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

You don't need to "check the population." Owners of private property (like a company) are fully within their rights to disallow weapons on the premises. Company policies disallowing concealed weapons are perfectly legal and enforceable.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Extensive background investigations are made before a Concealed Handgun License is issued. They also have to be renewed every four years.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Because, our society can be fixed, but it hasn't been fixed yet.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

It seems your preference for "fully-flavored writing" clouds your ability to understand [b]plain[/b] writing!

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

There is no permit required to own a firearm. Restricting firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens does nothing to increase public safety.

This line of reasoning is absurd. A gun is not a deadly object. It is not inherently dangerous, like enriched uranium or ebola virus. A gun must be used by a person in order to cause harm.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Given that both of these natural freedoms are protected by the Bill of Rights, it would seem that they are!

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

You should be asking about things like that anyway. You might assume, though, that parents with firearms are responsible enough to store them where their own children can't get to them. I would advise you to use your judgement. Responsible, trustworthy people are still responsible and trustworthy if they have firearms in the house.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I second Tom's assessment. Call law enforcement and have them deal with him.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The possibility that a person has a concealed handgun is the deterrent, not the certainty. That possibility protects you just as well as it protects the person who actually carries a concealed handgun.

On the other hand, if a gun is left in the home, it cannot defend itself. Criminals who know where CHL holders live can wait for them to leave their home undefended, and burglarize it in the hopes of finding guns.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

ANYONE that you see walking down the street may be carrying a gun. You are focused too much on the gun. What you should be assessing is the character of the person. Keep your kids away from people of low character, and they will be fine, gun or no gun.

As you so eloquently point out, a gun is a weapon, a thing. Guns don't cause violence. Weapons are tools that equalize people. It doesn't matter if you are young or old, weak or strong, male or female, handicapped or able-bodied, all are capable of effectively using a firearm to defend themselves against anyone else.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

A civilized society? As soon as there is no danger that I will be a victim of violent crime in this "civilized society" that we live in, I will feel no need to use a tool that gives me an advantage or puts me on equal footing with some of my less-than-law-abiding fellow citizens.

I think it is "pure cowardice" to shirk your civic duty by not doing your part to protect our civil society against criminals. Do you rely on the police to protect you? There is a Supreme Court ruling that the police have no duty to protect any individual person. The police are good people and do a good job tracking down criminals and bringing them to justice, but they cannot protect you and your family from that particular criminal invading your home.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Making CHL records public would have no effect. There are many, many more households with guns in them than there are households with CHL holders in them. There is no extensive background check and no training required for someone to simply purchase a gun. Singling out CHL holders discriminates against them for no reason. I would say that households with CHL holders living in them experience a far lower rate of gun violence than households in general.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context