JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
These people are a waste of time. They live in an alternate 'reality' where gun control and gun free zones somehow magically are supposed to save lives. They do not.

In the cases they mention, there may have been a CC person or two, but they ignore some key factors such as: those shooting locations are largely considered to be 'gun free zones', which means the number of potential CC folks are very limited. They miss the fact that most CC'ers are not equipped, nor do they carry for the purpose of confronting a heavily armed shooter - they are carrying primarily to defend themselves and their family. And, they miss the fact completely that if CC was allowed in a big way in these types of spaces, just the very fact that CC is known in a space makes that space less likely to be attacked IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Screw Ceasefire and P. Okomoto. They are going to be responsible for getting more people killed in the name of 'safety'.

latest?cb=20150801022141
 
Ceasefire Oregon: lying expatriates bastardizing the constitution through twisted semantics. (or worse)
To suggest that the ability or even the desire to protect your family and yourself means you must also be able to personify the trained warrior is absurd.
I've been to war, still have unwanted dreams from an unwanted war, but am a long gone warrior.
Still, as long as my arthritic hands can fend off evil it is my duty be as prepared as possible.
That notwithstanding, the (so far) legally permitted enhanced power within my grasp is for the protection of my family, and then myself, if I am so able.
In the event I may safely (for others) be of assistants to others in danger, I will do so without expectation of reciprocity and full acceptance of responsibility.
I pity all who would rather be a victim, than fight for life.
I weep for the weaker family members of able bodied elders whom would idly sit by and allow carnage to be reaped upon their children when reasonable and effective means of protection could be at their fingertips.
Exercising the first amendment:
Ceasefire Oregon associates are cowards and inconsequential lower forms of human beings, the protection of whom I'll take exception, and no risk.
If I am privy to their presence during battle, their on their own, albeit I wish no one harm.
 
I'd like to point out one more HUGE, GLARING, EXCLUSION in their thinking. Let's say that what they say is correct, and no CC holders have stopped a mass shooting. Allowing for the fact that maybe they didn't act because they couldn't (would potentially hit someone else), weren't able to get in a good position, or simply weren't in a place to engage the target, the possibility at lease existed that someone might have been able to stop them.

However, in their point of view, all areas would be gun free, which means there would be EXACTLY ZERO CHANCE that someone might be able to stop the shooter.

Their logic - since no one has done it before, we should ban all guns to everyone, everywhere. Well, except to dangerous bad guys, because at that point, only they will have them, and, of course, they won't obey the gun free zones.
 
Exactly! They were not even in the same room when the shots were fired!

Skimmed over the first two then stopped reading their BS propaganda. The premise is even stupid.

Bad guy would have to have shot 4 people first,(mass shooting =4 or more shot), then be put down by cc holder to score a point in their twisted game.

If the bad guy only drew his weapon or only shot three people before he was killed by a cc holder, then we will never know if the bad guy would have shot more people.

Who's to say in those cases that the cc holder didn't stop a mass shooting?
 
Like I told the guy at work the other day. If a madman comes in to the movie I'm watching and unloads I'm not going to engage. I'm going to lay down (move towards exit if possible) and if he/she comes around to my area I'm going to unload into the sob and hope it puts them down.
 
I'll add, how many CC without a permit that will only draw if their own life is in danger?
I knew a woman (now deceased) who carried w/o a permit.
If in a room where trouble found her she was ready, but She'd never go one step out of her way to save another I'm thinking. She'd end up in Jail.
 
I love how they fail to mention those concealed carriers that used discretion in those situations, which by the way cease fire would have bubblegumed about as well had a by stander been hit. :mad:

Omitting facts in reports like this should be illegal.
 
New Trajectory said:
I've posted before on the ridiculous assertion of the "conceal carry hero," such as after the Aurora theater shooting, or after the Sandy Hook shooting.
But there is no basis to this myth. Not one mass shooting has been stopped by a conceal carry "hero" who wasn't law enforcement or a security guard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-had-gun-wounded-hospital-shooter-pennsylvania-prosecutor-says/

the hospital the doctor worked at was a gun free zone as he was carrying against hospital policy.
 
I read somewhere also that recently a NY city cab driver shot an armed gunman - it was in a recent news feed but cant find it here.

Nevertheless, I cringe when I read, ""When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim."" I equate it to drivers - how many times do you see drivers make mistakes by going down one way streets along with all the other infractions. People are stupid - admit it. We may see a decline in say terrorist throughput but an increase in Oops I thought the gun wasn't loaded just like I thought the gas pedal was actually the brake before I plowed through a convenient store.

CC works for the right people. not everyone.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top