In the matter of the slight discrepancy you’ve found in the number of reported conceal/carry permits in Deschutes County, I think ‘yawl are biting at this pizza from the wrong end. Consider for a moment the trouble with mandatory auto insurance, reportedly ignored, for whatever reason, by upwards of twenty percent of the motoring population. For whatever reason, ignored.
It has long been my understanding that one of the requirements of a conceal/carry is to place the application before a court or administrative review for adjudication of a threat real or perceived. While I’m sure it’s within the realm of statistical probability that Chester the Child Molester, Dippy the Dope Dealer or Ivan the Investment Broker would as likely be granted a permit as Roger the Restaurateur or Paul the Plumber, the statistical likelihood of Chester, Dippy or Ivan actually applying for one is incredibly low. While I personally have nothing to fear of Chester the Molester, Dippy the Doper or Ivan the Investor, we as a greater community do, and as a community should have nothing to fear of Roger the Restaurateur’s or Paul the Plumber’s need, real or perceived.
The question begging answer is not how many are packin’ with a permit, but how many are packin’… without a permit.
[Yes, one of the aforementioned “occupations” has been unfairly demonized]
Thomas Ware
This article appears in Apr 2-8, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Mr Hank says “better to be packin’ needlessly than not packin’ when you need to”. Can you say “measure twice an cut once”? Lots of wasted measuring going on… Can you say “Better safe than sorry”?
Best you all go out and git yourselves a gun or two…