Home / Gun Ownership / Glock Around the Clock in Oregon
Print Friendly and PDF

Glock Around the Clock in Oregon

Written by Gary North on June 19, 2013

A small town in Oregon has received a lot of media attention because local citizens have taken things into their own hands: specifically, handguns. Some of them wear T-shirts: This Is a Glock Block: We Don’t Call 911.

The residents are tired of petty crime. They are tired of the local sheriff’s department that can’t get to the scene of a crime fast enough.

In short, they are tired of government-funded law-enforcement.

They have decided that self-defense begins closer to home: in their homes.

Gun control advocates are outraged. The local tax-funded cops aren’t happy with the competition, either. A news report from citizen gun-free England says this: “Police make a note of cautioning anyone from pursuing vigilante justice, though armed citizens have become more common deterrents to crime.”

“Vigilante justice” is a code phrase in cop-speak meaning “invading licensed turf.”

Citizens in the United States have constitutional protection for gun ownership. Around the world, this is regarded as a peculiarity of the United States. As a matter of fact, it is. Fortunately.

Continue Reading on

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

12 thoughts on “Glock Around the Clock in Oregon

  1. Rabelrouser says:

    It seems that citizens are realizing that the criminal injustice system just propagates more crime. How many times do we read of those who have committed numerious crimes again commiting another crime? Only to be back on the streets to ply their trade. It almost seems as if this is done intentionally; and when you think about the cash cow that it has become for the local system, well, it is a perfect "make work" system.
    The more that individuals come together , the stronger that community becomes. People become more aware of their neighbors and work to assist and help eachother in many aspects. This is what communities were years ago, but now it is being brought back by the common goal of personal safety.
    The term "Vigilante" is bantered about to promote an image of a "lawless nature"; but self protection is not being a "Vigilante". Self protection ,and the awareness of it being utilized in this manner, serves as a warning to those who would commit a crime; which will actually make the use of a firearm less likely because of its possible use against those who break the law.

  2. Rabelrouser says:

    The facts prove that in those states where citizens can carry concealed weapons, that crime has gone down by as much as 50%, sence the laws inception. All the political hype and fear mongering can not change that fact. The opposite is true where firearm ownership is more restricted, crime has risen and so have the associated costs perpitrated by the rise.
    Bringing people together and forming community only serves to create a greater enviroment of safety, understanding and personal responsibility. It makes the people care more for their neighbors and the situations of their lives. There becomes a sense of helping eachother in all areas, not just protection.
    Sounds like a win / win for the people, and lessens the burden to the criminal injustice system by detering crime; but then they dont make as much money, nor can they use statistics to demand more tax dollars, and federal grants ( tax dollars) to fight "rising crime"
    I see a pattern forming.

  3. The police (and by extension the government itself) would rather have a dead crime victim to pose next to and promise the family they will not rest until the killer is found, than to interview a still living homeowner who thwarted an attack using deadly force with a legally owned firearm.

    The courts have also ruled time and again that the police have no legal obligation to protect the public that pays their salaries and benefits.

  4. Actually, overall crime is down (in the US) even in those hotbeds of crime like Chicago, LA, Philadelphia and Washout, DC. Media coverage, on the other (or is it under) hand is up significantly, leading to the findings that 57% of "people" think crime, and especially gun crime, is up. The facts are that, in the US, as opposed to, let's say Great Britain, people are becoming less likely to commit VIOLENT crime. In the UK, on the other hand VIOLENT crime has increased significantly even to the point where Britain is now being called the violence capital of Europe… and so they opt for even stiffer gun-related penalties and restrictions.

    Low-brows like Piers Morgan point to the fact that gun-related crime is down significantly in the UK, although you are 1200 times more likely to be bludgeoned to death, a fact he seems to be able to avoid at all costs. The problem is that trying to compare gun-related rates of crime in the UK vs. the US is like comparing the number of auto-pedestrian accidents from 1999 with those in 1799. If there were no automobiles the rate will be lower.

    The stats don't add up, though, when you look at the real numbers. Less guns has made Britain less safe… even less safe than us blood-thirsty Americans.

    Now if we could just get socialized dentistry… ;)>

  5. Danno, I don't know where you get your allegations about law enforcement, but I take offense to your statements. I have two sons who are police officers and they put their lives on the line every single day to protect the people in our community. Saying they want more dead crime victims to pose beside is the most insulting, preposterous thing I have heard anyone say in a long, long time.

  6. Not preposterous at all. It may be necessary to make a distinction between the cop-on-the-street and the political higher-ups, though. It's so common it's not even news when police unions and police chiefs lobby the legislature to take away our freedoms.

    But even making a distinction between the "good" cops and the "bad" cops doesn't get to the whole story, because the "good" cops are not arresting or whistle-blowing on the bad cops. It's that whole "thin blue line" thing. Corruption rises through the ranks, and you're more likely to be corrupt the higher up you go…and if your sons are truly not corrupt, then they may well find themselves one day being forced out or forced to take night shifts if they're not willing to look aside for, or even directly support, their corrupt co-workers. If you didn't know all that already, then you're willfully blind.

  7. Sorry, I don't agree. It may be true where you live, and I don't know where that is, but I would stake my life on there being no corruption in our police department. I know too many people and too much of what goes on in the department to accept that precept. I'm not saying it will never happen, just that it does not exist now.

  8. Sure, I can acknowledge that there are some non-corrupt police departments in the country, although if you're talking about anything above a tiny town, you're dreaming. But the general trend is more and more militarization, more and more corruption, more and more "policing for profit". The drug war was the big foot in the door. It provides all the right (wrong) incentives to police forces to grind our liberty under foot, for fun and profit. The war on terror is even worse, although realistically it can't be used to target EVERYONE like the drug war can.

  9. Shooting somebody with a high powered handgun results in such injury (assuming you hit them at all) that many people may be reluctant to use them. Would it make more sense to equip homeowners with a 22? They are easier to aim, less lethal, and more likely to be used. A person with a 22 could offer a threatening thug an early sample of hurt while avoiding the possibility (maybe even likelihood) of going to jail themselves.
    In the event that a thief is making off with your property, shooting them in the back with something dangerous like a Glock would put you in jail. But tagging them with a 22 won't likely kill them, and even if they continue their escape will probably want the lead removed at a later date. Just the thought that there are a lot of trigger happy citizens around may deter crime. Use of a 22 makes this more of a sport than a war on crime.

  10. dumbest comment ever… you use deadly force only to repel the threat of deadly force and you do it decisively and to stop the threat.

  11. Here in Bexar County you can't even get the Sheriff to patrol your neighborhood, let alone take any enforcement action, especially against Blacks who commit the majority of the crime. The Precinct 3 Constable promised to take over all of the law enforcement functions in North Bexar County, but he has done absolutely nothing in that regard, and rarely, if ever, do you see his deputies on patrol. I don't place all of the blame on law enforcement. Now days, if a law enforcement officer tries to do his/her job, they are labeled racist, especially if they take enforcement action against Blacks or Hispanics, even though these groups are the offenders. Citizens have to protect themselves!!

  12. Are you feeble bob? Do you view every confrontation as a deadly threat? Not everybody is like that. How often do you face deadly force? Is every burglar a deadly threat to you? That's why people don't carry Glocks. That is why some people carry tasers and mace. They don't want to be responsible for someone's death, but some measure of force is desirable to deter petty criminals.
    Here's another point bob: how close do you have to be to a target to be assured of hitting it? Pretty close with a Glock, not so close with a 22. Your best defense is distance and the Glock is just good close up. I'm all for gun control and that means being able to hit your target. You can hit that target farther away with a small caliber weapon.