2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'll respect your desire to bury your head in the sand and pretend like the world is a beautiful and peaceful place, if you respect my different experiences. Now why would you be getting into an argument with an armed man? I can't remember the last time I got into an argument with anyone.

The saying above that an armed society is a polite society has been my experience. I generally find that unarmed individuals are less polite, more selfish, more insecure, and more prone to cause trouble than those I've met who legally carry.

Finally, I won't unholster my gun for you. If I see you in danger, you're on your own. I'm not risking legal action to protect anyone but myself and those around me that I trust and love. I'm not the police, but I will call the police for you.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

"he has a weapon that can kill me instantly"

I'm not going to "kill you instantly" unless 1) you have the ability to kill me, 2) you have the opportunity to kill me, and 3) you have put me in jeopardy. The gun will never leave the holster until these three conditions are met.

Showing me a knife is not enough for me to pull my gun. Throwing a rock through my window is not enough. Slapping me in the face, tripping me, pushing me, or spitting at me is not enough.

Furthermore, the law holds me to higher standards than the majority of the public. I can't initiate fights. If someone cuts me off on the road, swears at me, and generally behaves like a tough guy, I need to ignore it. The law won't protect me if I escalate a situation that leads to deadly force.

Finally, even after the courts clear me of any wrongdoing, a civil lawsuit could easily cost me $80,000 and up. "Every bullet that leaves my gun has a lawyer attached to it", is a popular saying among those who carry.

Carrying a gun is an enormous responsibility and is not for everyone. I believe most decent, law abiding folks are capable of making this determination. Criminals are a different story entirely, which is why I carry in the first place.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

To slakr007,

Calling people morons doesn't make anyone safer. I'm a member of two gun ranges (and I occasionally visit a third range) in the Portland area and ANYONE can be a range officer and call a cease fire if they see something unsafe. Depending on the activity in question, those engaging in unsafe behavior can be banned from the club. Our local gun clubs DO NOT want undue attention and strive very hard to be safe. I feel safe at these clubs. If you don't, or you don't feel comfortable helping other people be more proficient with their guns by pointing out unsafe behavior to them, then maybe a public gun club isn't for you.

At one of our clubs, the minimum target distance for a high powered rifle round is 50 yards. .50 BMG cartridges are not allowed.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I see fear when I experience the anti-gun behavior depicted in the Doonesbury cartoons or useless anti-gun legislation. I believe ignorance is usually behind that fear. While I empathize with the ignorant individual who affronts me unintentionally, I instinctively react with anger when ignorant laws are passed that control my freedoms, by individuals who should know better. Two popular ignorant acts are the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which banned firearms based on appearance, and renaming 39th Ave to Caesar Chavez, despite 80% of residents on 39th Avenue being opposed to it. Imagine if people, the real weapon behind any tool, were banned based on appearance. Imagine the laws passed by government if we only needed a 20% majority vote.

I personally don't open carry because my conscious prohibits me from using fear to fight fear. I prefer to engage elected representatives in dialog hoping to help them understand the ignorance behind most anti-gun laws, which at times is futile, because many elected representatives are close-minded and guided by feelings rather than science.

So while I don't open carry, I understand the anger in the open carry advocates as they try to cope with the irrational laws forced onto us by legislatures who themselves are guided by fear. It's reduced to feelings vs. feelings.

Really folks, why aren't there violent shootings at gun shows? Or gun stores? Or on the range in gun schools, or at gun competitions? I've been to many of these and I wish the politeness, the kindness, the personal responsibility, the helpfulness, the value of life, and the overwhelming good nature that I experience at these events would carry over into the rest of my world.

Those with concealed handgun licenses are not criminals. The FBI has already verified that as a process in obtaining the license. Those of us who accept personal responsibility, a very powerful concept, don't want to be treated like criminals and have our freedoms taken from us by ignorant acts.

I too believe criminals should not have guns. Criminals are routinely denied access to firearms using only a small fraction of the anti-gun laws. I also believe that trained, armed, law abiding citizens can handle those criminals that slip through the cracks because no system is perfect no matter how many ignorant laws are written. Ignorant laws only frustrate the law abiding because criminals don't obey laws.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Of course I keep all my guns locked in a safe, but how long do you think that will work when the criminal is in an empty house with lots of power tools lying around? Should I keep all my grinders, crowbars, etc. in a safe also? What would prevent them from bringing their own tools? Why wouldn't they just steal the whole safe and open it up later? The best thing that can happen by revealing CHL holder's personal information is tension between that CHL holder and the community. The worst thing that can happen is the death of someone who breaks into a CHL holder's home looking for free guns. CHL information should be kept private.

By the way, why all the fear? Look at the statistics for Florida where an issued license was revoked for a crime committed with a firearm: less than 0.02% of license holders were bad. Compare that with numbers from the CDC for other ways to lose your life and one might realize that worrying about CHL holders is truly unwarranted.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context