Today's Weather


Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast


Key West and the Second Amendment


Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, Apr 02, 2008 - 05:23:34 am MST

Midweek Morsels
By Phil Vega

Quote of the day: “It’s income tax time again, Americans: time to gather up those receipts, get out those tax forms, sharpen up that pencil, and stab yourself in the aorta.” — Dave Barry, author, comedian.

All-around sharp cookie Eva Dickerson is out spreading the word about the upcoming Key West Night fund-raiser that will benefit the Sierra Vista Regional Health Center.

The event is set for 5 to 11 p.m. on May 10 at the Windemere Hotel and Conference Center.



The cost of a ticket includes an Italian buffet dinner and entertainment by Mark Mulligan. Silent auctions will have lots of “cool stuff” to bid on, according to Eva. There will be a contest for “Best Caribbean-themed” outfit (for men and women), and there will be Hula hoop, paddle ball, ring toss games and raffles.

Tickets are just $35, and you can call the foundation office at 417-4990 or stop by the Wellness Depot at the Mall at Sierra Vista. Cash, checks or charge cards accepted.

So put on your flowery shirts, shorts and sandals and enjoy a slice of Key West right here in Sierra Vista!

Here’s a short one from Joe Anton:

April is the time of year when the green returns to the trees, the lawns and the Internal Revenue Service.

Last week I wrote about the Sierra Vista Public Library and all the services it provides. Included was the plan to open a café in the library to serve snacks and beverages to library users.

Well, the grand opening of the café will take place a week from today — April 10.

The formal name is Café Sierra, so swing by the library at 2600 E. Tacoma St. and check it out.

The Supreme Court’s recent review of a gun control case has prompted several to talk about the Second Amendment.

Gene Kambouris e-mailed this opinion:

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

As John Steinbeck once said:

1. Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him, “Why do you carry a .45?” The Ranger responded, “Because they don’t make a .46.”

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a woman commented on his wearing his sidearm. “Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?”

“No Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.”

8. Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!

But wait, there’s more!

I was once asked by a woman visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said, “Well I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!” To which I said, “Of course it is loaded, can’t work without bullets!”

She then asked, “Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?”

My reply was, “No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.” To which I’ll add, having a gun in the house that isn’t loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.

Some sage advice from the notorious Mr. Anonymous: “You know the ’60s are over when someone flashes the “Peace” sign, but now it means, “Two Coronas with limes, please.”

Department of useless, yet interesting, information … What rocket’s red glare was Francis Scott Key writing about when he penned the poem that eventually became the national anthem? Sir William Congreve developed a rocket that could fire to about 9,000 feet. The British fired Congreve rockets against the U.S. during the War of 1812. Key coined the phrase the “rocket’s red glare” after the British fired Congreve rockets against Fort McHenry. Congreve’s incendiary rocket used black powder, an iron case, and a 16-foot guide stick. Congreve had used a 16-foot guide stick to help stabilize his rocket. William Hale, another British inventor, invented the stickless rocket in 1846. The U.S. army used the Hale rocket more than 100 years ago in the war with Mexico. Rockets were also used to a limited extent in the Civil War.

PHIL VEGA is publisher of the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review. Contact him via e-mail at philip.vega@svherald.com. His column appears on Wednesday in the Herald/Review.



Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   





    To Ben wrote on Apr 17, 2008 6:36 AM:

    " Anyone who gives an assailant a “fair fight” doesn’t understand the subject; as a CLAIMED ex-“MP” you SHOULD know this. “no person really "needs" to own a gun for protection.” THINK BEN! As your physical and skill equal; if I surprised you, you’d have no chance at all unarmed. And if I criminally attack you; it WOULDN’T be done “fair”. Now, the intelligent understands this, and some like my 5’ 95 pound wife needs extra “help” against an assailant like you. It’s hard to believe you were an MP and apparently didn’t learn from the experience. "

    Cheyenne wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:28 PM:

    " Ben, who packs all the time? Law enforcement! Maybe you could take their weapons like in England? As the story goes I do have a loaded fire extinguisher if my house does catch on fire, which I hope it doesnt. Grenades/assault weapons are controlled by the way.JAY,your constant use of "paranoid" as a discription for firearm advocates makes me wonder.Is it "we the government Jay"or"Jay the president supporter" that is posting these comments. By the way if some one wants to bring violence to me I will give them more than they can handle with or without a weapon. "

    Ben wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:02 PM:

    " Citizen, you make a good point. Like I said before, I'm not anti-gun and completely believe in free choice. I'm just expressing my personal opinion in that no person really "needs" to own a gun for protection. I'm pretty comfortable around both pistols and rifles, having been an MP in the army for quite some time. However, I worry about a population that relies on lethal weapons for "self-defense". If you're a rancher and have border crossers invading your land, by all means keep a shotgun handy. If you live in --cont-- "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:37 PM:

    " "Ben" I'm sure most people don't "pack" all the time to feel safe. If someone doesn't feel they can safely handle a weapon then they should either take gun safety classes, train or just not bother with a weapon. Some people, like Jay, don't feel comfortable around guns and shouldn't carry one. Some people are well trained and can handle them with confidence and know to identify an intruder before firing wildly into the shadows. Others like you feel they can intimidate an intruder. Eitherway, the choice is up to the individual whether to own one or not. "

    To Jay wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:53 AM:

    " Cowards and the irresponsible, may be subject do as you suggest: fire blindly at unarmed-shadows.
    So I can’t fault you for believing the non-cowards and responsible people would react as you would.
    You have been repeatedly shown that your paranoid “projections” aren’t grounded in reality. Cowards are FAR more likely to be harmed than those willing to take personal responsibility for their own protection. On 9-11 the terrorist had a 75% success rate, and a 25% failure rate. The successful 75% depended on the Government to “do something”, failure happened where citizens fought-back.
    "

    Ben wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:52 AM:

    " --cont-- cause you and your family harm, maybe a semi-automatic pistol or revolver wouldn't do the trick at night with sleep in your eyes...maybe you should opt for a fully auto assault weapon or, I know, a grenade should do it. Look, I'm not anti-gun, but don't tell me you have to be constantly packing to feel safe. Its not bravado I'm preaching, this is how it feels to not be paranoid and secure as a man protecting my family. BTW, I'm pretty good with a broomstick:) "

    Ben wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:45 AM:

    " Hi Cheyenne,

    I'm 6' 220 myself, so I think I could do pretty well against a big assailant. But, you must understand, that's not my point. Most home invaders do not enter a home with a loaded weapon and most could be scared off just by turning on a light. In the movies, people break in and hold entire families hostage, true, but how many times can you say that's happened to someone you know? If you're truthful, I bet never. So let's use your situation: if a 6'1, 250lb assailant intends to --cont-- "

    Jay wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:08 AM:

    " Cheyenne you are loaded with what ifs that don't happen in SV? So here is one for you. You wake up in the middle of the night and here a bump. You grab your gun and see a shadow moving from around the corner and shoot your kid who was sleep walking. Ben is right on, and you are simply paranoid dear. "

    To Ben wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:49 AM:

    " To “end this gun debate very quickly” you’ll need to present more than bravado, ignorance, stupidity and lies.
    While I don’t support the NRA’s covert anti-gun position; their site posts hundreds, if not thousands, of incidences where people have DID what you said couldn’t be done.
    You need no excuse, for your desire to stay defenseless.
    A man should always know his limits; keep your broomstick handy.
    "

    Cheyenne wrote on Apr 15, 2008 7:42 PM:

    " Ben; If a person 6'1" 250 lbs, attacked you, what would you do? What if there are several assailants? Give them a broom to beat you with? Yes, you did end the gun debate quikly for your part. Please see comment below from Bob P. "

    Ben wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:43 PM:

    " --cont.---if the intruder is unarmed and you are unable to defend your home or family without a gun, then maybe you should: a)take a self-defense course, b)exercise more often. This way you could disable the intruder without wayward bullets flying around that could damage family members or property. My grandfather chased a would-be car thief off with a broom handle at the age of 66! There is no excuse for a grown man to have a gun other than hunting or target practice. Defend your home and family with your fists, wit and heart! "

    Ben wrote on Apr 15, 2008 12:38 PM:

    " I'll end this gun debate very quickly: If someone breaks into your house and is wise enough to carry a gun or knife with him, he's probably going to be wise enough to get the drop on you. You won't have enough time to fumble for your loaded pistol, take the safety off and prepare to fire. If the intruder is carrying a weapon, he's obviously intending to do harm, not just a robbery. So, you're shiny pistol and years of target-shooting are basically useless anyway. Now, if the intruder is unarmed, --cont.-- "

    Bob P. wrote on Apr 15, 2008 6:44 AM:

    " Phil, excellent article, and quite amusing! I am a little surprised at the witless remarks being made by gun control advocates. I wish they'd all go back to California and leave us alone! "

    Citzen wrote on Apr 14, 2008 4:29 PM:

    " What I still can't figure out is that there is no where in this article where Phil states he has a gun in his home. It seems that some activist like Neighbor and/or Ralph wanted to make this an issue about having a weapon in your home. Yet for some reason they direct their comments to Phil, who never stated he even owns a weapon. I really have to question the mental health of those who make such an assertion. "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 13, 2008 3:09 PM:

    " Ralph, why do you feel you have to insult people? Why would you call someone you don't even know a moron? Is this inferiority complex that you suffer from? People who own guns are probably some of the most patriotic people in the country. You certainly don't have to own a weapon. That's your choice. The US Constitution protects the choice of those that do decide to own a weapon. Most people (73% of Americans) would argue that those that try to take away the individual rights to bear arms are the true enemy of the country. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm "

    To Ralph wrote on Apr 12, 2008 8:02 PM:

    " No one says you need to have a gun, and you don't have to protect your wife or family. If someone breaks in call 911, and the police will be there as soon as they can, long after the criminals are gone. Then they will take statements from you asking for descriptions, call the EMT's to care for the injured, and recomend counciling for your wife that was raped. "

    Cheyenne wrote on Apr 12, 2008 7:16 PM:

    " Hey Ralph: Unpatriotic? I'm At Ar Ramadi, Al Anbar Province, Iraq as I write this . Where are you? You anti-firearms people spew what ever-whenever without facts or documentation. You do show your mentality with the name calling and labeling of the people who post comments. "

    hmmm wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:20 AM:

    " hmmm. Jay is back and the first comment out of his mouth is an insult. Pretty childish. "

    Ralph wrote on Apr 12, 2008 9:06 AM:

    " I have no fear of guns. I fear morons like Phil being careless with guns. I fear for his family being put in an aweful position. I fear for our country being because of non-trusting, non-patriotic people like Cheyenne. They are the true enemy of the country. hey think they have a right to enforce laws with their guns. They don't. Hah, hah is just bitter bcause he is afraid. He is paranoid that someone is going to break into his house. Pretty sad Hah, hah. "

    Hah Hah wrote on Apr 11, 2008 4:40 PM:

    " Paranoid? Is this the same Jay, the one person on here that expresses the most paranoid delusions of all? Hah hah. "

    To Jay wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:58 PM:

    " AH! So Jay you're telling us you ARE a Bush supporter? "

    Don wrote on Apr 11, 2008 1:08 PM:

    " Cheyenne, Don't bother. You can't argue logically with these people. Look through all the archives. Same people same factless arguments. They have an irrational fear of guns, but don't really know why. They are indeed as brainwashed as the pre war Nazis. Don't worry they can't take away our guns. The second amendment won't let them. And of course, since none of them have guns, it would be awful hard for the anti-gun lunatics to try. "

    Jay wrote on Apr 11, 2008 7:28 AM:

    " Cheyenne sorry you have no trust in the President, and you think the military is deploying to the streets. What drugs are you taking? You sure are paranoid. "

    Cheyenne wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:45 AM:

    " To KDL; no I am not comparing countries. I am comparing the rhetoric of the anti-firearm people with the Nazi party. The same arguments of a "safer" society. Once they disarmed the citizens and imprisoned the opposition what did it lead to? I also pointed out that the majority of German people at that time were patriotic, law abiding and did follow the law giving up their weapons. Quit trying to read in something between the lines that isnt there. "

    Hmmm wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:18 PM:

    " Cheyenne what are you thinking? Nazi Germany to modern day America? Are you blind or just dumb? Come on that is just stupidity. "

    Cheyenne wrote on Apr 10, 2008 6:50 PM:

    " To KDL:What I was pointing out was the gun ban arguments are the same now as then and what can happen in blind "Patriotism". Also if you think that the people in the USA cannot be subjugated by the "laws" of the land, you sir , would be the idiot. "

    KDL wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:12 PM:

    " Cheyenne are you trying to compare Nazi Germany to the US? Are you an idiot? How dare you. Nazi Germany was not about weapons. Go back to school and stop being so ignorant. "

    Ah Ha wrote on Apr 10, 2008 8:59 AM:

    " No one comments of Vega's articles, so the web master missplaces them on the most read. "

    Cheyenne wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:47 AM:

    " To What a source & Allan: What you are stating I think is a basic repeat of NAZI Germany in 1932-33 when they banned firearms. Most were very patriotic and followed willingly, the objectors were sent to be re-educated. Did every body lived happily ever after? "

    Yea right wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:09 PM:

    " Yea right Allan, and our government didn't lie about WMD in Iraq. So if we don't need to worry about our government then no one should be upset we are at war. No one should be upset that our national debt is in the hands of the Chinese. No one should worry that the rest of the world is angry at the US and would like nothing more then to attack us. We shouldn't worry that our economy is on the verge of collapse. Everything is dream like and our government knows best. OK...I'll buy that...yea right! "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:11 PM:

    " It seems that the webmaster didn't post all of my comments so if you were wondering about the drowning deaths I just posted those. Again Allan all of this research is from credible sources and not a pro gun control movement. The Trauma journal you reference are articles all from one man, Mr. Kellerman. His research was slanted even by his own admission. There were many variables he didn't factor out of his stats. You really should read all of the Heller amicus briefs, Pro & Con. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5097.html
    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf "

    Interesting...hmmm wrote on Apr 9, 2008 6:17 PM:

    " Allan, you aren't too bright are you? I'm talking to "What a source". Geez. I'm not sure what you are reading below but the general track has been guns in the home. "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:24 PM:

    " So how do we cope with occurrences of accidents and accidental deaths? Do we fill in 5 million backyard swimming pools? Do we discard the 96 million bicycles? Do we take away the 290 million guns from the households? No those are ridiculous solutions. The answer is to teach children water safety, how to swim and we supervise them in the pool; we train children how to operate bicycles safely and we make them wear safety gear; we take weapon safety courses and take precautions to keep weapons out of harms way. Banning something is a useless action. "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:12 PM:

    " According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bicycle Study, there are about 531,000 bicycle riders injured annually and about 71% of those are under 15years old or about 377,010. Out of those figures about 890 deaths occur, which 37% are under 15years old or about 329. The rate of injury of for children under 15years old is about 17 for every 1000 riders. That is a rate of about .017 or about 1.7%. So there's a significantly greater chance of having an accident by owning and riding a bicycle or owning a swimming pool then by owning a weapon. Continued... "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:53 PM:

    " The National Safety Council states on average approximately 142 children under 15years old that die from reported handgun accidents in the United States. Many of these are probably at the hands of abusive parents but are reported as accidents, but I’ll stick with these stats. There are over 126 million households according to the 2006 US Census data. About 35% of those households own weapons or about 44 million households. This means that the chances of having a child under 15years old die from a firearm in a household that owns a gun is about .000336%. Continued... "

    Allan wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:43 AM:

    " The Brady Campaign used scientific research from a trauma institute. What are you talking about unjustified war? What topic are you on. Sounds like you are imagining things just like guncite. There have been many radical posts reference to this topic of late of people who site the need for the 2nd in case a tyrant governemnt taking over. It isn't happening. This isn't 1700. Get real and stop makingup things. Having a gun in your home makes your home more dangerous, not safer. Face the facts. Oh that is right you are pro-gun so you make up lies. "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:28 AM:

    " The Brady Campaign references were blown out of the water by the opposing Heller amicus briefs presented to the Supreme Court in Mar 08. Guess where gun related accidents rate when compared to swimming pool and bicycle accidents and deaths? It is hardly a blip on the radar screen in comparison. Should we prevent folks from installing swimming pools and riding bicycles? No, why would you advocate the same for guns? No reason other than you may have a socialistic agenda to do away with all weapons. It is silly to rely on propaganda for your resources. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/march08.shtml "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 5:38 AM:

    " Allan, the CDC reference you provide show that unintentional deaths resulting from Fire arms are 3.8% of all firearm related deaths. Those stats are from 1990. The CDC stats from 1993 show that that number unintentional deaths resulting from Fire arms decreases to 2.7%. These risks are reduced when the operators of the weapons receive safety training. I already provided you your chances of having your home burglarized or having a member of your family age 12 or older becoming a victim of violent crime committed by a stranger. Sounds like Phil is already with the program. "

    Interesting...hmmm wrote on Apr 8, 2008 7:06 PM:

    " hmmm. To What a source, Guncite.com is about as radical as Bradycampain.org. The research that Brady cites is not scientific and is bogus too. No body has made a statement about a tyrantical government until you did. Is that where you want to steer the arguement now that you can't prove your point on the self defense stance and protection of family and property? I've got to ask you though. How can you sit there and say you trust the government when you scream and yell that the government lied to us and started an unjustified war? interesting...hmmm. "

    What a source wrote on Apr 8, 2008 2:26 PM:

    " guncite.com is nothing short of a radical exploration of why everyone in the world needs a gun. The research that cite is not scientific and is bogus. It is an obvious motivated and biased site that should be discounted. For people who believe you need a gun against a tyrantical government... Who do you really think is goingto attack the US? Is Canada or Mexico getting ready to mount an assault? That is simply crazy. Do you really distrust you government that much? If you believe that you are not very patriotic. "

    The Truth shall set you Free wrote on Apr 8, 2008 9:59 AM:

    " This researchable data may help people understand the wisdom of accepting the heavy mantel of personal responsibility: http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html even when the cowardly shrinks back because they want to feel morally superior when another must get blood on their hands so the coward can feel safe. "

    Allan wrote on Apr 8, 2008 9:55 AM:

    " The Brady Website referneces The Journal of Trauma as the source that did the study. So the individual who question the source under "really" is wrong. Why do you want to dispute the facts? It is a fact that having a gun in the home is more dangerous than not having one. The percentage is 22% greater chance of injuring someone unitentionally versus needing to use a gun in self-defense. http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gunrisks/riskinhome/

    http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/ActualCauses/pdf/acd.pdf

    Another scientific website that shows proof that guns do more harm than good. Phil get with the program and get rid of your guns. "

    For the Honest and Intelligent wrote on Apr 8, 2008 9:35 AM:

    " This may be helpful to sort out the lie and twisted statistics from the Brady Center.
    “What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?” by Hemenway and Kleck published in JAMA.1999; 282: 135-136.
    Reproduced at: http://guncite.com/kleckjama01.html
    If the Brady Center is well informed: name the U.S. city with a high “Brady rating” and crime rates lower than the national average. If the Brady Center’s opinion was valid; wouldn’t this be an easy task?
    "

    To the intelligent homeowners wrote on Apr 8, 2008 8:13 AM:

    " The truth can be researched by the intellectually honest at: http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html far better than I could possibly explain in 100 words or less. If guns in the home truly made it more dangerous; wouldn’t there be hundreds of studies at the Brady Center, instead of just one 20-year-old example that even Kellerman admitted his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm"? He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed."
    "

    Huh? wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:58 PM:

    " Huh, it looks like most of my URLs were cut off. There are plenty more examples...I could go on and on at least my sources are credible.
    Here are some more examples: http://www.wpxi.com/news/15096668/detail.html
    http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/local/article/local_man_shoots_gun_wielding_home_intruder/4776/
    http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20080204&Kategori=NEWS18&Lopenr=80204006&Ref=AR
    http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/15307996.html
    http://www.dothaneagle.com/gulfcoasteast/dea/local_news.apx.-content-articles-DEA-2008-02-18-0007.html "

    Citizen wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:54 PM:

    " Please don't make up your references "Hmmm". The Brady campaign states in their website that was provided below that their own people conducted that survey. They don't use government funded research, it contradicts their goals. The DOJ doesn't keep statistics on home accidents. You find those statistics at the CDC. The DOJ website report crime statistics. For example: "About 1 in every 27 households in 2004 were either burglarized or had a member age 12 or older who was a victim of violent crime committed by a stranger." If you want to bank on those Odds then good luck. "

    Really? wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:36 PM:

    " Allan, what resource are you using. The CDC website doesn't support your finding. Please tell. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml "

    Hmmm wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:09 PM:

    " Yeah I thought people were more in danger if there was a gun there. It is not research done by the Brady people, but by the DOJ. I tend to agree with neighbor. Why make things more dangerous? Does Phil have a death wish for his family? "

    To “Smart” neighbor wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:08 PM:

    " “The person below provided one example” Maybe so, but the NRA provides hundreds if not thousands of examples of guns saving lives:
    http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
    While the Brady Center presents only lies, twisted statistics that don’t hold up to honest scrutiny and acts of criminals violating the law by attacking DISARMED victims.
    If the Brady position is valid: Name the U.S. city with a HIGH “Brady rating” AND crime rates LOWER than the national average.
    "

    Huh? wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:03 PM:

    " The URL that "SN" provided describes stats that "According to a survey by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence" were tweaked to back their agenda. Give us proof from a credible source please...not some left wing propaganda machine. What about THESE recent events Neighbor?
    http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=7944123
    http://www.vicksburgpost.com/articles/2008/01/11/news/news01.txt
    http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=138185
    http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=348136
    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/NEWS05/801190377 "

    Allan wrote on Apr 7, 2008 4:52 PM:

    " Actually the percentage is much higher than 13% increase in people getting hurt if you have a gun in the home. The percentage is closer to 33%. "

    What a stupid Neighbor CLAIMING to be smart wrote on Apr 7, 2008 4:32 PM:

    " Ironically, Kellerman (The primary author of the Brady's LIE) concluded that being armed for self defense was a good thing – “If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon.
    If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.” (“Would I be Safer With A Gun?" Health magazine, Mar/Apr 19994)
    “Due to firearm suicides, there are more than twice as many suicide victims in states with high household firearm ownership.” Japan TOTALLY bans gun-ownership and has TWICE the suicide-rate of ours.
    "

    Smart neighbor wrote on Apr 7, 2008 2:51 PM:

    " Just more proof that guns in homes cause more harm than preventing harm.
    http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gunrisks/riskinhome/

    Phil you would be safer getting rid of that gun than having there. The person below provided one example, but unless that gun was in your hand and loaded when the intruder broke in, that gun would have had no impact. Only bumb people think they are safer with a gun. "

    What a stupid Neighbor wrote on Apr 6, 2008 6:53 PM:

    " "By simply having a gun in that house Phil you increase the chance for someone getting hurt by 13%."
    If you must LIE to make your position seem “reasonable”, a less stupid person would rethink that position.

    “The chances of someone coming into your home while you are there are slim to none.”
    Tell that to Jennifer/Hayley/Michaela Petit! Their home invading/sexual assaulting/murderers were frightened away by the GUNS of the previous "unenlightened" intended victims. After Dr. Petit got to listen to his daughters SCREAMS, as they were raped and burned to death; bet he has a gun NOW. "

    Another Neighbor wrote on Apr 6, 2008 4:31 PM:

    " Well Phil, if owning a weapon has already prevented an unwanted person from entering your house then it seems like it was a worth while investment. I wonder if I post a sign that I own a gun, would that stop solicitors from ringing my door bell better than my "no solicitor" signs. It seems we have a very special person in our neighborhood. Maybe if we all posts signs on our lawns that we own weapons she won't have anyone to visit. "

    Neighbor wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:24 PM:

    " Phil has become a violent person. Is machismo attitude is not appreciated nor warranted. The chances of someone coming into your home while you are there are slim to none. By simply having a gun in that house Phil you increase the chance for someone getting hurt by 13%. Why do you want to do that to your family. Not a very wise move MR. "

    What a Stupid Neighbor wrote on Apr 5, 2008 5:18 AM:

    " Neighbor, why do you feel the police “want to elevate a problem by bringing a gun into the problem”? They arrive on the scene minutes to hours after the criminals have left, and ALWAYS arrive with guns.

    In matters of lie and death, every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

    The intelligent know: the intended victim is always present during a violent attack, the police never are.

    This makes the intended victims the logical “First Responders”.
    "

    Huh? wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:55 PM:

    " Did I miss something? I read a bunch of quotes, I don't see anywhere that Phil is paranoid about someone coming into his home. "Neighbor" it seems that you are the paranoid one. You probably need to re-read the article maybe put the reading glasses on this time. But I have to guess you probably aren't a frequent guest of his anyhow, just wanted a chance to throw a jab at him for what ever reason, I guess. Very scary...huh. "

    Neighbor wrote on Apr 4, 2008 8:12 AM:

    " Phil glad to know you are paranoid about people coming into your house and shooting you. Now we know not to come and visit you anymore. We don't know why you would want to elevate a problem by bringing a gun into the problem. Very scarry. "

Community Videos



Additional recent videos can be viewed here


Use the arrows on each side of the player to for the next/previous video

Lastest U.S. Videos


In Tomorrow's Herald


Sound of movies: Orchestra, Army Band join forces for show.

Subscribe Today!

Photo Galleries

Contact Us


Staff Directory

Advertisement




Reader Poll



Calendar

Upcoming Events:

Faith and Spirituality