Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

brboyer but keep in mind Nevada really has 2 city's, Vegas and Reno. And they aren't that big. 2.6 million as of 09 census, Ohio and Pennsylvania has 12 million, smaller states like Conneticut has 3.5 million states that have 4x the population as Nevada have a consistently equal number of assault injuries towards officers, meaning a higher injury to population ratio in Nevada. That's why I'm saying Nevada is more dangerous, using national averages can be dramatically different from state averages.

Also I'm pretty sure speaking with officers and marshalls who work everyday in this area is better fact than googling internet facts.

PandaBearBG said:

brboyer but keep in mind Nevada really has 2 city's, Vegas and Reno. And they aren't that big. 2.6 million as of 09 census, Ohio and Pennsylvania has 12 million, smaller states like Conneticut has 3.5 million states that have 4x the population as Nevada have a consistently equal number of assault injuries towards officers, meaning a higher injury to population ratio in Nevada. That's why I'm saying Nevada is more dangerous, using national averages can be dramatically different from state averages.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's unfair to assume that the ratio of population to LEO is similar in most states, though. While the population of NV is concentrated in two cities, so are the LEO. It's still a valid statistic, I would suggest that it is the perspective of the observer that's skewed by having nearly all the attacks on LEO taking place within a few miles of the observer.

Give me a moment guys, our friend needs some extracurricular help

Let me help out our buddy PandaBearBG. He's no troll, he's a legitimate contributor to our Forum.

Panda says: Cali and LA which has the 3 strike rule alot of felons move out here when they hit 2 strikes to avoid the mandatory incarceration, which is what my LEO friend told me.

Click to expand...

Your LEO friend can use some additional updates. Nevada’s 3-Strikes rule applies to ANY and ALL violent felonies a criminal brings into Nevada from ANY state. Two prior felonies from any other state, and your third in Nevada earns life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Proudly, I served as foreman on the first jury to convict under this statute in 2001.

Panda said: …hunting isn't big here [Nevada]

Click to expand...

According to Nevada Division of Wildlife, we have more hunting and fishing licenses issued per thousand residents than nearly every state in the union. I urge you to discover the outdoors and hunt Nevada with the rest of us.

Panda suggests: That's why I'm saying Nevada is more dangerous, using national averages can be dramatically different from state averages.

Click to expand...

Nevada currently has 2.6 million residents and 45 million visitors per year. When you look at the total number of people, Nevada is seriously safe.

PandaBearBG said:

brboyer but keep in mind Nevada really has 2 city's, Vegas and Reno. And they aren't that big. 2.6 million as of 09 census, Ohio and Pennsylvania has 12 million, smaller states like Conneticut has 3.5 million states that have 4x the population as Nevada have a consistently equal number of assault injuries towards officers, meaning a higher injury to population ratio in Nevada. That's why I'm saying Nevada is more dangerous, using national averages can be dramatically different from state averages.

Also I'm pretty sure speaking with officers and marshalls who work everyday in this area is better fact than googling internet facts.

Click to expand...

There again emotion over facts. Anecdotes vs real data. You doubt the FBI data directly off their site?

The stats were the same for departments with as few as 100 officers as they were for department with 10,000 officers.

"Other than the NFA in 1934 the Second Amendment had basically no restrictions until 1968.

Airline passengers were not even searched or run through metal detectors until 1972.

I will submit that guns have not been and still aren't the problem here. It wasn't that long ago we didn't pay any attention to their regulation at all to any real extent.

Something else has changed, and it's not the use of guns in crime, or gun regulations. It's not crazy to suggest that the Second Amendment should have no restrictions because it wasn't that long ago that it didn't.

But societies expectations, fears, and tolerance have changed to the point where people actually believe that all of these laws do something, even though the crime rate is the same now as it was before any of these laws were put in place.

Guns are not the problem, and restricting gun rights hasn't fixed anything. So why is it crazy to suggest that, since it's true?"

Well many ( myself included) would disagree with many of the assumptions that you put forth. Since we have no way of knowing what may have or may not have transpired had those acts in 1934 or 1968 not been enacted we can not speak too much of their success or failure, except thru speculation and assumption.

Stating that the crime rate was not effected by these laws is faulty as well IMO since we have no way to know if the crime rates would have continue to rise or stay stable without said laws. I for one believe that logical firearm legislation does indeed have a negative effect upon crime. Of course just like your views mine can not be proven because we have no way to know what would have occurred with those rates had the laws not been enacted.

The truth IMO is that the vast majority of Americans do not share the view that the 2nd A has no limitations, they support logical realistic firearm legislation. I agree with them and although I have been called "anti gun or anti gun rights" on this forum I do not consider that to be accurate. The debate IMO lies in what is logical and realistic.

The line in the sand stance many would take with the 2nd A will only have negative effect on the upcoming political battles IMO. Demanding that we have access to whichever type of firearm platform we desire will not present a positive or intelligent image in the minds of average America. Those are the people (voters) who will ultimately decide this issues.

Stating that the crime rate was not effected by these laws is faulty as well IMO since we have no way to know if the crime rates would have continue to rise or stay stable without said laws.

Click to expand...

The gun crime rate continued to rise the same after GCA as it did before. If the laws had any impact we would expect to see some change. There really wasn't any.

A Congressional study ordered after passage of the Brady Bill showed that the law had no impact on crime. A Congressional study ordered after passage of the AWB showed that the law had no impact on crime. Yet, you are happy to have these laws in place because maybe, with no evidence to actually show it, things would have been worse?

What you are basically saying is "Since you can't prove not passing a law wouldn't have made it worse we will assume passing the law made it better".

That's not a very good way to implement public policy.

The truth IMO is that the vast majority of Americans do not share the view that the 2nd A has no limitations, they support logical realistic firearm legislation.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that, but it doesn't mean they are right, or that their beliefs have any foundation in reality. In this thread alone we've seen people admit to going on "feelings" more than fact in relation to guns in schools etc.

And what exactly is "logical realistic firearm legislation"?

Take for example Arizona. Then take for example the District of Columbia. Look at their gun laws vs their gun crime rate. Anything noticeable in that comparison?

Or does that not matter as long as it "feels like it's better"? I get what you are saying, it takes a leap to believe that gun laws haven't really done much good. But, when faced with a choice I tend to go more off of facts than what it "feels like".

logical realistic firearm legislation

Click to expand...

And what would that be?

And what would that be?

Click to expand...

We know the answer to that of course

1) It must "feel good"
2) It must not directly impact that person, only others

If it does those things, it's "sensible firearm legislation". As soon as it impacts that person directly and causes them to have to empty their gun safe, it's all of a sudden an infringement.

If it does those things, it's "sensible firearm legislation". As soon as it impacts that person directly and causes them to have to empty their gun safe, it's all of a sudden an infringement.

Click to expand...

That's usually how it goes.

But as we all know, "First they came for the machinegun owners"...

I am very glad that a convicted armed robber who was just released from prison last week can not go into True Value hardware and pick up a full auto MP5 with nothing more than a smile and some cash. That is logical and realistic firearm legislation to me. I would find it odd that anyone would think him being able to do so would not cause them any concern.

No offense gents but I really do not care to debate this verbatim again as it never seems to change anyones minds in the end and just causes bad blood. We are not going to agree on this matter so what would be the point? In the end the majority of those Americans "on the fence" will decide this matter thru the ballot box and I do not think taking what they would consider "extreme" positions will help protect the 2nd A in anyway. Just my .02

I am very glad that a convicted armed robber who was just released from prison last week can not go into True Value hardware and pick up a full auto MP5 with nothing more than a smile and some cash. That is logical and realistic firearm legislation to me. I would find it odd that anyone would think him being able to do so would not cause them any concern.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right, we debated this before, and you still pull out the goofy arguments of convicted armed robbers buying machineguns at Wal Mart and make it about gun laws.

The truth is the idiot shouldn't be out of prison to buy guns in the first place, but it's easier to just blame the gun.

I'm not sure how you consider it an "extreme" gun rights position to say that people who are not in prison should be allowed to buy a gun. But hey, I guess I'm an extremist wacko who believes that if people are safe enough to walk the streets, buy knives, cars, and televisions that a gun isn't really any different.

Well I tried to be civil about this debate......you on the other hand did not.

You do not seem to want to read and comprehend my post before attacking it, I clearly said that your position would be considered by the folks "on the fence" as extreme, I never said that I did. Stating that convicted felons should be able to legally buy firearms is going to be considered extreme to the general population of America, no debating that fact.

The fact remains people are going to be released from prison, does not mean they are no longer criminals. I do not want them to have the right to buy firearms, seems I am in the vast vast majority in this issues. That is not going to change and I think you know that.

You seem to be more interested in attacking, insulting and trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you than opening your mind to opposing viewpoints. Like I said, no point in going forward.

Enjoy your soapbox.

Ruggles said:

Well I tried to be civil about this debate......you on the other hand did not.

You do not seem to want to read and comprehend my post before attacking it, I clearly said that your position would be considered by the folks "on the fence" as extreme, I never said that I did. Stating that convicted felons should be able to legally buy firearms is going to be considered extreme to the general population of America, no debating that fact.

The fact remains people are going to be released from prison, does not mean they are no longer criminals. I do not want them to have the right to buy firearms, seems I am in the vast vast majority in this issues. That is not going to change and I think you know that.

You seem to be more interested in attacking, insulting and trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you than opening your mind to opposing viewpoints. Like I said, no point in going forward.

Enjoy your soapbox.

Click to expand...

Read my post that's back one page. Even the courts have ruled that felons have a right to possess firearms for self defense. If that makes it extreme, so be it. I need to go find my folder from my CWP class and get the actual case citation from the class handouts.

You seem to be more interested in attacking, insulting and trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you than opening your mind to opposing viewpoints. Like I said, no point in going forward

Click to expand...

No, I keep saying this has nothing to do with gun law, it's not a gun issue in any way. I'm trying to get people to think about this past the gun laws but no one wants to.

If someone is out of prison they should be free, if they are deemed not suitable to be free then keep them locked up.

That's not a gun issue, guns are not central to this at all, they are a side product because of "feel good" thinking.

Convicted felons can buy cars, knives, and alcohol all they want. All of those things result in more deaths each year than firearms. Yet firearms are the only restricted items. That just seems stupid if the idea is to keep the population in general safe.

If it's about public safety why are people not out lobbying for restrictions on car and alcohol sales to convicted felons?

Do you support legislation that would ban the purchase of cars, knives, and alcohol by released convicted felons? If not, why not? What is it about guns in particular if not?

I know the laws around felons and guns isn't going to change, all I ask of people is to actually think about what it means and why it's in place. If it's about public safety why are only guns demonized?

I believe the answer is just that, it's one more way to demonize firearms. Cars, knives, and alcohol? No problem. Guns? They just make people want to go out and kill. That's silly, but many people think that way. Even some here on THR.

Ruggles said:

I am very glad that a convicted armed robber who was just released from prison last week can not go into True Value hardware and pick up a full auto MP5 with nothing more than a smile and some cash. That is logical and realistic firearm legislation to me. I would find it odd that anyone would think him being able to do so would not cause them any concern.

Click to expand...

We're really starting to veer off-topic here.

Since we're here already.. the very reason you feel this way about full auto boils down to two reasons:
1- the antis have conditioned you
2- you associate machine guns with bad guys because of what you see in movies

How many more pages before people realize that if you're arguing with Deanimator or TexasRifleman, you're wrong?

How many more pages before people realize that if you're arguing with Deanimator or TexasRifleman, you're wrong?

Click to expand...

LOL. I'm wrong plenty. It's just that on this issue I refuse to accept that it's OK to have legislation in place based on nothing more than emotional reactions and "feel good" stuff.

That just doesn't seem like a good reason to pass laws. That's exactly what the AWB was and we see what that did. Absolutely nothing.

The sentence a person receives for being convicted of a crime is not only the prison time but the loss of rights after them serve that time. In other words the time in prison is only a portion of their "payment" for the crime committed. The stigma and loss of rights after that time is just and perfectly legal IMO. No one in their right mind would hire a convicted rapist to work as a maintenance worker at a female college dorm, rather they had "done their time" or not. The loss of ownership of firearms for convicted felons is only one of the rights they lose for the conviction.

Loss of cars, knives and alcohol have not been deemed to be part of the "sentence" for a conviction like firearms have. To me for pretty clear reason and I support the law as it now stands.

To try and take guns out of the gun right issue is non productive although I do understand you point. Trying to convince the average American to repeal current firearms laws because in fact they are just "feel good" laws is a moot point IMO.

Guns do not want to make people "go out and kill" but they do give them a very viable tool to do so. Controlling (again a wide open term used in a general sense here) that tool is only logical and just in a society which deems it to be so.

We can indeed have firearm laws that are neither "all" or "none" on the scale of private ownership, we have been doing so for many many decades. To say that folks (on this forum) who favor firearms laws are blaming the gun for the crime is inaccurate.

Would you not agree that we are all in favor of "drawing the line" somewhere on private ownership of arms? The wording used in he 2nd A is indeed "arms" and which now had a much wider meaning than when it was originally written. The debate seems to be where we draw that line. I personally am fine with where it is drawn now, you are not and that is where our debate lies. Again just my .02

"We're really starting to veer off-topic here.

Since we're here already.. the very reason you feel this way about full auto boils down to two reasons:
1- the antis have conditioned you
2- you associate machine guns with bad guys because of what you see in movies"

I have fired more than a few rounds of fully auto firearms (courtesy of Uncle Sam) and my feelings about their place in the world is not from movies or "antis".

I think the original framers of the Constitution intended for private citizens who were able-bodied to be able to defend themselves against a government taking their liberties and freedoms. I don't think the writers of the Constitution would blanch at a citizen owning the same types of weapons used by the military since that was their intent.

"I think the original framers of the Constitution intended for private citizens who were able-bodied to be able to defend themselves against a government taking their liberties and freedoms. I don't think the writers of the Constitution would blanch at a citizen owning the same types of weapons used by the military since that was their intent."

I see your point but you might want to define it more as you have just included everything from 9mm to chemical weapons and beyond.

The sentence a person receives for being convicted of a crime is not only the prison time but the loss of rights after them serve that time. In other words the time in prison is only a portion of their "payment" for the crime committed. The stigma and loss of rights after that time is just and perfectly legal IMO.

Click to expand...

Today, every single felony conviction is a life sentence as far as loss of rights is concerned. That's not right. Not every felonious act is the same. They are certainly not all violent.

Ruggles said:

"I think the original framers of the Constitution intended for private citizens who were able-bodied to be able to defend themselves against a government taking their liberties and freedoms. I don't think the writers of the Constitution would blanch at a citizen owning the same types of weapons used by the military since that was their intent."

I see your point but you might want to define it more as you have just included everything from 9mm to chemical weapons and beyond.

Click to expand...

Not really. Chemical weapons are generally banned in warfare.

I have no problem with requiring training as a condition for weapons that involve high explosives or that require other specialized training for their safe operation but once a person has proven that they can handle them safely then why shouldn't a trained citizen be able to defend himself as effectively as a trained soldier? After all 2A isn't about hunting and sport shooting, right?

"Not really. Chemical weapons are generally banned in warfare.

I have no problem with requiring training as a condition for weapons that involve high explosives or that require other specialized training for their safe operation but once a person has proven that they can handle them safely then why shouldn't a trained citizen be able to defend himself as effectively as a trained soldier? After all 2A isn't about hunting and sport shooting, right?"

Chemical weapons are part of the U.S. arsenal, and as we saw in Iraq are very capable of being turned on citizens by their government. What about SAMs to protect ourself from government helicopters and aircraft. How do we protect ourself against Government armor vehicles? What about naval weapon platforms?

The list goes on and on. The military of the 1700s and it's power ratio to armed civilians is not even close to modern times and I think is not a realistic base to determine private citizen firearm rights. Just my .02 but I think grounded in fact. If a out of control government force shows up in your necks of the woods with a Abrams, a couple of BFVs and a UH60 gunship what arms do you think you should have legal ownership of to defend yourself?

"Today, every single felony conviction is a life sentence as far as loss of rights is concerned. That's not right. Not every felonious act is the same. They are certainly not all violent."

While I might agree with you on principle the fact remains that the laws dictates otherwise and unless it is changed thru a consent of the majority (i.e. politically) it is just IMO. The old "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" comes to mind.

Ruggles said:

"Not really. Chemical weapons are generally banned in warfare.


Chemical weapons are part of the U.S. arsenal, and as we saw in Iraq are very capable of being turned on citizens by their government. What about SAMs to protect ourself from government helicopters and aircraft. How do we protect ourself against Government armor vehicles? What about naval weapon platforms?

The list goes on and on. The military of the 1700s and it's power ratio to armed civilians is not even close to modern times and I think is not a realistic base to determine private citizen firearm rights. Just my .02 but I think grounded in fact. If a out of control government force shows up in your necks of the woods with a Abrams, a couple of BFVs and a UH60 gunship what arms do you think you should have legal ownership of to defend yourself?

Click to expand...

Anything I can afford/borrow/be gifted/etc. As clearly spelled out in the Second Amendment to the Constution of The United States.