SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
According to his lawyer, Kurk Kirby was well within his rights when he stood outside a Vancouver Albertson's with his weapon holstered on his belt. The Vancouver City Attorney's office disagrees. As the Columbian newspaper reported, it's basing its decision partly on statements that witnesses gave to police saying that Kirby looked ready to draw his weapon, reminding at least one of Wyatt Earp.
As gun rights advocates and those who believe in open carry will tell you, it's perfectly legal to carry a nonconcealed weapon in 43 states, including Washington, Oregon and California. But Washington state law RCW 9.41.270 says that it's not lawful to display a firearm or other weapon
. . . in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
Of course, businesses have the right to set there own policies with regard to open displays of weaponry. Starbucks recently decided to allow its patrons to carry weapons, saying it would follow whatever state law stipulates. A couple of other high profile chains have gone the other way including a Starbucks' competitor, Peet's Coffee & Tea.
Some gun rights advocates did not find Garry Trudeau's recent series of Doonesbury strips on the Starbucks' decision particularly amusing. But others, like State Senator Ginny Burdick, who believe in what they consider to be reasonable gun restrictions, say the toons hit the target.
Do you own a handgun or other firearm? Do you have a concealed weapons permit? Do you choose to carry your weapon openly? When?
If you see someone carrying a weapon, what is your reaction? Would you rather know someone is carrying a weapon? Does it make a difference with regard to public safety that people are or are not openly carrying firearms?
GUESTS:
- Bob Albrecht: Reporter for the Columbian newspaper
- Jim Beal: Open Carry advocate
- Dave Workman: Spokesman for the Second Amendment Foundation, and editor and reporter for Gunweek
- Ginny Burdick: Democratic State Senator
- Ralph Fascitelli: President of the Board of Washington Ceasefire
Tagged as: guns
-
I couldn't have said it any better, thank you.
-
Interesting. I own several firearms; rifles, shotguns, and handguns. I have a gradient of comfort around people with firearms, even as a person very familiar with firearms.
If I were a hunter and ran into another hunter. No problem.
When I am at a range, I find it bizarre to see range employees walking around with handguns on their hip as if they might need to spring into action at any moment and defend the range. But, still not terribly concerned. Just a little uncomfortable because of the attitude.
If I were to see a person open-carrying, or perhaps just catch a glance of a concealed weapon, in, say, the REI in downtown Portland, I would be extremely concerned. Mainly because I am very familiar with how lacking concealed carry permit classes are in preparing people for the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
In Florida, my mother was able to get a concealed carry permit by taking a two day class about general gun knowledge and a brief overview of the law followed by an exam. The instructor gave all of the attendees the answers to copy.
To this day, I still cannot figure out how that qualified her to carry a firearm in her purse. I asked her what would happen if someone attempted to steal her purse? Would she be able to get to the gun? Would she be able to stop the person from using the gun against her? Would she be able to live with the uncertainty of what happened to the firearm if someone did steal her purse (e.g., is it now in the hands of some gang-banger wannabe?) She has since stopped carrying it. There was really no reason for her to carry in the first place.
But, that is only the main reason people with guns in public concern me. Honestly, I feel very uncomfortable around police officers. I used to eat lunch at a restaurant frequented by Florida Highway Patrol officers and Alachua County Sheriff's deputies. It made me very uncomfortable sitting next to them.
-
exactly the point, Mark! I DON'T know about firearms and I don't want to. I have used a handgun in target practice and I choose NOT to to that again. The world you describe is very different from the world of the projects in inner-cities. What we need is concern for the safety of the majority. In your town the majority feel comfortable with open weapons. In MY community we don't.
-
It was the same way in KFalls OR in my teen years (47-53). Some one carrying a firearm was a common enough sight on the streets. Yet the commission of a crime with a firearm was a rare occurance. What has changed is the culture and people..the quality of people pouring into the country. The celebration and promotion of violence by the media lay at the root. I know it is not PC to say this, but I can only suggest the reader look up the incidence of violent crime by race and percentages within the population.
I know people don't want to think about crime and weapons in this context but if we do not confront the truth but continue to lie to one another about the reasons why "packing heat" is now such an issue, the situation will only grows worse and very quickly as our economy and civilization continue to crumble about our heads.
The police can not protect us from violent crime. They are the first to tell you this. They investigate the crime scene. As the level of violence of all kinds continue to rise in our nation, carrying a weapon is not an extreme reaction, but a highly sensible one.
-
What has changed is the culture and people..the quality of people pouring into the country. The celebration and promotion of violence by the media lay at the root. I know it is not PC to say this, but I can only suggest the reader look up the incidence of violent crime by race and percentages within the population.
I figured open racism would enter the conversation eventually. I was almost starting to think it would not happen.
Have you ever read about the late 1800's and early 1900's? Do you know what people were saying about crime back then? They were saying: "Everything was fine until these chinks, micks, and wops started pouring into the country. The quality of people is just going down the toilet."
It's not that it isn't politically correct for you to infer that "low quality races" are to blame for crime, it's just stupid and wrong.
But, just for fun, I will call you out and give you the statistics you suggested I check...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Murder & Non-negligible Homicide in 2008:
- White: 32.8%
- Black: 36.5%
- Unknown: 29.0%
Non-Lethal Violent Crime in 2008:
- White: 65.2% of rapes, 41.7% of robberies, 63.3% of aggravated assaults, 58.3% total.
- Black: 32.2% of rapes, 56.7% of robberies, 34.2% of aggravated assaults, 39.4% total.
- The rest are negligible.
Yeah, so I guess we need to stop those low quality white people from pouring into the country.
Oh, and with a whopping ~0.5% chance of being a victim of one of those crimes, I still fail to see how open-carry is necessary.
-
I am a gun owner, grew up around guns and hunters, and have a concealed carry permit for both Oregon and Washington plus all the other States that recognize these permits. But I think that open carry in a city environment is a bad idea. We all agree that guns don't commit crimes, criminals do. And I can't imagine any law-abiding citizen wanting to supply guns, especially handguns, to criminals. But if you walk around carrying a handgun in the open you are, effectively, telling criminals where they could get a gun... ("off of your cold dead fingers" perhaps)
-
So you're going to refute empty innuendo with facts and information?
That does seem to trump misinformation.....
-
Carrying an unconcealed weapon, in a holster, should show those around them that they are the good guy. They are the guy who cares about himself/herself and their loved ones enough to be able to protect them.
Really? Because to me, it is just a person with a seriously overblown sense of danger who, most likely, is not really prepared to use the gun, worse may be too ready to use the gun, may or may not understand all of his/her responsibilities, etc.
It's pretty nice the way you imply that people not carrying guns just do not care about themselves and their loved ones enough.
Seventy-four percent agreed with the statement that "One reason burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
Since you are ignoring crime statistics to justify carrying a gun, I will ignore that statistic. It probably will not make my friend who had his guns stolen from his home feel much better anyway.
I would say he should have had a safe...but then the guns would not have been readily available so that he could spring into action and protect himself and his loved ones.
-
"I carry my gun openly because I do not want to have to use it. Why would a criminal attack a person obviously ready to defend themselves with deadly force when they can go down the street one block or wait for two minutes and there will be plenty of potential victims coming along who are not visibly armed?" -- NavyLT
Your argument seems logical, but, if you are an officer in our Navy, as your handle suggests, you likely also have much more firearms and handgun training than the average citizen strolling about town. You would, as a military officer, be better prepared to take non-lethal counter-measures against an aggressor than most of us.
-
I don't know whether or not we can understand the criminal mind, or believe statements by criminals regarding their intent, but it seems intuitive to me (as it does to everyone I know with urban /gangland police experience) that someone openly carrying a weapon is far more likely to draw first fire than one who appears unarmed. In plain clothes concealed carry you are more likely to at least see the one who may want to do you harm, and perhaps take defensive action. Open carry and you won't even kinow who/what hit you.
Again, I am talking about city environments. And that is where the confusion comes in. Open carry advocates are thinking 'family friendly places' ...Starbucks / the watefront / maybe even a church picnic. I am thinking gangland at night. These are both 'city environments' but how you carry in each place better be different.
-
I have carried, either openly or concealed, for about 35 years. I have had to unholster twice in that time period in defense of self and family, and have had the comfort of arms in other situations. These have been in rural or remote places. How might a cell phone or law enforcement have helped these situations? Answer is, they could not.
Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society"
-
Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society"
And I say it's not. Is my opinion more valid than a science fiction writer's? Let's see... Violent crime has had an overall decreasing trend while, at the same time, guns have a decreasing relevance in everyday life.
-
Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society"
And I say it's not. Is my opinion more valid than a science fiction writer's? Let's see... Violent crime has had an overall decreasing trend while, at the same time, guns have a decreasing relevance in everyday life.
slakr007 — Fri April 2nd 9:07a.m
You are incorrect sir, last year there was a record number of instant background checks (NICS), nearly 14 million of them! And crime is down.
-
@ GoDawgs
Background checks do not mean anything. There have been eight background checks on me for the eight handguns, rifles, and shotguns I have bought. However, those have zero relevance in my everyday life. They are recreational/collector's items only and I do not keep ammunition in my home.
Further, how many of those people already had guns? How many of those people are actively carrying their guns in their everyday life? How many people keep them in gun safes rendering them nearly worthless as home protection tools? How many of those people actually kept their purchases after realizing they were just caught up in the stupid gun buying bonanza after Obama was elected?
Yes, the US has 90 guns per 100 people. That statistic is essentially meaningless. Guns are not the everyday tools they used to be.
I would actually suggest that both sides have it wrong. Guns have very little long-term effect on crime compared to the general economic and standard of living conditions in the country. And, even in our current state, the probability of encountering a situation where a gun would actually be helpful is pretty close to zero.
But, besides all that, since a person open-carrying agitates the crap out of me (and I'm not the only one apparently), the Heinlein quote is bunk. That is not the basis of a polite society.
-
Law abiding citizens should be able to carry their firearm any way they wish. We already have 20,000 gun laws in this country. What good would one more do? We already have laws against murder but that stops no one. The bad guys will do as they wish until they are stopped, and no laws are going to stop them.
We have far worse problems in this state than how a legal lawful person carrys their firearm. Foster kids by the hundreds die while in the states care, a guy kills 46 women and gets a plea bargin. A guy brags he is going to kill cops to more than six folks and not one calls the police. People stand by while a women is knocked to the ground and kicked and no one steps up to help. It goes on and on.
I would love to leave my security to the police, but they through no fault of their own are not up to the task.
-
To answer Allison Frost's question: In a properly educated society, it would never be considered confrontational to open carry a pistol as long as there was no additional threatening behavior. These behaviors might include verbal threats, especially when combined with drawing the pistol from its holster, but either one, in the right circumstances would be sufficient.
I referred to a properly educated society because we don't have one right now. Newspapers and televison, whether meaning to or not, have created an impression among many that only a criminal would have a gun. The fact is that criminals almost never open carry as it would make no tactical sense. They lie in wait to surprise their victim but wish to appear innocuous until that moment.
The flip side of that is the legally armed citizen, whose first concern is personal defense. By carrying openly he defines who he is for all to see. One of the behaviors he learns is to be in "condition yellow" whenever he's out and about. This is a state of alertness whereby he is aware of his surroundings but isn't alarmed. To be aware of his surroundings he must look at people, must he not? Therefore, looking at people is not threatening behavior.
An additional purpose to open carry is education. When people see a person open carrying they can accept it as legal, ask the person if it is indeed legal, or call the cops. In the last two cases they will be educated. Can the cops being called be annoying to the legally armed citizen? Not usually. Occasionally we run into cops who don't know the law but they can be educated too.
MD
-
Anyone in elected office who spends one minute of their time on restricting gun rights or gun carry in any way is cheating the people they work for, their time should be spent on the real problems facing us. Not what might happen. This country is loaded with guns, they are here to stay and no law or restriction will ever change that. It is a waste of time to even talk about it. Move on, What harm is a few guys who want to open carry? If we want to change something lets do away with conceal carry requirements. If you are lawful you carry any way you want until you abuse it. After all if it were not for the 2A you might not enjoy 1A.
-
om mani padme hum
-
As I understand the open carry law in Washington, whether or not it is legal to open carry depends on the reaction of the people around the individual that is openly displaying a firearm. The law needs to be changed. Either it's legal to open carry or it isn't. Imagine if all laws were written to allow certain behavior unless someone gets scared, offended or threatened. Then nothing would be legal because you can always find someone that objects to another person's behavior.
I have a permit to concealed carry in Oregon and Washington and I regularly carry. I don't open carry, however, in part because of the way the law is written. I applaud Mr. Kirby for testing the law and shining a light on this poorly written law. Law abiding citizens carry a handgun are not the threat. People who jump through all the hoops to get a concealed carry license are some of the most law-abiding citizens around. If Mr. Kirby asks for donations for his legal battle I'd gladly donate.
-
Alan, you don't fully understand RCW 9.41.270, the law to which you're referring. That's hardly your fault though; it's a very murky law. If one redacts some of the voluminous listings form the law, it says:
.270 (1) redacted (#2) It shall be unlawful for any person to [do something with a weapon] in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. The meaning isn't substantially changed.
Without going into full analysis, there needs to be a combination of factors that would lead a reasonable person to think that the weapon carrier intended to intimidate another or that circumstances justify alarm for safety. The word "warrants" is misunderstood by many to mean "cause" but does not. The concept of justification is central to the definition of "warrant" but isn't found in definitions of "cause".
If a person with a phobia of guns walks into a public place where someone is open carrying a pistol, he may well freak out. This would be unfortunate but hardly breaking the law. Bearing arms is a Constitutional right; see Article 1, section 24 of the Washington Constitution. If the law meant that you couldn't open carry, it would be unconstitutional on its face.
MD
-
It is not always possible to "fully understand" a law, whether it is a statute, an ordinance, or an administrative code, as they tend to be written in legalese gobbledy-gook that few who haven't been to law school and earned a Juris Doctor can comprehend.
-
An armed society is an intimidated society (to paraphrase Robert Heinlein). Packing heat on a rural ranch is one thing, packing heat in the 'burbs or the city is an advertisement for the nra and an excuse for anyone to be judge, jury, and executioner all in one minute.
-
Lot's of conjecture, but no truth. Over 260,000 Washington residents have a concealed weapons permit, several hundred carry openly as well. Where are the multitudes of those exercising their authority to 'be judge, jury, and executioner all in one minute?'
They simply do not exist unless they are in a gang or are a criminal already.
-
Allison, as I understand it, you're setting up a show where you, Jim Beal, and Ralph Fascitelli will discuss open carry. I think a reasonable question to each man would be: How does your position square with the right of self defense? After all, the right of self defense would come into question only in a society of cannibals.
MD
-
IF the ditty is true that guns don't kill people, people kill people then, according to that logic, you don't need a gun: it is the person who kills and not the weapon. So why even bother with a gun? Because it is the most lethal of weapons. Frightened people carry a loaded gun because they know THEY might not be able to kill but a gun can. So let's pack off that illogical bit of "guns don't kill people". People use guns to kill other people intentionally and accidentally every day in America.
Every shooting is preventable.
-
Well, if we want to get ridiculously technical, guns don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, the oxygen-starvation of the brain caused by exsanguination (blood loss) from a gun-shot wound kills people. (Or maybe technically ridiculous.)
Seriously, though, I do agree that thorough initial training and comprehensve on-going maintenance training are invaluable if one is going to own, let alone carry a firearm, whether concealed or open, and regardless of the type of firearm...handgun, rifle, or shotgun.
-
People use guns to protect themselves every day in America. If you can successfully convince all criminals to give up their weapons, and all wild animals to give up their teeth and claws, then I will gladly give up my firearms. Until such day, I will claim that I still need weapons to defend myself and my family.
-
Mr. Fascitelli,
You say you are against gun violence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that any open carry advocate has every commited a violent gun crime. You say that 115 CCW holders have commited gun crimes, well that is 0.001% of the 6 million concealed license holders. AND so small of a number that we can not comprehend compared to the 70 million gun owners. (.00001%) Drunk drivers kill more citizens by far, yet they are still denied thier license to drive. Yes there are bad people who get guns and concealed license's just the same as there are drunks who drive without a license. None of this really address your stated goal of reducing gun violence. Why are you not working to reduce gang violence and suicide prevention, where the majority of gun violence occurs? Gun violence does not happen at Starbucks, it occurs in gangs and the tragic world of suicide!
-
I have to confess, I have gotten through life, so far, without a gun. How did I do it? Well, just consistency and 'not' a lot of hard work. It has been simple, really. Sure that guy pulled a gun on me and stole my wallet and watch. Oh yes, I could have defended myself against Mugger McDreamy, yep, but I was a teenager! Couldn't have legally owned a gun, oh yeah, but my mugger could. He was polite though, because he struck up a conversation first, and then said "I hate to have to do this to you." Seriously? Maybe, I could change your mind? No-go! Thanks! Thanks, NRA, for making it so easy for the defenseless to get mugged. Oh yes, and what about all the god in this country? Geez Louise, with all the heaven-goers sauntering about the USA why would they care to defend themselves against death? If I actually believed I had a heaven to luxuriate in, in the afterlife, then, bring on the death baby. Shoot me now, so I can enter the pearly (they're faux-finish) gates.
What's a man, what's a big-shot, without a gun? Really it isn't the gun entirely. It is the idea that you need one, that you want one, that is the problem! That you allow yourself to live in a world, where you are willing to believe you are, just, that prepared. It is kind of like, if I go out with some Binaca in the pocket, I am probably expecting some lovin'. I might just get some too! When you're packing a pickle you kind of open the door to extraordinary possibilities coming your way. It is possible, in another life, you were bludgeoned with a cleaver while walking from the Big Lots! to your pickup, because they wanted to steal your bulk-pack side-sleeper polyfill pillows---so, in this life, you wish to be prepared for all (un?)foreseeable events. But, in a state, where the residents think they are hardy, big-shot, roughnecks, because they don't carry umbrellas---carrying a gun, seems a lot like, carrying a lace parasol.
-
Well put. LOL!!
-
Bravo.
-
I have a concealed handgun permit for both WA and OR, and I openly carried a large caliber handgun for over 10 years when I lived in Alaska, mostly for bear protection. It was so common that it rarely evoked any comments, other than from tourists.
Many years ago I was unexpectedly threatened at knife-point by a complete stranger who happened to be a very large and threatening person. He was obviously high on drugs. It was the middle of the afternoon, in a public place. No one came to my assistance, and for a moment, it was just him and me. He could have easily stabbed me and caused great bodily harm or even killed me. Luckily a companion of his happened by and ushered him away before anything happened.
The message to me was clear: in a sudden crisis of a life or death nature, don't count on any help from others.
Most people will never have this kind of experience, but if it does happen, possession of a concealed handgun may just save your life. I see no problem with someone who is just wearing a gun in public. Of more concern to me are the guns that you can't see which are carried by criminals and malcontents.
-
The firearm is not the tool one should fear. Rather it is the pen wielded by a weak minded politician that has caused the greatest suffering, misery and death in all of recorded human history.
-
I own firearms, and am contemplating getting a concealed-carry permit. Concealed carry has a purpose, and that is for personal protection and security without visibility--it won't upset others. Open carry is a reasonable option, though perhaps not in heavily populated areas. As for knowing who's carrying... there are far and wide implications, for instance, is the one carrying a firearm a person who is being stalked over a long period of time? Does this person have very dangerous working conditions? It seems there may be a long, long list of reasons why concealed carry should remain as private information. I guarantee that those who want to outlaw guns will always argue against concealed carry or open carry. They will not have a very reasonable position in this discussion.
-
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.
-
In America, the land of Guns and Morals,
You can bring a gun to Starbucks, but the Barrista cannot serve a dollop of Kahlua or Bailey's Irish Cream to a Latte like in Paris.
I guess guns and alcohol don't mix.
Only Leaded Lattes, Not Alcoholic ones.
-
There is no reason for handguns anywhere or anytime for anyone. Hunting sure. Handguns. Ban 'em! Totally.
-
As soon as all the criminals turn in their guns, knives, sticks, give me a call.
-
Hello,
My comment is more about gun rights in general, vs. concealed or not.
It would make me much more comfortable when seeing a weapon to know that the person carrying had a permit, had received initial and periodic training on using the weapon, and had the disposition to know when and when not to use it.
Can your guests or listeners comment on what education is required around gun ownership, and if ongoing education is required?
-
Good point. Unfortunately, far too little training is required for either gun ownership or for a concealed carry permit. Anyone with a clean record can attend a short class and get a concealed carry permit without ever demonstrating proficiency with a weapon. And anyone with a clean record can buy a firearm. I would prefer that gun ownership be treated more like automobile ownership, where one is required to demonstrate both knowledge of the law and proficiency with the tool in question before being allowed to take one out in public. But once one has a driver's license, there are few legal limitations to the vehicles one may possess.
I believe that private citizens should have access to many of the same self defense tools that law enforcement does, but that they should be required to receive adequate training first.
Finally, if Mr. Kirby had been wearing a uniform, would those around him have been any less disturbed?
-
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect. -
I think that if people of color stood around with openly carring weapons on the streets of open carry states, this would be an entirely different discussion.
-
No it would not. Are you racist? There is no point in this debate for racists.
-
who own the parking lot? do the owners have a policy about open carry on their private property?
-
Which parking lot? And whether the property owners have a policy about open carry on their private property may be of little importance if we are talking about a retail space occupied by someone other than the property owner (such as a Starbucks in a leased location). Suppose, for a moment that Hungerdunger, et al. own a strip mall...they lease out all the spaces to a variety of retailers, and have no on-site office, since they are located in another state. Hungerdunger, et al. would have no real means for enforcing such a restriction.
-
When I see someone making a point of packing a gun, I see someone who is scared, who feels impotent to face life's challenges, and who needs a gun to feel strong and powerful.
Frightened people are more likely to have adrenalin pumping the blood into their extremities and out of their frontal lobes that control reasoned action.
That scares me.
-
I have no issue with impotence or feeling weak. I have issue with the fact that criminals strike any and everywhere they choose. My toddler and wife are the reasons I carry as it's my duty as father and husband to protect them. A common, well used phrase that is sadly a truth; 'When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!'
For my own part I believe NOT carrying(concealed) is an injustice to my family. Though I respect your opinion, Virginia, it seems that you're woefully uninformed about why many people carry.
-
I said, "...making a point of packing a gun."
You also make my point, when you say,: "...criminals strike any and everywhere they choose." I don't know where you live or where you take your wife and child, but unless you are routinely taking walks with them at night in high crime areas...
Statistically, your wife is far more likely to get cancer (33/100) than to face a life-threatening criminal in Portland (0.7/100). (Your chance of getting cancer as a male is about 1/2)
Your child is FAR more likely to have developmental and reproductive problems, and die of cancer than they are to be killed by a violent criminal on the streets. (autism is now striking about 1 in every 100 children)
You'd be doing a better job protecting your family by lobbying for getting the toxic chemicals out of our water, air, food and your children's toys.
http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm
http://portlandor.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=32&articleid=58§ionid=268
-
Also, please don't insult my intelligence or that of this audience by trying to say open carry advocates are trying to compensate. How juvenille and childish. We have more important things to discuss, like stopping all of these gangs from killing each other and how to lift them out of thier plight. I am a man of dignity and respect, as you are, let us please show that in this important debate about a fundamental human right!
-
As a pacifist by conviction, I would never carry a gun. However, the right to do so is critical to a free nation, and I would MUCH rather see immediately who is carrying a gun than not. Upfront and honest.
-
kudos from a liberal, I agree!
-
A police officer carrying a weapon has training. In Oregon, no training is required to purchase a gun or open carry.
-
Police officers in Oregon have training all right. Enough to shoot unarmed citizens, or kick and beat to death a mentally ill citizen. Yeah, I feel safer if they had firearms and the rest of us didn't.
-
Police officers in Oregon also have training to deploy their Tazers against exchange students who are unable to comply with their commands due to not understanding spoken English. (Sept 22, Eugene)
-
So, is the solution to ban all weapons except for those used by police officers, or to require training for all people that have a legitimate interest in defending themselves and their families? In my experience, being a police officer does not necessarily make one a more responsible gun owner. How many people have been shot and killed by police officers in the Portland area this year, both in the line of work and as deliberate homicides, versus people shot by non-police? Shocking, considering what a small percentage of the population are in law enforcement!
-
I am better trained than most police.I am a combat vet ex army trained in weapons.Also there is a company in Neveda that trains civilians in weapons and police tactics and machine guns.There are houswives that finish that school that are better trained than some swat.
-
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed ).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect. -
One has to realize that an openly carried gun, while it may be intimidating to some, it is definitely intimidating to the violent criminal element. The criminal element hide both their intentions and their weapons.
-
I grew up in a household with guns, my dad was a cop. I know how to use a gun, and aren't afriad of them.
However, I am alarmed about people in society carrying guns. I'm a petite woman, and I've lived in rough places-- Oakland, CA to Los Angeles... I've never felt like I should have a gun. Guns don't make us safer. I see someone carrying a gun as weak because they have to walk around with a weapon.
My cousin, as a young kid, was killed when some kids were playing with a gun. Mistakes happen. I don't want to risk that in the hope that it might save me.
-
As a child, I slept with a loaded gun rack at the foot of my bed. And yet I NEVER played with guns. Is the solution to preventing accidental deaths to never expose children to guns so they never knwo how to handle them on the off chance they come across one, or to train them from a young age that every gun is a deadly weapon that should never be pointed at anyone you do not intend to kill?
-
I prefer to carry concealed. Guns make many people nervous and I find it easier to just cover up and go about my business. They don’t need to know I have my gun. I do think that mandatory training to carry a weapon is a good idea. We have mandatory standards to drive a car which is a far deadlier weapon by statistics than a gun.
-
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed ).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect. -
In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, governments have been reluctant to regulate the possession of firearms. It is important to remind people that the 2nd amendment restricts the *government's* ability to regulate firearms. This does not extend to individuals or businesses. At my former employer (Intel Corp), having a firearm on the premises (including in a car in the parking lot) is grounds for immediate dismissal. It is also so at my business now. Business owners are within their rights to refuse to serve customers carrying weapons, and to refuse access to their shops or stores.
I think more businesses should do this, and I think Starbucks should be ashamed for going the other direction. I absolutely will not take my children into an establishment that allows carrying of firearms by other than trained law-enforcement officers.
Message: let them carry guns if they must, but not on private property, and refuse to patronize businesses that allow guns on their premises.
-
Starbucks should be ashamed for following the law? Do you advocate not following the law?
Trained law enforcement, like the cop who pulled his weapon in Vancouver at the butcher and threatend the business?
-
How would the average person know the difference between a good gun carrier and someone bent on evil doing?
-
Because I do not hide that I am a gun carrier. Let the criminals hide and let the rest of us be open and honest.
-
Does carrying a gun openly make you a target for someone who is intending to cause trouble?
If someone is threatening violence, do you lose your element of surprise by being open?
-
As a nation, are we made safer by letting every other nation know we have nuclear weapons and a well prepared military, or by developing those in secret?
-
In the history of open carry, there has not been one instance of an individual being targeted by a criminal. As a matter of fact in Kennesaw, GA a crime was averted because of individuals open carrying their firearm.
'Surprise' is an element of OFFENSE. It is not an element of defense, if someone is threatening violence you are already on the defense and you are the one who is surprised.
-
Jim Beal doesn't see any bloodbaths? What about the four officers murdered in Lakewood?
-
That atrocity was committed by a convicted felon. He wanted to kill as many police officers as possible. That situation was an aberration.
-
who could NOT legally possess a firearm, by the way. So more gun laws would help how? How about addressing the Lakewood shooting by speaking to the problem - the "corrrections" system in America.
-
echolynch and cfbednarek, the point is that bloodbaths do indeed occur and are not prevented by trained people carrying loaded weapons.
-
The officers in Lakewood were murdered by a 5 time convicted felon with 8 counts pending that some judge gave bail.He was not obeying the law that convicted felons can't own guns.He also concealed it untill he snuck up on the officers. No law abiding open carrier has ever shot up anything. People like that should never ever get out of jail.Quit blaming me for something a convicted felon did.He was human garbage....That is the kind of person I intend to protect myself from.These that hold up stores or addicts and dealers ,gang bangers should never ,ever be out of jail.Quit blaming folks like me for their actions.
-
And it ws not commited by an open carry advocate or a concealed carry citizen. It was commited by a criminal. Crime, murder, rape happened before guns and it will continue to happen by thugs and criminals. Why does WA Ceasefire spend so much time and energy going after law abiding citizens.
You say you are against gun violence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that any open carry advocate has every commited a violent gun crime. You say that 115 CCW holders have commited gun crimes, well that is 0.001% of the 6 million concealed license holders. AND so small of a number that we can not comprehend compared to the 70 million gun owners. (.00001%) Drunk drivers kill more citizens by far, yet they are still denied thier license to drive. Yes there are bad people who get guns and concealed license's just the same as there are drunks who drive without a license. None of this really address your stated goal of reducing gun violence. Why are you not working to reduce gang violence and suicide prevention, where the majority of gun violence occurs? Gun violence does not happen at Starbucks, it occurs in gangs and the tragic world of suicide!
-
It is a shame that Senator Burdick uses only her emotions to argue against open carry. She presents no facts. The only gun carrying people she should fear are criminals and gang bangers who will misuse guns regardless of the law. People legally carrying guns are the most law abiding citizens in this state.
-
Check the facts: VPC has a tally of alll of the ccw killers.
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
-
People legally carrying guns are the most law abiding citizens in this state.
Yeah...about that. The more time I spend at a range, the less confidence I have in people that own guns. There are no qualifications to own a gun, and an alarmingly large number of gun owners I have run in to are just stupid. They may be law abiding, but they are stupid.
I was a state range in Florida where a group of guys were shooting a Barrett .50 sniper rifle...at a target 25 YARDS away...AND MISSING...ALMOST EVERY SHOT.
I lost count of the number of times I have been at a range with punks just rapid-firing their handguns at targets 7 yards away.
I was at an open range. All of us on the rifle range cleared our rifles and declared the range cold to swap targets. As I was walking down the range a bullet zinged over the wall separating the rifle and pistol ranges and over my head because some idiot was shooting a large caliber rifle at a metal target on the pistol range.
I am a person that owns guns and I do not trust gun people.
-
"I lost count of the number of times I have been at a range with punks just rapid-firing their handguns at targets 7 yards away." -- slakr007
Why were they practicing with a target just 7 yards away? I can only think of one reason -- urban gun-fighting, gang activity.
-
Umm.....I don't think gand members spend alot of time at the range perfecting their technique. If the shooters are missing most of their shots than they should be at the range learning how to use the gun properly.
-
@ Penny and PROZACME
These were not gang members. They were punk college students from the University of Florida showing off their guns to their girlfriends. By "punk", I just mean stupid.
I have only been to one range in Portland, and I was the only person on the range at the time, so I cannot really comment about gun manners here.
But, my point is that for every person that is well trained in guns and goes around advocating that anyone should be able to open-carry a gun, I can produce 10 complete morons that I would not trust with a toaster let alone a hand gun...or, love of whatever you believe in, a .50 caliber sniper rifle. ...they will all be from Florida, but that is inconsequential.
-
Check the facts: VPC has a tally of alll of the ccw killers.http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
ceasefire — Fri April 2nd 9:33a.m.
You say you are against gun violence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that any open carry advocate has every commited a violent gun crime. You say that 115 CCW holders have commited gun crimes, well that is 0.001% of the 6 million concealed license holders. AND so small of a number that we can not comprehend compared to the 70 million gun owners. (.00001%) Drunk drivers kill more citizens by far, yet they are still denied thier license to drive. Yes there are bad people who get guns and concealed license's just the same as there are drunks who drive without a license. None of this really address your stated goal of reducing gun violence. Why are you not working to reduce gang violence and suicide prevention, where the majority of gun violence occurs? Gun violence does not happen at Starbucks, it occurs in gangs and the tragic world of suicide!
-
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. -
@ mac0164
Regardless of how I handled the situation, it does not change the fact that I have encountered many people with, at best, blasé attitudes about firearms. It stands to reason that I have not encountered the last of these people, and so I will never trust a stranger walking down the street with a gun on his hip.
I actually regret saying earlier that I would be OK running into another hunter. After going back over all my experiences at ranges, and even knowing some hunters, I would probably be extremely cautious at best.
Anyway, I am glad your club is safety conscious. Then again, everybody thinks their club is safety conscious, and safety is not the only issue anyway. It is that blasé attitude as well. Those are people that would open-carry if they could with very little consideration beyond following the letter of the law.
So, long story short: I do not know you, and I do not want to be around you and your gun in a Starbucks. I will leave, that's fine. But, it amazes me that people in this forum are calling other people ignorant for being suspicious, concerned, afraid of open-carriers.
-
Ginny's comments about not going to Starbucks because she doesn't want to worry about it don't make any sense. If her concern about going there is because she desires to avoid coming across someone openly carrying a handgun, then shouldn't she avoid anywhere that open carrying is allowed, such as almost anywhere?
-
I guess she wouldn't go anywhere because we are everywhere.After the interview this morning a friend and I stopped for breakfast down the street.We got no reaction ,we can turn up anywhere.Good breakfast by the way...
-
Starbucks stock and business has been on the upswing since WA Ceasefire has gotten in the middle of this. More people know that open carry is legal thanks to WA Ceasefire. And no crimes by open carry advocates has occured.
-
Hundreds of people are killed by bees every year and that's why I'm now hyper vigilant and never go out without a can of raid to defend our public spaces and as a bonus I've found women love the look of a big can of raid tucked into ones pants.
-
Awesome
-
Code yellow? What a terrible way to live life.
-
- The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow.
- For all domestic and international flights, the U.S. threat level is High, or Orange.
-
Peet's is waaay better coffee then Starbucks, and you don't have to look at someone's piece.
-
I would not "run out the door screaming" if I went into a Starbucks and saw someone carrying a gun. But I would leave. Your commentator would likely not know why I left.
If I knew of business that banned weapons, I would be more likely to patronize them instead of places like Starbucks. Unfortunately, Peets is not in Salem.
I see no legitimate reason for carrying a gun in a public place. I know those who believe in guns will think I'm silly, but seeing a gun makes me afraid, and that's just how it is, and I have no real desire to change.
-
Irrational fear.
-
First off, I will NEVER vote for Ginny Burdick EVER after hearing her sillyness on this program. In fact, I will support ANYONE from any party running against her in the next campaign and will donate money to that opposition. Please inform her of that, when she says that Starbucks is making a poor business decision by allowing what is a legal right and allowed by law.
Fear mongering and misinformation is not needed in this debate. If you are going to make statements like the reference just seeing a gun is inherently concerning how about some proof? How does she know? I don't know anyone who inherently is afraid.
-
As far as I am concerned, anyone I see with a gun I avoid as if they are dangerous. Does it affect how people treat them? Because if I see him coming my way, I'm not saying hi, I'm walking the other way because I know nothing about him and he has a weapon that can kill me instantly.
-
"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. -
"Are you afraid of bloodbaths?" What kind of question is that? I doubt you'd find anyone who's had a gun drawn on them answer that in the negative. Really. Think first.
-
If open carry is a legal right, then what difference does it make that some people feel uncomfortable when someone exercises that right. Desegregated public facilities used to make some people uncomfortable, but that didn't mean that minorities had a moral duty to not avail themselves of their right to use them.
-
Fine. Maybe it's not illegal. But, unless you are a law enforcement officer; police. security, etc., there should be NO reason to have to carry gun into a public space. It is absolutely unnecessary. If I end -up in a situation where one of these people thinks they can or should use their weapon, who's to say he/she will be acting in the best interests of everyone there and ot just themselves. If I happened to get in an argument with one of these people, who's to say they wouldn't think it's fine to threaten me with their gun. Guns have the tendency to make every situation more volatile.
-
We live in a highly predatory society and while some people feel safe continuously apparently, many more vulnerable members are not so privileged. The statistics are entirely clear. Gun laws have liberalized again and again nationally and social violence has dropped to the lowest levels since the early 1950s. There are complicated reasons for that but what can be distinctly observed is guns as a rule, do not automatically make every situation more volatile. I've liven in Switzerland where every household has a machine gun and it was continuously peaceful there. It's social equability or lack thereof that makes a society violent.
Ross Eliot, editor
www.AmericanGunCultureReport.com
-
The comments by Mr Eliot are just NRA nonsense. He makes the US sound like Iran. This is the stuff I hear from patients with PTSD.
-
Why do you people think law enforcement and so called security are the only ones competent to carry guns. Like I said I am way better trained than security or some police. They have no more right to self defense than I have.They cannot and willnot protect you.How many crimes are the police there prior to stop them or do they always show up after the fact to investigate what happened.You take alook at how many cops are close by to protect you each minute of each day.They aren't there.
-
"Guns have the tendency to make every situation more volatile."
No they do not and there is no facts to support your assertion. There are 6 million concealed carry citizens and there is not 6 million volatile arguments or shootings. Your fear is your projection of your inner anger.
-
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. -
Your guest said he is carrying a gun for self-defence, but it sounds more like he is playing a cop (the bus incident). I simply don't want a non-cop person to act like a cop.
-
I wasn't playing cop.There wasn't a cop for miles around .I was not not going to allow harm to the driver and then call the cops. This guy was really out of control and I was going to protect myself and those around me untill police came.Fortunately he left and we all went about our day.Why wasn't there a cop on each bus everyday to keep things like that from happening.They are never around when there is a threat.They have to be called first ,then respond,by that time you are a chal;k line on the pavement.
Besides as I said I wouldn't shoot him he wasn't armed or coherent ,however he did pose a danger.My carry pistol weighs about 3 pounds.If he would have hit me or the driver I would in my defense cracked him upside the head with it.
-
The cheap psychodynamic comments of phallic-substitute, inadequacy, power impotence etc, are exactly that...cheap psychodynamic jibes, probably based on ignorance and fear rather than any informed or trained staus.
-
If you do some research, you will find that there is evidence that people who buy Hummers and Hummer-like cars for city driving are personally more insecure, rely on the opinions of others for their sense of self-worth, find the world a dangerous place, and seek passive protected safety. (Sorry, I can't find my link to one such report)
Marketers make their pitch quite deliberately to this demographic. (You're actually safer in a Porsche, or a Volvo wagon, that you can maneuver, than a big, unweildy tank-like vehicle, but appearance and passive (as opposed to active) safety is more important than reality to this consumer.)
I'm guessing that a study of people who need to make a show of carrying a gun into Starbucks to pick up a cup of coffee, would find that they see the world as a scary place - way out of proportion to the real dangers. It's also predictable that in general, they do not feel that they have much control in their lives, and that making a big production of carrying a gun gives them a sense of power that they otherwise lack. (For example, someone with martial arts training, or hostage defusion mediation training would be the equivalent of a Porsche driver....someone who could handle dangerous situations without waving a gun around)
An earlier poster noted that in Alaska, people visibly carry because they face the very real threat of bears, and it makes sense to be prepared. No one thinks twice about someone packing. However, showing off a gun in Starbucks is like driving a Hummer to get to work downtown; it screams, "I need you to think I'm strong and powerful!" That out-of-proportion response to a miniscule real threat (in Portland: seven tenths of one percent chance that you will face criminal violence), is what is legitimately scary to the rest of us.
-
Really its getting old.I have never been insecure.
-
Please don't insult my intelligence or that of this audience by trying to say open carry advocates are trying to compensate. How juvenille and childish. We have more important things to discuss, like stopping all of these gangs from killing each other and how to lift them out of thier plight. I am a man of dignity and respect, as you are, let us please show that in this important debate about a fundamental human right!
There are thousands of women who carry concealed and open, are they inadequate, impotent?
-
There IS a message sent by openly carrying a firearm. The message is that the person carrying the firearm is prepared. Criminals most likely won't knowingly target an armed citizen.
How people feel about guns, that the person carrying is scared or feels impotent, or that other people feel "nervous" around people carrying guns seems irrelevant to this discussion.
-
There IS a message sent by openly carrying a firearm. The message is that the person carrying the firearm is prepared.
No, my mom was never prepared to use the pistol she carried for a short period of time, and I would venture that is the majority of people. Killing someone is not something that most people can do at the drop of a hat. People like to talk tough, but they will never know if they can really pull the trigger until they really have to pull the trigger. And, if you pull your gun, you HAVE to pull the trigger.
One of the guests said he was just going to pull his gun and hit a passenger that was going to attack the driver. Thankfully, the person ran off the bus.
That seriously bugs me. If the person had not run off the bus, what then? The guest admitted he was not prepared to shot the guy. If he had tried to hit the guy, missed, and the guy took his gun, what then?
Bluffing is dangerous, and it scares the s**t out of me that people like that are carrying guns.
-
I use an analogy of guns and dogs to illustrate that fear itself is painful. When someone's big scary dog runs up to me barking and the owner tells me, "Oh, he won't bite," I want to respond, "Oh yeah, and this gun I'm holding to your head isn't loaded either. Feel better?"
Ruby
-
"Oh, he won't bite." I don't believe these people, after all, for everything, there is a first time.
-
I was the guest and I have taken life with a firearm in the past.The guy on the bus could have been subdued with less force than shooting him.We use the minimum of force needed to sudue any attack.But I will and have .I am a combat vet.....I will shoot when needed.
-
Maybe I should buy a lottery ticket. Not only did I have a "first time offending" pit bull latch onto my arm when I was working on a construction site some years ago, I was also right across the the hallway in the Lloyd center when the last shooting happened. As I read earlier from another poster, my chances that day of facing a life-threatening criminal in Portland was 0.7/100.
Do I have a CCW? Sure do. Do I ever carry? I haven't since I became an EMT. I've learned that with as much handling of the firearms is required to keep them maintained and ready for service out and about, the odds of me hurting myself or someone near me is much greater than needing one in public. However, I do keep a gun within reach of my bed at night. And no, I don't have kids.
No matter how careful people are, mistakes happen. I've seen too many mistakes by smart, trained people to outweigh the benefits of having a gun handy, just in case I get lucky enough again to become a statistic. Even if I did have a weapon on me at the Lloyd center, the moron doing the shooting was running away as soon as he was finished spraying bullets randomly. The whole incident took mere seconds. There was nothing anyone could have done, armed or not.
I must be one of the few who are themselves conflicted, as I'm seeing a lot of clear yes or no ideas. Guns have a time and a place, but I simply can't justify the need where I live in Central Oregon.
These days I would only carry (and concealed at that) is if I'm going way out into the wilderness. At that point I'd keep it around more for a survival tool than to protect against bad guys.
I'm vigilant around people who open carry. I have met several very nice people who carry, some of them however aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Therefore, I'm also very aware of where my exits are.
My final thoughts on this are where we are getting into trouble with our conversations is trying to apply broad, sweeping generalizations to a group of individuals. Everything has to be taken into account on an individual basis to make society "safe." I honestly think that some form of IQ / Situational / Manual Dexterity tests should be implemented to create a "safe" society.
A "Safe" society isn't a "Free" society however. I guess we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Be free and take the risk, or be safe and enjoy your serial number.
-
Jim Beal, you say that you are not afraid of anything, yet you carry a weapon in response to shootings in your apartment complex. So are you afraid of being shot or not? Also, why are you still living in a place where people are shooting each other?
-
Possibly the reason Mr. Beal is not afraid is that, by LAW, he is allowed to carry a firearm (openly or not) for his personal protection and he is exercising that right.
The entire world is a place where people are shooting each other. Maybe you can move to the moon?
-
Unfortunately, not every person can afford to move to a nice part of town. It was over 20 years ago that Public Enemy told us "911 is a Joke" and for many communities that's still the truth. Why do poor people choose to live in such dangerous neighborhoods? That's a classic upper class observation. Lower class and underprivileged people are simply forced to rely on themselves more for self defense for the upper classes.
Ross Eliot, editor
www.americangunculturereport.com
-
ross and jason, you are not jim beal, are you? He is old enough to answer for himself. And don't speak for me because you don't know where I have lived. Keep your assumptions and your bullets to yourselves.
-
Why would I let a bunch of thugs intimidate me to move.We had 50 open carriers twice at my apts for BB-Qs (covered by KING and KIRO) .some of those guys don't live here anymore.Stop worring about what criminals think.We don't care .There hasn't been any shootings since.There are more open carriers living here now and it stays peaceful for the most part.
You guys ...take a stand quit letting criminals dictate where you live.If they are in you neighborhood then remove them.Not you.
Not scared but intend to protect myself big difference.
-
This would be an more interersting conversation if we were talking about cellphones. Imagine if Starbucks banned all cell phones in their stores. Sure you can't kill someone with a cellphone short of ramming it down their throat but I think they generate much more rage then guns.
-
There is no constitutionally-protected right to own or carry a cellphone. It's a red herring.
-
Ms Burdick commented that she would get away from a person that she didn't know who was carrying a gun because they could take a life very quickly. If this is true does Ms Burdick not walk along streets or drive a car because an automobile is most definitely a deadly weapon that can kill someone very quickly? Many more people die from automobiles that guns.
-
I have concealed a gun for many years, due to the risk of my job. I own multiple guns, and i am a member of the NRA. I choose to conceal, and make it a point not to let anyone know, because i feel more safe and I feel that people around me do as well. HOWEVER, I also believe that gun owners(especially CPL holders) should be required a psych evaluation, as well as gun training. I know that is unrealistic, but it makes sense
-
Nope No one is fit to decide if I am fit to carry other than me...
-
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect -
All businesses have a right to ask someone to leave if they are making other customers uncomfortable. I would prefer that the Criminal Trespass laws had been used in this case. Likewise, all businesses have the right to prohibit any firearms on premises, but they should post conspicuous signage advising customers of this decision.
I too believe that all citizens should be allowed the same reasonable tools for self defense that police officers are allowed; the flip side of that coin is that they should be required to have adequate training.
I understand that just seeing a holstered weapon makes many people nervous. However, nobody complains about law enforcement, or even private security guards carrying weapons. Wearing a uniform does not necessarily make someone more responsible!
Open carry laws are necessary; without them, it would be impossible to legally carry firearms to or from the gun store. Also, handguns are still necessary in many circumstances (even on public lands) for their original purpose: to protect people from wild animals. However, all gun owners should realize that any use of a firearm is potentially deadly, and "with great power comes great responsibility". Seeing someone walking through the woods with a weapon, while initially frightening, is completely reasonable. But there are lots of places where any reasonable person would consider open carry inappropriate: around schools, bars, gambling houses, etc. Mr. Kirby did a disservice to the open carry cause by using his weapon in an irresponsible way. While I believe a criminal trespass notice would have been the proper response, if he had no legitimate business purpose he should not have been there, either with our without a weapon.
-
Your guest just said that he is tired of people telling him what rights he has and doesn't have. Obviously he is not a fan of the constitution, which is the document that does just that. It is this kind of critical thinking inability that we see in the population that demands the right to carry guns in public that frightens me.
-
What Mr. Beal means (I think) is that he is tired of people telling him that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution somehow doesn't apply to him.
-
It is quite obvious that the 2nd Amemdment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. It does not specifiy a right for individual citizens.
-
The Constitution only reaffirms the Rights of Man, natural rights given to us by our creator. Read the whole constitution including the 9th and 10th Amendment, read the Federalist Papers.
-------------------------------
It is quite obvious that the 2nd Amemdment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. It does not specifiy a right for individual citizens.
Engard — Fri April 2nd 10:24a.m.
No, you are wrong. US Code 18 defines the 'militia' as all able bodied males from the age 18 to 45. The National Guard and the Reserves did not exist in 1791. Move on with that uninformed argument.
-
actualy the constitoution says what ever it wants. The supreme court interprets the constitution for us (represenative democracy and all) so the wording of it and the specific wording doesn't realy matter what matters is how the court interprets it. Currently the court says that the 2nd amendment DOES cofer an individual right independent of the militia. So stop this pointless argument. If you don't like the court composition then vote to change it through your choice of reps and president.
-
actualy the constitoution says what ever it wants. The supreme court interprets the constitution for us (represenative democracy and all) so the wording of it and the specific wording doesn't realy matter what matters is how the court interprets it. Currently the court says that the 2nd amendment DOES cofer an individual right independent of the militia. So stop this pointless argument. If you don't like the court composition then vote to change it through your choice of reps and president.
igot it — Sat April 3rd 8:09a.m.
No. Not currently....always, since 1791 the Court (by being silent), the Congress (USC Tiltle 10) and the Executive (numerous quotes from Washington, Jefferson all the way to present, including Obama) ALL have restated this natural and Constitutional right. Therefore, the only way to alter it constitutionaly is via an Amendment to the constitution.
-
Ok so here we go off topic buuuut.....got to disaggre GoDawg. The silence of the supreme court is not an interpretation of anything. The court can only rule on specific cases brought before it. The recent case involving Washington DC's de facto gun ban (and thats EXACTLY what it was, no matter what my fellow democrats might say.) Was the first time that I am aware that the specific issue of indivdual second amendment rights, was addressed.. There have been other descions that did away with federal gun restrictions (gun free school zone anyone....completley stupid by the way) or peicemealed legislation. For the most part the states have been given pretty free riegn over their citezens gun rights. The supreme courts silence on these issues untill recently, is how we ended up in the crazy situation were in now, this poorly written washinton law just the latest example. Sorry for the wordy reply.
-
No, actually the silence of the court is important. Cases have come up to the Appelate courts and the USSC has let the lower courts ruling stand. Also, the USSC has 'judicial review' (Marbury v Maddison).
Correct in refering to the GFZ act that was ruled unconstitutional.
Correct that for the most part the states have been left to decide their own laws concerning guns.
-
While the court has not ruled such things as the 1934 NFA , The Roberti-Roos act numerous Assualt Weapon Bans all of which happened at the federal level. I'm not saying that the court endorsed these laws I'm simply saying they didn't find sufficent issue to rule on them. The recent 2nd amendment ruling is the only Supreme court ruling that I know of dealing with the second amendment specificaly. Other rulings were based on interstate commerce, etc.l
-
Dear Ms Harris,
Thanks for another(!) very interesting program, on 4/2/10.
The NRA's mantra of "self protection," bka carrying loaded weapons openly or concealed, is unquestionably a euphemism for vigilante justice. If vigilante justice were such a resounding success, nationwide law enforcement, including in Oregon, would have long since incorporated it into their crime fighting arsenal.
Vigilante justice, if indeed it is ever appropriate, DOES NOT require weapons. The courageous passengers who prevented Richard Reid from committing his heinous crime guaranteed the Constitutional Rights of everyone on board: Passengers' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; as well as Mr. Reid's right to a trial by jury. A random bullet at 25,000 feet fired by an alcohol-incapacitated, weapon-carrying passenger would have certainly brought Reid's plan to fruition.
What are the the statistics re the percentage of proactive gun violence injuries/deaths, versus the percentage of actual self-defense injuries/deaths? In Portland? In Oregon? In the US?
Geoff Godfrey
Newberg, OR
godfreykitty@yahoo.com
-
How are you going to get a gun on an airplane?
-
Do you count the police shootings of unarmed citizens as "proactive gun violence" or "actual self defense"?
-
Firing a pistol on an aircraft will not cause catastrophic failure of the airframe. This has been the subject of several tests. All that happens is a barely discernable loss of air pressure...quickly rectified by the on board sensors.
-
America has become a sick nation. In a land that brags about freedom, yet one is encouraged to carry a gun, then something is very wrong with our society. Never have I owned a gun in my entire 67 years on this planet. Nor will I ever enter any of the Starbuck or Pete's coffee franchises again (I have been shopping at Starbuck for over 25 years) because of their blatant effort to make more money by encouraging males that have a problem in their psychological makeup that seems to need a gun to empress others or to obtain some sort of recognition they lack or in their lives. Perhaps this is a base way of impressing women whom they have had no success with in their lives. These types of people need a gun to impress or to relieve the constant fear they live with. If this is the case, and it is, then three months of psychological evaluation should be required for obtaining a gun permit. Background checks don't work! We have had to many random shooting by God fearing Christians in this country in public places where this should not be taking place. And, the NRA should be taken to task for encouraging this fear-gun problem, in essence, what they are promoting is chaos and a way for the people whom produce firearms to make more money for them and their investors - it's about money period and not about protecting ones well being. From now on I plan to have my coffee latte' at home away from the gun coffee tooting coffee houses of America.
-
Then leave my country.
-
How constructive echolynch. I guess we can only have a conversation if we all agree with you?
-
I take it then, echolynch, that you are a direct descendant of Kennewick Man? Because I'm pretty sure it was his country first.
-
Last time I checked, 35,000 people die a year in motor vehicle accidents. Driving somewhere to advocate open-carrying guns for safety just seems silly.
-
Mr Beal is deluding himself when he says that "no one has gone running from Starbucks" because they saw him come in carrying a weapon. I have left an establishment when a person like Mr Beal enters. I don't want to be in proximity to someone who is so self-absorbed and carrying a deadly weapon. He also says that people approach him and are pleased that open-carry is the law while no one has approached him to voice their objection. REALLY! I don't know anyone who would approach a man Mr Beal's size and try to have a conversation about the irrationality of open-carry laws. Please, Mr Beal and friends, think outside of your little box and consider another person's feelings. You are welcome to carry your gun, but I respectfully request that when you are in public places that you put away your firearms
-
I was robbed twice at gunpoint while living in Uganda. I also walked in on an armed robbery at a 7-Eleven when I was 14. In none of those situations would I have wanted someone who thought they needed to "help" the situation by shooting or even carying a gun. What is called for is staying as calm as possible, not carrying a gun. I am absolutely convinced that these people are not making us more safe they are making us less safe.
-
Right... and our government should get rid of all those nuclear weapons too, because they are making us less safe... do police officers carrying weapons make us less safe? Does a uniform make anybody more responsible or less human? Granted, there are people who SHOULD NOT be allowed to possess firearms. But there are also many responsible, well-trained individuals (ex-military and ex-law enforcement) who should.
-
I quite agree with this opinion.
-
Open carry is a growing movement partially in response to gun-prohibition movements, probably due to an a awakening via information through the Internet.
-
A gun is a deadly weapon and the visual presence of a gun will escalate any situation. The notion that guns somehow make any situation safer, and that there is no need to be alarmed by an exposed weapon, is preposterous. If someone has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, one can be protected without alarming everyone in the area. I support the right to own personal firearms and carry them if necessary, but the psychological impact of viewing deadly weapons should't be ignored. The fellow on the store is saying that it is not his problem if people are "scared of their own shadows". I don't see any reason to permit this kind of intentional intimidation.
-
Intimidation is something done to other people. If peolpe are frightened by the mere passive prescence of a weapon thats a response from them. It's not his fualt that people are scared. I carry concealed beacause I don't wan't people to freak out. It's out of respect for thier ignorance that I do so.
-
@ igot it
I've posted over and over again that I have plenty of experience with handguns, rifles, and shotguns. I used to shoot skeet, I own authentic WWII firearms, I regularly practiced handgun shooting before moving here, I have taken safety courses, and I have been around plenty of gun owners.
All of that experience has taught me one thing: do not trust a person with a gun.
I do not know you, I do not know your experience with guns...specifically the one you are carrying, I do not know your level of marksmanship, I do not know how emotionally stable you are, I do not know what you consider a threat to you or your family, in short: I do not trust you with a gun. Period.
Do you trust people on the road? More training is required to drive a car than to own a gun and both are deadly weapons. I guarantee you drive under the assumption that others on the road have no idea what they are doing. That's defensive driving, it is good practice. Yet, you claim it is ignorance for people to be suspicious of other people carrying guns.
In fact, it is ironic that people like you claim you carry guns for safety. You have an overblown fear of that 0.5% chance you might be a victim of a violent crime and then have the audacity to tell someone she is ignorant for being afraid of some random guy walking around with a gun on his hip.
-
@slak_r007
"All of that experience has taught me one thing: do not trust a person with a gun." It sounds from your post that you relly don't trust anyone period. I agree with you. >05% sounds about right actualy...unfortunatley in that .05% of the time...the gun is your best chance. Don't take away the tool best suited for the task.
-
And so we have it. If you live in Portland and openly wield an Xacto knife, you will be shot to death by the police (especially if black or homeless). But if instead you wield a pistol, all is OK. Good grief! How did we end up here?
-
An Xacto knife can be just as deadly a weapon as gun. If a white, middle class, well dressed articulate male with a gun is meanacing a cop I expect the cop to shoot him. I agree that it is sad that distrubed indivdual was killed but the cop did exactly what he should have done, he did what he was trained to do and he did what we hired him to do when it was decided we needed police officers.
-
"Wielding" means to hold in one's hand, in preparation for being used. If you do "wield" a handgun, except to prevent the use of deadly force by another, you are guilty of menacing, and will be arrested for it. I'd prefer a taser had been used on the homeless man instead of a gun, but there is a big different between threatening someone with a weapon and merely possessing one. Had the homeless man not been advancing on a police officer with a razor blade held out in front of him, he would not have been shot.
-
Your open packing guest's denial of fear as a reason for packing was contradicted in his very next sentence. My dad carries a concealed weapon and he will never tell you that it is because he is fearful. It is not a "manly" reason. But a longer conversation with him will tell you that it is fear that motivates him to carry. I think you will find that a majority of carriers would associate themselves with republican/conservative political leanings. Studies have shown that those that associate with those political leanings are more fearful of the unknown and change. Fear. I can understand it, I just don't relate as much to that way of living.
-
Fear vs. terror, or caution vs neurosis. Mr Beal did not sound terrified or neurotic. He sounded cautious. He might even have fire extinguishers in his home...or his car. Can you imagine that?
-
I do have extinguishers in my home.......
-
How much training and what kind of background checks are required in Oregon and Washington to openly carry a weapon, carry a weapon concealed, or even buy a weapon? No training is legally required to buy a weapon in Oregon.
-
A few hours of safety training, and an extensive background check, are required to get a concealed handgun license in Oregon. Only a cursory background check is required to purchase a gun. No training is required for open carry, but you must be legally permitted to posses a gun to carry it.
-
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect. -
When I see people carrying guns, and I recently saw someone in Starbucks in San Francisco, immediately, I had a reaction that this person has an internal need show that they have power. And the only way to gain this respect is by carrying a gun.
It makes me wonder immediately about their past, and really how much this person is really the type who should have that gun. If they will go as far as purchasing this gun and wearing it in public, I do believe that we should fear this person in the first place. In other words, how far they choose to go to show off the gun may signify how far they will go in a "situation". They are not heros in my eyes.
Signed AK
-
What about their past is important to you, and what is "the type who should have a gun?" Celebrities and government designees? Is the regular American citizen qualified to openly carry a firearm, or must the person be wearing a uniform for you to feel safe?
-
In today's society there is not rational reason a citizen should be carrying a weapon, outside of employment requirements, such a police or those who transport money or prisoners.
Anyone else is a hazard to the average citizen.
-
As an ex-Army Armorer, I have no problems with guns. But as a health care provider (PA-C), I find it quite disturbing that any individual, in an urban setting should feel so unsafe that he/she have a desire to carry any firearm for protection.
This is no longer the old west, where a large percentage of the citizens visited bars, got drunk and carried gun.
Vancouver/Clark County is not an appropriate community to carry a weapon, unless he/she is a police officer or an armored car crew member.
-
Would actual documented incidents of self-defense in Vacouver /Clark counties, by concealed or open carriers, change your opinion of the propriety to carry as a nonpolice/non armored car crew member?
-
Even in the "Old West" when one entered a saloon, they were asked to 'check their iron' at the door. Usual exceptions to that rule were the Sheriff and the Marshal. (Gunsmoke, for example... yes, yes, I know, it was a TV show.)
-
If it is appropriate for a police officer to defend ones own life, then clearly Vancouver and Clark County are not as safe as you think. Crime does not happen on a schedule sir, please ask victims of crimes in Vancouver.
-
Why did you sit there and massage this idiot's ego? He was nothing more than fear-filled, ignorant WHITE TRASH. The more we tolerate these outrageous people, the more emboldened they are to making our culture even more coarse than it is.
These jerks want to carry guns around to intimidate others. There's no reason he needs to carry that other than to make a political point.
Here's my bit of coarseness. I hope that the people injured by the gun nut's weapons are their own children, not someone else's.
-
Speak the Progressive message loud and clear, Dino. Let your light shine for all to see and know the Truth, and keep on with the zero tolerance for the insufferably intolerant ignorant white trash scumbags, may they shoot their own children. You are a Beacon, sir.
-
And those that carry who are black? Those that carry with a college degree? Those that carry that are gay?
Intimidate criminals? Yes. To the rest of our civilized society, I am polite, professional, courteous and kind. Have you been the victim of crime?
And now Dino, you wish harm upon other's children? Perhaps an inner look into your being is needed.
-
I'd like to thank Jim Beal for his well-considered thoughts and to everyone who participated. As an Oregon voter, Ms. Burdick has lost my vote, although I thank her for being open about her opinions. I am much more frightened by her than I would by meeting Jim Beal in a Starbucks with his openly-carried firearm. His presence would actually comfort me. It is people like Ms. Burdick who seek to give away the rights our forefathers fought and died for that scare me to the core.
-
I am a lifelong liberal and democrat. I have a CWP permit and worked as a range officer at a shooting range for 6 years. We used to carry openly (mainly for the oppurtuinty to shoot on lunch breaks ;)) I am not a vigalantee or a loose cannon.Carrying a concealed weapon has made me much more cautios about conflict and bad sitations because I know the potential consequence of them. I can tell you from personal experience that a gun is seldom the answer. But the truth is that in the tiny percent of cases when it is needed it is the only tool for the job. I carry concealed because I don't want to make it an issue, and scare the uneducated.
-
And your right to carry concealed is respected sir! Carry on!
-
No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).
Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.
You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.
You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.
And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.
YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.
We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect. -
I think that concealed carry permits should have more stringent requirements. A competency portion would also be nice. Mind the cost of what you wish for though, a license already costs a couple hundred bucks to get. Concealed carry permit holders should be held to a higher standard than other gun owners. Permits should remain "shall issue". Open carry is more tricky though. When I originaly got my chl open carry was understood to be "legal but stupid". It was technicaly legal but you ran the risk of being subject to all the town ordinances and city "policies" etc. State preemption protected chl holders from that nonsense. It was kind of neat chl "perk". Now everything seems a little unclear legalwise.
-
Mr. Fascitelli,
You say you are against gun violence. Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that any open carry advocate has every commited a violent gun crime. You say that 115 CCW holders have commited gun crimes, well that is 0.001% of the 6 million concealed license holders. AND so small of a number that we can not comprehend compared to the 70 million gun owners. (.00001%) Drunk drivers kill more citizens by far, yet they are still denied thier license to drive. Yes there are bad people who get guns and concealed license's just the same as there are drunks who drive without a license. None of this really address your stated goal of reducing gun violence. Why are you not working to reduce gang violence and suicide prevention, where the majority of gun violence occurs? Gun violence does not happen at Starbucks, it occurs in gangs and the tragic world of suicide!
-
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but down-rignt force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
-Patrick Henry
I believe we are at a turning point in the history of our country, like it or not this one is here to stay and the silent majority chooses to no longer remain silent. The silent sheeple however will be assimilated. If you do not believe that just look around at the policies of our so called homeland security. We are being conditioned as a society to accept and appreciate the policies of a police state all in the name of safety. After all, I suppose someone has to protect us from ourselves.
-
I live in Oregon, I've had a CHL for 4 years. I carry concealed most of the time. At work I carry open sometimes, my employer is fine with that. When I see someone open carry in public I find my self wanting to ask them about there gun and what kind of ammo the use.
The only time I'm concerned about open carry for myself is when I'm going into stores. Mostly I just keep in concealed.
I do want to bring something up however.
According to State law in Oregon a CHL holder may carry in ANY public place except Court houses, Native land and Federal buildings.
OSU and U of O are public places as is the Portland Airport and the Malls yet they display signs posting even CHL holders cannot carry on there property.
This is illegal correct?
I have read a few story's about people getting arrested then released but not convicted for conceal carry in such places. So is it my understanding they just want to scare people off that have the right to carry?
I would like this to be clear and printed so I can carry a copy on me if I was harassed, not that I'm looking for trouble I just want to be prepared.
Thanks
Matthew
-
Not a lawyer but.... CAREFUL here. You are mostly correct in your reading of the chl portion of the ORS. Mall's are genraley private property. There have been free speech rulings defining them as "public places" but the text of the CHL statute is more narrow. The section related to public place in the Chl statute is pretty clearly spelled out. I say be careful because carrying a firearm into an area posted no firearms is criminal tresspass ( no warning needed first). As opposed to simple tresspass. You can go to jail for that. Schools probably have no justification for denying firearms on the premise, since they are specifically mentioned in the CHL statute. I believe there is a case in the courts related to that now. Airports have a complicated jurisdiction that puts them partly under federal control and in todays enviornment....don't be an idiot. If you carry your pistol into PDX your getting arrested tased and pepper sprayed...if your lucky. There are lots of other places that do post with the posting having no legal authority. You really have to know what entity owns the place your talking about. Take hospitals for instance, Salem memorial has a sign that says no weapons. Pack there and you could get cited. OHSU is a different story. It's a hospital that is state administered and it's a school....as you can see it can get complicated. State parks used to have signs that said no weapons untill they figured out it wasn't legal. Just make sure you do your homework first. The preemption clause in the CHL statute is pretty hard for agencies to get around....but private property can do whatever they want.
-
Comments are now closed.
I grew up in a place (Oregon) and era when I could take guns to school in my truck and park in the school parking lot. We could even bring them into the school for a reason such as building a rifle stock in shop class.
I can walk around down town in my home town with a revolver on my belt or a rifle on my shoulder. As such I note weapons but do not feel confronted when someone is carrying one any more than I would by a drill, chain saw or other tool.
When hunting, it is not unusual when up in the mountains to pick up an armed stranger and give them a ride back to camp. I think the perception is foreign to many people unaquainted with firearms but very familiar to the majority of people familiar with firearms.