KTVZ

KTVZ

www.ktvz.com
Central Oregon's News Leader
Should there be a ban on assault rifles?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
1,472 Votes

Should there be a ban on assault rifles?

Yes, we should ban them!

20

No, we shouldn't ban them!

21

Yes, we should ban them!

18 Comments
Larry Ewart
3
Larry Ewart

I just do not see the need to own a assault rifle. I’m all for self defense and hunting but those automatic weapons are for military use. Imo.

Reply
Kevin Crabtree
Kevin Crabtree

AR15 is not automatic no more than a hand gun Automatic weapons are illegal unless you are one of the 1% that has a license to own them and I bet you can guess who they are. Little bit of Knowledge goes along way try some

Ali Loya
3
Ali Loya

There is absolutely no reason for assault rifles to be as readily available as they are. I support our rights as a gun owner myself, but this type of weapon is simply unnecessary. In light of the violence in our country, they should only be accessible in a controlled environment.

Reply
Debra Sun-Mills
3
Debra Sun-Mills

Certain types of guns have no purpose other than the mass killing of other human beings. You don't need an assault rifle to kill deer or protect your property. I don't think all guns should be banned as they can be used for hunting or protecting your property. But we do need more mental healthcare

Reply
Greg Moore
Greg Moore

The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting, it was specifically to keep any despotic power in check... to protect the rights of American citizens against enemies foreign and domestic. See Australian COVID lockdowns from last year, that is why we need semi-auto rifles (they are not assault rifles)

Shamra D Wampler
3
Shamra D Wampler

Armed forces should be the only ones allowed to have assault rifles. They are for one thing only: to kill humans. Hunters don't use them, and they are not needed for self protection unless you are in the middle of a war where there are several people that want to take your life.

Reply
Gabe West
Gabe West

Gun control is not the answer

Jamie Potts
2
Jamie Potts

Why should anyone besides law enforcement need to own or have them? They can not be used for hunting purposes or any thing else. Why use them to kill children and anyone for that matter!! What has this world came too?

Reply
sharder8
2
sharder8

Assault Rifles are already banned . . . as they should be! Or at least they should require special (stamp) permits at federal and state levels, as it already is. Now if you're asking if semi-auto sporting rifles should be banned, the answer is NO!

Reply
Scott Camps
Scott Camps

dude, not calling them assault rifles will not bring the murdered children back to life, ban them

Lynn Huntley
1
Lynn Huntley

Why do you need an assault rifle? If you can't hit an intruder or a deer in one shot, you'd better give it up. Not all killings can be blamed on mental health, either.

Reply
Jake M
1
Jake M

Guns don't kill people? By that logic, neither do nuclear weapons. Maybe one will randomly fall from the sky in the general vicinity of Congress so the new congress might FINALLY do something

Reply
Shannon Bergstedt
1
Shannon Bergstedt

Tired of all the unnecessary killings.

Reply
Nicole Smith
1
Nicole Smith

Its just something that needs to be done.

Reply
Rick Lewis
Gabe West
Gabe West

Gun control is not the answer

Lisa York
1
Lisa York

no reason to have one unless you're Military or police...

Reply
Gabe West
Gabe West

Gun control is not the answer, what if the police take awhile to come

k san
0
k san

Absolutely! No one needs them but military for combat. It's NOT about the 2nd Amendment, tho the Republicans have hijacked that refrain. Kids and other innocents will be killed nearly daily, as long as Congress refuses to pass reasonable gun laws.

Reply
Ron Johansen
0
Ron Johansen

No one needs a weapon of war. You aren't John Rambo. You aren't gonna successfully fight off the American Military. You're just gonna end up shooting your kid or your dog.

Reply
Nicole Jackson
0
Nicole Jackson

There is no purpose for semi automatic & fully automatic weaponry in the hands of non military personnel..

Reply
Sandi Kuhn
0
Sandi Kuhn

Tell me 1 good reason anyone here needs an assault rifle? Tell me.

Reply
Patrick Stewart
Patrick Stewart

Regardless of your emotions the answer is because it’s my right. A constitutionally protected right. Your right to own a car isn’t constitutionally protected but 46,000 people die every year in motor vehicle accidents. If you banned cars that’s 46,000 lives saved each year. My guns don’t assault you

Scott Camps
0
Scott Camps

all semi-auto magazine fed rifles should be made illegal, along with the magazines. Enough is enough

Reply

No, we shouldn't ban them!

13 Comments
Dave Voiles
2
Dave Voiles

The US is 3rd in murders worldwide. If you remove Chicago, Detroit, Wa DC, St Louis and New Orleans...ALL democrat run with STRICT gun laws, we become 189th out of 193 countries in the world. Curious too, why do dems never want armed guards in schools??

Reply
Robert Northrup
Robert Northrup

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8CGN0lmJqQ&t=93s

dbuchanan@midstateelectric.coop
2
dbuchanan@midstateelectric.coop

It's not a fire arm issue it's a mental health issue that needs to be addressed.

Reply
Greg Moore
2
Greg Moore

1st of all, an ignorant titled thread. These are not "assault rifles", these are semi-auto sporting rifles. 2nd, after the BLM/Floyd riots, and Australian COVID lockdowns, the need for full 2nd Amendment protection has never been so important.

Reply
Kristen Newton
2
Kristen Newton

Deaths by all rifles are a tiny % of firearm-related deaths in this country, and mass shootings account for .5% of homicides. I'm opposed to stripping away gun ownership rights of law-abiding citizens, while turning a blind eye to the thousands who die in Democrat-run cities from their policies.

Reply
Randy Gillespie
2
Randy Gillespie

Well first of all I'm a responsible gun owner and I own all kinds of weapons but I make sure that they stay home at night and they don't go out killing without some idiot behind it so until you people figure out what the problem is about mental then let's quit talking about guns

Reply
Dennis Rogers
2
Dennis Rogers

Define assault rifles.

Reply
John Philo
2
John Philo

It's called the 2nd Amendment!

Reply
Gabe West
2
Gabe West

That won't stop shootings, people will just use other guns and banning guns is not the answer

Reply
Patrick Stewart
1
Patrick Stewart

Texting and driving killed as many people in TN last two years as DUIs. The “ban” logic should ban cars, cell phones, alcohol, etc.

Reply
Dieter Heinzer
1
Dieter Heinzer

Americans have had guns in their homes for two (or more) centuries. Mass murder has only become an issue since the invention of the internet, video games, and social media. There is no gun problem - there is a people problem - invest in mental health and encouraging two-parent households!

Reply
Kitt Hawkins
1
Kitt Hawkins

The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed!

Reply
Robert Northrup
1
Robert Northrup

"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

Reply
Tim Collins
0
Tim Collins

We need them so when we get attacked what will we use a friggen sling shot? Common sense SHOULD TELL YOU that only the bad guys will have them! And when that bad guy comes to your home you can use your spoon on them.

Reply
Should a judge block the May first closure of China Hat road?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
966 Votes

Should a judge block the May first closure of China Hat road?

YES

3

NO

19

YES

3 Comments
Louis Vaday
0
Louis Vaday

This made an error! I voted NO and it recorded yes! They shouldn't {and ALL} shouldn't be allowed on all public land because they do not follow rules! Dumping garbage, open flames during fire season, over extending time stay, etc. And now because of them our insurance is going up and land value goin

Reply
Brad Hunter
0
Brad Hunter

Because they are steam rolling the homeless

Reply

NO

19 Comments
Tammy Salka
1
Tammy Salka

The homeless are not residents, they are squatters!

Reply
Kayla Sulak
1
Kayla Sulak

These people have had MONTHS of notice. Nobody ever told them it's acceptable to post up long-term there, so they shouldn't have planted their belongings out there if they have no way to move it. This sets a bad precedent if they're allowed to stay.

Reply
Richard Williams
1
Richard Williams

I can no longer use this area of public land for fear of walking into a homeless camp or being attacked by their "pets". This land is for all of us to use, not just the homeless.

Reply
Joanna Lee
1
Joanna Lee

Safety should be the biggest concern here. If these people are homeless, they can travel to another area to reside. Forest service doesn't always implement preventative measures. So this being one of the times they do. Its important to make sure it happens. Before there is anymore devastating fires.

Reply
Shane Murray
1
Shane Murray

The homeless have trashed the forest out there. It makes me sick

Reply
Greg Deadbolt Leach
1
Greg Deadbolt Leach

Time to move these people to the Attorneys and Judges front lawns!!!

Reply
Karen Thrower
1
Karen Thrower

The China Hat area has been badly damaged and disrespected by campers.

Reply
Jeannie H.
1
Jeannie H.

How is this their "home"? Have they paid property tax like the rest of us? How is this state even justifying this?!?!

Reply
Nancy
1
Nancy

They’ve had plenty of time to move. Why can the homeless trash/burn our beautiful forest? Tax paying citizens are only allowed to camp for 14 days! What about the homeowners rights near China Hat, they need to feel safe in their own community! This has gone on way too long and I’m surprised!

Reply
Lynn Marie Leehmann
1
Lynn Marie Leehmann

If you look at the Federal Regulations for camping on Federal land it states only 14 days. These people have over stated their welcome, they need to go and they have known about this for at least six months.

Reply
Brad Aimone
1
Brad Aimone

It is ironic the Bend Equity Group has filed a lawsuit to block the closure. Where is the indignation for the horrible environmental damage done by these campers who’ve violated the USFS long standing limit of a 14 day stay in a primitive camp site?

Reply
Nancy Roquero
1
Nancy Roquero

This has gone on too long. The forests near Woodside community and other neighborhoods need fire protection and protection from the homeless with guns and vicious dogs and the garbage left behind. The homeless have had plenty of notice.

Reply
Lisa York
1
Lisa York

the USFS has been planning this burn since Oct 2019... more than enough time for the homeless/advocacy groups to come up with a plan to move...

Reply
Debbie Boyd
1
Debbie Boyd

This has been going on for way too long & it is ridiculous to postpone as they have known this needs to be done. The forest needs to be protected & these do gooders are too late to the game & so much time & money spent on homeless with ZERO results. We need DOGE. for Oregon!

Reply
Pam
0
Pam

We need to ensure that the lands are managed for the enjoyment/needs of all peoples, not a select few

Reply
pamcuny
0
pamcuny

I worry every year WHO is in the woods starting fires, whether deliberate or unintentional consequences…

Reply
Jeff Sanders
0
Jeff Sanders

I live near China Hat and used to love going out the with my dog. Once weapons started be pulled on people that stopped. I want my forest back. Good riddance to the whole lot. Don't ever come back.

Reply
Latterdaysaint
0
Latterdaysaint

There needs to be more homeless shelters in the city!

Reply
Kim Kahl
0
Kim Kahl

The danger of fire starting in this area is incredibly high and impacts large subdivisions. It is mandatory to close this area for the safety of all. This should not be a place for camping to be allowed as it has been.

Reply
Are you concerned about the findings of the DA's investigation into Sheriff Van Der Kamp?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
857 Votes

Are you concerned about the findings of the DA's investigation into Sheriff Van Der Kamp?

Yes

9

No

1

Yes

9 Comments
Timothy MacGillivray
1
Timothy MacGillivray

He should be FIRED immediately as he is the individual in charge of the entire department. He must set the standard of honesty and integrity for both staff and the Public. What type of leader is this? Why is this even being questioned? He faced charges in La Mesa, California as well!

Reply
steven
0
steven

I just heard the recording. He lied about lying. Gotta go.

Reply
David Kline
0
David Kline

Sad to see this happen.

Reply
Susan Kate Mayer
0
Susan Kate Mayer

Good job DA! Glad someone is doing their job

Reply
Michael Hickey
0
Michael Hickey

Why is he still in this position, come on Deschutes Co. This is pathetic.

Reply
Laura Wattenbarger
0
Laura Wattenbarger

How can he be trusted to be truthful in anything if he lied about even just this one thing? A man in his position shouldn't be lying about anything at all and the fact that he did makes him untrustworthy 100%.

Reply
Anne King
0
Anne King

If he can't be honest about such a basic thing as his education, he can't be trusted with Deschutes County's safety! What else has he lied about? He should resign!

Reply

No

1 Comment
Steven Huillet
0
Steven Huillet

Just more Liberal attacks on Conservative. This is what they do because they lost the elections. Poor losers!

Reply

We use cookies to ensure you get the best possible experience on our website. Learn more OK, GOT IT