and responsibility cannot, and should not, be forced upon any unwilling persons. A person is "free" to be as completely defenseless as he wishes, just as we are (presumably...at least we WERE) free to safeguard our liberties with appropriate tools.

Further:

Every person in a community should *ideally* offer at least some redeemable asset to the group. Likewise, each person should (again, ideally) take care not to be a burden or liability to the group. The problem is that we fail to acknowledge the ways in which we are connected, instead preferring to single out for attack those unfavorable traits and characteristics we see in others.
And so we have the "You gun-nuts are a liability to the community," vs. the "You ******* attract predators with your weakness," arguments. Ad nauseum.

We don't have to like each other, but we should really learn to recognize and respect the boundaries set by our rights as individuals, as well as the ways in which our everyday actions affect others.

[laurent]

The trouble with firearms owning is obviously education. But even if you need month to use correctly a gun, thousand of ammunitions to use it accurately and years of regular training to master it, it takes less than fifteen minutes (and maybe a slap on the head or a buttkicking) to learn how to safely use it. I don't understand why the Cooper's rules aren't engraved on the barrel of every single gun sold, apart from the legal mentions and thoroughly taught by gunshops. Or even in schools, since a lot of fatal accidental shooting come from playing kids.

I don't want to be polemic but it seems that irresponsible citizens are generally a pretext for authorities to strip law-abiding citizens from their freedoms, rights and privacy, even when the impact of the irresponsible people is minimal, in a well-regulated society (I think about the drastic measures against privacy on internet taken against paedophiles, or dangerous racists, with so little effects on the target, for exemple).

[dudegalea]

No, actually I don't have to admit that. I'm unable to research further than this since I'm at work, but I was able to find that 2% of the total accidental deaths in the U.S in 1992 were caused by firearms, while firearms only accounted for .8% of accidental deaths in 1999, even though there were more guns owned in '99.


I don't think the stats on voluntary gun ownership can necessarily be applied to a hypothetical situation where everyone is required to own a gun.

There may be (in fact, almost certainly is) a positive correlation between wanting to own a gun, and willingness to get training. There may also be a positive correlation with personal responsibility.

If you're required to own a gun, and you didn't want it in the first place, you're more likely to have an accident with it than someone who did want one and got the training for it.

So I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that requiring gun ownership could easily result in increased gun accident rates.

[greenLED]

There may be (in fact, almost certainly is) a positive correlation between wanting to own a gun, and willingness to get training. There may also be a positive correlation with personal responsibility.I personally believe that, but experience from where I come from shows the contrary. A spark in criminality has forced an increase in gun ownership. Unfortunately, that's not hand-in-hand with (constant) training (which is not only physical but mental as well). For some reason, people think that owning a gun is the end-all of all safety concerns. :( The net results have been more violent crimes (shoot and loot first) and the perceived loss of public safety is even greater, despite more people owning guns. So, while I support this view of gun ownership, we have to keep an open mind; as many other things in this world, the same answer does not apply to situations (cultures, people, townships) that are seemingly similar.

[dudegalea]

So, while I support this view of gun ownership, we have to keep an open mind; as many other things in this world, the same answer does not apply to situations (cultures, people, townships) that are seemingly similar.


Absolutely right.

The world is a complex place.

[mightysparrow]

"No, actually I don't have to admit that. I'm unable to research further than this since I'm at work, but I was able to find that 2% of the total accidental deaths in the U.S in 1992 were caused by firearms, while firearms only accounted for .8% of accidental deaths in 1999, even though there were more guns owned in '99. I cannot quote a source,

That's not true of accidental dealths in the home. See FBI statistics. Quoting statistics without citing to a source is not very convincing if you're looking for facts.

but I recall reading that accidental death by firearms was much greater in the 1930's and has continually declined from then until the present, despite the increased numbers of guns owned. Might I suggest that you try reading John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". This scholarly tome will enlighten you more than I could in a lifetime of trying.
Frankly, I was surprised to read a post such as yours on what is a forum dedicated to self reliance, a topic generally not subscribed to by those with a more liberal bent. It sounds like it has been cut and pasted directly from some anti-gunners rant. But I must agree that having a government agency...state, local, federal, or otherwise, telling me what I can't, or what I must own, does not sit well with me. However, how about this? Why not steal a page from "Molon Labe" (by Boston T. Party)? Give people a tax break for firearm ownership. Give them a further tax break for demonstrating proficiency with that firearm. This way, if you choose not to own a gun, that's fine. But if you do decide to own one, you'll get a tax break. And people will be encouraged to become safe and proficient with their firearms so as to qualify for the second (probably more substantial) tax break.
That's my $.05 (inflation)."

[mightysparrow]

Sorry, my previous message was sent prematurely. Here's the rest of it...

"but I recall reading that accidental death by firearms was much greater in the 1930's and has continually declined from then until the present, despite the increased numbers of guns owned. Might I suggest that you try reading John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". This scholarly tome will enlighten you more than I could in a lifetime of trying.

Not accidents in the home. And John Lott's book is not a scholarly tome! It is not peer-reviewed research, either. It is a very biased look at a complex issue requiring a much more detailed analysis than it provided in that book (I have read it, contrary to your assumption).


Frankly, I was surprised to read a post such as yours on what is a forum dedicated to self reliance, a topic generally not subscribed to by those with a more liberal bent.

Wrong. This forum is not dedicated to self-reliance, which is impossible in our society. This forum is dedicated to every day carry products and practice. Self-reliance is your own spin. And I'm not a liberal. I am a thinker who requires evidence for my opinions, as I showed in my initial post.

It sounds like it has been cut and pasted directly from some anti-gunners rant.

I never rant, and I am not anti-gun. Again, that is your assumption, but is not based on fact. Where do I say I am anti-gun-ownership?! Please do not misrepresent my opinions to promote your own biases.


But I must agree that having a government agency...state, local, federal, or otherwise, telling me what I can't, or what I must own, does not sit well with me.

So, you think it's perfectly fine for privately-acting citizens to own plutonium or anthrax? Interesting view! Not very realistic or responsible, though.


However, how about this? Why not steal a page from "Molon Labe" (by Boston T. Party)? Give people a tax break for firearm ownership. Give them a further tax break for demonstrating proficiency with that firearm. This way, if you choose not to own a gun, that's fine. But if you do decide to own one, you'll get a tax break. And people will be encouraged to become safe and proficient with their firearms so as to qualify for the second (probably more substantial) tax break.
That's my $.05 (inflation)."

That is the same thing as taxing people for choosing not to own a gun. That is a policy I would fight with every ounce of my strength. Besides, taking a firearms proficiency course is not the same thing as ACTING responsibly with a firearm.

[RGNY]

once i was in an argument about responsible gun ownership.....

one stat that was thrown out is that swimming pools kill many more people in America each year than guns do (source presented at the time, but i don't have the reference).

just another tool. love'em or hate'em, it all comes down to responsibility. we even have local ordinance here that pools must be fenced in and hot tubs must have locking covers because if someone wanders onto -your- property and drowns it's your fault.

[mightysparrow]

Wow! I am amazed that in your locale, all legal responsibility accrues to the owner of the pool if somebody trespasses, uses the pool without permission, foils the owner's safety precautions, and then drowns. That is an unusual circumstance. In most places, the owner of the property would not be liable if s/he follows all laws, takes all reasonable precautions to prevent a drowning and doesn't do anything negligent or reckless.

[glockstersharp]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion - but I don't have to like it.* >:( :P :o ??? :crazy2: :boo: :nyah:


Mighty Sparrow,

As I look back at my previous post, I realize that one could look at it as a personal attack. I hope that you didn't take it that way and if you did then please accept my apology. It was meant in jest. Yes, I am very pro-gun but you do bring up some interesting points.

[RGNY]

sigh...this is NY. very litigious.




Wow!* I am amazed that in your locale, all legal responsibility accrues to the owner of the pool if somebody trespasses, uses the pool without permission, foils the owner's safety precautions, and then drowns.* That is an unusual circumstance.* In most places, the owner of the property would not be liable if s/he follows all laws, takes all reasonable precautions to prevent a drowning and doesn't do anything negligent or reckless.

[gearloose]

The level of hyperbole on both sides of the gun issue is absurd. I own guns I work part-time in a gun store/range and both sides are intractable. No municipality should have the right to force gun ownership on unwilling citizensA large section of our population has no need or desire for firearms and those of us who do own guns should be the first ones to defend their point of view.And when the wolf is at the door and those people turn to us for guidance or protection we should help them understand what we have knownall along. That when you need the protection of your government the most they will be the least prepared to help (New Orleans)

[dudegalea]

Talking of New Orleans, anyone here watched the NRA DVD Never Again! (http://www.givethemback.com/) ?

I've only seen the clips on the site.

[glockstersharp]

This says it all

[TKC]

This says it all


I agree wholeheartedly!!

[Gimik]

To me, forcing people to own firearms is just as bad as banning people from owning firearms. Some people just do not want to own them, and they should not have to. The govt. should just stay out of most things if you ask me. Let people live their lives and stop trying to save everyone from themselves and telling people how to live.

[rhicks]

This says it all



mmmmm glock :bow:

"Under the proposed law, residents of Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania, would be asked to own guns and know how to use them"

I hope this means proper training and not a ten minute class on how to load, chamber, and squeeze.

[Codeman]

While I would be quite happy to live in a town where everyone chose to own firearms in a responsible manner (whatever that means!), I think it is just as wrong to require ownership as it is to prohibit ownership. The town's intent may be honorable, but the action is wrong.

[dudegalea]

While I would be quite happy to live in a town where everyone chose to own firearms in a responsible manner (whatever that means!), I think it is just as wrong to require ownership as it is to prohibit ownership. The town's intent may be honorable, but the action is wrong.


Agreed, but I've just read the article again, and I'm not sure what the proposal actually means.

It appears that the town merely wants to ask people to own guns. They are recommending, not requiring.

I admit, the first time I read it, I thought they were talking about an involuntary measure to force ownership. But if my new understanding is correct, I can't really see the point of the proposal in the first place. What will be the result of it? A law? A declaration? A leaflet in the mailbox of every home? :confused:

[Codeman]

The article is vague, but regardless of what the town is trying to do, I don't think they have the right to say yea, nea or to even suggest either way. It's a private right that government has no business trying to influence in any way.

I'm a firm believer in the RTKBA, but I'm also equally firm in my belief that whether an individual chooses to exercise that right or not is up to them and governments have no right to influence that decision one way or the other.

Thus, the town is wrong regardless of whether it's a requirement or suggestion, IMO.

[dudegalea]

The article is vague, but regardless of what the town is trying to do, I don't think they have the right to say yea, nea or to even suggest either way. It's a private right that government has no business trying to influence in any way.

I'm a firm believer in the RTKBA, but I'm also equally firm in my belief that whether an individual chooses to exercise that right or not is up to them and governments have no right to influence that decision one way or the other.

Thus, the town is wrong regardless of whether it's a requirement or suggestion, IMO.


I'm not sure I agree. That's not a polite way of saying 'I disagree'; I'm genuinely not sure!

OK, we agree that it's wrong to require firearms ownership.

But what if your senator were to suggest that it's a good idea for people to get trained in handgun use, and to own a handgun for personal defense? If it's just an off-hand remark in an interview, in response to a direct question perhaps, would that be wrong? How would that be any different from anyone else in the world suggesting it (in a private capacity)? Provided he is not using any power in his capacity as a member of the government, he is just another private citizen - albeit more famous, perhaps.

Now if he were to use government money (i.e. tax revenue) to fund a campaign promoting this message, that would start a different argument.

Clearly, the violation of imposing a requirement is much worse than just making a suggestion.

[Codeman]

I'm not sure I agree. That's not a polite way of saying 'I disagree'; I'm genuinely not sure!

... Provided he is not using any power in his capacity as a member of the government, he is just another private citizen - albeit more famous, perhaps.

Now if he were to use government money (i.e. tax revenue) to fund a campaign promoting this message, that would start a different argument.
...


Apparently, we do agree, because all I've talked about is government action. :)

[dudegalea]

Apparently, we do agree, because all I've talked about is government action. :)


Perhaps we do. I think that gets to the nub of the matter. What do you mean by 'government action'? Does it require that government money is spent, rather than just a statement by members of the government?

This is where it gets fuzzy, I believe, because unlike many other forms of 'action', a recommendation can be made purely by speaking. It doesn't require any expenditure.

[Codeman]

I tend to stick to the facts and not add what if's and alternate scenarios that aren't part of the matter at hand - a formal government action by a PA town.

That's all I'm addressiing so I'm outa here....

[dudegalea]

Edit: Removed post, as in retrospect it sounded unintentionally sarcastic! Oh, the written word... :D

[fastedge]

I am not against everyone owning firearms, but, I would hope that those without the disposable income are helped with the purchase, and that some decent training is provided to everyone. If they require ownership, they should make sure they provide for informed, trained owners as not everyone will do it themselves. And personally, I would not wish to live in a city where everyone owns a firearm yet have no training in their responsible use.
:lolhammer:YEA MAY BE YOU WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN NAZI GERMANY TOO!!!!!! >:(

[scríbhneoir]

Let's keep it civil, please.
:pp: