Mollalla divided after patrol walk with guns

[slimmer13]

Long gun, I understand and partally agree with the taboo. As far as the oc of handguns go though, I can't get behind any negatively towards it whatsoever. I do it myself from time to time depending on what combination of what I want to carry with what holster with what clothes I feel like wearing

To be honest, I doubt 9 out of 10 people even have the situational awareness to notice, and out of the remaining 10% some approve, some figure I'm a cop, some are indifferent, and a small percentage disprove (I imagine because no body has expressed disapproval).

In the last five years I have gone from rarely seeing OC around town, to at least once or twice weekly.

Does it help? Not sure but I firmly disagree with the notion that it hurts, at least in my corner of the world.

 

[Libertas7]

I'm only in Molalla (not mollalla or mollala) once or twice a week but this is the first I've heard of it, makes me wonder just how big this "divide" really is. I'll keep my ears open. There probably is some people making a stink about it, Molalla has had a surge of people moving here (don't know why), undoubtedly at lest a few are antis. We're still vary rural here, lots of guns. If carrying, openly or not, discourages antis from coming here that's great. If it makes the ones already here want to fight instead of going back to where they came from then I say lets start this fight before more antis show up.

As for the walk, I'd like to know how open they'll be with the time for the next one. If the criminals know that kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[PaulB47]

Moreover, who said having people get used to seeing guns is the answer to protecting our 2nd Amendment rights??

Well... you did. Just look a couple posts back. At least you didn't disagree with the premise.

"Getting used to seeing guns" as in "not being concerned about seeing guns", yes I agree that that is a good idea. If I believed in rights I would say that is a good way to protect them; obviously if people are unconcerned then they are not going to lobby for restrictions. Even though I don't believe in rights, I still think it is a good thing that people are unconcerned about seeing guns. Then I won't have to shoot anybody, trying to take mine away.

As a practical matter, if somebody sees something that he is told should scare him, for the first time, he will probably be scared and call the cops. If he sees it another time, and nothing bad happened last time, he might be a little less inclined to call the cops. If he sees it 10 times, and nothing bad ever happened before, he will probably stop calling cops, and may even decide his worry was unwarranted. This is natural for all organisms that have a brain. They figure out some things are dangerous, but they can't go thinking everything is dangerous, when that doesn't jive with actual experience. It would be contrary to their interests to continue thinking so.

 

[Koda]

Well... you did. Just look a couple posts back. At least you didn't disagree with the premise.

"Getting used to seeing guns" as in "not being concerned about seeing guns", yes I agree that that is a good idea. If I believed in rights I would say that is a good way to protect them; obviously if people are unconcerned then they are not going to lobby for restrictions. Even though I don't believe in rights, I still think it is a good thing that people are unconcerned about seeing guns. Then I won't have to shoot anybody, trying to take mine away.

As a practical matter, if somebody sees something that he is told should scare him, for the first time, he will probably be scared and call the cops. If he sees it another time, and nothing bad happened last time, he might be a little less inclined to call the cops. If he sees it 10 times, and nothing bad ever happened before, he will probably stop calling cops, and may even decide his worry was unwarranted. This is natural for all organisms that have a brain. They figure out some things are dangerous, but they can't go thinking everything is dangerous, when that doesn't jive with actual experience. It would be contrary to their interests to continue thinking so.

the problem with this theory is people have been "concerned" about guns since the day they were invented, this debate is as old as guns are and will never go away, even in the wild west many towns prohibited carrying guns

Im not saying that in any opposition to open carry, just stating a fact... that open carry is never going to "normalize" everyone into seeing guns and can in some places backfire on us politically.

 

[kilimanjaro]

These guys could easily accomplish their stated mission by carrying concealed. Open carry is just creating division in the very population they claim to be protecting. Makes me wonder if this isn't about the community, but about their own egos instead.

 

[The Heretic]

No - I don't think I ever said getting used to seeing guns helps us protect our 2nd amendment rights, and absent voicing disagreement doesn't mean I agree.

There are people who own guns who are anti second amendment.

Q: How many politicians and other people say "I am not anti-gun, I own guns, but we need 'common sense' gun control"?

A: A lot - you see them on TV and on the internet a lot.

These people are not afraid of guns per se, they have them at home. They are afraid (or at least concerned) about other people having guns. I have heard that a lot; they want to keep their guns (usually a hunting rifle or target pistol), they just don't want anybody to have "assault weapons" (as they call them) and they don't want "crazies" to have any guns at all.

So yes, they see a guy with an AR slung over their shoulder (or worse, carrying it at port arms or something similar) walking around with a group of people doing a "neighborhood patrol", they are going to be at least concerned, quite possibly alarmed.

If I saw a stranger or strangers walking down my private road with a rifle(s), I would probably get my own rifle, call my neighbors and challenge the stranger(s) and/or have the sheriff on the phone - and I live in the boonies, not an urban area at all. Of course, a stranger on my private road would be trespassing, but the point is, this is not at all a usual sight even here. Even though I hear gun shots all the time (neighbors shoot and there is hunting), generally people here don't walk on any road with a firearm - if they are hunting or shooting, they do it off the road on property they have permission to hunt on.

 

[Camelfilter]

Yes, neighborhood watch is a reasonable task - but adding OC of a firearm into the mix elevates it to a form of de facto Law Enforcement. It essentially removes the 'watch' part of it and gives it a 'proactive' defensive positioning which is NOT what 'neighborhood Watch' is supposed to be. And what specifically would the carrier of the gun do in the event a crime was observed in progress? I hope nothing because carrying a gun while 'watching' does not give one any legal right to approach or detain someone - especially outside their own property line.

3rd party use of deadly force would be my concern. Never covers property crime.

Unholstering a side arm, or pointing a muzzle would seem to "easy" of an error for an open carry neighborhood watch person to make without a whole heck of a lot of training.

 

[The Heretic]

These guys could easily accomplish their stated mission by carrying concealed. Open carry is just creating division in the very population they claim to be protecting. Makes me wonder if this isn't about the community, but about their own egos instead.

I most definitely think there is some ego involved.

 

[Hawaiian]

See the picture below. If I were to tell you that if I was going to my car in the parking garage at night downtown and he got on the elevator with me that it would not set off my situational awareness alarm and I would not be concerned in the least as I would realize that he was just someone exercising his constitutional right of free speech with his tattoos and was not threat to me, I would be lying to you big time. OK, I admit it, I do profile, but I call it self preservation. Most of the general public feel the same way when they see someone walking by the mall with an AR. So I guess we should all abandon our situational awareness training.

 

[slimmer13]

In the op, the linked article did not specify if it was long guns carried. Was it?

I don't like the idea of OC to make a political point, sway public opinion, or to draw a reaction from others. That is stupid, but I fully support the right to openly carry a handgun for protection while going about your business. Maybe I ate too much BBQ and drank too much Hefe over the summer and I can't fit it in my pants? Maybe I have back issues and can't carry comfortably IWB? Maybe i got hot and took my long shirt off? Who cares. It drives me crazy that some in the gun community thump their chest at anti gun sentiments, saying "my rights don't end where your feelings begin", then criticize people on their own side for exercising their rights so as to not to upset the illogical emotions of bored soccer moms

 

[Hawaiian]

Open carry of a handgun is one thing, I don't have a problem with that. Bad guys don't open carry their handguns. Walking down the street with an AR is a whole different situation. IMHO

 

[slimmer13]

Open carry of a handgun is one thing, I don't have a problem with that. Walking down the street with an AR is another. IMHO

I agree. That's why I asked if that is even what we are talking about in this case. The op didn't say.

 

[Koda]

what I read in the article is the Mollalla watch group did not carry rifles and only a few (3?) of them open carried handguns.....

 

[RVTECH]

he was just someone exercising his constitutional right of free speech with his tattoos

AND I hope this person understands an employer exercising his or her Constitutional right to free speech by saying 'Don't call us, we'll call you'

 

[Hawaiian]

And then that employer gets hit with a lawsuit for discrimination and not being politically correct.
I know it sucks, but it is what happens in our current environment.

 

[RVTECH]

And then that employer gets hit with a lawsuit for discrimination

There is no discrimination when you simply do not call an applicant back.

 

[orygun]

There is no discrimination when you simply do not call an applicant back.

True. It's not what you do, it's how you do it.

 

[fredball]

Sounds like and awful lot of worry over nothing to me

 

[Libertas7]

I only asked a couple people but they had heard it from the news, so again where is this "divide"?