Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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
-
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?
-
A 44 mag hanging from my wife's belt would clash with her shoes.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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...
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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
No. The right to carry a concealed weapon is not guaranteed by the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by SOB
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?
Only because it's not the norm.
-
Well, yeah, hence allowing people to carry concealed weapons.
-
if a criminal walks into a building to rob it and sees someone with a gun...chances are he'll just keep on walking or shoot the guy with the gun (chances are the shopkeep HAS a gun)...but if we walks in and sees a person without a gun hes gonna rob the place and leave...but if the person has the gun then he's going to wait till the robber starts robbing the place before pulling it...and if he doesnt then the robber leaves with the cash...
either way the criminal loses
-
Originally posted by vorticon
if a criminal walks into a building to rob it and sees someone with a gun...chances are he'll just keep on walking or shoot the guy with the gun (chances are the shopkeep HAS a gun)...but if we walks in and sees a person without a gun hes gonna rob the place and leave...but if the person has the gun then he's going to wait till the robber starts robbing the place before pulling it...and if he doesnt then the robber leaves with the cash...
either way the criminal loses
That was profound.
-
Is it worth getting into a firefight for the sake of a few hundred bucks of someone else's money? Or even your own money? If I was carrying a sidearm I would not draw it unless my life was directly threatened or that of someone else. Most robbers armed or not want in and out in a few seconds. I would certainly not risk my life to save a few Euro for some convenience store owner.
I actually walked in on a robbery once, a post office. I stopped at the door as the first robber ran out to the getaway car. I was surprisingly calm, it is amazing how quickly you can consider options in that situation. I had a motorcycle helmet in my hand and actually thought about smacking him with it. He read my mind and growled 'Don't do it' as he passed me. I didn't for two reasons. First, tactically I was at a disadvantage. I hadn't seen the other robber and for all I knew he had a gun. Even a baseball bat would have outgunned me. I think he only had a stick actually. Secondly it wasn't my money and I wasn't going to die for it.
In the end they took less than a hundred. Now if I had a gun on my person. Would I have drawn it? I don't know. No one would have thanked me for adding to the drama of the situation by firing off a few rounds. It's a moot point anyway as the only people in this country carrying concealed weapons are police detectives, contract killers and terrorists!
So in my view the only reason to carry a concealed weapon is when you believe your life is in some kind of danger on an ongoing basis. Like you insulted the local Tony Soprano or you carry a lot of cash on your person or you live in a place with thousands of guns in circulation in the hands of criminals, where guns are as cheap as the lives they take. But if you live in say Vermont or South Dakota do you really need to carry a gun on your person all day? That I suppose is what a police chief might need to consider before issuing a permit.
-
I think the problem is when Tony Soprano visits Vermont or South Dakota.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
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?
The main reason is because carrying right out there would make people uncomfortable, to say the least. It could cause trouble if you're challenged because of it. Any nut who would pick on someone bigger than themselves...drunk for example, might not think twice about putting you in a situation where you might have to shoot or run. That's why Wyatt Earp made everyone turn in their weapons when they came to Dodge City.
In modern times, the idea of concealed carry is for defensive purposes only, by law abiding citizens. The permits are very limiting as to where you can carry...no bars or sporting events, or anywhere there's a lot of people, a parade for example.
My thoughts are folks need to take personal responsibility when it comes to carrying a handgun. It is very serious business, and can also get you in a lot of trouble. It's not for everyone.
I urge anyone who carries, to practice regularly and become familiar with the firearm. It's not a good idea to leave the gun in the car when you go places, and it becomes a big hassle after awhile because it's always on your mind and in your pocket (it should be.) It is restrictive to your movements pretty much, and does limit your options if the gun comes out...you might have to kill someone or run like hell.
Do the risks outweigh the benefits to carry? Depends who you are, what your situation is, and your skill level with firearms. I'll grant you, much grief can come from their mishandling, and I again strongly urge anyone who is thinking about carrying, to practice, practice, practice...and practice some more with a qualified instructor, and heed their advice.
Les
-
Originally posted by storch
An armed society tends to be a polite society
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
Japan, Singapore, ...
-
So in some states only criminals aren't allowed to concealed carry. So it is quite possible that people that are barking fricking mad are? :eek:
I know in Washington state if you want your licence you can't have been in a rubber room, what about other states?
-
sandie and cpx... storch explained it... crime goes down when crooks think the citizens may be armed...
not all robberies end up with the kindly robin hood cleaning out the cash rgister and then tiping his hat at the ladies and throwing back his cape and galloping away... mostly they are brutal life threatening affairs. People here are killed in robberies all the time. better the crook die than the innocent
but... no one answered the question... Do you think that we should be able to sue the pompous police chief and city that he works for if we are the victim of a violent crime after vbeing dennied the right to arm ourself?
japan? singapore? is that the society that you would live in? it is fine for some but....
lazs
-
The other day I pulled into a carwash in my 98. This was in a black area of town not far from my house. I was busy washing the whitewalls when I heard, "Hey buddy, how ya doin? I say hey there buddy, how's it going?" I look up and see a guy holding a screwdriver in his hand. "You wanna sell that car?'
"It's not for sale," I say. "That's a clean car bro," he says. "Have I seen you somewhere before, where you work?"
I said, "I don't work."
He left me alone and went back to his buddy at the vacuum. I was not carrying a gun, wasn't scared at all.
Les
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie and cpx... storch explained it... crime goes down when crooks think the citizens may be armed...
You're going to have to provide some sort of statistical evidence of it.
Oh... and I did answer the question.
-
there is no point in being friegtened around people.. it is a good thing to exercise caution tho. I spent a lot of my youth around people who, a smart man, should be frieghtend of... depends on the situation. It never hurts to be prepared.... Mostly... if you look capable of handling yourself and seem alert... you will be ok... unless you are elderly or a woman... women and the elderly are arming themselves at an excelerated rate... that is as it should be.
so... the question remains.... if you are the victim of a violent crime should you be able to sue the police chief and city who governs him that denied you the right to defend yourself with a firearm? they also failed to protect you after disarming you... Most have even removed the motto "to protect and serve" because of possible legal problems about implied promise.
so??? com'on it's not a difficult question...
lazs
-
sandie... you could look at florida or Vermont or you could read John Lotts book. You will find plenty of statistical evidence... you could use washington d.c or new york city as examples of gun control making things worse.
so.... what do you think? should we be able to sue if we are the victims of violent crime because we were dennied the right to defend ourselves? And... what are your reasons either way?
lazs
-
I think that poverty and the druq war are probably the major contributors to the homicide rates in DC and NY. They aren't violent places becauses of gun control.
There are plenty of national statistics to show that the U.S. is more violent than any of our western counterparts. Is it because we're a bloodthirsty lot or maybe it's the guns?
But that's not really the point... I'll answer your question again. There is no Constitutionally protected right to bear a concealed weapon.
-
sandie... Ok... I disagree about the 2nd but...there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits carrying a concealed weapon...
The fact is that some (most, like 34 or so)states allow for it.... California allows me to carry a concealed weapon if I can show cause to a police chief and meet all the requirements... being the victim of a violent crime is proof that I had just cause. The police chief and city prevented me from defending myself and at a whim... they do not know me personally. They have a policy that is not part of the state law and should therefore be open to lawsuit by people harmed by their policies.
some police chiefs allow concealed carry and others do not... the ones that do not should be held accountable for their policies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... Ok... I disagree about the 2nd but...there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits carrying a concealed weapon...
lazs
Why do you think they chose to call it a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Prohibition?
-
For anyone who might be interested- http://www.packing.org
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There are plenty of national statistics to show that the U.S. is more violent than any of our western counterparts. Is it because we're a bloodthirsty lot or maybe it's the guns?
Well, we must be bloodthirsty unless you think guns somehow make people do bad things instead of the other way around.
-
sandie... Our white homicide rate is about 2.6 per 100,000 is this the rate of a "bloodthirsty" nation? If so... there are plenty of bloodthirsty and appretice bloodthirsty nations out there including the uk.
and... concealed carry is better but I will go along with open carry if you want. In england the first gun laws stated that the firearms HAD to be concealed.
so... if some police chiefs allow concealed carry and others do not... the ones that do not should be held accountable for their policies if a person who is refused a concealed carry permit is the victim of a violent crime.
lazs