Why California CCW holders probably won't help with an active shooter

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Apr 12, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    this was asked & has been pointed out a few times in gun threads, there are only about 12 million concealed carriers out there. and then there is this.


    I do have a CCW for MY safety AND the safety of MY family.
     
  2. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    The second amendment is for the sake of the whole country, as a well-regulated militia, not just one person's family. Otherwise the second amendment would reflect it with the relevant amount of verbiage. But we already know certain elements try to cut and paste the second amendment's verbiage ignoring "well-regulated" and "militia" for the sake of their own narrow and self-centered little agenda...

    Good guys with guns have an obligation and step up. The second amendment, in the Constitution for which it stands (and I'm pretty sure I shouldn't have to repeat it or the relevant parts of it that are obvious for all to read), makes it not a big stretch of the imagination to state.

    Otherwise, Americans will not want to see bumper stickers that boast "only good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" and other one-liners trying to sway us to side with gun owners, because it is not just about good men who do not step up, or because it has nothing to do with a good person doing nothing ending up being just as bad, supposedly. It's because people who put out those bumper stickers are fakes and one thing that seems to be the same across the board is that people are tired of fakes and tired of being taken advantage of.

    Otherwise, what would our forefathers that wrote all that garbage be perceived as, but because Americans will see it as 10 words of pure bull.

    Y'all want it both ways. Sorry, it doesn't fly.
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    the second is NOT just about the militia :rolleyes:.

    obligation to step up? pffffft.

    don't care what you guys want to see.

    both ways?
     
  4. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Look it up, so here you go, the full verbiage - with pictures!

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


    [​IMG]


    If you don't care about that, that speaks volumes... in one form or another. But you cannot refute actual fact.
     
  5. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #5

    The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Meaning you can't have a militia unless you allow the people to be able to keep and bear arms. Your reading comprehension needs some work.
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    you need a video explanation
     
  7. BoxerGT2.5, Apr 12, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2016

    BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #7
    Well to be honest WTF does he think is going to happen? If a cop accidentally missed the perp and hit and killed my son, I have the city to sue. If Joe Rambo and his 4hrs of training misses and kills my kid, he's likely going to get sued. You ever hear the parents of a victim of a stray bullet stand up after watching their kid get stretchered off in a body bag and say, "Well, his intentions were good. That's the way the cookie crumbles". Like it or not these are scenario's that we expect ZERO mistakes. Just like when someones on the operating table, the intentions are always good, the doctor better not **** up.
     
  8. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #8
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

    It reads the identical verbiage:


    Look around and check out as many sources you want. Officially, it's the same - word for word. The sites where they truncate and remove certain words are fraudulent in approach.

    Now you're free to keep trying to upend and rewrite the constitution, but the more you do the more it will not reflect well.
     
  9. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #9
    If I said "A car being necessary for mobility, the right of the people to buy and store gasoline shall not be infringed."

    If don't own a car, you would tell me I couldn't buy gasoline because I don't own a car?
    --- Post Merged, Apr 12, 2016 ---

    Thanks that verbiage still says the right of the PEOPLE...shall not be infringed...Doesn't say the right of the Militia.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Man, do I hate videos like this. Single camera, no tripod, eight minutes of babble that could be summarized in two grafs.

    I got bored, so forgive me if I missed his grand point, but thus far, his arguments are the numbers of CCW carriers in California are very low, but a CCW carrier will not stop an active shooter because:

    1. "I'll be persecuted by the media"

    2. "Potential prosecution." Apparently, for not doing "everything right in a fluid situation"

    3. "Face a lawsuit, brought by family of terrorist or nutcase..."

    First, let's accept "Joel's" logic on its face. This means that CCW are worthless in countering active shooter situations in California, and therefore any argument that presupposes a "good guy with a gun" belong in the trash bin.

    Now, let's also consider that most of his points are true in all 50 states—even Alaska has media outlets, bub—and civil lawsuits and aggressive prosecutors seem to exist as well.

    Therefore, accepting the Gun Guy's logic, the NRA is wrong and CCW carriers will not stop an active shooter incident.

    Or, we can assume that Joel is wrong and doesn't really understand what he's talking about, and has babbled for eight minutes in a video that combines hearsay—Joel's admission that he talked to some people—with bad production values and tenuous logic.

    I took a look at Joel's site and it's clear he's taken a deep drink of conservative dogma.
     
  11. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #11

    Great explanation but I don't think it's going to help the naysayers. They are too stubborn to admit they are wrong.
     
  12. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #12

    His point is that currently Good Samaritan laws don't really apply to CCW. They might only shield someone from prosecution by the nutjobs family whom he's attempting to take down in order to protect the general public. They wouldn't and they shouldn't protect him from criminal prosecution when he discharges his weapon and hits some bystander with a stray bullet.

    In a nut shell he wants to be able to shoot his gun in public and not be responsible for any of the bullets that leave the barrel during a "active shooter incident" because he's trying to help.
     
  13. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #13
    About a month ago, a local Korean store owner was robbed at gunpoint and the thug shot his wife in the stomach. She lived. Several weeks ago, he was robbed again at gunpoint and this time he fought back. During the struggle the store owner shot and killed the thug perp.

    Of course, the DA charged the Korean store owner with murder. That's what happens when a hard-working, private businessman defends his shop in the most left-wing, liberal, whackadoodle county in America.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Right, this illustrates the inherent complexities in preparing a society for armed individuals to act as a layer of defense. The law won't necessarily back them, and if that means that most CCW carriers won't act, than for this particular argument, CCW carriers might as well be unarmed.

    At least in Arizona, a CCW carrier shot and killed a guy following a beer skip—grab a six-pack and run like hell—when the CCW carrier confronted the man in an alley. The gunman was not prosecuted by the county attorney.
     
  15. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #15
    I bet there is more to this story then your telling
     
  16. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #16
    More info:
    http://komonews.com/news/local/clerk-booked-for-murder-after-deadly-shooting-at-spanaway-store
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    Yeah. That sounds like an honest appraisal of the situation.

    Let's go look:

    Korean shop owner. Near Puget Sound. Charged with murder. Found it.

    Now, the clerk, Min Sik Kim said the shooting was in self-defense:

    So, video surveillance reviewed by the Pierce County Sheriff's Office conflicts with Kim's story. This is why we have courts and why someone like Kim could face prosecution.
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    I love how you always dispute other peoples' sources, then use magician-comedians as your source. Bravo. Well done.
     
  19. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    Laws vary greatly among states. Here they are too stringent
    --- Post Merged, Apr 12, 2016 ---
    I love the way you shoot the messenger when you can't handle the message :D
     
  20. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #20
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    I remain unconvinced that self-defense laws are so vastly different in California that a CCW carrier in a mass shooting situation shouldn't act.
     
  22. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    If we "miss" and hit someone else we would be charged and most likely end up behind bars, priority one is to get the family to safety
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    Right, but what happens when "priority one" requires firing a weapon, a missed shot kills a bystander? Do you embrace the suck, or are there provisions in California's laws regarding self-defense and the protection of others.

    California has a modified "castle doctrine" and under CA 505, there is a provision for justifiable homicide: self-defense or defense of another.

     
  24. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    #3 is the big "if". The guy on video was incarcerated temporarily over shooting the dog, gazillion anti gun cops here in Kommiefornia , they don't like others having guns here.
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    Like Arizona's reputation for being a collection of gun-squeezing xenophobes, I believe that California is more complicated than one would expect.
     

Share This Page