Author Topic: speaking of lawsuits... (Read 2353 times)

lazs2 · « **on:** November 22, 2003, 12:32:30 PM »

wouldn't it be cool if.... say in California, where it is up to the police chief of the area to issue or deny concealed carry permits....

wouldn't irt be cool to sue the police chief if you were denied the permit and thenm latter the victim of a violent crime?

I mean... how can a police chief know anything about you (assuminmg you have no criminal record) in towns of between 4,000 and millions?

What is really happening is like what happened in england.... while giveing the police chief the right to approve or deny seems sorta logical on the face of things.... what really happens is... the chief is a politician and behind the scenes he is being told.... "no one has a good enough reson to carry"

shouldn't these people be held accountable for putting citizens in danger and depriveing them of the right of self defense? If they had a good reason it would come out in court no?
lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2003, 01:16:34 PM »

I've never understood the need for concealed weapons. If you're going to carry, why not put it right out there where they can see it? Is there some tactical advantage to having a hidden weapon? Do the risks of such hidden weapons outweigh the benefit?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2003, 01:18:05 PM »

A 44 mag hanging from my wife's belt would clash with her shoes.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2003, 01:27:46 PM »

one thing I love about arizona when I lived there was there gun laws, or lack there of. it is leagal to carry a weapon on your person anywere in the state (cept for school zones and places that serve liqour ect) as long as it is:

A. visable from three sides of your body
B. IT HAS TO BE LOADED

I think b is a great law....if you carry a gun it is illeagal to carry it unloaded. Therefore somone would have no prob with taking you out if you drew on them because they know it is loaded

lazs2 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2003, 01:29:45 PM »

the real advantage is.... if it is concealed and there are oh.... say.... 5% of the population with concealed carry permits... at a gathering.. those who would do evil don't know who, if anyone, is armed. Just as burglars don't know what houses have armed homeowners in them...

The people who choose not to be armed benifiet in both cases where if you had to carry openly it would be easy for bad guys to choose victims or those who were a threat. In Florida the crooks switched to robbing people with rental cars because they were pretty much guarenteed a helpless victim.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2003, 02:11:08 PM »

Okey dokey...

The person with the gun carries because for some reason he feels that there is some potential for harm and he feels that having the weapon will deter violence and make him safer... but if he has the gun, he then fears that he may become a target and thus, needs to conceal the weapon from the evil doers that will overlook the unarmed citizens and concentrate their fire on the armed ones.

So.. the unarmed people are potential victims and the armed people are potential victims and the solution is hide the guns.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2003, 02:21:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I've never understood the need for concealed weapons.

I've never understood why people feel the need to decide how other people should live and how they should be allowed to defend that life.

Sandman · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2003, 02:27:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I've never understood why people feel the need to decide how other people should live and how they should be allowed to defend that life.

Wow... I get to decide how others should live?

Rockin...

lazs2 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2003, 03:12:14 PM »

no... i guess you don't see sandman... u must have sand in yur eyes or sumthin...

The person with a concealed carry permit is of benifiet to all since the criminal can't tell who or who not is armed... he is forced to assume that anyone he attacks might be armed. if guns are carried openly he could decide very easily if anyone around him is a threat to him. such as the case with police... he obviously doesn't want to commit an violent crime with an armed policeman around.

as for funked's point... yu really should not be allowed to vote on weather a person is armed or not. or weather a private building... open to the public or not... allows smoking or weather I wear a helmet in a car or motorcycle or not or weather I can say niger or any of a myriad of things that are non of your bussiness.

I think that the police chief and the city that hired him should be accountable if someone is a victim of a violent crime if he has been dennied the the right to defend himself.

i think the injured party should be able to seek compensation...

let's put the lawyers to some good use for a change.

lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2003, 03:16:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
The person with a concealed carry permit is of benifiet to all since the criminal can't tell who or who not is armed... he is forced to assume that anyone he attacks might be armed. if guns are carried openly he could decide very easily if anyone around him is a threat to him. such as the case with police... he obviously doesn't want to commit an violent crime with an armed policeman around.

...but he does if they're just openly armed civilians.

Right... check... got it...

lazs2 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2003, 03:26:41 PM »

what are you on sandman? any firearm is a deterent but if only openly carried firearms are allowed (seen from three angles) then a violent criminal knows when he is in a group of sheep or not.

with concealed carry... he doesn't know if the group is helpless or not.

don't know how much simpler I can make it..... like talking to beetle..
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2003, 03:31:45 PM »

but... my sandy eyed friend.... you still haven't answered the question...

Do you think that a victim of a violent crime who has been previously dennied a concealed carry permit (the only allowed way to carry in Ca. anyway) by the capricious whim of the police chief and powers he answers to.... do yu think that person is entitled to compensation via lawsuit? He has been denied the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and because of that he has been harmed.

let's put the lawyers to helping us for a change.
lazs

SOB · « **Reply #12 on:** November 22, 2003, 03:38:06 PM »

Personally, I'd rather have my weapon conceiled if I happen to have it with me while I'm grocery shopping / renting a movie / etc. Carrying a holstered sidearm would undoubtedly cause a stir almost anywhere you'd go in the normal course of a day in the big city, don't you think?

lazs2 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 22, 2003, 03:43:09 PM »

sob... that is really the reason most states want a concealled carry law rather than an open carry one. in rural or low population areas the sight of someone coming off his ranch with a handgun on his hip or a long gun in a rifle rack or shoulder is no big deal.

sandy is avoiding the issue is all.
lazs

Sandman · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2003, 04:39:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
what are you on sandman? any firearm is a deterent but if only openly carried firearms are allowed (seen from three angles) then a violent criminal knows when he is in a group of sheep or not.

with concealed carry... he doesn't know if the group is helpless or not.

don't know how much simpler I can make it..... like talking to beetle..
lazs

I think it's a ridiculous circular argument... I'm a potential victim so I need a gun. If I have a gun and it's showing, I'm a more likely target than the standard run of the mill unarmed potential victim so I need to hide it too.

...but that's just me... I think it's a thin justification. With the same justification an argument can be made to simply openly arm everyone and make it compulsory to boot.