http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10367271?source=most_viewed
Quote• To see the statute on gun permits and to download an application, click here or here.
LAS CRUCES — The number of Doña Ana County residents with permits to carry concealed handguns has more than doubled in less than a year.
Figures from the New Mexico Department of Public Safety show that, as of Friday, 951 people in Doña Ana County have a license to carry a firearm. And, a disproportionate number of them — 82 percent — are men. As of late last September, 455 residents in Doña Ana County had concealed-carry licenses — 373 were men and 82 were women.
Over the same time period, the statewide total went from about 7,000 to 10,687.
Firearm safety instructors and gun retailers said the spike can be attributed to current events and the gun-carrier's personal situation and experiences.
The state requires a training course to obtain a concealed carry permit. Eddie Garcia is one of the state-approved instructors, and teaches in
Advertisement
Doña Ana and other counties.
He said he gets about 15 calls a day inquiring about the three-day course.
"It just depends on what's going on in people's lives," Garcia said, explaining the spike. "There's always a reason for wanting to do it. It's because something has happened to them that they want to protect themselves."
Rey Gonzales, owner of Custom Cartridge gun store in Las Cruces, said the reason for the spike in permits is crime.
"It shouldn't surprise you," he said. "Crime's up, concealed carry goes up. Especially with the stuff going on across the border."
The state's concealed carry law was signed in 2003. By the end of 2004, the first full year the law was in effect, 121 permits had been granted in Doña Ana County. A total of 786 men have licenses in the county, including one between the ages of 95 and 99.
The figures also show that if you're a man, the older you are, the more likely you are to have a concealed carry license.
A breakdown by gender shows 21 men between the ages of 20 and 24 had license. That drops to 20 for the ages of 25 to 29. But the number steadily increases from there, topping out at 126 licenses for men between the ages of 60 and 64.
"They're more vulnerable to (crime)," gunsmith Emerson Gates said of older individuals. "They can feel it. They want to do whatever they can to ameliorate that."
Women between the ages of 50 to 54 accounted for 37 of 165 licenses issued to women in Doña Ana County.
Nifty! I still need to get on the stick and find time to get mine. I gotta find a weekend, an instructor and hop-to.\
1,000 people = about 0.5% of our population.
In the comment section someone wrote about paranoia. This response is one of the best things I've ever read: "Why is firearm paranoia, and fire extinguisher preparation?" The commenters also mention our university restriction, WHICH, by the way, I haven't received a response from either my State Senator or State Rep. :(. Guess I oughta call them??
Quote"Why is firearm paranoia, and fire extinguisher preparation?"
Well, for starters, if you're drunk, it's a lot harder to kill someone with a fire extinguisher. If you're upset, irrational or many other things, the same applies.
Quote from: Blaze on September 03, 2008, 07:48:17 PM
Quote"Why is firearm paranoia, and fire extinguisher preparation?"
Well, for starters, if you're drunk, it's a lot harder to kill someone with a fire extinguisher. If you're upset, irrational or many other things, the same applies.
I think it's deeper than that -- fire extinguishers were designed to save lives, and firearms were designed to take lives.
Taking a life can, in turn, save lives.
Both can be used for good or bad. *shrug*
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 03, 2008, 11:05:33 PM
Taking a life can, in turn, save lives.
Both can be used for good or bad. *shrug*
How often do you hear of somebody using a fire extinguisher for bad? :P
Next thing you know, we'll be hearing about a "school extinguishing", where kids brought in fire extinguishers from home and..... nevermind.
How often do you hear of a non-criminal using a gun for bad?
Only bad guys using things for bad purposes. Ban bad guys, not their tools.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 03, 2008, 11:29:56 PM
How often do you hear of a non-criminal using a gun for bad?
Only bad guys using things for bad purposes. Ban bad guys, not their tools.
I see what you did there. Almost no non-criminals use a gun for bad.. all the people who use the guns for bad are criminals. And shiet, there's alot of them. And plenty of them got their guns legally, utilizing the 2nd amendment.
Most of 'em got their guns illegally.
My step(?)-cousin's friend sold illegal gun from MX out of his trunk at the high school
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 03, 2008, 11:29:56 PM
How often do you hear of a non-criminal using a gun for bad?
Only bad guys using things for bad purposes. Ban bad guys, not their tools.
You just proved to everybody that you really are an idiot.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 03, 2008, 11:29:56 PM
How often do you hear of a non-criminal using a gun for bad?
You usually hear about it after, when they've become the criminal. Duh?
Your argument here suggests that there is no such thing as first timers in gun crimes.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 03, 2008, 11:29:56 PM
How often do you hear of a non-criminal using a gun for bad?
Only bad guys using things for bad purposes. Ban bad guys, not their tools.
When was the last time you heard of
anybody using a fire extinguisher for bad?
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 03, 2008, 11:05:33 PM
Both can be used for good or bad. *shrug*
Even though I hate craz#d, it seems it's fair to point out this (SFW) (http://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+beaten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a)
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
Even though I hate craz#d, it seems it's fair to point out this (SFW) (http://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+beaten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a)
Well, if you count bludgeoning, then basically anything can be used "for bad". Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it isn't what I meant.
What I meant was based on what it does (by design) -- like randomly putting out important fires or something.
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
Even though I hate craz#d, it seems it's fair to point out this (SFW) (http://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+beaten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a)
"Duped lover accused of killing transsexual with fire extinguisher"
Hahahahaha. I lol'd.
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 09:34:52 AM
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
Even though I hate craz#d, it seems it's fair to point out this (SFW) (http://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+beaten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a)
Well, if you count bludgeoning, then basically anything can be used "for bad". Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it isn't what I meant.
What I meant was based on what it does (by design) -- like randomly putting out important fires or something.
Well, then you can say that guns aren't designed to kill people either, and thus they are fine. They are used by police (with non-lethal force, I might add) to prevent/stop crime.
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 09:34:52 AM
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
Even though I hate craz#d, it seems it's fair to point out this (SFW) (http://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+beaten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a)
Well, if you count bludgeoning, then basically anything can be used "for bad". Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it isn't what I meant.
What I meant was based on what it does (by design) -- like randomly putting out important fires or something.
Well, then you can say that guns aren't designed to kill people either, and thus they are fine. They are used by police (with non-lethal force, I might add) to prevent/stop crime.
What practical purpose do guns have other than to kill/destroy/threaten?
Quote from: Blaze on September 04, 2008, 01:28:45 PM
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 01:24:14 PM
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 09:34:52 AM
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 08:41:11 AM
Even though I hate craz#d, it seems it's fair to point out this (SFW) (http://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+beaten&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a)
Well, if you count bludgeoning, then basically anything can be used "for bad". Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it isn't what I meant.
What I meant was based on what it does (by design) -- like randomly putting out important fires or something.
Well, then you can say that guns aren't designed to kill people either, and thus they are fine. They are used by police (with non-lethal force, I might add) to prevent/stop crime.
What practical purpose do guns have other than to kill/destroy/threaten?
They don't have those purposes at all. Bullets kill, destroy, and threaten. It's just that people mistakenly blame the gun. As I said before, guns are not evil. They can be loaded with rubber bullets to take down a dangerous criminal without hurting anyone, or they can be loaded with powerful tranquilizers so that bears won't be able to [completely] maul you to death next time you get drunk and fall into a bear den at the zoo.
All in all, if guns didn't exist, there would be a lot more bear maulings.
Quote from: rabbit on September 04, 2008, 01:31:14 PM
They don't have those purposes at all. Bullets kill, destroy, and threaten. It's just that people mistakenly blame the gun. As I said before, guns are not evil. They can be loaded with rubber bullets to take down a dangerous criminal without hurting anyone, or they can be loaded with powerful tranquilizers so that bears won't be able to [completely] maul you to death next time you get drunk and fall into a bear den at the zoo.
All in all, if guns didn't exist, there would be a lot more bear maulings.
Guns are designed to kill, period. That's why they were invented, and that's why people typically carry them.
That's not the reason that fire extinguishers are put on walls and throughout buildings.
Think of it this way -- why aren't there guns attached to the wall throughout buildings, with a little sign that says "break in case of emergency"? Because they're inherently dangerous.
And that's why guns are paranoia while fire extinguishers are preparedness. :P
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 02:29:20 PM
Think of it this way -- why aren't there guns attached to the wall throughout buildings, with a little sign that says "break in case of emergency"? Because they're inherently dangerous.
That's actually a brilliant idea! ;D
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 02:29:20 PM
Think of it this way -- why aren't there guns attached to the wall throughout buildings, with a little sign that says "break in case of emergency"? Because they're inherently dangerous.
For the same reason that bacon isn't: while awesome and desirable, in the wrong hands it can cause severe heart problems.
PEOPLE kill/destroy/threaten ... not inanimate objects
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 03:16:25 PM
PEOPLE kill/destroy/threaten ... not inanimate objects
That'd be great, if I said that guns kill. But I didn't, I said that they're
designed to kill.
Guns are designed to eject a projectile.
Bullets are designed to puncture a certain object.
NEITHER are designed to kill.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 03:55:09 PM
Guns are designed to eject a projectile.
Bullets are designed to puncture a certain object.
NEITHER are designed to kill.
Why are guns built, if it's not to kill?
Hunt, sport, defense are other occurrences PEOPLE might use them for.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 04:16:51 PM
Hunt, sport, defense are other occurrences PEOPLE might use them for.
Hunt -- killing
Defense -- killing
Sport, without live animals, isn't killing, but guns aren't generally designed to just shoot at targets.
The goal of the person is to kill. It is never the goal of a gun.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 04:37:49 PM
The goal of the person is to kill. It is never the goal of a gun.
Except for the part you're forgetting: guns are designed to kill.
Guns are designed to eject a projectile
And guillotines are designed to drop a sharp blade.
Exactly.
Just so happens that operators of guillotines have nearly one sole purpose, execution.
Operators of guns don't have one sole purpose.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 04:53:38 PM
Guns are designed to eject a projectile into somebody causing death
There, I fixed it.
No.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 04:57:11 PM
Exactly.
Just so happens that operators of guillotines have nearly one sole purpose, execution.
Operators of guns don't have one sole purpose.
Stopping at the mechanism is stupid. Guillotines were designed to drop a sharp blade
in order to chop peoples' heads off. Guns were designed to eject a projectile at a high velocity
in order to be used as a weapon.
Your argument is meaningless. There are plenty of reasonable arguments for the opposition of gun control. This is not one of them.
We were just discussing the designed purpose of a gun, not gun control.
I would argue that good gun control involved regulations that ensure accurate firearms enter the market, so as to lessen the chance of a miss placed shot.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 05:55:14 PM
We were just discussing the designed purpose of a gun, not gun control.
Regardless, you're wrong.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 05:55:14 PM
I would argue that good gun control involved regulations that ensure accurate firearms enter the market, so as to lessen the chance of a miss placed shot.
That seems vaguely familiar.
Oh, wait.
(http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/xrg122.gif)
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 04, 2008, 05:55:14 PM
We were just discussing the designed purpose of a gun, not gun control.
No, we're discussing the difference between guns and fire extinguishers. As I said, the difference is their intended purpose. :P
*shrug*
eh well...I drink too little to care
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html
Newsflash: Few American soldiers die in Iraq than civilians in the city of Chicago.
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 05, 2008, 04:43:50 PM
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html
Newsflash: Few American soldiers die in Iraq than civilians in the city of Chicago.
What about civillians in iraq?
I dunno
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 05, 2008, 04:43:50 PM
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html
Newsflash: Few American soldiers die in Iraq than civilians in the city of Chicago.
While the deaths are still an important part of the reasons we shouldn't be there (imo), the financial strain it creates has more priority, I think.