State police say they won't charge a bear hunter who shot and killed a property owner who first shot him during an argument about trespassing in rural northern Pennsylvania.
State police in Punxsutawney say the Nov. 24 shooting of Frank Shaffer, 63, of Red Lion, was justified.
Police said yesterday that Shaffer confronted five hunters on property he owns in Summerville and ordered them off his land. A short time later, he confronted three of them in another area near his property line and fired at least four shots at Paul Plyler, 23, of Summerville, with a semiautomatic rifle.
Plyler was hit in the back and the hand, police said. Plyler fired back, hitting Shaffer once in the abdomen. Summerville is about 60 miles northeast of Pittsburgh.
Of course, the guy telling the State Police what happened, who fired first and what words were exchanged and all that, is the survivor.
I know this kind of thing is supposed to be so rare, but how can it be? When counting DGUs, the pro-gun folks like to point out that many of them do not result in shots fired, but what about this? What about all the incidents of abuse that result in less than mortal ends among hunters?
I guess you could say hunting is bad news for animals and hunters alike.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I like it when gun control advocates attack hunting -- here's why:
ReplyDeleteGun control advocates often try to divide hunters from other gunowners, claiming that hunting won't be attacked by their schemes -- so hunters should not object. These attempts sometimes work to some extent, which is bad.
Fortunately, gun control advocates just can't resist slamming hunters and hunting at other times, thus alerting hunters to their true intentions.
So what we see here is part of a good thing -- it keeps hunters united with other gunowners against the anti-gunowner folks.
FishyJay, I'm opposed to hunting and sports shooting and plain old bearing arms for any other reason. That doesn't mean I necessarily want to see everything banned, but all these thing present the same problems, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I oppose them.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, I should praise your honesty. Most gun control advocates who claim that they just want strict "gun control" but won't attack sport shooting (and that's most of them) are LYING.
ReplyDeleteAnd those few that think they are sincere will probably change their minds and attack sport shooting if and when the strict "gun control" they claim to want fails to have the positive effect that they expect.
Mikeb: "FishyJay, I'm opposed to hunting and sports shooting and plain old bearing arms for any other reason."
ReplyDeleteIn the past, and probably again in the future, you ask gunowners "What's wrong with registration (or similar)-- why are you guys against it?"
Perhaps the main reason is that many of those who ask the question are "opposed to hunting and sports shooting and plain old bearing arms for any other reason," and those who say that they aren't usually turn out to be lying.
"I'm opposed to hunting and sports shooting and plain old bearing arms for any other reason."
ReplyDeleteThanks for showing your true colors.
You are doing us a great service, keep it up.
"Fortunately, gun control advocates just can't resist slamming hunters and hunting at other times, thus alerting hunters to their true intentions."
ReplyDeleteThey have to. "Gun control" is part of the entire "social justice" movement which also includes "animal rights". So if the gun controllers don't occasionally rib hunting and hunters, they don't get a spot at the table or the vast amounts of funding to go with it.
That's why AHSA is nothing more than a dog underneath that table, searching for crumbs. They'll never make it to the level of the BC or VPC.
"I'm opposed to hunting and sports shooting and plain old bearing arms for any other reason."
ReplyDeleteTook you long enough to admit what we already know.
And you wonder why we oppose you and your ilk at every turn....
How is this abuse? The state police and county DA's are saying it was a justifiable homicide.
ReplyDeleteWell MikeB has to disagree with them in order to push his agenda.
ReplyDeleteReporting the facts is damaging to his cause.
you might find this article interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-2879
-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009
m5d20-Violence-Policy-Center-proves
-that-more-guns-means-less-violent-
crime-murder
It is not what you might think
Microdot, I did indeed find that article interesting. I'm not sure what you meant by, "It is not what you might think."
ReplyDeleteAt a quick glance it seemed to be the typical pro-gun twisting and spinning and double-talk which always gives me a headache, figuratively speaking. One argument that always kills me is the old "suicides don't count" one. They had to mention that because in all those stats the one comparison that stood out above all the others was the difference between gun suicides between states with the right to carry and those without that god-given right.
Sebastian asked, "How is this abuse?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd call it abuse whenever someone acts unduly aggressive towards another. If it's a policeman or boss or teacher, it's abuse of power. If it's an armed guy having a fit or road rage or a property owner chasing people off his land at gunpoint, it's another type of power abuse. The idea that "the guy with the gun makes the rules" might play a part in these confrontations. In this case where the property owner knew the others were armed too, maybe he felt empowered by being on his own property or by the knowledge that, in his righteousness, he would be able to shoot. If it happened like they said, this abusive presumption cost him his life.
What are you saying there's no element of "abuse" in there when people fight over property lines and one of them starts shooting?