US town may encourage all residents to arm up...

[Osborn F Enready]

U.S. town may encourage firearms - CNN.com

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A tiny town in western Pennsylvania could ask all of its residents to own guns, if a proposal under consideration on Wednesday wins approval from local officials. Under the proposed law, residents of Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania, would be asked to own guns and know how to use them. Cherry Tree, 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, has about 400 residents. The town council was scheduled to vote on the proposed "Civil Protection Ordinance" on Wednesday evening. Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition." 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.

Its about time some towns start using a common sense approach to crime control, and look, it doesn't even require you to pay more taxes.... :eek:

Kudos for you Cherry Tree, and I hope your citizens take their "RESPONSIBILITY" seriously.

[Osborn F Enready]

As it turns out, it was voted down.....

A shame, and a sign of the mentality that is invading America under the progressive movement.

[The Bacon Guy]

Sounded like a good idea to me. People taking some responsibility for their protection instead of relying entirely on the state can only be a good thing. 'Tis a shame it was voted down.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As it turns out, it was voted down..... A shame, and a sign of the mentality that is invading America under the progressive movement.

Yes it is a shame that people do not want to take responsibiity for their own protection. This is why we have fascist state. People are all too willing to hand the protection of their freedoms over to the multi layered police agencies. The end result being when their freedom and liberty disappears, it is similar to death because they don't even notice it. :(

[Kamehameha34]

Encouraging firearm ownership among responsible adults?
Perfectly valid.

Requiring it by law?
No thanks.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready U.S. town may encourage firearms - CNN.com Its about time some towns start using a common sense approach to crime control, and look, it doesn't even require you to pay more taxes.... :eek: Kudos for you Cherry Tree, and I hope your citizens take their "RESPONSIBILITY" seriously.

Yes, like fighting criminals instead of fighting some vague philosophical concept called "crime."

[ghost_stalker]

If everyone was walking around with guns then you wouldnt have to worry about crime. Who in their right would try to mug you, knowing that they would be shot dead. If Pres. Bush came to the town that when the local police would have a problem

[JohnMK]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Encouraging firearm ownership among responsible adults? Perfectly valid. Requiring it by law? No thanks.

My thoughts coincide. I would have voted down the law as it stood. A "Sense of Council" resolution, however, would have been much more likely to pass while being only trivially paternalistic.

[Apokalupsis]

The town has 400 residents and is out in the stix. It has under 20 streets total. [/i]How much crime can there be in that town that a bill would be introduced for the residents to arm themselves?

[kubedawg]

Was this a law or a guideline? What I mean is, if this were to be approved, would it require every resident to own a gun or just recommend everyone own a gun?

[Osborn F Enready]

I didn't read the law, I only read the article.

Regardless, it is the individual responsibility to protect yourself, so I think this was the towns way of covering their ass against "nanny-state" lawsuits from the police not showing up on time.

"We told you to arm, you're fault you didn't" would be the excuse of the law.

I liked the idea, but don't know enough about the actual law to say I support it or not.

I support the idea 100% though.

[Fonceai]

There would have been so much potential for problems.

First, I thought they would actually force someone to carry a gun... which you can't do.

Second, I figured it would have the effect that Osborn detailed above... no protection if you didn't protect yourself.

I think ultimately the problem with this would be the problem I have mentioned in other threads; that some people don't have the disposition to use guns.

Doesn't someone have the right to be protected if they acknowledge that they don't have it in them to protect themself?

In the Darwinian sense, the answer is no.

But there are plenty of people that know that they couldn't bring themselves to taking a life, even in self-defense.

I can't honestly fault those people.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think it should be plainly evident that there is no wrong in asking for help in "protecting" your rights. We all have equal rights, therefore we all have equal benefit to ensuring they are all used, and protected equally.

I have no problem with police giving "extra" attention to those with physical disabilities, or mental disabilities, that prevent them from self-protection via armed defense.

We created police to protect our rights, via upholding the law. It is in our vested intrest to ensure that police can do that job, since if they don't the entire weight falls upon the people. The police are a half step between citizen and militia, and are in a sense a "town posse", used as payed mercenaries by citizens to protect themselves, and others property and lives from undue risk. However, every risk requires a check, or balance to that risk.

An armed society, is a check to its armed police forces, which are a check to the nations armed military, which are a check to foreign views using force to overtake, or subdue your nation by force.

The ultimate check to power, as well as the ultimate responsibility of protection, lies in the individual.

[Fonceai]

I think it's unfortunate that the citizens are required to be a check on armed police forces.

I would think that ideally all citizens have the right to be armed, but with that right should be an absolute requirement to be trained first, before acquring a weapon.

If you wield the ultimate form of power you should be educated at least on how to use that power correctly, regardless of the moral and ethical "correctness."

While what I'm about to write is probably the intent of armed police, it seems to have strayed.

Police are not volunteers, like milita, but instead people paid directly by the citizens to be the "designated" protectors. But citizens who want to protect themselves can opt not to "chip in" to pay the police. Instead, the citizens who want protection can pay the police to take care of their property as well. This means that the armed protector can charge what they deem necessary to effectively protect the customer's person and property.

They can even set conditions, like, "If you want my protection you live within my fences / walls." This is how it worked in the Middle Ages. If you lived within the walls you were protected and taxed, sometimes in nothing more than goods and services. You were also in close proximity to those with whom you could trade for services.

If you lived outside the walls you could still pay taxes, but you paid less because the local lord couldn't protect you as well.

This obviously leaves open the danger of the kind of extortion related to a Monopoly on Aggression, but I think it was much more reasonable in those times.

I still wonder how the hell it strayed so far from such a sensible system.

---

Damn... I'm off to go play Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile or Stronghold now.

[Praxius]

Wow, and in Canada, we generally see it a different way.... load everyone up with a firearm? Not a really good idea..... I mean, I imagine you guys in the US are used to firearms, as am I..... but I'm not used to more people around me owning a firearm.

To know that everyone around me owns a gun wouldn't make me feel any safer, that's for sure.

A knife you can chuck at someone's skull is all I need.

And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the police are for? Now you're talking about people attempting to take the law into their own hands.....

There's also a large % of accidental shootings that have been reported in homes, when someone ended up shooting a family member who got up at night for a drink or a pee.

IMO, you don't need a firearm to protect your home...... most break ins here in Canada are usually by criminals with no weapon at all, or a knife, etc..... you start loading homes with firearms and they start to bring firearms.... it's not going to solve anything.

[brien]

Quote by: Praxius Wow, and in Canada, we generally see it a different way.... load everyone up with a firearm? Not a really good idea..... I mean, I imagine you guys in the US are used to firearms, as am I..... but I'm not used to more people around me owning a firearm. To know that everyone around me owns a gun wouldn't make me feel any safer, that's for sure. A knife you can chuck at someone's skull is all I need. And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the police are for? Now you're talking about people attempting to take the law into their own hands..... There's also a large % of accidental shootings that have been reported in homes, when someone ended up shooting a family member who got up at night for a drink or a pee. IMO, you don't need a firearm to protect your home...... most break ins here in Canada are usually by criminals with no weapon at all, or a knife, etc..... you start loading homes with firearms and they start to bring firearms.... it's not going to solve anything.

And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the police are for? Now you're talking about people attempting to take the law into their own hands.....

You are kidding correct? When was the last time you saw the police rushing to protect an innocent person? Oh yeah right . I remember. Recently in NYC where detectives murdered an innocent man on the eve of his wedding. And you also think that protecting oneself is taking the law into your own hands? I yi yi. Perhaps you should think again.

There's also a large % of accidental shootings that have been reported in homes, when someone ended up shooting a family member who got up at night for a drink or a pee.

What is this percentage? Do you have any hard evidence of this opinion of yours here? Please back up your opinion with evidence.

You may not think you require a firearm to protect yourself and your home. That is your decision and I respect it.. But please don't usurp my decision if I choose to possess firearms to protect my home and family from possible intruders bent upon harming us. Your assumptions may prove deadly to my family. Better to have a firearm and not need it, than need a firearm and not have it.

[Praxius]

Well Brien, I guess that's just the difference of living in two different countries.

You are kidding correct? When was the last time you saw the police rushing to protect an innocent person? Oh yeah right . I remember. Recently in NYC where detectives murdered an innocent man on the eve of his wedding. And you also think that protecting oneself is taking the law into your own hands? I yi yi. Perhaps you should think again.

From what I remember, that guy wasn't completely innocent..... granted firing on him and his friends was extreme and sounded pretty corrupt to me.... but I remember hearing the guy was ramming the police cars with his car and wasn't coming peacefully. Shooting him with aprox 50 rounds was excessive and something screwed up was going on...... but are you saying he should have had a firearm to shoot back at the police to defend himself? I highly doubt that would have helped him.

Police rushing to help save an innocent person? That's the norm here in Canada.... what the heck are they for down in the US? If they're not doing what they are supposed to be doing, then that should be a sign to revamp your police departments.

You may not think you require a firearm to protect yourself and your home. That is your decision and I respect it.. But please don't usurp my decision if I choose to possess firearms to protect my home and family from possible intruders bent upon harming us. Your assumptions may prove deadly to my family. Better to have a firearm and not need it, than need a firearm and not have it.

Well I guess that's where the difference in society starts between where I live and where you live..... I'm not trying to downgrade your decision of owning a firearm, if it's that bad that you guys really need one, then I guess you do..... I just don't know how your society can survive peacefully with this method of protection.

Other countries such as the UK and elsewhere have no such laws or rights to bare arms to the common citizen, and I understand it is in the US constitution to have the right to bare (or is it Bear.... I dunno) arms, but to me..... as my own opinion.... it always seemed like a flaw and is the primary reason for crimes..... but to clarify and should be obvious.... I don't live in your country, and I was brought up in a different society, so that's why I was asking the questions I did and why I stated the opinion I have.

If you disagree, then by all means, state why. I'm not here to point fingers and say what I beleave in is better then what you beleave in...... I'm stating what I know and what I was brought up to understand, and looking at your country from the outside, it always seemed problimatic to me.

I mean, I know there's a lot of great, responsible people out there who know how to properly use a firearm..... but there also a lot of morons out there who'll be more dangerous to themselves owning a firearm..... those are the guys I worry about and chances are, those are the ones increasing the crime.

Oh and if you want stats:

Violent Death Among Children Linked to Household Firearms

This of course is a bit out dated, but for a quick search... there ya go.

And protecting one's self isn't taking the law into your own hands.... but when you take that protection to the level of taking someone else's life, then it raises the question.

[Praxius]

I personally would agree to better funding for the police departments and a revamp on how they operate...... to think:

"We told you to arm, you're fault you didn't" would be the excuse of the law.

All I gotta say is.... Wow.... if that was the case.....

[brien]

Quote by: Praxius Well Brien, I guess that's just the difference of living in two different countries. From what I remember, that guy wasn't completely innocent..... granted firing on him and his friends was extreme and sounded pretty corrupt to me.... but I remember hearing the guy was ramming the police cars with his car and wasn't coming peacefully. Shooting him with aprox 50 rounds was excessive and something screwed up was going on...... but are you saying he should have had a firearm to shoot back at the police to defend himself? I highly doubt that would have helped him. Police rushing to help save an innocent person? That's the norm here in Canada.... what the heck are they for down in the US? If they're not doing what they are supposed to be doing, then that should be a sign to revamp your police departments. Well I guess that's where the difference in society starts between where I live and where you live..... I'm not trying to downgrade your decision of owning a firearm, if it's that bad that you guys really need one, then I guess you do..... I just don't know how your society can survive peacefully with this method of protection. Other countries such as the UK and elsewhere have no such laws or rights to bare arms to the common citizen, and I understand it is in the US constitution to have the right to bare (or is it Bear.... I dunno) arms, but to me..... as my own opinion.... it always seemed like a flaw and is the primary reason for crimes..... but to clarify and should be obvious.... I don't live in your country, and I was brought up in a different society, so that's why I was asking the questions I did and why I stated the opinion I have. If you disagree, then by all means, state why. I'm not here to point fingers and say what I beleave in is better then what you beleave in...... I'm stating what I know and what I was brought up to understand, and looking at your country from the outside, it always seemed problimatic to me. I mean, I know there's a lot of great, responsible people out there who know how to properly use a firearm..... but there also a lot of morons out there who'll be more dangerous to themselves owning a firearm..... those are the guys I worry about and chances are, those are the ones increasing the crime. Oh and if you want stats: Violent Death Among Children Linked to Household Firearms This of course is a bit out dated, but for a quick search... there ya go. And protecting one's self isn't taking the law into your own hands.... but when you take that protection to the level of taking someone else's life, then it raises the question.

From what I remember, that guy wasn't completely innocent

Ughhh Now you have an innocent dead man convicted of some sort of crime that justified his murder by the police???? I don't recall the deceased being tried or convicted of any crime. Therefore, he was indeed "completely" innocent. btw, how is someone "not completely innocent"? Either one is innocent or guilty. There are degrees of guilt, but degrees of innocence???? Hardly.

Police rushing to help save an innocent person? That's the norm here in Canada.... what the heck are they for down in the US? If they're not doing what they are supposed to be doing, then that should be a sign to revamp your police departments.

The cops here simply clean up a mess after it happens. On occasion, cops can catch a crime in progress but more often they arrive AFTER the commission of the crime.

I just don't know how your society can survive peacefully with this method of protection.

Show me one, just one, peaceful society. Do you think you live in a peaceful society?

I understand it is in the US constitution to have the right to bare (or is it Bear.... I dunno) arms, but to me..... as my own opinion.... it always seemed like a flaw and is the primary reason for crimes.....

Yes we have what is known as the 2nd Amendment to the Constition. It is "bear" arms as to hold them.

You don't seriously blame crime upon firearms do you? Please stop and reflect about what you are stating. Firearms commit crimes????

but there also a lot of morons out there who'll be more dangerous to themselves owning a firearm..... those are the guys I worry about and chances are, those are the ones increasing the crime

.

Now, here you are beginning to show a bit of understanding about crime. Bad guys commit crime. They increase crime. Criminals who commit crimes with firearms often are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They plea bargain out. When a criminal commits a crime with a firearm, they need to be prosecuted swiftly and certainly under the law. They should be incarcerated under the law so they can't harm another. Any "moron" who uses a firearm in violation of the law needs to be prosecuted and their priviledge for owning firearms needs to be revoked forever.

As far as the study you cite, it is a microcosim that is being extrapolated and thus isn't quite accurate. That said, I agree to keep firearms locked up and away from children. This is only logical and incumbent upon anyone who owns firearms. Only irresponsible firearms owners allows access to them by children. I am certain that in Canada, there are accidental shootings involving children playing with firearms so the study you cite, although important to firearms safety, isn't relevant enough to justify the denial of firearms ownership by the general public. It would be like asserting, since circular saws can maime and kill children, there should be a law banning the use and possession of circular saws. Absurd.

Firearms ownership is serious responsibility for any citizen. However, because some citizens misuse firearms, or illegally use firearms to commit a crime against another, doesn't mean every citizen is guilty of the crime and should pay the penalty through revocation of their priviledge to own firearms. We will not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater with regard to this issue so dear to so many Americans.

[Praxius]

Ughhh Now you have an innocent dead man convicted of some sort of crime that justified his murder by the police???? I don't recall the deceased being tried or convicted of any crime. Therefore, he was indeed "completely" innocent. btw, how is someone "not completely innocent"? Either one is innocent or guilty. There are degrees of guilt, but degrees of innocence???? Hardly.

Well if it was an easy subject to explain, the case would probably be closed at this time..... it's still being investigated, so I, nor you can safely say if he was innocent or not.... innocent about what is the other question.

The only time a police officer "should" fire his weapon, is when they feel their lives are in danger..... weither him slamming his car into other vehicles prompted them to fear for their lives or not, remains to be seen.

"Not completely innocent" was a bad phrase perhaps..... like I said, I agree things went crappy in that incident, but owning a firearm wouldn't have helped him in this situation, so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.

The cops here simply clean up a mess after it happens. On occasion, cops can catch a crime in progress but more often they arrive AFTER the commission of the crime.

Well that sucks, lol.

Show me one, just one, peaceful society. Do you think you live in a peaceful society?

Is there such a word as "Peacefuller?"

You don't seriously blame crime upon firearms do you? Please stop and relect about what you are stating. Firearms commit crimes????

Nope...... humans do.... but if you limit the availability of a weapon, then it will of course be harder to obtain it, and thereby reduce the chances of the crime occuring..... not completely.... but a little.

Firearms ownership is serious responsibility for any citizen. However, because some citizens misuse firearms or illegally use firearms to commit a crime against another, doesn't mean every citizen is guilty of the crime and should pay the penalty through revocation of their priviledge to won firearms. We should not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater in this issue so dear to Americans.

And of course I can not argue that, because that's the norm for your society.

Here in Canada, to own any firearm you have to train, obtain a license and register your firearm.... there is still the black market where people and gangs still get their firearms.... but it at least makes it more difficult.