Oregon HB 3118 2023

[ZigZagZeke]

I don't know that 100% voter turnout on either side of the isle is a reasonable expectation. The fact of the matter is that we are outnumbered and at a disadvantage from the get go.

That's doesn't mean we can't still push for more, but I kind of resent the general statements that infringments are our own fault and we deserve it. Some of us are actively working toward awareness, fighting the infringments, reguarly contacting our representitive and VOTE!

Productive suggestions, input and activities outside of NWFA (that is basicaly rudderless), as many do, is helpful, but from what I see.... some don't seemingly contribute much toward the cause, but only poke their heads in from time to time just to point out "you're doing it wrong and you deserve what you get".

It seems rather defeatist.

Just sayin....

I manage a 7,000 member group on Facebook actively every day. Every post there has to be admin approved after being checked for accuracy and relevance. Every day I seek out informative articles that keep everyone abreast of what's happening with 2A lawsuits, gun legislation, and gun crime. I spend time every day trying to get out the gun vote. I spend hours per day doing that. I often relay that information here. I don't just "occasionally drop in here". See those numbers under my avatar? I get disgusted with the skeptics who won't accept anything without a contrarian argument, even though hard proof is provided. They have a problem for every solution which conveniently absolves them of any responsibility for getting off their butts and doing anything, even something as simple as voting. Frankly, I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort.

 

[Yarome]

I just noticed.... or am I wrong.... the OP replaced all the "*'s" and reposted comments?

Worth a second look for those of us that came into it late and a bit lost on the first few pages.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Who's "Derek"? The "*" guy that bailed out and was asking the mods in the help thread to delete his NWFA account?

Yes. He doesn't have time to waste here.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

You know how bad my Engish is. You're asking ME??




I just like stirring the pot.

Congratulations on wasting everyone's time.

 

[Yarome]

I manage a 7,000 member group on Facebook actively every day. Every post there has to be admin approved after being checked for accuracy and relevance. Every day I seek out informative articles that keep everyone abreast of what's happening with 2A lawsuits, gun legislation, and gun crime. I spend time every day trying to get out the gun vote. I spend hours per day doing that. I often relay that information here. I don't just "occasionally drop in here". See those numbers under my avatar? I get disgusted with the skeptics who won't accept anything without a contrarian argument, even though hard proof is provided. They have a problem for every solution which conveniently absolves them of any responsibility for getting off their butts and doing anything, even something as simple as voting. Frankly, I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort.

Your efforts are appreciated! And yes... I noticed the post numbers. I also know some folks can be extremely active for a period of time, life takes over and posts and activity levels drop off substantially. High post counts also don't automatically default to the reasonable assumption that the individual is highly active within the 2A community and a postive contributor. Especially to those of us that haven't been active around here for nearly as long as you and the first impressions seem very negative and borderline adversarial.

I meant no offense singled toward you alone. I meant it more in general terms where it's common to see posts from folks stopping in to a thread to post a criticism but typically offer nothing meaningful or productive to the discussion.

Frankly, from anyone, the whole "it's all our fault and we all deserve it" theme, as the stand alone message, get's old in a big hurry. I guess I also don't buy the attitude that "because I do so much I've earned the right to criticize everyone else". It's a poor motivator and does nothing to engender unity.

Just sayin...


I DO appreciate you adding additional info about the OP. That's very helpful and, obviously, none of that seemed to be readily available info. By first glance he appears simply as a newer member I've never seen a post from before. The legistation I believe most would be supportive of and if he is indeed returning for more discussion, it would be very welcome to learn more about what he's doing and how some of us might be able to help.

 

[Yarome]

Yes. He doesn't have time to waste here.

Congratulations on wasting everyone's time.

So I was right the first time? You're just here in this thread to criticize and put people in their places? Gotcha!

 

[Yarome]

The argument is that if guns are stored safely (by their definition) with firearm and ammunition stored separately, locked in a way not accessible by children, there will be fewer firearm related suicides

I get that and think it's valid.

What I gathered from those stats from the health authority though was that suicides where #4 (physical abuse homicides #3), the majority were by a firearm (so more than 50%)... and I know suicides aren't typically "accidental", but also acknowledge that some "apparent" suicides may have actually been "accidental". Likely a very small percentage though(?)

Like others, I find myself asking too.... how exactly do those state translate into "accidental" deaths by firearms (which I would consider to be AD's) ranked as the #3 killer of children in Oregon?

What comes to my mind is kids playing with guns that they shouldn't even be touching die when it suddenly goes off... or... not knowing a gun is real and accidently shooting someone without any real intent to do harm.

I'm not knocking the issue in the slightest, any death of an innocent is tragic and I'm ALL for educating children as young as they have the capacity to understand and retain what they are being taught.. however... if the supporting information is not factually accurate... the woke will do one of a few things.

1. Tear it apart to invalidate the goal of the initiative among the anti-gun supporters.
2. Quote it as "pro gun sources acknowledge..." giving them more validity to use that stat against us in support of more infringments.
3. BOTH!

If our side is selling that as fact... that it's an epidemic and requires emergency attention.... I can much more easily see the woke side using that stat as fuel for their anti-gun efforts. Not that it's any more factual for their cause than ours, but they can certainly quote US as the source.

I think that's a valid concern to address early on if it's going to get any traction.

 

[Yarome]

The proposed legistlation itself... I'm sure they have to make it palatable to both sides, but it sure would be nice if it was "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" and was somehow incorporated into the lockdown procedures education. The likelihood of being more standardized and reaching more children increased.

I know not all parents are engaged with their childrens school life or follow through with opt-in programs. Recess might be the only viable option, but realizing that asking a child of that age to "want" to give up their recess, or rather, not try to disuade their parents from making them miss recess for some extracurricular their parent/s may not feel especially strong about themselves might adversely affect participation.

Just thinking out loud.

I too worry about how unadulterated the instruction would be if the eductional system has any input. Even as simple as them choosing which SRO (do all schools still even have SRO's??) to serve as an instructor could end up leaning anti-2A... despite what the legislation might dictate. If the anti-2A administrators are the one's responsible for keeping the instructor unbiased... how exactly do you keep the program true to it's purpose?

I think it's a very good step in the right direction though! We all know gun control laws won't fix anything.

 

[PiratePast40]

Keep in mind that, for purposes of statistics, kids can range in age up to 18. Gang bangers shooting each other are considered kids and a gang shootout anywhere near a school is called a mass school shooting.

 

[solv3nt]

Keep in mind that, for purposes of statistics, kids can range in age up to 18. Gang bangers shooting each other are considered kids and a gang shootout anywhere near a school is called a mass school shooting.

I was actually going to say that. Which brings us back to actual numbers. How many kids do we lose in Oregon to an accidental shooting where education would have made a differencer one or two?

Based on my experience living near a river, most river systems in Oregon lose one or two people per year to drowning. Granted, they are not all children, but I will venture to guess that we lose more kids to drowning every year than we do preventable firearm accidents where education would have made a difference.

 

[solv3nt]

I'll venture a guess that more kids are diddled by their teacher each year in Oregon than are killed by accidental gun deaths where gun safety education would have made a difference.

 

[solv3nt]

I manage a 7,000 member group on Facebook actively every day. Every post there has to be admin approved after being checked for accuracy and relevance. Every day I seek out informative articles that keep everyone abreast of what's happening with 2A lawsuits, gun legislation, and gun crime. I spend time every day trying to get out the gun vote. I spend hours per day doing that. I often relay that information here. I don't just "occasionally drop in here". See those numbers under my avatar? I get disgusted with the skeptics who won't accept anything without a contrarian argument, even though hard proof is provided. They have a problem for every solution which conveniently absolves them of any responsibility for getting off their butts and doing anything, even something as simple as voting. Frankly, I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort.

Something to remember, out of all populations, gun owners are the most diverse. Gun owners range from collectors and shooters that frequent gun boards such as this, to the single mom, to the Democrat hunter. I personally have friends that are incredibly liberal that are gun owners.

As a diverse gun owning population, the beliefs, morals and background vary more than just about any other similar population that you can create. To say "your infighting is the cause for our loss of rights" is the same as incorrectly stating "all homeless are drug users and are homeless due to their own decisions.

Gun owners range from, "get off my lawn", to "people shouldn't be allowed to have high capacity assault weapons".

It's easy to see that the anti-gunners are winning. It's obvious, as their beliefs are the same, "all guns are bad".

Now I ask you this, which is more harmful to our cause, poking fun at poorly chosen wording, or pointing the finger at the majority of gun owners and stating "you are the reason you are losing"? At this point, the only ones reading the post are people that are actively engaged on a gun forum and does not include the majority of gun owners that do not. If you think the majority of forum gun owners are the problem, then you're completely missing the mark as to the actual cause.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So I was right the first time? You're just here in this thread to criticize and put people in their places? Gotcha!

Wrong! I would have to care what goes on here if I were doing that. I'm finding that I care less and less lately. Things here seem to always go the same way. Someone says something, someone else argues with them, everyone gets butt hurt, and the anti's win. I'm tired of it.

I haven't been as active here lately because I'm busy on GGWG-Oregon keeping track of what's going on with the 5 lawsuits against M114 and rallying political and financial support for OFF, FPC, OSSA (NRA), and others. When OSSA came to me looking for a lead plaintiff I supplied them with a great one, who also is one of my best friends. The guy you just ran out of here is the guy working with OSSA who came to me for a recommendation on a lead plaintiff. Yeah, you just pissed on a guy who has been working hard for you and everyone else behind the scenes.

On GGWG-Oregon I follow legal developments and decisions by the courts on the various motions made, like the current injunction in state court, and I write about what that means in layman's terms so our 7,000 members can follow along (I once attended law school). So right now is it important or worth my time to come here just to "criticize and put people in their places"? Hardly.

 

[titsonritz]

Because browbeating people works. Have fun with that.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Things here seem to always go the same way. Someone says something, someone else argues with them, everyone gets butt hurt, and the anti's win.

Seems like this (the highlighted portion) is the main problem. Want to respond to someone's opinion, respond. Don't want to, don't. Don't like their opinions, just scroll on. It's pretty simple. I don't have anyone on ignore , and I don't believe I ever will.

I personally like the mixture of news, updates, opinions and yes, humor here at NWFA, so I'd hate to see more strict approach to moderation. Of course, a more rigid approach of pure business also has its place, but there's room for both styles.

Edit: I would replace "everyone gets" in the above quote to "a few people get". Also, if a thread really gets derailed, it's not too hard to get it back on track.

 

[solv3nt]

The guy you just ran out of here is the guy working with OSSA who came to me for a recommendation on a lead plaintiff. Yeah, you just pissed on a guy who has been working hard for you and everyone else behind the scenes.

Again, I'm going to ask the question of where this statistic came from. I understand OP has likely been working hard on this legislation, but is this legislation necessary? Before OP ripped and dipped, the question was asked as to where it came from, and was subsequently ignored.

Every life, especially the life of a child is sacred. That said, how many lives are we talking that will be impacted by this legislation?

Similar to the anti gun groups where any shooting near a school is considered a school shooting for statistics, it appears from the outside that the gun owners are doing the same thing. Is this something that we actually need legislation for?

 

[Dust2Dollars]

Yeah, you just pissed on a guy who has been working hard for you and everyone else behind the scenes.

Nobody pissed on him! He made statements and was pushing his business web site. He was asked for information through the forum and PM'd. HE decided to not to answer those. HE decided to retract his comments and posts. HE made a choice to do that, not us. HE might want to think about staying behind the scenes if HE can't answer a few questions.
Those are MY THOUGHTS!

 

[solv3nt]

If our side is selling that as fact... that it's an epidemic and requires emergency attention.... I can much more easily see the woke side using that stat as fuel for their anti-gun efforts. Not that it's any more factual for their cause than ours, but they can certainly quote US as the source.

OPs website states that 8-10 kids die daily from accidental firearm shootings in the US, and it is inferred from the website they could be prevented with appropriate training. If that were true, either the media isn't paying attention, or is patently false.

If the media isn't paying attention, then we've got a big problem. Similarly, if it's inflated, what's to stop Pink Floyd from using those numbers?

I understand that an accidental death from a firearm won't fall into the FBI homicides statistics, but if 8-10 daily deaths is accurate, it accounts for approximately 33% of firearm homicides annually in 2019.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Only skimmed most of this because some of you are just, well, some of you.

One of OP's job is working for Oregon residents. In that role he's pushing a House bill that would allow firearm training in schools. He may have misrepresented some stuff, or whatever, got called out and went dark. People are still talking about the actions in the thread and not about the House bill which is honestly a great flipping idea.

Did I miss anything?
Also, yeah, the back and forth is exactly why dangerously crappy orgs like LEVO are outperforming pro-rights communities. Even when they're off they work together to craft a winning narrative. We crap where we eat.

 

[solv3nt]

Did I miss anything?
Also, yeah, the back and forth is exactly why dangerously crappy orgs like LEVO are outperforming pro-rights communities. Even when they're off they work together to craft a winning narrative. We crap where we eat.

They have it easy, "all guns are bad". OP is yet to convince anybody that the statistics listed as fact are truly accurate. Most importantly, for the libertarians on the forum, why we need more laws. Oregon already has a safe storage law on the books. Unless something has changed, I was taught in school NOT to touch any guns.