Central Oregon's News Leader - KTVZ NewsChannel 21, Bend, Oregon
Would you support requiring gun safety training before being able to buy a firearm?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
1028 Votes

Would you support requiring gun safety training before being able to buy a firearm?

Yes, I would support!

10

No, I wouldn't support!

11

Yes, I would support!

10 Comments
Robert Northrup
1
Robert Northrup

I had to take a class to carry concealed. In the end only law abiding citizens will comply. The criminals will still have guns and our justice system will continue turning criminals loose so they can prey on the innocent..

Reply
Gabe West
1
Gabe West

Yes but that doesn't matter to the criminals

Reply
Ron Johansen
0
Ron Johansen

You have to learn to drive before you can drive. You have to take a forklift before you can drive a forklift. Why not know what you're doing before obtaining a deadly weapon of war?

Reply
Nicole Jackson
0
Nicole Jackson

Other counties with stringent mental health, & gun safety programs have the lowest crime rates & out of them Australia has had 3 shootings since 1996...Japan has had 6 people die by gunfire in the last year...The U.S. has miserably failed in the safety arena

Reply
Les Adams
0
Les Adams

How can anyone oppose gun safety classes for people who want to own guns? That's like being opposed to driver training before someone is permitted to drive on public roads.

Reply
Jeff Sanders
0
Jeff Sanders

There are many, many countries we could follow the example of. The 2nd amendment talks about a well armed militia, not a overly armed militia of one.

Reply
sharder8
0
sharder8

13 years in the Army and CHL holder for over 30 years. There's no such thing as too many firearm safety classes. Laws change and one way to get those changes out is through firearms safety class. A yearly refresher course should also be available.

Reply
Pam Robbins
0
Pam Robbins

It makes sense, and might cut down on "accidental" shootings.

Reply

No, I wouldn't support!

11 Comments
Penny Hansen
3
Penny Hansen

This will not stop anyone from obtaining a gun. If they are planning an attack of any type, they will just choose a different weapon.

Reply
John Philo
John Philo

Your common sense answer has no meaning to the anti - 2nd Amendment people. They only want to eventually remove your rights completely.

Mark
2
Mark

I dont mind more safety courses, Those should be accepted, but not mandatory. The rest of the proposed bill is absolute nonsense.

Reply
Rob Mozz
0
Rob Mozz

It's your right to own a firearm so unless you forfeited that right by committing a felony there shouldn't be any restrictions. Oregon should be a constitutional carry state.

Reply
Robert Mozzetti
0
Robert Mozzetti

Just another way for the government to tax you for practicing your constitutional right to bear arms. It's not a privilege like driving.

Reply
Adam Johnson
0
Adam Johnson

I dont support it being mandatory but I would support an additional 5% tax on firearms and accessories to pay for training for people that want/need it.

Reply
Greg Moore
0
Greg Moore

The 2nd Am't, according to the Founding Fathers, was to preserve liberty, not hunting, not self-defense. Therefore, no registry may ever be allowed. Thomas Jefferson best discusses this: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1/30/1787

Reply
Greg Moore
Greg Moore

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Kevin Crabtree
0
Kevin Crabtree

but they should put in schools maybe part of PE or another class for 2 weeks.

Reply
Nik Myles
0
Nik Myles

This would be one step away from preventing us our rights to bare arms.

Reply
Does the wilderness permit system make you more or less likely to visit?

Does the wilderness permit system make you more or less likely to visit?

More likely

1

Less Likely

6

More likely

1 Comment
Jake M
1
Jake M

How is this a Yes or No question? Does Yes mean more likely, and No less likely? Or does Yes simply mean, yes it affects me somehow?

Reply

Less Likely

6 Comments
Duane Wyman
0
Duane Wyman

Your question really needs to address wilderness camping as that activity impacts greatly the wilderness landscape. Day, permits, visits are far less destructive to the Three Sisters Wilderness and easier to obtain.

Reply
Latterdaysaint
0
Latterdaysaint

Your already paying for high gas prices to get there

Reply
Steven Daniels
Steven Daniels

"Your" already paying? Did you think the price of gas included admission to wherever "you're" going? How about Disneyland? "Your" already paying for the gas to go there so it should be free, right? Maybe if you fly they should pay you?

Latterdaysaint
Latterdaysaint

Just one more thing you have to pay for

Duane Wyman
Duane Wyman

It is enforced to preserve the overall wilderness experience to benefit all who recreate and obtain a wild connection to Nature.

Duane Wyman
Duane Wyman

Dude, try to hike the Wonderland Trail at MRNP. It is a lottery for dates - good luck.

Are you seeing more trash on streets in your area?
KTVZ Asked by KTVZ
358 Votes

Are you seeing more trash on streets in your area?

Yes

1

No

3

Yes

1 Comment
Jacob Wilton
0
Jacob Wilton

The bums are camping in or near the canal by Brookswood. COID is good about expelling them quickly but the trash blows all over the place. People used to walk this trail all the time. Now I see the vagrants smoking crack/meth. My neighborhood that borders this is full of families.

Reply

No

3 Comments
Latterdaysaint
0
Latterdaysaint

I haven't seen any in drw but there needs to be more homeless shelters in bend and they need in ax measure 110

Reply
Steven Daniels
Steven Daniels

Wouldn't it be hard to notice more trash in DRW?

Latterdaysaint
Latterdaysaint

Good point

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