Seriously, 100% true. I was living in the Parkrose area at the time. Renting my parents house actually, until our home in Clackamas was built.
The theory is that the bad guys will think twice about messing with anyone if there's a random chance that person is armed.
I'm skeptical of guns as an effective way of self protection. I think you are better off just getting a dog or a stun gun.
I like the way the RNC's site display's the area Obama approved for oil drilling like it was "approved" to be drilled but Obama blocked it. Spin Much? The Way Republicans Portray It Actual Newly Approved Area
First, they would know they are carrying a gun, cause they walk around with it showing so everyone can see. So, it wouldn't be a "random" chance they were armed, the bad guy would know they are armed. When I see people walking around with exposed guns I feel afraid for my own safety because I don't know that person, and I don't know what their intentions might be. Secondly, if I am a gun carrying drug dealer and I see someone with a exposed holster gun and I have a gun, I know that I can surprise this person by shooting him first cause I am going to take his gun and sell it for a profit. This makes it more likely that someone carrying a gun will bring about more danger for the people around him. Lastly, if someone wants to keep guns in their home for self protection (like MM) I'm cool with that. But when you go out walking around with it you have to realize the potential danger you are putting others in. I work in a bank. I have one particular customer who spent 18 months in Vietnam, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He now is a jeweler and often carries over 6k in gold and diamonds with him, and I see him everyday. He wears an exposed hand gun everywhere he goes. If he was in the bank and someone came in to commit a robbery I have no doubt he would open fire on the robber, he has shoot three people in his pawn shop that he used to own in Detroit. But what he doesn't realize is that if someone is robbing the bank I wouldn't give two shits about the money. I would empty the vault and send them on their way because (1) the money is insured and (2) I don't want to put anyone in harms way.
I was speaking to concealed carry laws, where it looks like states that allow it have lowered crime rates since enacting those laws. Open carry? Seems like it is like wearing a bulls-eye.
I am going to say yes for two reasons. 1. When I screamed like a girl hoping to scare him, he pulled something from his jacket that looked like a weapon. Fot all I know though, it could have been a banana. 2. He shot and killed two people when he was robbing their house. Now whether he was or not doesn't matter to me. Don't come in my fucking house and try to take shit that isn't yours, or I will shoot you. You are no asset to society anyway.
Did you have reason to believe he was afraid of girls? But that was after you shot him, right? Perhaps that experience convinced him to start carrying a gun. It certainly doesn't seem to have convinced him to stop robbing houses. barfo
The armed march on Washington occured without incident. The marchers that were armed never actually crossed the river into D.C. and their weapons were not loaded apparently. They had about 2000 people turn out. Link
Good for them. It's nice to see a large group of people with guns walking around and have no incident. Maybe some OTHER groups of people can see that and start doing the same.
All it takes is one idiot. A march of 100,000 people with unloaded guns and a peaceful purpose can become something radically different if only ONE person in the crowd lied about his gun being unloaded and tries to make a statement.
I didn't think the idea of arming people in support of the 2nd amendment was a good idea. Many of the marchers got their point across without packing heat. There's no reason the rest of them couldn't have done the same. I'm glad it was peaceful though.
Who cares about hypotheticals? People were wringing their hands about what they perceived was POSSIBLE, and now (even though nothing untoward happened) they are retroactively upset at the perception of what was possible? People drive on the freeway every day, and all it takes is one person in a car trying to make a statement, and the commute gets radically different. Does that mean that we should make people take public transportation and only drive cars on their own real property? The idea that individuals cannot peacefully protest merely because of the presence of handguns is silly to me. This the same kind of thinking that has people calling the Tea Party "teabaggers"... people are just waiting for something--anything--to go wrong so they can point and say "I told you so". Ed O.
Things could have gone bad and there are a bunch of "what-if"s we could ask but I don't get the point of bringing guns to a march. Are they trying to intimidate politicians? Are they trying to accustom people to the sight of guns in public areas? Do we need aborted fetuses at pro-choice rallies? Do we need kushy dank nuggets at pro-marijuana marches? Some marches can be peaceful but violence erupts when tempers get heated (which is why I think they stipulated that every gun be unloaded). Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
A few reasons right off the top of my head reasons: 1. Because they can. 2. To get attention to their cause. 3. To deflate the notion that violence is necessarily caused by the presence of guns. There are plenty of pictures of fetuses at pro-life rallies, and plenty of pot smoking at pro-marijuana marches. I understand your position. I think that you are too sensitive to the use of firearms by the vast majority of the law-abiding population. Ed O.
All it's gonna take is one moron at one of these Tea Party pro-gun rallies to open up either on the crowd or the "authority figures" to set the "right to bear arms" movement back several decades. That's all I'm saying. These groups are playing with fire by their actions, and they have no one else to blame other than themselves if they get burned.
