California and guns

G

geetarman

New member
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ourages-fighting-back-against-active-shooters

As reported in this story, San Francisco Bay area law enforcement agencies are encouraging fighting back against active shooters.

Is this April 1? In a state that seems to go out of its way to hamstring law abiding ownership of firearms, it seems strange they would suggest fighting back.

What would one use?

The state never ceases to amaze me.

Anyone think the California legislature is going to actively support and armed citizenry?
 
I'm sorry. The video is the basically you are in the soup, so charge waving the furniture and your IPAD.

There is no measure of the most efficacious way to fight - with a gun.

It also assumes that you are not in the immediate attack and have time to build a fort out of copier papier.

While, in close quarters you may grab the guy - in a large, open scenario - you are out of luck unless you can shoot him. In many incidents, the shooter has shot through the door and shot charging folks.

The advice is good but deliberately hamstrung by antigun policies.
 
California citizens can own guns.
They just have to think ahead, what with their waiting periods, registrations, restrictions, and disapproval list.
They can have them, just not have them handy. :rolleyes:
 
For many years we were told to flee from gun armed criminals. Now they're saying we should fight evil shooters without resorting to the use of guns. Its another fatally flawed PC scheme that avoids simply shooting the bad guy.
 
For many years we were told to flee from gun armed criminals. Now they're saying we should fight evil shooters without resorting to the use of guns. Its another fatally flawed PC scheme that avoids simply shooting the bad guy.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're absolutely right. And when someone is still shot using their methods, they'll just use that as ammo to say, "See, there's nothing you can do when someone with an evil assault rifle wants to shoot you. We just need to ban guns, then this won't happen."

A good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun, but that simple logic is difficult for some people to understand.
 
Good guy vs. bad buy

Be careful in using the "only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" logic. Antis with whom I have squared off with this one often point to the SRO at Columbine (IIRC), the fact that VA Tech and other schools have campus police, and that Ft. Hood was on a military base, presumably LOADED with good guys with guns. (They hate it when I point out that the Ft. Hood shooting happened in a gun-free zone on the base, btw.) What I usually wind up telling them is: We know that a good guy with a gun MIGHT stop a bad guy with a gun. We also know that a good guy without a gun most likely will not.
 
I think we need a subtlety with the good guy or gal with a gun argument.

The officer at Columbine, the officers at VT or the police at Ford Hood were not at the site of the initial attack. They arrived later.

The argument for carry is to have someone immediately available at the scene.

A clear instance is Jeanne Assam at the Denver Church shooting. She stopped it.

Wayne arguing for a guard at each school is good that it may deter but the guard can't be in each class. Folks comfortable with carry should be able to be there. Also, such folks can defend their space if not immediately attacked.
 
Hassan shooting up Ft. Hood is far from the first shooting incident on a Military Base. There have been many before it.

All Military Bases are essentially gun free zones. Only the MPs get to run around armed and they are no more an active presence then regular cops in regular cities. They do the same things, family disturbances, traffic duty, etc. They are the Army's cops and only when deployed to combat zones do their missions change.

As for the rest of the guns, they are locked and guarded always. If they are issued to the troops it's for specific reasons, cleaning, training, etc. But they don't get ammo except under tightly controlled training at a range and in TRADOC Training outfits the Range Cadre used to be armed with live ammo in case some goofball goes nutso and shoots a Drill Sergeant or something. Any soldiers living in Barracks must have personally owned firearms locked up with the rest of the weapons in the arms room and can only get it out with an OK from the CO. Any personally owned firearms kept in government housing is generally treated like anyone who owned firearms off base but there are rules for how the weapons can be transported and why, they can't just drive around with them. And the risk of search while serving active duty is very high and could happen at any time for many reasons so it's not like you can just throw your shooter under the front seat and hope to get away with it for long.

What so many people fail to understand is why Military folks cherish their freedoms so deeply. Sure, part of it is the well known "We have bled for them" reason that everyone hears.

The reason that is bigger for me, and almost never voiced, is that all Military have lived volunteering to give up many of those freedoms that they are protecting. They can't just go where they want, or do what they want, or be with who they want, or say what they want, or have what they want, or live where they want, and the list just goes on and on. You would have to live it to understand it, but that's how it is.

Every service member begins his service by sacrificing his own rights so that he can help protect those of others.
 
Those are all easy arguments to counter.

At columbine, the SRO engaged the shooters at a range of around 70 yards. Hitting a human sized target at 70 yards with a handgun is pretty difficult, regardless of who you are, and when you add in the fact it was a dynamic shoot, with both SRO and target moving, and target shooting back, it would have been impossible. After the shooters moved into the building, the SRO followed SOP at the time and waited outside for backup. Once the shooters realized they were caught, they killed themselves.

At VT, the campus police never confronted the shooter, until the very end. And when he was confronted, he ended the spree by killing himself (a seemingly common thing that happens in these things).

I could easily argue that in both these cases that intervention by good guys with guns prevented more people from being killed, and that had they been confronted sooner (instead of SOP at the time being wait for backup), more people could have been saved.

And you are correct about the military base being a gun free zone. People have a misconception that military bases are full of armed men and women. The truth is that the only people armed on a military base are the MPs and contracted security.

At the Oregon mall shooting that occured before Sandy Hook, evidence points to an armed man drawing on the shooter, but not firing because he wasn't sure of his backstop (he saw people running around behind the shooter). Nevertheless, it appears the shooter saw this good guy with a gun, because within seconds of seeing the armed good guy, he moved to the final location where he placed a bullet firmly into his own brain. The mere presence of a good guy with a gun, very well could have saved dozens of lives.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir here.

You are, however, correct. There is no way to confirm whether a good guy with a gun will always stop a bad guy with a gun every time. However, without a good guy with a gun, a bad guy with a gun will have free reign to kill indiscriminately. In the end, there are only three ways these mass shootings will stop:

1) The crazed madman of a shooter, for some reason, decides to stop
2) The crazed madman of a shooter runs out of ammo
2) A good guy with a gun makes them stop.

EDIT: I just wanted to add to Glenn's post. We call police, EMTs and fire fighters "first responders." In reality, they are second responders. We, the public are first responders. It would be irresponsible of me to say, "I won't use this fire extinguisher to put out this fire, because we have professionals that can do that." Of course, the difference is, I am here, they are somewhere else. Armed police, no matter what, have a response time. Having worked for TSA in an airport that had no airport police, I have first hand experience at response time. Let's just say that if a gunman had decided to shoot up the lobby of the airport, he would have been able to have free reign for at least 5 minutes. A lot of damage can be done.

VT, Columbine, Ft. Hood, and many others suffer from the same problem. The real first responders have been neutered of their ability to respond effectively. They have to wait on the response of the second responders.
 
Last edited:
Excellent post. In TX, some of us have planned to make the 'we are the first responder' argument in the campus carry debate.

Having watched a campus shooter video with a group of school folks, I made the point in question period that we were being denied the most efficacious way of responding. It did not go over well with the powers. But that's life.

TX is starting to tool up in counties to offer active shooter response classes for TX educators. Whether that will convince antigun administrations to change policy - I don't know. Their opposition is more socio-political than rational. They also carry about liability bottom lines and some analyses say the best financial outcome is not to have carry.

Last, many of them are what I've called defensive dumbfounded (a play on another term). It's mindset and they can't conceive they could be effective in defense.
 
More laws are being presented to Gov Brown in CA that are even more obscure. I travel to CA often in the summer and as a retired police officer, my concealed carry is permitted in the entire US, but not CA. I wasn't aware they were not part of the US.
My choice of carry is also not permitted by doj unless I have 10 round mags. I have family there so we have gone to the range upon occasion and to buy ammo in CA requires a drivers licence. New law being presented is that I cannot bring my own ammo in, must have drivers license and pay for background to get ammo. Then it's to be limited to 3 boxs per month. That's for range as well.
I wanted to give my niece a 9mm, and was told I cannot. I have to go through ffl dealer, determine value amount, she has to pay taxs on that amount plus pay to have it registered to her and do the wait thing, and that 9 has to stay with the dealer. If they turn her down for whatever reason, I don't even get it back.
And I'm not allowed to give her ammo already mine.
I cannot believe they get away with that. But note the 2 prominent female grabbers are from there and maybe they figure they did it in CA so can do it to the entire country.
I actually have come to the conclusion they are right... they don't belong to the US. What I've never figured is how the folks living there tolerate that control during election time.
 
Seeker 4:

I have family there so we have gone to the range upon occasion and to buy ammo in CA requires a drivers licence. New law being presented is that I cannot bring my own ammo in, must have drivers license and pay for background to get ammo. Then it's to be limited to 3 boxs per month. That's for range as well.
Click to expand...
A) The restrictions on ammo are not true in LA County
or
B) I shop at places that don't enforce them :D
 
Well this is good.

Instead of murderers tracking down victims to shoot, the victims, (unarmed of course) come to them. Now with more people probably killed per incident the anti gun people would just use that fact as more ammo as to why guns should be banned.

I guess they're just thinking ahead.:eek:
 
I should have said proposed laws instead of new...not passed yet but being presented to Gov Brown. Currently drivers license only. And it's also fair to say the 10 major changes was told to me and in sincerity I did not see them in writing.
 
The new law would outlaw all semiautomatic weapons, criminalize anyone who has more than 500 rounds of ammo, and require a permit to buy ammunition in the future. California, which already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, is also looking at a proposal which would call for the immediate confiscation of 166,000 registered modern sporting rifles. This is why people are against Registration!

Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, unveiled the gun control package in a news conference Thursday at the state Capitol.

The package includes:

•Banning the possession — not just manufacture and sale — of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
•Making possession of hollow point bullets and similar “assault bullets” a felony.
•Requiring anyone wishing to buy ammunition to first get a permit by passing a background check.
•Requiring the registration and reporting of all ammo purchases. Limits the number of rounds anyone can have at one time to 500 rounds.
•Requiring all gun owners will have to be licensed like drivers, and will be forced to carry gun liability insurance.
•Banning any gun that has a detachable magazine, and requires a 100% prohibition of all fixed magazines greater than 10 rounds.
•Making all previous grandfathered magazines become illegal, and it will become a felony if you keep one.
•Prohibiting anyone barred from owning a weapon from living in a home where weapons are kept
•Expanding the list of crimes that would bar a person from gun possession.
•Letting the state Justice Department use money from the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale system to eliminate the backlog of people identified as no longer allowed to own guns but not yet investigated and contacted by law enforcement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top