Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Concealed Carry Now Legal in California

They are, and just so we're clear I am definitely not prohibiting people from owning their toys and using them at the range. That is a whole different issue that plays into officer safety. I had some dude that got a DVTRO against him so he had to turn in his guns. Turns out, he had a federal rare firearms licence and owned 10 guns. Someone ask me about it in mumble and I'll list them off, his collection was beyond epic.

Well, you cant really do much personally to stop gang violence, but you might think twice before getting that gun to "protect" your family. I've known people dealing with suicides and to this day still blame themselves for keeping a gun in the house.

You are 10x more likely to commit suicide if a gun is in the house. 2x more likely to have a homicide in your home.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Now if you live in the wild wild west like Stockton(hail Sonya), then maybe its worth the risk. But if your the burbs somewhere with little crime and you got a piece just to be cool, i cant see how that increased risk is anything you would consider putting on your family.

Let me save you all time on the gun statistics.

Dumbfucks like guns.

Guns kill dumbfucks.

Everybody wins.

We pretend to be sad.

I used the knockout game as an example of a random act of violence happening to people that aren't prepared for it. I did say "defend against people with weapons". I'm not an idiot and I understand the law very well. I wouldn't pull a gun on some guy that swung at me. As I mentioned, I carry pepper spray and I'd resort to this before I'd strike someone back for the simple possibility of civil liability. I pepper spray some dbag that swings at me for no reason, he'll be fine in 2 hours guaranteed. I hit him and there's an unknown factor. What if he falls and cracks his skull? Even if I wasn't charged criminally, he could easily go find a scumbag personal injury attorney to work on contingency and end up forcing me to pay him to go away because it'd be cheaper than funding the defense of the lawsuit.

For me, drawing a gun would be a last resort because of all the things you just mentioned. If I draw, I WILL use it if necessary and then I risk prison, etc, like you said. I'd only do that if I genuinely felt I or my family might lose my life if I don't. And honestly, and this is just me, I'd wouldn't pull it out and fire. If it was possible I'd pull it out and issue a warning before firing a round to give the guy time to back away. I wouldn't take pleasure in killing someone, even if it was self-defense.



Okay, fine. But you kind of skirted around my issue a bit. My point was, cops with the training you're talking about make mistakes frequently. Another example is the kid who was shot on BART here in the Bay Area. We all saw the video of that one. Both that one and the kid in Florida results in criminal charges being pressed against the officer. However, there is no law on the table suggesting cops should start using rubber bullets because they cannot be trusted with using deadly force because a few asshole made mistakes.

I don't think it should be any different with civilians. I'm not trying to say a civilian is equivalent to a cop, so please don't misunderstand me there. It's an officer's job to willingly go into potentially life threatening situations. Obviously, a cop will be exposed to life threatening situations more frequently than the average citizen. But when it does happen, why should a cop have the ability to take human life to save his own or another person, but a civilian should not? It seems like a double standard to me.



I think this is exactly what was wrong with the system as it was Anti. It was up to the arbitrary and inconsistent judgement of a law enforcement official to determine whether or not someone had a good enough reason to carry. The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment really wasn't to protect against other people so much as it was to protect against the government becoming too powerful. If law enforcement (the government) decides who can carry a weapon with no set standard that's upheld in every jurisdiction as to what a legitimate reason is, I see that as a problem and directly contrary to the purpose of 2nd amendment.

This is why I think open carry is a better solution anyway. It seems a lot safer for officers to me than everyone being able to conceal carry.



Does this actually happen? I'm at a bit of a loss on this one. Any civilian who sees 3 cops drawing down on a perp with a knife should back the fuck away and let the cops do their job. If you draw a weapon as a civilian when a cop is present, for any reason, you're an idiot. If I was ever stopped by a cop when I was carrying with a CCW, the first thing I'd do is inform him that I have a CCW and am carrying.

Actually, the whole article is written around the idea of debunking a statement a guy made on Fox news. Did you read it, or did you just see Fox News in the first few sentences and decide it wasn't credible? Washington Post is widely considered liberal, and we all know liberals love guns, right?

I'll play devil's advocate on this one. It's a 2 on 1 fight, neither side is coming out victorious. You have given 5+ commands to the suspect to show his hands, he breaks free of your grip and goes for his waist band. You can't see what's in his waist band because he's laying on his stomach... I make a habit of not monday morning quarter backing but in an effort to answer your question the officer had a right to be judged by his peers (a jury).

Cops do have rubber bullets, we get an entire arsenal of less lethal because being armed with only a gun is the least desirable option in any situation. That's the reason every shooting is investigated, "were all other options exhausted?"

On one hand, you have to protect that thing with your life because if you lose it you're dead. On the other, if you use it unjustly, you're dead as well. Whether you know it or not cops are punished as a whole by other cops' mistakes. Since that BART Incident, we've received extra training, are no longer allowed to carry the TASER on the same side as the gun, etc. Rubber bullets would put us at a disadvantage to the average criminal so I'm not sure I understand the distinction or metaphor you're trying to make.



A lot of people state "government" as if it's some artificial intelligence that is of the same mindset trying to control people. You do realize that these Sheriff's were elected and live in the same communities we all do?

If you're going to make the argument that the 2nd amendment was created to protect against government becoming too powerful I could make the argument that the amendment wasn't created with the idea of carrying around an instant killing device in your pocket either. That's an old and tired argument which can be interpreted many ways, I just think that carrying a hidden weapon isn't the answer.



Yes, contrary to your intellectual answers that you have provided so far the majority of the population doesn't think the same way you do. While you may be fully capable of carrying a concealed weapon, in my experience, I'd say 90% would be a danger to society. Not because they're evil people, but because they're incapable of being trusted with the life of another.



Luckily I have never drawn off duty, but if I draw it's because I am doing so in a LE manner. I am drawing my weapon to enforce the law and protect others or myself. Do you think that the majority of people out there are capable of doing that, ignoring every human emotion they have, and upholding the law? Because I don't, and that's really what this all boils down to.

My apologies, I was referencing the article that the washington post was referencing. However, I should have added more that I agree with you on:


My posts/opinion aren't necessarily from a statistics standpoint. Even though I am a part of the big bad government, my AI interface has been experiencing some errors and I cannot seem to sync with the system to record the accurate data...so I go with what I know, my training and experience.

I disagree, vehemently on this one. Freedoms don't go away in the blink of an eye. They are slowly eroded over time. Whether or not you agree with the argument behind the second amendment, it's a constitutionally guaranteed right and I am against any law that allows infringement upon that right at the discretion of government officials. That said, I'd be 100% fine with cops making decisions on concealed carry permits if open carry was legal.

I'd definitely agree that carrying a hidden weapon is not the best option. For one, if there is an asshole with a gun, he's going to be a lot less likely pull it out and start firing if he sees a sidearm on someone else's hip. That's why I think open carry is a far better solution. It's also far safer for cops and people carrying the guns. You see me with a gun on my hip and you approach me, I'm willing to bet the first thing you're going to say to me is going to have something to do with the weapon you see on my hip, am I right? There's no mystery for you either. You don't have to wonder if I am carrying or be scared of me reaching for my belt.

As for the rest of the argument, I will let it go here. I actually think Rolo's argument is the most persuasive argument in this thread so far, even above my own. If statistics show there's not much solid correlation between concealed carry and gun violence, then who really gives a shit either way?

Fuck guns lets talk knives...I carry a .45 every day legally, but if I was to conceal a dagger and get caught I would be booked and charged.

You can be trusted with guns, but not daggers. Join the National Knife Association and help stop the oppression of knives!

Gun are too loud and leave too much forensic evidence...I need my shank.

Said no one ever thats been a victim of any sort of crime. Its that they wish they had a piece because "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Similarly, police mostly just tax the population through tickets and forfeiture of property (basically highway robbery.) its not like the 70's or 80's anymore where the police actively walked their patrols and really interacted with the populous and got to know people.. Now by in large the police are scared. Perfect example is LAPD, more times then not when i see them driving they are breaking some kind of traffic law. They get away with it because they are police. Contrary to what Anti believes he is not required by law to protect me or anybody else, to think otherwise is complete fallacy.

Read "the rise of the warrior cop" the police have become militarized to the point that we now have a domestic standing army. Which was the point of "homeland security" aka "brown shirts." For fucks sakes you think its not weird cops have military grade gear and tactical vehicles that are better at taking an IED than the fucking humvee's i was in, in iraq, 2007? The fuck do the police need that shit for?

If you think the US isnt preparing to suppress its people you are crazy. People say, "of well these are good cops and they wouldn't do that unconstitutional thing!" They will do it because it will be under the guise of something else, and much like the nazi's the opposition will be made out to be not human.

Anyways, read the book. Anti, fuck officer safety, my safety is equally as important as any officers. Being an officer doesnt grant extra rights.