2017 Defensive Gun Uses

2017 had at least 40 self-defense gun uses (not counting uniformed police shootings) in Nevada that were documented in major media sources.

The last incident was on New Years’ Eve when a man, attempting to carjack or enter an occupied vehicle, was shot. One robber was shot with his own gun. Despite one of our own (a member of the gun community) sadly succumbing to opioid addiction withdrawal and wounding by gunshot staff of a pain clinic, concealed carriers ran to the sound of gunfire ready to assist, had the shooter not taken his own life.

Tragically, a security guard missed a robber and shot an innocent store clerk by mistake. Two other incidents went badly for armed citizens who injudiciously used their firearms (and their mouths). We remind everyone to get trained, know when shooting is justifiable, to keep their tempers in check, and also to never speak to the police without an attorney present.

The most conservative estimate of defensive gun uses is 100,000 annually in the United States and most never result in a shot being fired. High estimates range to upwards of two million defensive gun uses. Even counting suicides and intentional non-fatal self-injuries (which are not contributor’s to the average person’s risk of interpersonal harm), firearms are used as much as, if not more often, for good than for evil.

Also, unknown persons also attempted to steal police shotguns to “fight back” against possible attackers during the October 1 terrorist attack. Where evil abounds, good tends to go unnoticed or forgotten. Despite crime, horror, and tragedy, far more people are alive and safe because of guns than are killed by them.

Download spreadsheet of DGUs

Shut Up, Lawyer Up; 2 Bad Shoots

Know before you go.

UPDATED In the past week, two different “road rage” incidents have occurred in the Las Vegas Valley. One man is dead and two have been arrested. In the first “road rage” example, after a minor traffic accident, an 18 year old man, David Rosengrant-Munoz, stole the other party’s phone and threatened him with a gun. The other party had his own gun and shot Rosengrant-Munoz who is now in the hospital and facing charges including attempted murder.

Murder requires “malice aforethought” meaning that one has had time to contemplate their action and is not acting on emotional reflect. Surely after chasing the victim down and skidding to stop behind the victim’s car (stopped at the gate to a relative’s complex) the old soon-to-be felon had time to reconsider his actions. Or at least listen to the police dispatcher who practically begged Rosengrant-Munoz to stop chasing the other driver. Turns out it wasn’t a hit and run after all.

It was after having a gun pointed at him, the phone robbery, and the chase that the other driver shot Rosengrant-Munoz. Without a doubt, the elements of a justifiable use of deadly force were met. The second shooter wasn’t so lucky or smart, but the elements for murder do not appear to exist. In short, he screwed up big time, whether the shoot was truly justified or not. He is now in jail on an “open murder” charge, which means prosecutors can choose from involuntarily manslaughter to murder.

Jim Reed Davis shot and killed Lloyd Ullyott after the latter exited his vehicle to confront Davis. The incident started with a honk and ended with a gunshot. Davis claimed that he could not see Ullyott’s hands and feared that Ullyott might have had “something” in his hands.

A “bare fear,” or an unreasonable fear not supported by facts, is not grounds for justifiable homicide. State law requires that “it must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person” to kill in self-defense. Might is a possibility and killing in self-defense requires probability. Not being unable to see the “attacker’s” hands and having a non-specific fear typically does not satisfy the reasonable fear standard.

This law exists because all too often, during the Wild West days, the town bully or some other unsavory character would provoke a fight and claim that he was afraid the dead man had a concealed weapon. Self-defense acquittals were won on thin pretexts, often no more than the jury deciding if they liked the defendant or the dead man better. “I was in fear for my life” and a lie often excused all manners of murders. Blame was laid on concealed weapons, which were banned. Things did not change until courts, juries, and legislatures changed laws and practices to reject such baseless defenses.

Davis may well have been afraid, but without specific circumstances and facts to illustrate that the fear was a product of events outside Davis’ mind, the killing was not justified. For instance, an old woman shooting at a shadowy figure because shadowy figures are generally scary—not that the shadowy figure was trying to do anything other than go for his evening jog—would be unjustified as well. Just because you are afraid doesn’t mean the fear is a valid one.

The “furtive movement” defense and others like it do have merit, but an assertion like that has to be supported by eyewitness testimony and/or a solid explanation of what the suspect did to justify the fear of imminent death the killer had. For instance, in Davis’ case, he could have articulated the basis for his fear much better. A good attorney could have helped argue that, for instance, given Ullyott’s actions, his aggression, and the way that he held his hand out of sight, gave Davis the impression that Ullyott had a weapon and was intent on entering the vehicle or attacking Davis through the window.

Davis foolishly fell right into a trap the detective set for him by preying on his fear and regret immediately after the incident. From the Sun article:

“In an interview, detectives asked Davis if he had considered rolling up his window, driving around Ullyott or backing up, police said. Davis told them ‘now that he had a chance to think about it, that those would have been good ideas and he wished he had done one of those things,’ police said. According to the report, a woman in Davis’ vehicle told him to back up as Ullyott was approaching them.”

Don’t you wish you could have done something different to avoid being here tonight? Just one little thing. Any rational person would say yes. Maybe Davis should have stopped for ice cream or gone a different route home. Maybe he should have chosen to retire to a bunker in the desert twenty miles from any other person. An attorney would have told Davis not to answer the question or would have given a better answer.

With the additional information in today's LVRJ article, Davis' wife said that Ullyott never tried to get in the vehicle. Davis also may have had temper issues given completion of an anger management course after being charged with destroying property. In this case, the charges against Davis are likely justified, but again, Davis really did not help out his defense (and neither did his wife).

Now, given as Nevada is a “no duty to retreat” state, the detective’s question and Davis’ answer are potentially ill-relevant. In the first example, there would be no need to attempt to do anything to avoid a conflict and the question would be ill-relevant. NRS 200.120 does not require anyone to retreat before using deadly force (or acting in self-defense), if the person not the original aggressor, has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used, and is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used. No duty to retreat has been Nevada law since the 1870s.

However, NRS 200.200 prohibits anyone from picking a fight and then using the fight to justify homicide; if a fight that you started gets out of hand and you are now in fear for your life, you must have tried to get away, give up, or otherwise attempted to stop fighting before you can legally use deadly force. In this case, the “other options” would be relevant. The million-dollar question is, who was the aggressor? Does a honk equal starting a fight and what else might have transpired to make it one?

I doubt that any lawyer or jury would take honking as starting a fight. Even if there was stupidity back and forth, ultimately Ullyott got out of his car. No duty to retreat would apply in that case leaving the only remaining valid question being: “Was the danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary?” That would be for a jury to decide, but I’d bet Davis will take a plea bargain for voluntary manslaughter for a year or so in prison.

Davis could have done himself a huge favor and remained silent. He provided the seeds of his own destruction. A competent attorney could have helped him give a statement that did him more justice. On his own, in the psychological aftermath of a killing, Davis unwittingly provided police and prosecution huge leverage over his fate. Even if truly innocent of any crime, Davis is responsible for his arrest and his open murder charge. After an ambiguous defensive gun use, nothing good can come by talking to the police unrepresented. It’s not a shyster’s game of avoiding responsibility, it’s about getting a fair deal in the midst of an unpleasant event.

As for road rage, never get out of your car, never roll down the window, and keep your gun out of sight until it is absolutely necessary. Vegas attracts terrible drivers and every kind of jerk. Just let the bad behavior go. It’s not worth it. Mr. Ullyott would be alive today if he had stayed in his car, regardless of what Davis did. Willingly participating in a confrontation makes you partially responsible, at least in a cosmic sense, for what happens next.

Something similar happened in Reno this weekend as well. James Upton, who also happens to be a National Guard captain, shot a teen in the leg after he and a neighbor confronted the teens who were “acting suspiciously.” According to the shooter, the teen who got shot approached Upton aggressively and was making threatening gestures. Just guessing from the news article, that Upton also talked to the police while unrepresented.

Shooting someone in the leg seems to me like something one would do if they didn’t intend to kill someone. Guns are made for killing people or wounding them so seriously they cannot kill you; they’re not a good tool to keep a teenager from walking towards you. I doubt that Upton truly felt his life was threatened, but was being set upon by an obnoxious teen who was ready to fight. When all you have is a hammer, all your problems tend to look like nails. Be ready to throw down or create distance, not just shoot people.

Also, this is why it is best not to play cop. If someone gets aggressive, back off and save yourself the trouble. George Zimmerman decided to play cop, got seriously beaten, and was pilloried in the press.

The Problem

The problem here is that at least two of these men likely acted without a solid understanding of when it is acceptable to shoot someone. Using deadly force, whether you kill or not, is only to be done when you or another faces imminent death or serious injury. The question one needs to ask themselves is “Am I certain to die or be badly hurt if I don’t shoot?” before pulling the trigger. Not a possibility, but a probability. I’ve had a gun in my face and I’ve had people threaten to kill me without the means of doing so; only one of those situations would have justified shooting the guy and it wasn’t the loudmouth stomping towards me trying to look tough.

Ordinarily law abiding men and women find themselves in trouble because they lack knowledge and understanding of gun laws. Just because you can buy a gun doesn’t mean you are automatically qualified to use it. A constitutional right doesn’t come with instant common sense. Freedom of speech and a mouth doesn’t enable you to speak eloquently on any topic (especially your own defense). The same way an unrestrained tongue can lead one into all kinds of trouble (like murder charges), so can carrying a gun if you don’t know the law. Carelessness puts people in jail for many reasons.

Nevada Carry exists to help properly educate people on the law and firearm related concepts. A CCW class taken once does not help you make good decisions if you are only there to check the box for your permit. Had Upton and Davis really appreciated the law and when it is okay to shoot someone, they wouldn’t be in jail right now. Neither should have been talking to the police without an attorney either. Be smarter than you think you are.

Nevada Carry Self-Defense page

Don't talk to the police. It's for your own good.

Is the Defensive Display of Gun Legal in Nevada?

Several states have laws that allow a firearm to be drawn or displayed in self-defense to deter a threat against life. This protects someone who draws their gun or even points it at an attacker, but does not shoot them, because the gun successfully convinced the bad guy that pressing the attack would be hazardous to their health. This is the most common form of armed self-defense and is rarely reported. Protections include holding a gun down by the leg, at the low ready, or even in a position aimed and ready to shoot. Without such legal protections, one might be excused for killing someone in self-defense, but guilty of another crime for a defensive display of a gun.

In most places, common sense prevails. Even though Nevada doesn’t have such a law, most likely because the Legislature has always assumed Nevadans and our legal system will make reasonable decisions, the legal concepts exist throughout state law.

First, to kill in self-defense, “the danger” must be “so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary,” NRS 200.200. Bare fear (for example just saying “I was in fear for my life” when you weren’t) is not a defense. “It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge,” NRS 200.130.

Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured, NRS 193.240. The methods of permitted resistance are not specified, but it could be anything that hinders or obstructs the crime. This can’t be taken to the extreme. Yes, killing a shoplifter will prevent them from stealing, but it is not reasonable for the crime and a threat to life is required to justifiably kill.  Without this statute, it could be considered assault to grab the hand of a robber trying to snatch a purse and shove him away or fight off someone who jumped you.

A threat is criminal harassment when one “without lawful authority” threatens to “cause bodily injury,” NRS 200.517. “Lawful authority” is discussed below. A threat is a “declaration of an intention or determination” and can be made verbally or non-verbally; we can all agree that a gun pointed at you is implying a threat of being shot. A threat becomes wrong when one indicates they are going to do something illegal to you, often to intimidate.

A threat is not wrong when it is used to deter someone by indicating you intend to use legal force. In a way, you are saying: “If you do that thing you are not supposed to do, I will take this legally permitted action to prevent you, so please reconsider your actions and stop before I must act.” A warning is nice, but is not required.

Now how does drawing a weapon in order to prevent a crime come into play? Brandishing is essentially displaying a weapon in a way that draws attention, often in a manner to intimidate maliciously, usually as an implied threat. Here we run into a contradiction in state law because “drawing or exhibiting” a weapon in self-defense is not prohibited, but aiming it at a person in self-defense is not exempted by the second statute.

NRS 202.320, the brandishing section, prohibits drawing or exhibiting a weapon “in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense” in the presence of two or more persons.
NRS 202.290, “aiming”, stipulates that it is illegal to aim “any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being.” Intent or malice is not referred to in this section.

Brandishing prior to 1967 called for a punishment of not more than $500 or up to six months in jail. “Aiming” became a gross misdemeanor, with the stiffer punishment of up to a year in jail, in 1989, effectively making “aiming” double the original punishment of brandishing. So, aiming is the worse crime.

Obviously, a gun pointed at someone is more intimidating than waiving it around and an accidental shot while aimed at a person could very well prove deadly. The Legislature wanted to punish people who drew guns and those who pointed them at people for malicious purposes, otherwise it would be legal to maliciously threaten someone with a gun, as long as you didn’t shoot them.

Clearly, a firearm being drawn or pointed at another is an unspoken threat of imminent violence (whether malicious or self-defense). NRS 200.275 states that ”the infliction or threat of bodily injury is justifiable, and does not constitute mayhem, battery or assault, if done under circumstances which would justify homicide.” This clause a two-part statement; at first it is general, then it includes specifics.

“The infliction or threat of bodily injury is justifiable” is stating that (for our discussion) that the threat of bodily injury is permitted, “if done under circumstances” where it would be legal to use deadly force in self-defense. The bill summary from AB 190 of 1983 explained the legislative intent: "...circumstances which would justify homicide are also adequate justification for inflicting or threatening to inflict injury." Next, the statute states some criminal violations that explicitly do not apply under the correct circumstances.

Mayhem, battery, or assault is specifically not criminal if it would otherwise be excusable to kill the other in self-defense; essentially to prevent someone who merely wounds their attacker from being charged with a crime that would have been excused had the attacker died. This is clarification to confirm that those specific laws would not apply in this case.

So does the “aiming” section truly prohibit pointing a gun at someone who is trying to hurt you or someone else? On it’s face yes, but this would be overridden by the intent of other sections. If “aiming” was never excusable, it would also create the absurd situation where after a defensive shooting, one would be innocent of homicide, but guilty of pointing a gun at the attacker. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the law cannot create absurdities.

A common-sense interpretation of the law indicates that drawing a gun or pointing it at someone, where the legal justification to actually shoot them exists, is permissible by taking the statutes as a whole. The only “anomaly” in the statutes is the “aiming” section and that is more likely a simple oversight because the Legislature expected judges and prosecutors to use common sense.

What’s the bottom line? If it is truly necessary in defense of life to draw a firearm (or threaten you will use it), whether you aim it at the attacker or not, there is no crime. A threat, whether shouted or communicated non-verbally by the barrel of a gun, that deters a crime is certainly preferable to becoming a victim.

Disclaimer: We are not lawyers or a Supreme Court. This is just informed opinion.

2 Dead in Home Invasion Robbery; The Future with SB 254

Imagine two men breaking in to your home, duct taping up you and your spouse. Imagine those first few moments of fear, worry, and rage. But instead of sitting still and engaging in unproductive self-loathing for letting the bad guys get the drop on you, you break your bonds and manage to get to your gun. Minutes later, one assailant is wounded and the other dead. Your wife is injured, you’re stunned and deafened by the gunfire, and the police find you with duct tape still on your body.

That part is truth; thankfully, no one died. It happened Monday night in northwest Las Vegas. At least two men broke into a home and restrained the couple inside. The second man, shot in his butt, drove himself to the hospital where he was contacted by police. Another man lay dead in the backyard. The circumstances may reveal more nuance than a random attack, but the fact remains that if Nevada Democrats have their way, the wounded robber and the family of the dead criminal could sue the homeowner. That’s right: save your life and get sued. 

SB 254, introduced just last week, would repeal entirely the civil immunity protection from lawsuit when you legally and justifiably injure or kill someone in self-defense. Just imagine the outcome Monday night if the gun owner hadn't been willing to risk his home and whatever money he had to fight a lawsuit and decided not to pull the trigger. 

Imagine a lawyer concocting some story to get a sympathetic jury to place fault on a gun owner who was just trying to protect his family or stay alive. We have seen far too many examples lately where politically motivated prosecutions targeted armed citizens and police officers for shooting in self-defense. We have seen judges and juries both tainted by their own biases and fail to do the right thing. Civil immunity when no law was broken exists to spare someone who did no wrong from vindictive criminals who want to gamble that their lawyer can tell a better story.

Democrats do not like gun owners who defend themselves, period. Anything they can do erode the rights of gun owners and dial back the protections of Nevada law furthers their goal of eventual gun disarmament. They would rather have citizens too afraid of being sued to defend themselves. Death of the innocent is preferable to self-defense. All this bill would do is encourage frivolous lawsuits and make Nevada a more dangerous place.

They did not create a discretionary exemption, where cases that were clearly ambiguous could be reviewed by a judge for a lawsuit. Instead, they threw the whole thing out. This is a clear shot at Republican Senator Roberson, who sponsored 2015’s SB 175 which added the very protection Democrats are seeking to repeal. It’s personal with them, just with the SB 115 library open carry bill.

Share your comments with the legislators here. (SB254, “against”)

SB-254, Save Your Life and Get Sued Bill

A whole host of anti-gun legislators want to deprive you of your civil immunity in justified, legal uses of deadly force (self-defense shooting) and subjected you to a hellish ordeal so a criminal or his family can score some cash from your misfortune. Under current law, if you legally shoot someone in self-defense, your attacker or his surviving family cannot sue you. Democrats hate that fact. Having a majority, every last stop of honor and decency has been removed from the Democrat’s agenda.

SB-254 is a bald-faced attempt at turning you into a helpless victim, not only to the legal system, but your assailant as well. The anti-gunners want you too terrified by the consequences of being drug into court by an unscrupulous attorney to carry or use a gun, should your life depend on it. They would rather have you dead, beaten, or raped than, heaven forbid, one of their potential voters from not to show up at the polls.

While castle doctrine and no duty to retreat isn't yet under attack, this is the first step in dismantling your right to armed self-defense. Remember the lesson of If You Give a Mouse a Cookie…

Tell them NO! We cannot let them get away with their unceasing bullshit. Comment on the bill now! And in 2018, make the Democrats pay for their relentless anti-gun, anti-American agenda and send them packing their office.

Comment anonymously and vote here (select SB254 and “Against”)

2016: 21 Defensive Gun Uses in Nevada

Source: Easy Bake Gun Club

In 2016, there were 21 verified (corroborated by the mainstream media, i.e. newspapers and TV stations) defensive gun uses (DGU). This does not include stories posted on social media that didn't make it into the papers, even though we know and trust those of you on Facebook and the forums. Except this DGU, which was reported in both places (please let Nevada Carry break the story first, then call the TV news, we need the street cred, yo).

Download Excel spreadsheet here.

I don't have access to the CDC WISQARS database at the moment (server seems to be down), so I can't verify the actual numbers myself, but one report states that about 103,000 people are killed or injured by guns every year. I'm assuming that includes murder, legal intervention, suicide, and accidents from fatal to minor. That's basically with a wash of even the most conservative estimate of 100,000 defensive gun uses a year. The vast majority of non-shooting defensive gun uses go totally unnoticed, like the a women in Las Vegas who deterred a possible kidnapping and another who prevented an altercation from devolving into a fight simply by openly carrying.

There were also several dubious DGUs. One where a would-be Good Samaritan shot at a suspect shoplifter's car (he also was carrying concealed illegally). The second involves a smoke shop clerk who shot a shoplifter during a flash-mob style robbery. Police arrested him for murder, contending that the dead thief, a 13-year old boy, was not a threat at the time. One other interesting case, that might turn out to be actual self-defense or good for at least a not-guilty verdict was in the case of a man who, during an altercation, claimed to see the victim grab a gun (later determined to be an airgun) and shot him.

Know the self-defense laws before you go, but honestly, if you're the type to read up on when you can and can't shoot someone, you're probably not the type to get into dubious shootings either. And for heaven's sake; why are you stuffing a fake gun in your pants? That's just a recipe for disaster.

As always, reporting from the provinces is spotty, so if you live in rural Nevada and we missed one, let us know. We're also open to verifiable reports not listed in the media.

Illegal Conceal Carrier Shoots at Car

The suspect's booking photo from LVMPD

Thursday night, Stephen Howard, 44, tried to apprehend a shoplifter and shot at the suspect's car. The Las Vegas Sun has the story. He was arrested on carrying a concealed firearm without a permit (NRS 202.350, a felony), unsafe discharge of a firearm (NRS 202.285), and traffic warrants. Bail is a combined $14,930.

There are several lapses in judgement here that are not surprising. Someone who would choose to carry illegal and commit a felony, rather openly carry, which is legal, clearly shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. This was highlighted by the fact that he compounded his mistake by shooting a car.

No circumstances have articulated why it was necessary for a private citizen to intervene with Target security to try to arrest a shoplifter. There was no apparent threat to life. This was not Mr. Howard's store. Unless you or a loved one were a victim, you probably shouldn't attempt to apprehend anyone who isn't an immediately threat to life or limb. Too much risk and liability.

Shooting at a car is a bad idea because it is too difficult to hit the target and if the suspect dies or looses control, a car without a driver is a very dangerous thing. Police are generally discouraged from shooting at suspects in moving cars. It's also illegal for citizens to shoot at a fleeing felon. Read the self-defense laws, please. You are not a cop just because you have a gun and you have no duty to get involve. You can't shoot a fleeing suspect and definitely shouldn't be in a position where they might run you over if you can help it.

This is why training and judgement is extremely important.

Carrying a Gun Responsibly

Carrying a gun comes with grave responsibility and grave consequences. Proper use of a firearm results in serious injury or death. Unless you are prepared to take a life, do not carry a gun.

What carrying a gun is not about:

• It’s not about fun.
• It’s not about politics.
• It’s not about appearance. 

It is all about safety and self-defense. Every right has responsibilities.

The Legal Aspects

Even in the most 2^nd Amendment and self-defense friendly jurisdictions, there will be a thorough investigation of the shooting. The police and district attorney will have to determine if the shooting was justified; that you were in fear for your life and lethal force was justified in those circumstances. You will be interviewed by the police, sometimes interrogated. Your experience will be dictated by the attitudes in the law enforcement/judicial community in your area as well as your own attitude and character.

After a shooting, you may be detained or arrested, subjected to a lengthy interview at the police station (remember your rights to silence and counsel), grand jury hearings, a possible criminal charges, a trial, or even a lawsuit from the attacker or their family.

Knowledge of the law is vital. Carrying a weapon in certain places is a crime and you must know when you are legally justified in taking a life. This is why training that includes marksmanship, weapon handling, firearm/justifiable homicide laws, and safety is vital.

You must accept that misuse of a firearm could result in a trial, right or wrong, and large legal costs. Attorneys don’t come cheap, so you may want to look into buying self-defense legal insurance. Your name may be sullied and your life scrutinized in the press (George Zimmerman, for example). You could face a long, expensive and stressful process defending yourself or clearing your name.

If you cannot accept that you might have to fight harder after the shooting than during the attack, carrying probably isn’t for you.

Why do you carry?

Carrying a gun, particularly open carry, is not for political or attention getting purposes. The fact that unlicensed carry exists is not permission for anyone to strap on a gun for any reason. The right to bear arms exists for self-defense and not self-aggrandizement.

Carrying a gun is not cool. It doesn’t make you look tough. It certainly doesn’t abrogate your responsibility to stay aware of your surroundings and scrupulously avoid danger.

Open carry does have some instances where it is politically advantageous (i.e. carrying a long-gun at a 2^nd Amendment rally). In Texas, open carriers shouldered and slung their rifles, to make the point that open carry of handguns (banned for over 150 years) be decriminalized. This is known as hyperbole, where taking things to the extreme to illustrate a point is used. Unfortunately, with some choosing inopportune times and places to carry (recall the Chipotle ninjas) combined with controversial and idiotic members of the Open Carry Texas movement, this unleashed a furious backlash against open carry. This put the future of open carry in Texas, in doubt, and ultimately relegating it to licensed open carry only (beginning Jan. 1, 2016).

Nevada Carry does not support open carry of long-guns because they can and do intimidate the non-shooting public and are generally unsuitable for everyday self-defense. Short of widespread rioting, carrying an AR-15 to the grocery store is wholly unnecessary.

Behavior counts

When you carry a gun, good gun etiquette and firearm safety has to be observed at all times. As mentioned above, it’s not a game or to look cool. If you want to show off, buy some new sneakers, a watch, or a car.

Far too many people have been killed when someone shows off a new gun. Gunplay causes death. Guns are not toys and are not intended to be shown off and manipulated like a neat little gadget. Guns are intended to kill and wound humans and animals. If you are the type to goof around with a gun or show it off, especially when drinking, you have no business carrying a gun or probably even owning one.

Restraint and discretion

“Discretion is the better part of valor,” we’re told. Sometimes, running away is the best option, even though in Nevada, you have no duty to retreat (stand your ground, or, at home, the Castle Doctrine). Your first instinct should be to avoid dangerous situations and if you find yourself in one, your second instinct should be to get safety away. If you can’t safely get away, you have to know when to fight and how to do it effectively.

Author Robert Heinlein once wrote that: “An armed society is a polite society.” Not really, but the idea is that if everyone is armed, people are less likely to be insulting, rude, or pick fights because the consequences are greater. If you carry a gun, you can’t start fights, mouth off, or be rude. It’s like saying: “If you’re rude to me, I’ll shoot you.” Illegal and stupid.

The Truth About Guns has this great article debunking the statement. 

If anything, the saying is backwards. Being 'polite'—having a shared set of values that includes placing a high value on peaceful civic discourse—is a necessary pre-condition for the arming of a society. Arms in a 'polite' society remain the tools of good citizens to defend themselves against bad ones. But arming a society without those shared values is a recipe for chaos, for violence for, well, Somalia, Beirut, Pakistan et al.
 'An armed society is a polite society' sounds cute. It sounds witty and cool.  It impresses all the gun enthusiasts on the bulletin boards. It makes for a great t-shirt to wear at the gun show. But it’s just not true and if it was, it would be a bigger argument against arming ordinary citizens than anything the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence could possibly devise." 

If you carry a gun, you can’t start fights, mouth off, or be rude. Why? Because if your poor behavior starts a physical confrontation that leads to you shooting someone, you will likely be considered the aggressor and faced with a murder charge.

Fighting isn’t such a good idea when armed. So in one respect, the responsibility of a gun might make someone who would ordinarily return a harsh word or accept a challenge to fight walk away instead. The NRS also requires that in cases of justifiable homicide, the slayer must not be the original aggressor, and even if they did 'start the fight', the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given (NRS 200.120 and NRS 200.200). So basically, you can’t start a fight and then claim to kill someone in self-defense. So much for enforcing politeness at the point of a gun.

Can’t I just show them my gun and ‘scare’ them away? Let’s hope it goes that way. Most defensive gun uses don’t involve shootings, but rather the attacker flees when faced with armed opposition. But that won’t always work. A gun might not scare some criminals and they might be armed themselves. Think of all the criminals who attack or shoot at police officers; are they deterred by the officer’ gun?

Showing someone a gun to ‘scare’ them is brandishing. Brandishing is defined as drawing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner, not in lawful self-defense. NRS 202.320 It's also a crime to aim a firearm at someone outside of lawful self-defense. NRS 202.294

A gun should only be drawn when in fear for life and only aimed at a person if there is already legal justification for using lethal force. Furthermore, pointing a gun at a bad guy may cause them to react violently, either out of anger at you or to save their life. Only carry and pull a gun if you are willing to use it. Do you always have to shoot someone? No, but if the gun leaves its holster, you need to be justified in doing so and that means a threat to life.

What if deadly force is not required? Will you shoot someone because they try to pick a fight or they insult you? Waiving a gun around during a road-rage incident or to intimidate someone is wrong on so many different levels. If you can’t control your temper or your mouth, you probably can’t control your gun. Do you regularly get into fights? Don’t carry.

Personal implications

Carrying a gun is for self-defense. Self-defense with a gun means killing. While one should always shoot to stop the threat, gunshot wounds frequently cause death. There is no “shooting to wound” and shooting guns out of hands or hitting only arms and legs are Hollywood myths or solely the domain of unbelievably good sharpshooters—which you probably aren’t.

Do you understand that using a gun properly will likely kill someone? Can you accept that fact and carry responsibly? Let’s say you shot and wounded your attacker. He is bleeding to death, screaming horribly, shouting lies about how you attacked him with no provocation (when the opposite is true), and you are surrounded by a large, angry mob. Can you handle that situation?

Can you fight and are you willing to fight? That is, once the attack has begun and your gun is up, can you pull the trigger, or will you freeze? If you freeze, you’re dead. You may even be disarmed and killed with your own gun. A gun is no use to you if you do not have the will to use it.

It may take several shots or more to stop the threat. Some attackers have been known to fight on, despite being shot a dozen times or more. It’s not like Hollywood’s magic bullets that kill with one shot; James Bond’s Golden Gun is not real. What if you miss? Can you re-assess and re-engage? What if the situation de-escalates from lethal force? Can you fight hand to hand or use less-lethal defensive weapons like pepper spray?

Many police officers, soldiers, and citizens who have killed righteously face incredible emotional problems. Human life is sacred—God designed us that way. Killing is not to be taken lightly and even the most justified shooting will result in emotional complications for all but the most hardened or sociopaths. You will face the stress of the immediate aftermath, any legal implications, your friends’ or family’s reaction, and your own mind. PTSD is a serious concern. Can you handle the emotional/mental effects of a shooting?

Hero complex

Do you have a hero complex? George Zimmerman is the perfect example; as the leader of the neighborhood watch and once expressing an interest in law enforcement, it’s very plausible that he was self-policing his neighborhood. An attitude that he had to challenge suspicious persons may have been what precipitated his altercation with Trayvon Martin and led to the tragic outcome. You are not a cop so don’t act like one.

You carry to save yourself, your loved ones, and those immediately around you. Trying to stop the casino or restaurant from being robbed is none of your business. Recall the man who fired a warning shot into the ceiling of Red Lobster in Las Vegas; he’s lucky no one was hurt and that the robber fled. What if that shot him someone or the robber decided that the ‘good Samaritan’ was a threat?

Carrying comes down to these factors: intent, attitude, responsibility, and safety. If you feel iffy about any of these things, keep your cell phone handy and your gun at home.