Pennsylvania town mulls recommending guns for all

[BlueStorm]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/us_nm/usa_guns_dc

PHILADELPHIA (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, some 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, has about 400 residents.

Introduced last month by resident Henry Statkowski, the measure recommends that "all heads of households maintain a firearm along with ammunition."

The measure would send a message to "burglars, ne'er-do-wells and other criminal elements," Statkowski wrote.

The male head of the household has the responsibility to defend the family from intruders, he also wrote.

"I don't believe your wife would appreciate it very much if you said, 'Honey, I'll wait until the police arrive and have them defend your life,"' he wrote.

I really can't think of the words of how I feel about this. Does anyone want to help me?

[AlinPA]

1. This guy was totally ignored by the board. People laughed at him.

[Redstone]

23. God, I'd hope so.

Redstone

[ulysses]

2. my thought

is that if I brought a gun into the house with a 14-month-old, my wife would probably use it on me, all sane precautions with the firearm notwithstanding.

Just another stupid local law in the making.

[Redstone]

9. Yes, guns and children DO NOT mix. No matter what the Gun Nuts say.

Redstone

[ulysses]

15. I considered one pre-baby.

More an idle thought than anything else. I'm not a bad shot.

Wouldn't dream of owning one now.

[Redstone]

17. Nor I. I inherited my father's Model 1894 Winchester, and when my first son was born,

I had the firing pin removed.

And neither of my sons even know I have it.

Redstone

[ulysses]

18. I'll probably inherit

a .45 revolver and a .22 rifle from my dad. Of course, I'm hoping that's not until Chris is in his teens anyway, but I'm not adverse to the boy learning to shoot a gun when he's old enough.

Like, say, 35. :D

[Redstone]

20. Yes, yes, indeed. We're on the same page on this issue.

Redstone

[CelticWinter]

3. O boy I drive through that lil burg

every 2 weeks when I go to pick up my granddaughter. All it is, is a fork in the road I cant see a large crime rate there. What a comfy feeling to look forward too.

[Sapere aude]

4. Fucked up! And I own a gun. There will be more shootings with more guns.

Not everyone is equipped to own and use a gun. One bad argument and the gun is there. If you have a gun lock on it, you don't have the time to remove the lock, load the gun and shoot an intruder unless you carry the gun around with you.

Fucked up is how I would describe it.

On edit, most people who are killed with a gun knew the killer. It isn't often that the killer is a defender of property.

[Redstone]

6. It's damn good to hear such sensible words from a gun owner.

Redstone

[Book Lover]

7. Took the words out of my mouth!

I am pretty damn pro-gun. So pro-gun that I don't want to see them in the hands of people who have them only because they are required to!

[tom_paine]

10. Well said.

[Redstone]

5. We've heard this fucked-up idea before, from other hayseed towns. I mean, COME ON:

"ne'er-do-wells and other criminal elements..."

Spare me, just fucking spare me. "ne'er-do-wells?" Who the fuck uses that term anymore?

I'll tell you who: Old, reactionary, redneck assholes, that's who.

Redstone

[Mendocino]

12. Ne'er-do-wells!?

What's next, scalawags, rascals and scoundrels? Along with tarts, harlots and trollops.

[Redstone]

14. Not to mention fellow-travelers.

Redstone

[BlueStorm]

8. I am just appalled at the fact that they

want to require every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry a gun regardless whether they want to or not.

Blue

[Selatius]

11. You shouldn't own a gun if you have no way to safely store them, period.

Otherwise, if a person is burglarized when he isn't home, the guns would be easy pickings for criminals.

A better law could be to mandate a gun safe or something that is as secure as a safe for the safe storage of guns in all households with guns present.

I don't mind mandatory gun safety education courses, but I do mind guns laying around.

With respect to the ownership of guns, that should be a strictly voluntary affair. I don't think you should be forced to own a gun against your will. However, if you wish to own a gun, I believe you should take gun safety education courses and refresher courses every couple of years, and you should demonstrate you are mentally sound and don't have a criminal record.

[BlueStorm]

13. I can never own a gun due to my mental disorders..

My bi-polar prevents me from having a gun, or at least that is what I have heard.

Blue

[muntrv]

16. Cherry Tree has a soaring crime wave? I notice it's always the hick towns

that need guns to protect themselves from the invading hordes of criminals.

[jody]

19. Cherry Tree's police department consists of three part time officers and a police chief.

Fire protection is provided by the Cherry Tree Volunteer Fire Co. See Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania.

Why would anyone object to a small town that does not have a full time fire department and police department asking citizens to help in law enforcement and fire protection?

[ulysses]

21. "asking citizens to help in law enforcement"

is more easily spelled "vigilante".

[jody]

30. Not so, it's spelled militia. PA's constitution says

Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Pennsylvania has a long history of using its militia and you can find such laws at PENNSYLVANIA SESSION LAWS

You might also learn about the Pennsylvania Military Reserve, PA’s unorganized militia under 10 USC 311 and similar organizations in other states at State Guard Association of the United States.

[Redstone]

22. Excuse me? Have you ever seen any statistics regarding "accidental handgun deaths?"

Your statement is utter bullocks. If every yahoo in town has a gun, it would hardly be "helping in law enforcement."

And furthermore, what the fuck do guns have to do with "helping with fire protection?"

Redstone

[jody]

26. My you are uninformed. Many of the town's citizens already have firearms and there is no

indication there is a problem with firearm accidents.

Under the circumstances, law enforcement is the responsibility of every citizen, a simple fact that you fail to acknowledge.

My use of fire protection is most appropriate because fire protection and crime protection are the joint responsibility of a small town's citizens.

I am quite familiar with accidental handgun deaths and I suggest you browse stats at WISQARS and cite statistics to support whatever point you are trying to make.

If you don't find what you need at WISQARS, you might try DOJ's Firearms and Crime Statistics.

[Redstone]

27. Sorry, but no. Anyone who equates gun ownership with "fire protection" is someone

whose links I won't follow. Sorry about that. I don't believe in militias.

You can respond to this post if you wish, but you'll be wasting your time because I will not engage you in a conversation about this subject.

End of discussion.

Redstone

[jody]

31. You may not believe in militias but if you're between 17 and 45, then you are in the militia. n/t

[jody]

32. You bio says you are a male in Connecticut. Your state law says;

Sec. 27-1. Persons subject to military duty. All male citizens and all male residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not exempt by law, shall be subject to military duty and designated as the militia. All female citizens and all female residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, may enlist voluntarily in any women's unit of the armed forces of the state.

[benEzra]

37. Yes--and on a per-owning-household basis,

Excuse me? Have you ever seen any statistics regarding "accidental handgun deaths?"

Yes--and on a per-owning-household basis, they are about 1/10th as likely to result in an accidental child fatality as a home swimming pool.

While I strongly disagree with the notion of requiring everybody to own a gun (I'm pro-choice on the issue, and respect both sides of that coin), I think those who dislike guns often try to inflate the accident stats in order to justify forcing their views on others.

From the National Safety Council:

http://www.nsc.org/xroads/Articles/5/qa-hoskin.htm

Q. Of all accidental injuries/deaths, what percent are caused by accidental gunshot? Also, what percent of childhood injuries/deaths are caused by gunshot?

A. There is a lot of confusion about the number of deaths and injuries associated with firearms; especially with regard to children. This is true in part because various writers do not define what they mean by "children," i.e., what age range they include. It is also sometimes not made clear whether the writer is including unintentional injuries, suicide, homicide, or all three.

The National Safety Council analyzed the most recent death certificate data (1997), and found that there were 95,644 total unintentional-injury deaths of which 981 (1.0%) were due to unintentional firearms injuries. For children under 5 years old, there were 20 unintentional firearms deaths which accounted for 0.7% of all unintentional-injury deaths in that age group. Among those 5 to 9 years old, there were 28 unintentional firearms deaths; 1.8% of all unintentional-injury deaths. For 10 to 14 year olds, 94 unintentional firearms deaths were 5.1% of total unintentional-injury deaths. And for older teens, 15-19 years old, there were 164 unintentional firearms deaths; 2.5% of all unintentional-injury deaths.

It is also encouraging to note that the gun-accident rate has fallen by a further 40% since 1997. And since those stats include hunting accidents, as well as accidents involving criminals and substance abusers (who have a notoriously high accident rate on all fronts), the accident rate for nonhunting, law-abiding households with no substance abuse issues is likely even lower.

FWIW, I ran the raw numbers one time and found that on a per-owning-household basis, owning a swimming pool is about an order of magnitude more dangerous to your kids than owning a gun, and most people do not consider swimming pools to be an unreasonable risk.

As I have said elsewhere, whether or not to own a gun is a highly personal decision. Whether you don't choose to own guns, or do choose to, leave that choice up to the individual, and don't bash people who choose differently, whatever that choice may be.

[iverglas]

40. "asking"?

Down in the gun dungeon, that's not quite what jody says.

(I have to refer to jody in the third person, having no direct line.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=132429&mesg_id=132438

I understand the reluctance of some who do not want to keep and bear arms for self defense but many also refuse to participate in volunteer fire groups.

Do those people think they deserve a free lunch?

Perhaps an alternative to mandatory firearm ownership would be to give people an alternative, either (1) get a gun or (2) participate in the volunteer fire dept or (3) be given notice that the community will not come to that citizen's assistance in the event of a fire or crime.

That makes sense because SCOTUS said government is not obligated to help a private citizen unless they are in custody so that must apply to Cherry Tree, PA.

The issue is narrowly "To whom can a law-abiding citizen turn to for assistance if she/he becomes a crime victim?"

Say WHAT??

They can't compel their elected representatives and public employees to "protect" them -- but they can compel other members of the public to do so???

What weird universe are some people living in?

Why would anyone need "an alternative to mandatory firearm ownership"? Mandatory firearm ownership -- or mandatory car ownership, or mandatory budgerigar ownership, or mandatory ballpoint pen ownership, or mandatory jumping off bridges -- is so bizarrely unconstitutional in any known and sane and "liberal" world, and so contrary to any known concept of rights, that's is both laughable and ugly.

Mandatory volunteer firefighting -- that's pretty funny too, if it didn't bear such an ugly resemblance to the thing called slavery. How 'bout mandatory volunteer pregnancy? A lot of small towns are suffering declining population, you know. Maybe mandatory volunteer relocation ...

There are very few circumstances in which individuals are compelled to perform services personally, let alone put themselves at risk, in a liberal democracy. Military service in extreme circumstances comes to mind. Have your funny little militia if you like -- but don't pretend that any duty to participate in a militia extends to a duty to participate in firefighting.

And don't pretend that any duty to participate in a militia extends to a duty to acquire and possess firearms so that one is equipped for the remote eventuality that one is needed to participate in volunteer law-enforcement vigilante action. Your Constitution did entrench that right to acquire and possess firearms for militia service -- but it just doesn't seem to have compelled anyone to do so. An oversight, perhaps, but there you are.

If there is anything liberal / progressive / d/Democratic in the proposal that people be denied public services available to others unless they agree to keep something in their home that they have no desire to have and have good reason not to want to have, and presumably actually put themselves at risk by intervening in dangerous situations and by owning and potentially using a weapon they do not want to own or use ... well, I'm sure not seeing it. It really looks like something quite else.

[theHandpuppet]

24. Gee, I'm glad our household would be exempt

Since we have no "male head of the household" and neither my partner or myself considers one of us "boss", "master" or keeper of the keys to the gun cabinet.

So... um, does he propose people be jailed for refusing to comply? Maybe he can hold them at gunpoint and force them to buy a firearm.

[Wiley50]

29. i don't know which I am more offended by: the sexism or the

mandatory gun ownership.

Not only are some not mentally stable to have the responsibility of gun ownership.
( of course, kid access is ultra important too. )

Personally, I do own a gun
But I live alone
The kids have grown up and moved away.
and I didn't buy it until it seemed that if the bushies continued unabated we might come to violent revolution in this country
and I felt it prudent to own one

But there have been times in my life when I needed a gun like a hole in the head
having gone through more than one divorce, I could have easily wound up with one.

But life is so much more tranquil when one is not in a bad marriage
I can trust myself with one now.

[iverglas]

41. there's one word that covers 'em both

It's fascism.

Keep in mind that this particular proposal wasn't for mandatory firearm ownership, it was a recommendation for firearm ownership. Other podunks in the US have come up with mandatory provisions in the past, though.

I'd also be keeping in mind that keeping a gun around the house, even if it isn't more likely to kill you than to defend you against some bogeyman burglar, probably is more likely to kill you than to defend you against some bogeyman brownshirt. The odds of either happening may be infinitesimal, but the odds that it will be you are still multiples of the odds of it being the brownshirt.

[zbdent]

25. Cherry Tree wasn't too far from my old stomping grounds Apollo

and I still visit for the holidays ...

Anyway, a point ...

Didn't that guy (forget where) claim that shooting the Chinese kid (Japanese?) was justifiable since he came to the door and spouted "threatening gibberish"? (You know, "I'm trying to find this party ..." BANG!)

[Redstone]

28. Oh, yes, the Halloween murder. I remember it.

God help you if you go out on Halloween and are not proficient in English, at least not in a town where everyone has a gun.

Redstone

[BlueStorm]

33. I am mixed as to how I feel about guns

However I feel that if someone wants to have a gun for protection or whatever the reason they should have the right to do so. I don't think it is right to force people to buy firearms. It should be a choice. And who's to say that it would be a good idea for everyone to have one considering the potential that there could be some real psychopaths out there. Do you really want to put that kind of weaponry in their hands?

Blue

[jody]

35. I Understand and self-defense is a personal problem as SCOTUS has said

in several cases, e.g. TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES in 2005.

Perhaps as an alternative the city could issue free signs to law-abiding citizens who exercise their civil right of self-defense as Pennsylvania said in its 1776 constitution:

That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

The sign could say "Armed citizen prepared to defend self and property".

Criminals could then focus their efforts on people who are not prepared to defend them self. :sarcasm:

[iverglas]

42. I've always liked this one

The sign could say "Armed citizen prepared to defend self and property".

I mean, aside from the really icky jabberwack English.

Underneath, it could say:

"Translation: c'mon in, there's guns here for the picking, just wait 'til I'm not home and you can have 'em for free."

Duh.

[Eugene]

34. AP: Town Decides Against Pro-Gun Ordinance

Town Decides Against Pro-Gun Ordinance

The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 11:18 PM

CHERRY TREE, Pa. -- Leaders of this small town on Wednesday rejected a proposed
ordinance that would have recommended that all households keep weapons and
ammunition to prevent crime.

Only one person on the seven-member City Council wanted to pursue the proposal.

"This would ... make a statement to the rest of the community and criminals in
this area," said Councilman Henry Statkowski. "If you want to break into a home
in Cherry Tree, you might not like the consequences."

Statkowski has acknowledged that Cherry Tree, a borough of about 420 people 70
miles northeast of Pittsburgh, does not have a crime problem.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120602411.html

[XanaDUer]

36. What a lucky gal Mrs. Statkowski must be.

nt.

[moondust]

38. Child endangerment. n/t

[benEzra]

39. Owning a gun responsibly is not child endangerment...

since on a per-owning-household basis, gun ownership is an order of magnitude safer for your children than owning a swimming pool. From the National Safety Council:

http://www.nsc.org/xroads/Articles/5/qa-hoskin.htm

Q. Of all accidental injuries/deaths, what percent are caused by accidental gunshot? Also, what percent of childhood injuries/deaths are caused by gunshot?

A. There is a lot of confusion about the number of deaths and injuries associated with firearms; especially with regard to children. This is true in part because various writers do not define what they mean by "children," i.e., what age range they include. It is also sometimes not made clear whether the writer is including unintentional injuries, suicide, homicide, or all three.

The National Safety Council analyzed the most recent death certificate data (1997), and found that there were 95,644 total unintentional-injury deaths of which 981 (1.0%) were due to unintentional firearms injuries. For children under 5 years old, there were 20 unintentional firearms deaths which accounted for 0.7% of all unintentional-injury deaths in that age group. Among those 5 to 9 years old, there were 28 unintentional firearms deaths; 1.8% of all unintentional-injury deaths. For 10 to 14 year olds, 94 unintentional firearms deaths were 5.1% of total unintentional-injury deaths. And for older teens, 15-19 years old, there were 164 unintentional firearms deaths; 2.5% of all unintentional-injury deaths.

I disagree with the proposed law insofar as I think that gun ownership is and should continue to be an individual choice. However, like many DU'ers, I do choose to own them, safely and responsibly.