Oregon Witnessed a homeless man beating a naked woman today

[nwslopoke]

although the homeless problem is very visible and growing, violent crime in Portland is the lowest its been in about 40 years, so a lot of it is just the visual aspect of homelessness. Don't let the fear mongering get to you.

Except when you actually see the aggression level rise. I wonder if the it's gotten to the point that it's just not reported as much the records show the levels are dropping.

I've lived in Washington County since 2002. I was single and worked nights. I used to roam PDX at all hours on my days off and zilch as far as violence. These days aggressive behavior and violence is common in metro Portland in broad daylight. Police might show up but in a lot of instances I've witnessed it's not worth the trouble to arrest, leave a ton of the persons garbage on the street, ect. They show up and leave.

Whatever the cause, here we are. Is Portland safer than Chicago and other places? Yes. But pick your places while you're down town. I saw Santa attack a man just waiting for the light to change.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

So I did a thread clean up here.

I understand that everyone will have different experiences that will shape their perspective...It is possible to share and debate the merits of those perspectives without:
Name calling...
Insults...
Or the implying / insinuations of the same.

Lets all please remember rule Number One here..."Be excellent to each other".
Andy

 

[Member 34319]

I think the thing that is @The B is saying that I don't agree with is that the statistics are so low that there is no reason to carry a firearm? I place a question mark at the end because I'm not sure if this is his opinion or just something he is stating as fact.

If he is stating it as fact it is different than his own opinion.

Either way I believe it to be false.

It is such a poor representation of the tool that is carried and disregards so many instances the tool was used.

It is cold hard fact, using his words, that gun use to prevent crimes up to including murder does not get reported. Some do, but it is highly under reported. So I imagine the statistics he is referring to do not reflect this.

I'm curious if @The B has a comment on this? Or am I spreading more fake news and sensationalism simply by going against your refuted claim again?

That's the second part, @The B you may not be intending to do it, but in a way you are essentially saying anyone who believes outside of your cold hard facts, for whatever reason, is sensationally promoting false information that is not true. Then state that you are for carrying a gun, which is quite confusing. Then state that carrying a gun is statistically irrelevant, further confusing.

I have the hardest time with this one as this type of thing goes both ways. How are you not sensationalizing the information and spreading false news? Is your information better than those here? Who gets to decide who's news sources are superior?

I would recommend that if you have these facts just share those with their sources to reflect the safety of Portland. Let the sources outweigh the banter here in this thread. If the sources are valid and not obviously biased, folks here will take them into calculating the safety of Portland.

 

[Member 34319]

ill later curse myself for even responding.... but i don't have a love-thy-neighbor attitude: to the contrary, my neighbor can bubblegum off and die for all i care. what i care about is what my neighbor does that affects me- and if he has unduly fearful/wrong notions about how much danger actually exists, this can have a negative effect on my environment.

to answer the first question: i wouldn't label my fellow man as a "fearful idiot carrying a gun" unless they were, in fact, a fearful idiot carrying a gun. i've done a pretty OK job of illustrating what criteria would be necessary to label someone something like that, don't ignore it and don't imply that i don't have a specific criteria.

to answer your last question: i have no idea - why is it relevant? i've already expressed multiple times that i have no problem with people carrying guns, and that the act of carrying a gun itself has no negative consequences. are you again implying that i am implying things i'm definitely not implying?

Reread your first paragraph then your last, they contradict each other.

 

[turbo_vanner]

I don't see a contradiction. Its the same way I feel, do whatever you feel you need to to protect yourself, but if someone is paranoid about anything and everything around them all the time, I probably won't associate with them, for multiple reasons, my own safety included.

As a kid I was almost shot by a friends overzealous dad for leaving their house late at night. He was convinced I was a home invader outside his house, kicked his front door open, and had a laser on my chest, in the boonies outside of Bend. First off, he could check to see if his sons friends are still there, second, maybe run a little thought exercise on how likely that noise outside would be a home invader, or one of your teenage sons friends.

I didn't mind that he was armed and willing to protect his home and land, I just didn't go over there any more.

 

[Member 34319]

I don't see a contradiction. Its the same way I feel, do whatever you feel you need to to protect yourself, but if someone is paranoid about anything and everything around them all the time, I probably won't associate with them, for multiple reasons, my own safety included.

As a kid I was almost shot by a friends overzealous dad for leaving their house late at night. He was convinced I was a home invader outside his house, kicked his front door open, and had a laser on my chest, in the boonies outside of Bend. First off, he could check to see if his sons friends are still there, second, maybe run a little thought exercise on how likely that noise outside would be a home invader, or one of your teenage sons friends.

I didn't mind that he was armed and willing to protect his home and land, I just didn't go over there any more.

Not to say you don't have a point.

However, if you truly didn't have a problem with him protecting his home the way he did, wouldn't you still visit?

 

[bbbass]

[QUOTE="usausausa, post: 2126046, member: 47912" that would be profiling and racist[/QUOTE]

Who, me? I never say GD Glock or any other specific weapon. Especially with a small "g". It's not OK! Nor do I drop the F-bomb, risking being banned, unless I'm really angry and feeling pushed around and/or disrespected. But I won't deny profiling and being racist.

 

[Lilhigbee]

taking a round number of 10,000 violent crimes in PDX a year, equals about 27 a day, divide that by 650,000 pdx residents, and you get .0042% chance of being a victim of violent crime on any given day. If a doctor said you had a 0.004% chance of having a heart attack today, would you upend your diet and lifestyle?

Statistically speaking, you are pretty safe in portland. Anecdotal viewpoints against that statistic are just that, anecdotal. While it sucks to get your number called, you could easily live multiple lifetimes in pdx without ever being violently accosted.

That said, statistics and anecdote go out the window should you actually need a gun.

Taking these numbers at face value, if you live to be ~65 years old you are statistically certain to be the victim of a violent crime. Same statistics, just presented differently.

 

[Member 34319]

My point to his contradiction was.

In one paragraph he stated if a neighbor he gives no care for, that can drop dead with out him caring, "THINKS" that carrying a gun for protection based on "FEAR" it will and can affect his environment.

Two paragraphs later he states, I don't care if people carry guns.




Moral of this thread.

Guy walks into bar. Bunch of guys carrying guns inside.

"You know carrying those guns is statistically irrelevant. You have such a small chance of needing to use them. In fact doing so is just portraying a larger sense of fear that is furthermore creating a heightened level of fear of evil to occur."

Bunch of the guys tell stories where they had to use the weapons to stop and it prevent evil. Asks more info about his source of information and put it into question.

Guy that walked in, "Yep, totally irrelevant, still statistically irrelevant."

 

[bbbass]

If I live to be >65, which I have, then I am at risk of imminent death. Living in Portland would increase that risk. Visiting Portland increases that risk. Visiting Salem increases that risk. IMO, saying so does not mean that I am living in fear, nor that I am promulgating fear. Others may think differently, that's fine. But accusing folks of fearmongering seems to be a tactic more often associated with the anti-gun crowd in my experience. So folks here might be sensitive to that or make assumptions. Poking the bear, eh?

 

[turbo_vanner]

My point to his contradiction was.

In one paragraph he stated if a neighbor he gives no care for, that can drop dead with out him caring, "THINKS" that carrying a gun for protection based on "FEAR" it will and can affect his environment.

Two paragraphs later he states, I don't care if people carry guns.

He never said those people 'will' effect him, only 'can'. Theres a big difference.

And I really don't and didn't care if my friends dad is paranoid, its his right, just as its his right to own a gun and defend his property. It was not my place or my choice to tell him otherwise. I just chose not to put myself at the mercy of his paranoid mental state by not going there.

Also, any anecdotal reasoning is just that, anecdotal.

 

[turbo_vanner]

Taking these numbers at face value, if you live to be ~65 years old you are statistically certain to be the victim of a violent crime. Same statistics, just presented differently.

Sorry, my math was off, it should by .0004% (4.15*10^-5) chance per day, so it will take 680 years to be a guaranteed victim.

Its only stats though.

 

[turbo_vanner]

and for as much as I cite crime statistics being at a 40 year low in portland, I still carry. Stats can't save you when you are in danger of becoming one. I just try to do so with the most level and objective head I can.

 

[SUPER X]

[QUOTE="usausausa, post: 2126046, member: 47912" that would be profiling and racist

Who, me? I never say GD Glock or any other specific weapon. Especially with a small "g". It's not OK! Nor do I drop the F-bomb, risking being banned, unless I'm really angry and feeling pushed around and/or disrespected. But I won't deny profiling and being racist. [/QUOTE]

You do know that was general satire. not directed at you correct ?

 

[Member 34319]

Also, any anecdotal reasoning is just that, anecdotal.

Amen.

Sums up the thread.

 

[bbbass]

Who, me? I never say GD Glock or any other specific weapon. Especially with a small "g". It's not OK! Nor do I drop the F-bomb, risking being banned, unless I'm really angry and feeling pushed around and/or disrespected. But I won't deny profiling and being racist.

You do know that that was general satire. not directed at you correct ?[/QUOTE]

Mmmm, I wondered, since you "liked" my post. I was having a hard time getting it tho. So I put the on my reply. But I thought I wanted to emphasize my earlier point. Thanx for the backup even if I didn't quite get it... my bad. Sorry.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

So I did a thread clean up here.

<-Quickly checks to see if comment is still there. Whew.

My question was serious "Do the I-205 bike path outlaws ever wander up into Chick-Fil-A?"

 

[DuneHopper]

i feel like bringing up the topic of "rhetoric" has really accelerated the presentation of rhetoric. i also feel like a lot of people responding to me critically have very us-v.-them mentalities, and if i don't agree with the completely unfounded "us" notion that carrying guns notably or significantly improves any random statistical sample's odds of improving longevity, then i'm summarily snubbed as a "them" and should be resisted or even called out for confrontation.
Please point out exactly what about my argument you disagree with, and offer some figures to support it.

In the book I just finished a few days ago and soon to be released, part of what is covered is some of what you mention.
With the amount of firearms in this state alone the odds on and owner of said gun and not a politician, LEO or a in a higher risk group. The odds are quite low one may never need a fire arm in defense. Its also why the party with a D that keeps passing these laws are full of it, as there is no correlation of gun ownership to mass shooter other then both own guns. They both probably own a tooth brushed too, but doesn't mean both will get a cavity or prevent it.
I am not a 100% sure why there is a back and forth in this topic. It also doesn't matter whether one carries a toothbrush or a firearm, are their chances of bad things happened absolutely, being a live just down the road from a Gun Free zone shooting at UCC, where a armed man went where no armed people are. So yes carrying at all times is a good idea, even if it appears safe and secure other wise. Where I used to live in California, when it was still a free state people walked safely for the most part. That same place is having abductions occurring at a amazing rate, so high are the cases, that the news stopped reporting them. In a place you can not carry bad things are happening to many people. Seems Portland is inviting more violence and harm.. A Gun Free Zone, never, ever......................EVER........has created a violence free zone.

 

[PBinWA]

Portland stinks . . . . literally . . . .bubblegum . . .piss . . . . I work in the Pearl these days and it still stinks.

 

[Geardo]

i've been a serious rider for years, riding around the portland metro area is no different now than it's ever been, with the exception of visibility. after that whole occupy movement bull bubblegum and city policy changes, homeless became significantly more visible because homelessness was somewhat decriminalized.. rules on camping in public right of way relaxed, bums started pitching tents in places average folk can see em. they've always been there, difference is now you see them.

personally, i like it. i think we SHOULD see them. if there's a problem- and seems many, and most posting in this thread think there is- then the more visible it is, the more likely we are to take steps to remedy it. voters and tax payers tend to give no bubblegums about things they're not even aware of, nah?

back to bikes and safety- when i'm competing, i can ride 200-400 miles a week, and it seems the best training trails are the best bum camping spots. i've never carried a gun, have never felt the need, and feel safer in this city than any other major metro area i've ever lived in. some you guys seem to be a lil irrational in your risk assessing. the odds you'd ever need to perforate someone in self defense are astronomical in pretty much any city in the US, and portland's better than most. i won't ever criticize anyone for wanting to carry- it's a form of insurance like any other- but don't feel like you need to justify your concealed weapon carriage by playing into sensationalized bullbubblegum rhetoric. you're safe with or without a goddamn gun in this city.

Homeless are one thing, and a very sad thing at that, although they are still mentally challenged people who often carry knives, and that is an increased risk. The people that actually scare me are the washed up desperate junkies.