I agree completely. Who is trying to protect who?? This is a total travesty to honest citizens. Gov't WAKE UP.

Rob,
I agree with you that more gun control will have no positive effect on crime. In fact, all of the statistics show that "More Guns = Less Crime" (see the book by John Lott)

On the AKs and ARs ... the 2nd Ammendment isn't about hunting. However, in many states, SEMI-automatic rifles are legal for hunting. The 223 (5.56mm) around used in the AR-15 is a bit light for deer-sized game, but it's great for varmints.

Too many people have bought into the demonization of AKs and ARs because they "look military." That's because they build on the extensive experience of their military predecessors to produce a reliable rifle. HOWEVER, they are NOT "machine guns" and the term "assault weapon" was made up by the gun-grabbbers to demonize them and hoodwink the public into the (now expired) 1994 ban. (A ban which according to the govt.'s own analysis and statistics did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce crime.)

Bullet proof glass would probably lead to the taking of a hostage as another means to get the money. The best solution as you said, is capturing them and giving them hard time. No question, the police try but capturing them is very difficult. Giving them the money is the safest thing a teller can do.

Nancy,

No need to reply if you are not so inclined, but I feel the record should be set straight.

1) neither I nor any responsible gun owner has a "shoot first, ask questions later attitude"
2) the number of children killed by guns in this country every year is very small (far more drown in 5 gallon buckets every year)
3) any gun shop owner who sells without the required background check has committed a felony - this seldom happens - in fact, the dealers in "fast and furious" were ORDERED by BATF/DOJ to make sales that they knew from the background check were not "kosher" and objected to. BATF/DOJ wanted those sales so they could "prove" that "guns from The US are responsible for drug crime in Mexico" in an effort to rally support for more gun control
4) you apparently don't know much about guns. The AKs and ARs that you find so scary are actually LESS powerful than most hunting rifles.

Sorry Nancy. You are short on knowledge of the facts and appear to have formed your opinions on this subject on pure emotion based on the wealth of misinformation promulgated by the anti-gun groups who seek to turn the entire country into a "victim disarmament zone."

That doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that you have been misinformed and misled. I would be happy to discuss this with you more if/when you are interested and have the time. I can provide a lot of factual information that you, and many others, are obviously unaware of.

everyone that works at this this bank that was robbed is so nice.. they shouldnt have to go to work worried about their safety... I read this morning the description of the robber was the same description as the last robber at the Soveriegn bank.. I just dont understand why 5 diff. police stations including state police cannot catch this 1 guy??

Pamela,

In a perfect world (which doesn't and never will exist), nobody would have to go anywhere worried about their safety.

The police can't be everywhere all of the time. Criminals choose their time and place and generally avoid the police (duh!), so despite the best efforts of the police, they can't protect you or anyone else from all possibility of becoming a victim.

In fact, in many court cases, the courts, including the US Supreme Court have held that the police have no legal duty to protect anyone. For just one treatise on this,neither many references, see

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

This is NOT to demean the police in any way (I was a police officer years ago) and it's not meant to scare you ... It's just the way things are in the real world and I think people should know it before they give up their right to self-defense to a nanny state that can't, and is not obligated to, live up to implied promises to protect them at all times. This refers to the rather standard advice from police *administrators* (not street cops) to "Don't do anything, just call us and we'll hande it." All too often, they can't get there in time to do you any good, but they will make efforts to find out who assaulted, raped, or killed you. If you or your loved ones are being victimized, YOU are the first responder.

Rob,

Like Nancy, you are long on emotional response that's based on a lack of true facts (the anti-gun lobby has fabricated huge amounts of misinformation that they use to sway people who don't have a firm grasp of the facts.)

I'd suggest http://www.gunfacts.info/ and for this particular topic it's section on "assault weapons". That term was made up by the anti-gun members of congress and the anti-gun lobby in an effort to make semi-auto rifles and pistols sound evil and scarry to the uninformed public so they could build support for a ban.

The 1994 "assault weapons" ban was allowed to expire in 2004 because all of the govt statistics proved that it did NOTHING to stop or reduce crime.

Full auto rifles like the M-16 have been very tightly controlled since 1968.

Semi autos like the AR-15 are designed to make it very difficult to convert them, and conversion is a felony under federal law. Most of the gangs and drug cartels don't buy weapons from legitimate dealers and try to convert them ... If they want full auto, they just buy black market (illegal) ones from Mexico, South America, China, etc.

The number of crimes committed nation-wide with full auto (including conversions) is so vanishingly small as to make this argument absurd. (only 0.15% of over 4000 weapons confiscated in LA recently had been converted)

I would hope that, as an elected official, you would base your opinions and decisions on fact, not fiction. I know that I will.

Rob,

To answer your first question, it was cool weather so a vest was comfortable. Last summer when it was hot as hell, it wasn't comfortable, so I didn't wear a vest.
All perfectly legal, if not to YOUR standard of political correctness.

I sat down with a couple of people who know me and they smiled at me and said, "We were wondering if you are "packing." My reply, to their smiles, was "I'm here aren't I?"

To answer your second question - I would vote against any grant money that came with "strings attached" that would impose future mandates/financial obligations on the citizens of Upper Milford Township, restrict their liberty, or imposed on their property rights. I would/will also fight against ridiculous mandates "from on high."

I hope I've made my position perfectly clear.

Every gun that is sold in PA canot be delivered until the sale is approved by the PA State Police. Other states have comparable systems - usually administered by their state police or attorneys general's office. Any dealer delivering a gun without such approval is committing both federal and state felonies (the background check is computerized and tied to the Feds systems and states share the required information with each another through the Feds).

"Concerned,"

What sort of training do you have in mind? I've taken hunter safety courses, been in the military, been a sworn law enforcement officer, and I'm a "Legacy Life Member" of the Frontsight Firearms Training Institute (the last was a $5k membership fee and they train to a level of proficiency beyond the military and most SWAT teams).

I've had to submit to the background check for every firearm I've purchased in recent years and for my License to Carry Firearms, and I worked in the defense industry for Rockwell-Collins were I held security clearances well beyond top secret.

What other hoops do you suggest I should be compelled to jump through? Or is it that you simply don't approve of ANYONE besides the police having the tools to protect themselves?

Finally, NO license is required for anyone who is of age and not prohibited from owning firearms to carry a pistol openly. The license is only required to carry concealed, except in a "city of the first class" where "open carry" also requires a license. (Philly is the only " city of the first class" in the state. - yea, I know, that's sort of ironic. Calling Philly "first class.". :-)

George,

You are right ... "concerned". Operates on emotion, based on unfounded fear rooted in a lack of facts/knowledge. I have presents the facts, but "concerned" is either unable or simply unwilling to react rationally to the facts.

Nancy,
I don't carry because I want to flaunt anything. I carry because I value th ability to not be a helpless victim or to see my wife, or you, or anyone else victimized.
As I've said, the police cannot be everywhere, as evidenced by the 6 armed robberies in Emmaus in the past 2 years. You cannot count on them to protect you, despite their good intentions. If you don't want to be a victim, you need to be responsible food your own defense. YOU are the first responder when someone trys to victimize you.

Rob,
You seem to think that the police have a greater right to self-defense than "civilians."
I disagree.
The police's powers are nothing more than a delegation of the powers of the people.
We don't give up our rights through that delegation, but simply allow them to act on our behalf.

Why don't you just adimt thwt this isn't about guns?

You have attacked me at every opportunity since I won the primary by a 2:1 margin over all of other candidates. (actually, even before the primary when you read my ad in the Commentator where I said "This township needs to be returned to a "leave the people alone in peace" mentality. Our zoning ordinances are excessive. You think you own your property, but you can't do this, you can't do that, you need to pay homage to (buy a permit from) the township for virtually anything you want to do on your own property. Do we need some zoning rules? Yes ... those legitimately related to health and safety. But, we have a HUGE, onerous zoning code that goes FAR beyond what's reasonable and needs to be "put on a serious diet" to return our freedom and property rights to us, rather than creating restrictions to raise more money for the bureaucrats.")

As I told Rob, it was a hot day, so a vest was very uncomfortable, it was perfectly legal, and the only reason Rob is making an issue out of it is because he doesn't want to deal with someone who will not be a "yes man" on the board of supervisors.

Mr. Stevenson, I just hope if you are elected to the board of Supervisors you become more involved in the township then you have been. Making it to a handful of meetings in the last few years, and a couple at best since you won the nomination. Unlike your opponent that has devoted a lifetime of firefighting, community involvement, and has appeared infront of the Board of Supervisors numerous times over the years to advocate for safety.
You can blame it on anything you want ( too busy, health, previous engagement ) but like every thing you preach, alot of rederic. what have you done for your community? And if you haven't done anything for your community thats fine, but then tell myself an all of the voters exactly what you are going to do, lets here a list of the things you would like to do. And why you want to be a Supervisor.
Mr. Stevenson quote " Rob is making an issue out of it is because he doesn't want to deal with someone who will not be a "yes man" on the board of supervisors." No idea what you are talking about" doesn't even make sense. Supervisors can make any decision they want each and everyone is capable of making there own decision. The current Supervisors and past Supervisors as long as I have been going to meetings ALWAYS had the best interest of the majority of the residents.

"silent,"

I agree with Rob that the library is not as important as making sure our firefighters have the necessary resources.

From the data that I have seen, UMT residents who use the library are a very small minority. Unless some compelling data to the contrary is presented, I would suggest that they raise funds in another way. I don't believe that it's fair to force the vast majority who don't use (fill in the blank) to pay taxes for the benefit of the few who do.

What's next, tax dollars for a riding arena for the few people who own horses? (This is just an example I've made up to illustrate the point ... I have nothing against libraries or riding arenas, but I don't believe that the many should be forced to subsidize the personal preferences of the few.)

I believe that UMT should concentrate on maintaining the roads, public safety (the fire companies ... I would oppose a "regional police force" because it would require a HUGE tax increase and we're already supporting the PA State Police through our taxes and they do a pretty respectable job), and not a lot more.

We don't need, nor can we afford, a "nanny state" government that tramples on our freedom, taxes us into poverty, and attempts to control all aspects of our lives.

The public library is a community resource that is funded by other resources other than just UM Township. It’s supported by state funding, as well as funding from the Boroughs of Emmaus & Macungie. Funding also comes from private donations and from membership donations for The Friends of the Emmaus Public Library, a VOLUNTEER organization that helps support the library as well as administer the words on wheels program and not to mention the annual used book sale fundraising event. Many in the East Penn community are familiar with this popular annual event that takes place in conjunction with the school district’s nutrition health & safety fair every Spring at Lower Mac. Middle School.

The library does not function by paid staff alone. There are many volunteers that help the librarians keep the library organized and functioning. It is a never ending , changing and evolving entity. The library is not only a place to check out books nor is it just an educational resource for East Penn School students. The library also serves as a community meeting place that hosts numerous events and meetings not just for Emmaus residents but all surrounding communities including Upper Milford. There are many programs and activities that are offered for people of all ages, not just children, throughout the year.

One of those is the “Community Heroes Day” which has become an annual event to honor our police, fire & ambulance corps from Emmaus and the surrounding communities. One of those being our own Citizens’ Fire Co. of Vera Cruz who was a participant at this years event.

Numbers, who can put an exact number on all the individuals in our community that benefit from all the services the library provides? There is no way of counting all the UM residents that attend all these programs and events the library hosts. You can’t just look at registered card members to gauge the true number of residents that use and reap the benefits from the library.

I’m sorry, but I still disagree with your view that the library is a luxury. It was not a fantasy pointing out your decision to put one against the other. You are entitled to your view on the subject as well as every township resident, but your initial delivery of that view was terrible. There are other residents that see the value in both as community resources and would like to see the township continue its support of the library no matter how great or small the contribution. We as residents have every right to ask questions of those that serve us. The more the better. It allows everything to be put on the table for discussion. We all need to be reminded to look at the entire community picture and not only the aspects that directly affect us as individuals.

We do agree on one thing, yes, this is going to become more difficult in years to come. Everyone is going to have to make cuts, something many of us have already done in our own households. I know there are going to be many difficult decisions that need to be made by our township in next year’s budget and beyond. I thank you for waiving your supervisors fee this year. I also thank the Kelly Auto Group and the Robert F. Kelly Family Foundation for donating $10,000 to the library. When they heard about the library shortfall and that our township was facing its own budget issues, they stepped up to the plate and helped out. Something I noticed, but I’m not to sure many did because it was not well publicized, buried in the pages of The Morning Call’s Valley 610 blog.

Jill,

i see that your comments are lengthily and multi-part, so I'll respond in series.

It's good that you're thinking, rather than just reaction based on emotion and misinformation.

There was nothing wrong with the fact that someone had a gun getting your attention. Too many people are victimized because the go about their daily lives with no attention to their surroundings and the threats that may lurk there.

I think it was perfectly reasonable for you to ask the other person who you knew about the person you observed.

I don't understand, however, why you were "left very concerned" (about the situation) once the person you knew assured you that the person with a gun was OK.

Jill,

Your instincts to be concerned about safety are a good thing. As I said, too many people go about their daily affairs with no awareness of their surroundings at all.

Generally, if someone has a weapon and they're acting normally, interacting with people they obviously know (who you know to be OK), things will be fine. Far more people than you imagine carry a gun for self-defense.

I would not advise you to challenge someone you don't know. If everything is going OK, why provoke a possible confrontation? Especially, but not ONLY, if you're not prepared to defend yourself.

Wise, properly trained, and responsible people who carry a gun will ALWAYS avoid a confrontation if they can. The last thing I want to have to do is to shoot another human being in self-defense, but if I HAD to, I would. That is the mindset of people who go about their daily lives prepared to take responsibility for their own self-defense (or their families, or, perhaps, other innocent victims, should they find themselves in a "situation."

Great points you make Jill. And, Carl, the question I have is-why should we just assume that one is responsible enough to be carrying a gun? Why isn't it O.K. to ask someone to show a permit to carry? Teachers, priests, etc. "should" be responsible to take care of and teach children-sometimes that doesn't work out very well. I know in my gut, if something doesn't look right or feel right, than, it probably isn't right and maybe I should call the police. And, I must have missed it, but is there an inherent threat at the Farmer's Market? If that's the case, then maybe I should upgrade my dog to a German Shepard. I appreciate all the information you have been able to provide everyone, but I have one question? How do you enjoy things if you are constantly looking over your shoulder?

Beth,

I enjoy myself just fine. I am not "always looking over my shoulder." I'm simply aware of my surroundings and take comfort in knowing that I'm better prepared to survive a violent attack (or help some innocent victim, if necessary) than the "average bear" who goes through life with no awareness and no means of defense.

Jill,

I don't believe that "common sense" involves allowing others to intimidate you into abdicating your right to self-defense. Rob (and a few others) are making a big deal out of the fact that I carried openly (without concealing) on a day that was just to darned hot for a cover up. It was perfectly legal (in fact, as I stated above, no license of special permission is required for "open carry," only for concealed carry (with the exception of Philly, where you must have a license to carry either openly or concealed.)

I have open carried on other occasions, too, but NOT to flaunt it, nor to offend anyone.

Heck, I don't like seeing fat people who wear clothes that look gross and outrageous, but I recognize their right to wear what they want as long as they're not indecently exposing themselves, and I don't make a big deal out of it on the internet or go up to them and challenge and/or insult them. :-)

Why would/should you have called the police, when the person was doing nothing wrong, not behaving badly (unless you left something out of your description of "the incident," and gave (from your description) any legitimate indication of presenting a threat to you or your patrons?

Jill,

To continue trying to answer your questions (I appreciate the opportunity to have the discussion) ...

If nothing wrong is going on, where's the "risky assumption"??? Society has been conditioned over the past 30-40 years to have an irrational fear of guns.

When I was a kid (I'm 61), kids could order military surplus rifles via mail order and have them delivered by the postal service (for deer hunting. With a note from Dad and a hunting license, I got the 1st day of rabbit season off from school (starting as a freshman in HS ... I was 12) and went off into the woods with a .22. Guns were not something to be feared, but a tool to be respected and used responsibly.

I disagree that my decision to carry for self-defense is an emotional one. I believe that it's a completely logical and rational decision. As I've said in earlier responses in this thread, are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime today than they were years ago (including in "the wild west") when most people carried guns as a matter of course.

Of course I'm don't carry "for shits and giggles." (your words) It's a serious matter, not to be taken lightly and requiring responsible behavior. And it's not that I'm some sort of tinfoil hat paranoid who believes that I will be attacked at any moment. It's just that "bad things do happen to good people," on a daily basis, and for the unprepared, unaware, naive, the outcome is often "not so favorable."

Jill,

I would advise you to teach your children that guns are not inherently evil, but that they can be very dangerous if misused (like by criminals) or handled carelessly. The best way to protect children from gun accidents is to teach them that guns are NOT toys and teach them proper respect and safety an early age. The NRA and other gun groups have EXCELLENT materials for this.

I did not teach my children that anyone with a gun is a "bad person," nor do I think you would intentionally do that. Children need to learn (and with patient explanations can understand) that there are, unfortunately, bad people and it's necessary to be careful when "strangers" are around. This need not make them fearful of the world. In fact, properly instilled attitudes of caution and the right (and knowledge of the ability of HOW) to defend one's self can make them more confident in their capabilities to deal with all aspects of the world we live in - and it does NOT "make them bullies!"

I was taught at an early age to defend myself when necessary, but I was also taught in no uncertain terms that bullying was unacceptable and would have severe consequences.

Jill,

I believe that everyone who decides to carry a weapon for self-defense should have some training in how to use the weapon safely and responsibility. However, the right to self-defense is, as THE most fundamental human right, that I don't believe it should be regulated into extinction as so many of our politicians appear hell-bent to do.

Law-abiding citizens who carry a gun for self-defense are, as I outlined above for others, REMARKABLY responsible. You are, according to the government's own statistics, 5.5 times more likely to be shot accidentally/mistakenly by a police officer than by a private citizen. (Despite the fact that private citizens ill 3 times as many criminals as do the police in the average year.) 2-2.5 MILLION times per year, private citizens use a gun in self-defense against a violent criminal. IN 95%+ of those cases, not shots are fired. Merely having the ability to defend thwarts the crime. But you don't HEAR about those facts in the anti-gun media.

I agree that criminals get off too easy and justice should be served by better enforcement of our laws. And a lot of your proposed solutions are laudable, but living in a "fantasy world," as you put it, can have horrible consequences.

Boy Scout Motto: "Be Prepared."

Nancy,

You clearly don't understand my view of the world at all and you seem unwilling to even try to gain an accurate understanding of my view. Whether you end up agreeing with me after a civil discussion is your choice and is, ultimately, unimportant to me. However, I do wish that you and a few others would stop distorting my views in an effort to demonize my perfectly lawful and peaceful behavior.

I also (truly) see each day as an opportunity to meet new people, make new friends, and to try to make a (positive) difference. While a do carry a gun, I do NOT live in "fear, distrust, and anger." I simply recognize the reality that violent crime exists and that self-defense is a personal responsibility. I believe that it's just common sense to be aware of the realities and to be responsibly prepared.

You certainly have a right to your distaste for guns, but that doesn't give you - or anyone else - the right to force others to be unprepared or to refuse to be victims.

Finally, while I do always carry, 99+% of the time it's concealed when I'm out in public away from my farm ... you have implied above that if you don't see it, you're OK with it.
Can you give me a logical, rational explanation of why the mere sight of a gun (in the possession of a law-abiding person just going about his/her business in a totally peaceful and non-threatening manner) is such an emotionally distressful experience for you?

Nice try with a trick question George. Sort of like "When did you stop beating your wife?" :-)

I also carry concealed, rather than "open," 99% of the time when I'm in a public place.

You saw me at the farmer's market on a very hot day when a cover up would have been quite uncomfortable ... an exception, not the rule.

Did I act hostile or threatening, or do anything at all "wrong"? (No)

Did you not ask me what type of weapon I had, and then volunteer that YOU normally carry a .380? (Yes)

Shana,

The farmer's market is no safer, nor more dangerous, than any other public place.

I'll repeat my question to Nancy and see if you respond ...

Can you give me a logical, rational explanation of why the mere sight of a gun (in the possession of a law-abiding person just going about his/her business in a totally peaceful and non-threatening manner) is such an emotionally distressful experience for you?

how about knives, tire irons, arrows, cars, people......they all can equal death. its the responsible people that use them that makes the difference

Jill,

I see you have provided more comments. I will again respond in series. Even if you don't agree with me, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issues with you.

Yes, opinions differ and EVERYONE has the right to their opinion. I really don't feel that I have "insulted" others. I have simply stated that I believe that their opinions and reactions are based on mis-information and emotion, rather than facts and logic. I have provided references to government statistics on crime, self-defense, and how responsible people who lawfully "carry" are that support my position (But it doesn't appear that some even follow the links and read the information. I can't help but wonder if they even CARE about facts ... after all, facts that don't support one's predetermined conclusions are "inconvenient truths.")

I am not accusing you of not caring about the facts. I believe that you have read at least some of the information at the links I've provided, because you seem to honestly be trying to come to terms with the issues.

There's a saying that goes something like "Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but the facts are the facts." I'm simply trying to present some facts and promote some open discussion that's not based purely on gut-reaction emotion.

Jill,

I understand that many people are not used to seeing a "civilian" with a gun. It used to be very commonplace and was quite acceptable ... in fact in the "old west" that Nancy has referred to several times, it was considered deceptive and underhanded to carry a weapon concealed, rather than in plain sight.

Things have really changed in terms of what people are "used to" ... particularly since the 1960's with the assassination of the two Kennedys, MLK, and a few other public figures. However, the facts are clear that violent crime is more prevalent in our "modern" (largely disarmed) society than it was in the times when it was common for average citizens to have the means to protect themselves.

I cannot give you a short, "pat answer" for how to evaluate all potential threats to your safety, but the mere presence of a weapon does not mean a threat exists. As I recall, in the situation you related, you were familiar with the person, but could not recall his name. He was attending some sort of a meeting, you knew the other folks he was in attendance with, he made no aggressive or suspicious moves, etc. So, the only thing that seems to have made you "alarmed" was that he (apparently inadvertently) let his pistol show (probably without even realizing it).

Again, to me, and to many others, simply the fact that someone is observed to have a gun in their possession doesn't make them a threat. It's how they behave that matters. You would, I'm sure, be very surprised at how many people you pass on the street, in the supermarket, etc. every day who lawfully carry a pistol for self-defense. The fact that you're not aware of it, vs. being aware of it, doesn't really change the reality that they're doing it. The law-abiding private citizens who "carry" have an exemplary record of safety, responsibility, and good behavior. They are far less likely to violate ANY law than people who don't "carry."

Whether you see a gun or not, if you're aware of your surroundings you'll be alert to potential threats (unfortunately for them, most people go through their entire lives in a condition where they don't notice things that are "out of place" that can be signs of impending trouble). Criminals seek out victims by noticing who's paying attention and who's not. It's sort of like the way a pride of lions will seek out the weakest, most vulnerable member of a herd of zebra.

This doesn't mean that you go through life in some sort of perpetual, paranoid state of anxiety. It simply means to pay enough attention to see the signs that someone is "sizing up the herd."

Jill,

I am not trying to change who you are, or even necessarily to change your opinion or your reaction. I'm simply presenting information and a different viewpoint for your consideration.
Again, I don't feel that I've overtly insulted anyone. I haven't called anyone a "radical," or other names, and I've tried to present information in a respectful manner.
Other than those comments, I think I've already responded to most of your comments in the message immediately above.

Mr Stevenson this is the point that I have been trying to get across to you for some time, Its not the fact of you carrying a weapon. its the fact that you carry in a way to offend many people as can be seen by the post on here. I to occasionally carry a concealed weapon when i have a large deposit to make, or have delivered a vehicle after banking hours and have a substantial pile of cash or I am going to an area that I deem I think it is needed. This is rare when I do but when I do, no one knows that I am doing so. The part that I think you can't seem to comprehend is that right or wrong some people are offended by seeing a gun in plain sight. And you seem to care more about your right than other people feeling comfortable around you. Once again NO one is asking for you to give up your second amendment rights, just asking you to be considerate of other people around you.

Jill,

I was not aware that we had passed or that you had sat next to me. Apparently you saw me "open carrying" on that hot day. Was I "open carry" or concealed when you sat next to me?
I am glad that you understand that I would not harm anyone (except in self-defense or the defense of another innocent if absolutely necessary and justified).
I'm curious why you did not fear me, but appear to fear others who (I must assume) behave in a similarly peaceful manner?
As I've said, those who legally "carry" are overwhelmingly peaceful and law-abiding and present no danger to you or others. Those who carry illegally and do bad things are ... criminals.
Criminals, as I've said, pay no attention to the law. You can't prevent crime by disarming the law-abiding. All that happens is the the criminals have easier pickings.

Jill,

If you read my comment again, hopefully you'll understand that I was using a reference to the prototypical question that is a "gottcha."

I CERTAINLY was not inferring that anyone participating in this thread (particularly George) does anything like that ... simply that I felt the question was designed as a "gottcha" and that I didn't want to "play that game."

Jill,

Good questions. If you'll refer to Kleck and/or Lott, who I've referenced with links above, you'll see that, despite mis-information from the anti-gun groups, government statistics clearly show that people who defend themselves (particularly with a handgun) are far less likely to be seriously injured, raped, or murdered than those who are passive victims.

Can criminals be deceptive? Sure. But even criminals are human and there are frequently signs and behaviors that indicate someone is "sizing up the herd." Will everyone catch all of them? No, not even the most highly trained observer is immune from failing to "see the signs," but those who pay attention are far more likely to catch them than the naive who believe "It only happens to someone else."

JIll,

NO insult taken. I know that you are not comparing me to a child predator.

I take it that your daughter is of college age. I'm glad she enjoyed her shooting experience and hope that her friend is a competent instructor.

Because I believe the adage "Knowledge is power" and suspect that you do, too, let me suggest a link. Perhaps after reading the numbers (it references data from a representative university in a "relatively safe state" ... I would suspect that the numbers would be worse in "worse areas")
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/drwoolley.htm

Jill,

I was talking about people WHO APPROACHED ME to comment (positively) on my pistol, ask me what kind/caliber it was, and/or to comment on my t-shirt. I was wearing a pro 2nd Amendment t-shirt ... I can't remember if it was the "It's a right, not a privilege" one or another that says " If guns kill people, then pencils miss spel words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." :-)

Yes, it's my standard practice. The only exception is prohibited areas. (In PA, court facilities and k-12 schools are the only prohibited areas. The State Capitol building is considered a "court facility" by the PA State police. Court facilities must be posted and must, under the statute, provide secure storage lockers and a receipt when you check a weapon at the entry security checkpoint.) Of course, the feds disallow weapons in all federal facilities, post office, etc.

"Gun Free" zones have been notoriously fertile hunting grounds (Columbine, VA Tech, and many, many others) for the small number of psychopaths who seek their "moment of fame" by racking up a big body count, usually before killing themselves when surrounded by the police. It saddens me to think how many innocents could have been saved if just one person had had the capability to resist those madmen effectively. Other incidents have been prevented, or resolved with fewer lives lost when madmen have been stopped by righteous action by private citizens.

Jill,

In PA, there is no "permit" per se to buy a gun, but everyone who buys a gun through a "FFL" (a dealer, who must have a Federal Firearms License) must go through a computerized background check run by the PA State Police and tied to the feds. (The states share computerized info on "prohibited persons.")
It's both a state and federal felony for a FFL to deliver a gun to someone without passing that check and getting an approval number.

No license is required to "open carry" in PA except in cities of the 1st class (Philly is the only one in the state, and serves along with LA, NY, Chicago, DC, and others that strict gun control does NOTHING to prevent crime, but in fact makes it worse).
Concealed carry requires a License to Carry Firearms, which requires a background check and takes about 45 days. The statute requires that the issuing authority SHALL issue a license to anyone 21 or older who has a clean record. In other words, they cannot arbitrarily deny a license, only for "good cause" because of the enumerated disqualifying factors. Every one of the 40-some states that have enacted SHALL issue has seen dramatic decreases in violent crime. (See Kleck and Lott again for factual stats)

Jill, there is some great information on the following website regarding carrying of a concealed weapon. http://www.bradycampaign.org/ I hope you find it helpful. I agree with you and your thoughts on the subject. There are many people out there who do many bad things. Like I stated before, teachers, priests, nurses, doctors, etc. are all supposed to be doing good for the community-that doesn't always happen. The fact that it isn't the best idea to ask someone if they have a permit to carry,says to me that they don't feel comfortable enough to carry. People are unpredictable, why bother adding in another "danger" factor if it isn't necessary. We have police to keep the peace. Not Tom, Dick, and Harry from who knows where. Yes, bad things happen to good people and that is a shame, but we can't live in a bubble. Why put others at risk so that someone can feel good about themselves because they think they are keeping their community safe? Start a neighborhood watch or something like that. Volunteer as a crossing guard (without a gun). Do something good like that.

Jill,

Yes, I was assaulted, robbed and beaten by a gang of thugs many years ago when I was 18. Had I had a gun, I believe I would have been able to effectively defend myself. Like most cases of self-defense with a gun (2-2.5 MILLION per year) it's likely that merely presenting the weapon would have stopped the attack with no shots fired. Thats the case in 95% plus of cases ... nobody gets shot, but a crime is prevented/thwarted and an intended victim is spared the violence of a robbery, rape, or murder.
Violence is seldom the answer, but when it is the answer, it's the ONLY answer.

Beth,

The Brady group is NOTORIOUS for lies and distortions of the facts. They make MILLIONS of dollars every year by deceiving people. Please do yourself a service and follow some of the links to reliable, factual, undistorted information, based on government records that I've provided above.

You say, "Yes, bad things happen to good people and that is a shame, but we can't live in a bubble." I agree but I would counter that going through life depending on someone else to be responsible for your personal safety is a naive and ineffective strategy.

I hasten to point out that I am NOT advocating any sort of "taking the law in to one's own hands". We all have the God-given right to defend ourselves and it's codified into our laws. The police can't, despite their best efforts, prevent every criminal act, nor can they protect everyone, and, in fact, they have no legal obligation to protect everyone. That's been established over and over again in cases all the way to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Stevenson,
Would you be able to cite me a less "distorted" and more factual reference for those who might not agree with you? It'd be nice for everyone to hear both sides of the story. And, please don't assume that those not carrying a weapon are naive, unaware and ill-prepared.

Beth,
I have provided several links in posts above in response to Nancy and Jill. Some of them have links to others and the work of Kleck and Lott has extensive references to the source data - most of if govt crime statistics.
If you'd like others, it would be helpful to know just what you're interested in ... Like "crime drops when less restrictive gun laws are enacted, enabling people to have the means to defend themselves", "people who resist violent criminal attacks are less likely to be injured or killed than those who are passive victims", etc.
If you "drill down" into the information I've suggested, you will find numerous references to law enforcement officials who were previously skeptical, are surprised at the results, but never the less find the results compelling and the methodology unassailable. There are also quite a few examples that show how the Brady group and other anti-gun groups have "cooked the books" in hired "studies" to support their position. Kleck and Lott are their worst nightmare, because they did the work without an agenda or a preconceived outcome, and it blows huge holes in the distortions of Brady, et al. Both Kleck and Lott admit to being surprised at the results of their work, but stand by it because they didn't have an axe to grind when they started.

Pamela,

That's actually 6 armed bank robberies in Emmaus in the past 2 years.

I'm sure that the police are trying their best to determine who's responsible for the latest two.

They did catch the guys at KNBT about a year ago, but that was an active shoot-out in downtown Emmaus.

Unfortunately, we simply cannot afford enough police to prevent this sort of occurrence. (Nor do I believe that we'd want to live in a world that was so much of a police state. Benjamin Franklin said, in 1775, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.")

I actually, but inadvertently, misstated something above ... the Founders didn't "give" us the right to keep and bear arms for defense. They clearly considered it a God-given right and merely AFFIRMED it in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. They did this because they wisely knew that government (or tyrants) would, if left unrestrained gradually take away our rights over time. They sought to prevent that usurpation of our inherent rights "endowed by the Creator".