While you might not have a chance to use it to protect yourself, you might be prepared to intervene on behalf of someone who has no chance if the situation should demand action.
Interesting thought but I think most people who carry in California are probably not likely to jump in a situation like that where the attacker is not wielding a firearm (regardless of LUCC or political buddies with the local sheriff).
The law and political environment in CA would make the case that if you shot the crazed baseball bat attacker and killed him before the initial victim died that YOU would be the one using excessive force and you might end up in jail, and for sure have a heap of legal bills. Ironically, you'd probably be in even WORSE shape if you shot the attacker and DID NOT kill them due to impending civil suits.
I bet if someone else had a gun there they would get themselves and their immediate loved ones out of there immediately before intervening where the risk to them and their family would be far greater.
Not trying to diminish the value of this person's life, but sometimes the sheeple are thinned from the herd and there's not a thing you can do. Best to always stay armed for yourself and your immediate family. In a free society when you go out you assume the risk of these type of things happening, in Free America you have the opportunity to at least take preventative measures and carry defensive tools to protect yourself from these things.
