Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds? - Page 8
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 87

Thread: Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds?

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by gdcleanfun View Post
    GF stated: "... If you don't have a CC permit/license, you're not allowed to carry a firearm. ..."

    I hate being a newbie to this state (anywhere!) but I'm just look for some clarification, not looking for arguments. Do we need some sort of permit to carry openly in Nevada, or just the permit I was issued for concealed carry?
    I'll re-state this portion for you. If you don't have a CC permit/license, you're not allowed to carry a concealed firearm. OC may be "legal", but you may find yourself being frequently questioned by LE. The instructor for my NV CFP class was a NV LEO. He strongly recommended against OC in "Clarke County" (Las Vegas) due to his personal experience in responding to numerous "man with a gun" calls. The practice may be "legal", but if someone makes a complaint, LE will respond and will check your "blue card" and photo ID. He said that there's nothing wrong with OC, just be prepared to be stopped if you practice.

    Hope that cleared it up for you.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  2.   
  3. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    I'll re-state this portion for you. If you don't have a CC permit/license, you're not allowed to carry a concealed firearm. OC may be "legal", but you may find yourself being frequently questioned by LE. The instructor for my NV CFP class was a NV LEO. He strongly recommended against OC in "Clarke County" (Las Vegas) due to his personal experience in responding to numerous "man with a gun" calls. The practice may be "legal", but if someone makes a complaint, LE will respond and will check your "blue card" and photo ID. He said that there's nothing wrong with OC, just be prepared to be stopped if you practice.

    Hope that cleared it up for you.



    gf

    Yes, thx! I see open carry quite often here in Nye (specifically Pahrump) and no one seems to mind and I don't see people being stopped/questioned, so I was just curious if I missed something else or if my instructor missed the mark 360 again. I've not seen many carry openly over the hump, but then again, I don't go over the hump too often.

    Thx again.

    This site is sometimes goofy, or maybe it's my pc, or maybe it's the operator? but I thought I read through every one of these comments before I asked my question, and now, while going thru to read your answer, there are other comments that show up that already answered me. Sorry for the duplication.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Green Valley (Henderson) NV
    Posts
    853
    Quote Originally Posted by gdcleanfun View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    I'll re-state this portion for you. If you don't have a CC permit/license, you're not allowed to carry a concealed firearm. OC may be "legal", but you may find yourself being frequently questioned by LE. The instructor for my NV CFP class was a NV LEO. He strongly recommended against OC in "Clarke County" (Las Vegas) due to his personal experience in responding to numerous "man with a gun" calls. The practice may be "legal", but if someone makes a complaint, LE will respond and will check your "blue card" and photo ID. He said that there's nothing wrong with OC, just be prepared to be stopped if you practice.
    Yes, thx! I see open carry quite often here in Nye (specifically Pahrump) and no one seems to mind and I don't see people being stopped/questioned, so I was just curious if I missed something else or if my instructor missed the mark 360 again. I've not seen many carry openly over the hump, but then again, I don't go over the hump too often.

    Thx again.

    This site is sometimes goofy, or maybe it's my pc, or maybe it's the operator? but I thought I read through every one of these comments before I asked my question, and now, while going thru to read your answer, there are other comments that show up that already answered me. Sorry for the duplication.
    This is probably better suited for the Nevada group.

    It all depends on the area. There are quite a few jurisdictions that are more OC friendly that Clark County although with Carson City and Washoe County being blue counties this Presidential election OC may not be as openly tolerated. Also keep in mind that we lost some more red assembly persons and state senators this election as well.

    We also kept the three thorns in our backside from the last legislative session;
    • Assemblyperson Anderson; our favorite general judiciary committee chairthorn in our backside.
    • Assemblyperson Kirkpatrick; sponsored the amendment prohibiting licensed child care facilities for both open and concealed carry under SB354.
    • Assemblyperson Smith; testified and worked with Kirkpatrick to get the child care prohibitioin amendment added to SB354.

    The good news that the following pro-RKBA State Assemblypersons and Senators made it for another term;

    Assemblypersons Mortensen and Settelmeyer
    Senator Lee

    Off the top of my head, Nevada lost one pro-RBKA assemblyperson due to her dropping out of the election due to legal troubles (I don't consider it much of a loss considering she voted yes on the Kirkpatrick amended SB354), one due to state mandated term limits and two senators because they didn't win the re-election.

    The problem isn't just at the federal level, it's also at the State level as well as we seem to be getting Kalifornicated here with flaming liberalism in both Clark County and up north in Washoe and Carson City Counties. It also seems that all of the anti-RKBA state legislators made it another term.
    Know the law; don't ask, don't tell.
    NRA & UT Certified Instructor; CT, FL, NH, NV, OR, PA & UT CCW Holder
    Happy new 1984; 25 years behind schedule. Send lawyers, guns and money...the SHTF...

  5. #74
    Also, I think there are probably others like me who have a sort of emotional reaction and see using a taser as cruelty, where a gun might not be seen that way. Illogical, but that's how emotions are. Hopefully I won't be trounced too harshly for admitting that. . . .

    Perhaps there are other methods to accomplish subduing a BG that might be better? I'm not a LEO, so LEO's please feel free to put me in my place. I want to know what you think about tasers.


    Hi BoomChick (nice to see another lady and another student on here),

    While I understand your initial reaction to the TASER as "cruel", I have to completely disagree with you, particularly when it comes to law enforcement use.

    First, understanding how the Taser works (forgive me if you know this, I dont' want to seem condescending): a taser uses probes (either fired from a cartridge or built into the unit itself) to send electricity through the body. The electricity causes the muscles of the body to contract, just like if you flexed your bicep. When the probes are far apart (fired from a cartridge) more muscles contract, rendering the subject unable to move. When the probes are close together (stun-gun style) only the muscles immediately surrounding the probes contract (like a cramp). LE Tasers (and probably civilian models, but I don't know for sure) automatically "fire" for 5 seconds when the trigger is pulled. After that five seconds, the trigger must be pulled again for the taser to "fire" again. Once the electricity is turned off, the muscles return to their normal state, although they might be a little sore (like from a hard workout). Most injuries from tasers result from the subject falling down, punctures from the probes, or a slight burn from the contact tase. My descriptions of how it feels to be tased come from friends and relatives in Law Enforcement (who were tased coluntarily in training, and accidentally in the field).

    As you can see, the taser is not a terrible, torturous weapon. In fact, most people who have been tased say they would rather experience another tasing than be pepper-sprayed (bad guys and LE both). Also, any pain associated with the taser is transient - it stops when the tasing stops. With built in limitations such as the 5-second trigger pull, the taser is a very effective and relatively kind method for breaking contact or subduing a bad guy.

    Second point- the taser compared to alternatives: In LE applications, a taser is used when a subject is threatening or actively fighting with officers/civilians. My boyfriend (a police officer) had the opportunity to use his taser just last night. A suspect was on the ground, kicking at him and other officers. Had a taser not been available, he would have had two options: go hands-on with the suspect, or shoot the suspect. If he had shot the suspect (justified since his safety was threatened), the suspect would be dead and not in jail right now. If he went hands-on with the suspect, he most likely would have used his baton. He would have risked injury to himself (he probably would have been kicked repeatedly because he would have had to get within range of hte kicks in order to use his baton), and he would have injured the suspect, possibly quite severely, by hitting him with a baton until he stopped fighting. INstead of either of these scenarios, he tased the suspect, who did not like it one bit, and they were able to get hte suspect hand-cuffed and hog-tied (so he couldn't kick) and safley transported to jail. THe suspect was not injured, and none of hte officers on scene were injured.

    Excited Delirium is another instance when the Taser is a life-saving device. ED is a medical condition that commonly effects people who have consumed large amounts of drugs like PCP. ED is recognizable because the suspect will have a very high fever (his brain is cooking) and will usually take off all of his clothing. The suspect appears completely incoherent, very angry, and very violent. THe suspect is usually impervious to injury given the high level of adrenaline and drugs in his system. Pepper spray is completely ineffective ED patients. Generally, any sort of physical intervention (attempts to wrestle or fight the suspect, batons, even bullets) are ineffective because the suspect does not feel pain. Before the taser, these suspects were usually shot, and most died, either from the shooting, or from teh overload to the nervous system. Since Tasers have become available, these suspects can be subdued, strapped down, and treated by medical professionals. Many lived have been saved.

    As you can probably tell, I am a fan of the taser, and I hope to eventually be able to afford the civilian version. I would like to carry a firearm on my campus, but I would also like to carry a Taser. I think both have very important functions, and the taser is not necessarily just the "lighter version" of a gun.
    Husky Girl

  6. #75
    I can't think of any particular weapons I would ban, because weapons are just inanimate objects. That would be like banning cars because lots of people suck at driving.

    I can only think of a few places I would want guns banned - namely inside secured areas of jails/mental institutions, that kind of thing. Maybe if there was a place that was impervious to anyone with bad intentions, it would be OK to not allow guns in there?

    I think ammunitions limitations should be based on common sense. I was about to ask why civilians would need armor piercing ammo - then I answered my own question - because bad guys sometimes wear armor. Unfortunately, for every type of new ammo that is supposed to make law enforcement/military more effective, there are bad guys figuring out how to get around it. I dont think it makes sense to have poisoned ammo, or radioactive ammo, etc.

    As far as banning who should be allowed to have guns - I wish there was some way to only ban guns for people who want to do bad things with them. Like, I wouldn't mind a law that says rapists and bank robbers can't have guns. I'm not talking about convicted felons here, just anyone who intends to commit a rape or rob a bank. Of course I know this is impossible - please don't get on my case about it too badly. In my ideal world, no one would need to carry guns because no one would hurt anyone else. The only point in having them at all would be because it's fun to shoot stuff.

    I think the current laws aimed at preventing felons and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms should be strengthened, and I am OK with showing that I am not crazy or a felon before I get a permit. Actually, I'm pretty much okay with restrictions, as long as they are aimed at preventing people who should not have guns (crazies and criminals) from having them, not preventing everyone from having them. I agree with most of you that gun-owners as a whole tend to be more responsible and law-abiding than the average citizen, btu I also think there is a real problem when a paranoid schizophrenic who's off his meds can get his hands on a firearm. I know there is a balancing act between restriction and banishment, but none of us are helped if we move too far in either direction.
    Husky Girl

  7. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I think ammunitions limitations should be based on common sense. I was about to ask why civilians would need armor piercing ammo
    Virtually all rifle ammunition is body armor piercing capable. That "armor piercing ammo" is another lie by the anti-gun nuts to outlaw rifles.

    Like, I wouldn't mind a law that says rapists and bank robbers can't have guns.
    There are laws against committing crimes with guns. Doesn't seem like laws do much against criminals. Gun laws only affect the law-abiding.

    In my ideal world, no one would need to carry guns because no one would hurt anyone else. The only point in having them at all would be because it's fun to shoot stuff.
    Fun shooting is reason enough. Every try Cowboy Action Shooting?

    I am OK with showing that I am not crazy or a felon before I get a permit.
    Yet you want a gun, proving in the Dem/left world, that you are crazy.

    I agree with most of you that gun-owners as a whole tend to be more responsible and law-abiding than the average citizen,
    And those with Carry Permits tend to be as responsible and law-abiding (or more so) than the police.

    I also think there is a real problem when a paranoid schizophrenic who's off his meds can get his hands on a firearm.
    Criminals get their hands on guns all the time. That's one of the reason that law-abiding citizens should be armed.

    I know there is a balancing act between restriction and banishment, but none of us are helped if we move too far in either direction.
    Even the anti-gun CDC has admitted to not being able to find any gun control law that reduces crime or violence.

    First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
    First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
    Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services...

    The material in this report was prepared by the Epidemiology Program Office, Stephen B. Thacker, M.D., Director; Division of Prevention Research and Analytic Methods, Richard E. Dixon, M.D., Director.
    Summary

    During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  8. #77
    I'm not saying the current gun laws necessarily work, I'm just saying that I think the intent behind them is legitimate.

    I also never said that I don't think law-abiding citizens should be armed. I do. I am.

    My reasons for responding were, 1) to continue a thread that I thought was interesting to read, and 2) to make the point that there are some people that should not have guns. Rather than try to remove any and all restrictions on guns, let's figure out a way to make the restictions accomplish the purpose they were designed for - to keep guns away from people who want to use them to commit crimes and hurt others.
    Husky Girl

  9. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Even the anti-gun CDC has admitted to not being able to find any gun control law that reduces crime or violence. [/COLOR]
    Gun control law to reduce crime? I thought that issuing CCWs worked just fine. Isn't that a non-control, gun control law?

  10. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I'm not saying the current gun laws necessarily work, I'm just saying that I think the intent behind them is legitimate.
    You know what they say about the Road to Hell. Good intentions are not a good excuse for doing things with bad consequences.

    let's figure out a way to make the restictions accomplish the purpose they were designed for - to keep guns away from people who want to use them to commit crimes and hurt others.
    Let's start by getting rid of the restrictions that have proved to be worthless. Let's stop making life more dangerous for law abiding citizens.

    The fact is "restrictions" on law abiding citizens do nothing to reduce crime or violence. Let's make it more dangerous for criminals to commit crime (shall issue Carry permits as an example). That works. Let's stop treating criminals as if they are children who made a mistake and only need to be talked to (the three strikes laws as an example). That works.

    You may notice that the things that have been shown to reduce crime and violence are almost universally supported by conservatives and opposed by liberals. That should give you a place to start with some deep thought and evaluation.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  11. #80
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Husky Girl View Post
    I can't think of any particular weapons I would ban, because weapons are just inanimate objects. That would be like banning cars because lots of people suck at driving.

    I can only think of a few places I would want guns banned - namely inside secured areas of jails/mental institutions, that kind of thing. Maybe if there was a place that was impervious to anyone with bad intentions, it would be OK to not allow guns in there?

    I think ammunitions limitations should be based on common sense. I was about to ask why civilians would need armor piercing ammo - then I answered my own question - because bad guys sometimes wear armor. Unfortunately, for every type of new ammo that is supposed to make law enforcement/military more effective, there are bad guys figuring out how to get around it. I dont think it makes sense to have poisoned ammo, or radioactive ammo, etc.

    As far as banning who should be allowed to have guns - I wish there was some way to only ban guns for people who want to do bad things with them. Like, I wouldn't mind a law that says rapists and bank robbers can't have guns. I'm not talking about convicted felons here, just anyone who intends to commit a rape or rob a bank. Of course I know this is impossible - please don't get on my case about it too badly. In my ideal world, no one would need to carry guns because no one would hurt anyone else. The only point in having them at all would be because it's fun to shoot stuff.

    I think the current laws aimed at preventing felons and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms should be strengthened, and I am OK with showing that I am not crazy or a felon before I get a permit. Actually, I'm pretty much okay with restrictions, as long as they are aimed at preventing people who should not have guns (crazies and criminals) from having them, not preventing everyone from having them. I agree with most of you that gun-owners as a whole tend to be more responsible and law-abiding than the average citizen, btu I also think there is a real problem when a paranoid schizophrenic who's off his meds can get his hands on a firearm. I know there is a balancing act between restriction and banishment, but none of us are helped if we move too far in either direction.
    Second Ammendment is a right that "shall not be infringed". The Fourteenth say, in part, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,..."

    This tells me that the right to bear arms should not be infringed unless due process is carried out concerning individual cases. Coviction of a crime, by either a judge or a jury, is due process. Being found mentally incapable of sound judgement can be a due process if it includes interviews, evaluations and recommendations, and then a determination by an arbitrator or judge. Simply having a Dr. state that someone is unstable is insufficeint.

    That means that any restriction on guns apply to the individual, not the place.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast