ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I cannot begin to guess HOW u 'd "disengage"
with the predatory car driving abreast.


a good driver, with good skills and reaction time, would brake - unless you were both going about 3 miles an hour. then the options change.

gunfight in the SlowLane Corral
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is the opposite of what most people would do in the car.

I think we've already determined that David is someone who marches to the beat of a different drum.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:11 pm
@DrewDad,
rat-a-tat-tat
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I think you're very lucky that your antagonist used such a low rate of fire, or was wildly inaccurate, or both.

You're not alive because you were carrying a weapon; you're alive because you were assaulted by an incompetent.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Presumably the bullet created a 'bullethole' by passing through your window. If it passed through, it had to end up somewhere in the car. Are you claiming that the bullet did not in fact pass through the window, but instead ricocheted off?

Cycloptichorn
I know that it did not stop in the car from the fact that I did not find it.
Hence, it either went out the other window (open for ventilation)
or as u said, it was deflected by the (curved) glass.


Interesting that as the driver, you had your window closed but the other open for ventilation. This is the opposite of what most people would do in the car.

Cycloptichorn
Its good for warm weather.
If u leave your driver 's door window open
u get the wind in your face.
Sometimes that can drive occasional particulat dirt into your eyes.
I deny that its "the opposite of what most people would do in the car."
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:24 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I think you're very lucky that your antagonist used such a low rate of fire, or was wildly inaccurate, or both.
That 's not a very bright thing to say; a miss by 3 inches, according to u is "wildly inaccurate".

I suspect that the criminals hoped that I 'd pull over and stop, in timid surrender, not expecting a counter-attack.



DrewDad wrote:
You're not alive because you were carrying a weapon;
you're alive because you were assaulted by an incompetent.
OK; let 's conduct a thought experiment.
Suppose that I had been unarmed; he pops a round at me.
What happens next?
I wait for the next few rounds and trust to his incompetence ?

Your phobias of guns are irrational.
On rare occasions, defense becomes necessary.
When any emergency arises: its better if u possess
the means to CONTROL that emergency.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:28 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is the opposite of what most people would do in the car.

I think we've already determined that David is someone who marches to the beat of a different drum.
My mother said something like that; she mentioned something about another planet.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:35 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I cannot begin to guess HOW u 'd "disengage"
with the predatory car driving abreast.


a good driver, with good skills and reaction time, would brake - unless you were both going about 3 miles an hour. then the options change.

gunfight in the SlowLane Corral
I have indicated quite a few times,
that I was looking for something driving slowly,
with my attention forward and to my right.

If I had stopped the car, thay coud have parked in front of me, blocking.

Its very likely that the other car also had brakes.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
You're not alive because you were carrying a weapon;
you're alive because you were assaulted by an incompetent.
OK; let 's conduct a thought experiment.
Suppose that I had been unarmed; he pops a round at me.
What happens next?
I wait for the next few rounds and trust to his incompetence ?

Your phobias of guns are irrational.
On rare occasions, defense becomes necessary.
When any emergency arises: its better if u possess
the means to CONTROL that emergency.

I have no gun phobia. I have a healthy respect for guns, and enjoy shooting in the right setting.

Let's try another thought experiment:

You are armed, driving, and someone pops a round at you. They then pop five more rounds at you, while you are drawing your weapon. The likely outcome there is an ex-David.

I said you're lucky that they didn't fire more than a single round at you, and I meant it. Doesn't matter if you're armed or not.

You weren't in CONTROL of the situation, however much you delude yourself into thinking you were.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 02:56 pm
@engineer,
I 'll get back to u, Engineer.
I 'm hosting a dinner this evening
and preparations r necessary.



David






engineer wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

1. U assume, without proving, that disengagement was possible and safe.

OK, you were there. Could you have disengaged? I would think that if you were both moving, stepping on the brakes would have quickly opened up a several hundred foot gap.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

2. U assume that it is POSSIBLE to call police. This occurred long before I considered getting a cellfone.

My assumption is that you would call police after disengaging like one driver did in one of the articles I linked to. I'm not suggesting you call while under fire.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

3. U assume, in conflict with the known evidence, that a gunfight had NOT already started.
I 'm here to tell u that it HAD, indeed.

You've never stated that you got a shot off. It seems to me that from the time your gun was high enough to be seen (chest level) to the time that you would have returned fire would have been much faster than the ability of the other driver to realize you were armed and to speed away unless they were already driving off or unless you took evasive action. Just sitting in my car picturing the scenario is seems like less than a half second from gun coming up to bullet leaving the car. No way the other car sees and reacts in that time.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
4. U encourage me to ASSUME, with no predicate evidence,
that the NEXT gunshots (however many thay may be)
from said criminals will not inflict grievous, permanent personal injury or fatal wounds upon myself.
(I don't think that 's good advice.)

I cannot begin to guess HOW u 'd "disengage", Engineer,
with the predatory car driving abreast.

I would advise someone in the same situation to step on the brakes. With a 20 mph delta velocity between two cars, the distance between them opens up at 30 ft/sec. In very little time, you would be far enough apart to either turn and run or arm yourself. Attempting to return fire on the run would be the last thing I would advise, especially if the criminals involved already have their weapon out and aimed at you although if there are policemen out there in the A2K community, I would defer to their advice.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Be advised that rather than waiting to find out how accurate the next gunshots were going to be,
I was preparing to DEFEND myself, when I heard a scream and noticed an abrupt departure of the car
that had been theretofore driving abreast of me.
That I "displayed" my gun was INCIDENTAL to my defense.
I was not about to just let them blast me whenever thay felt like it, and HOPE for the best.

Are you saying your gun did not play a role in them driving off? Was the shot fired into your car an accident? I guess it is not germane. My point is that because you had a gun, your first thought was to draw it instead of trying to pull away which would have afforded you more options. One of those options would be to use your weapon in self defense, but drawing it immediately seems like the worst possible choice and one you would not have considered if you didn't have a gun directly at hand. If your gun was in the glove compartment, I think you'd have made a more safe decision.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Lemme get this straight: according to your vu of things,
my life was not in danger when the criminals' slug hit 3 inches in front of my face,
nor thereafter, UNLESS I began to defend myself ??
Is that your position ??

No, my position is that your life was in danger when that shot hit your window, but instead of taking the best course of action to preserve your life, you took the worst one and that you did that directly because you had a gun near at hand.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
Having a gun seems to encourage people to put themselves in harm's
way by distorting our sense of personal safety. Of course, that
doesn't apply to everyone and there are people who can carry
responsibly, but as the articles I linked to show, there are plenty of people who can't.
It is a fact that people have been KILLED
while changing flat tires on the road.
Perhaps u believe that is a reason not to carry a spare tire in your trunk;
I don't see it that way.

Having a spare tire does not give you the power to destroy other people's tires if you get angry. A gun is both an offensive and a defensive device unlike a spare tire. I've presented plenty of links above showing that people who have no criminal intent will spontaneously resort to using guns offensively at a much higher rate than they will use them defensively. That is the point I am trying to make.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 03:01 pm
Let's say you are jogging in the park. Thirty or so Ninjas come out of the nearest stand of trees, brandishing swords, nun chucks and letter openers. Do you want A. David's howitzer with you, or B. a hippy flower. Remember, this is sure to happen sooner or later. You must decide.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 03:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I 'll get back to u, Engineer.
I 'm hosting a dinner this evening
and preparations r necessary.

David


No hurry. Enjoy your party. Special occasion?
engineer
 
  6  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 05:21 pm
@engineer,
One more thought... my intent in this post was not to question your driving story, but to suggest that in a heavily armed population, there would be significantly more cases of rage type gun violence. While some people are capable of using guns safely and appropriately, there are many who will not be able to achieve that and I can easily back that up just with a simple Internet search. How will giving random otherwise law abiding citizens on the street the means to go postal at any moment make us more safe? That plus distorting our view of what is safe and what isn't doesn't seem like a benefit to me.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:18 pm
[bookmark]

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 09:29 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I 'll get back to u, Engineer.
I 'm hosting a dinner this evening
and preparations r necessary.

David


No hurry. Enjoy your party. Special occasion?
No Special occasion; I founded a special interest group
about 25 or 30 years ago. Its a fine dining group, among other things.
We usually dine in the best restaurants of Manhattan.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:01 pm
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
1. U assume, without proving, that disengagement was possible and safe.
engineer wrote:
OK, you were there. Could you have disengaged?
No. An effort to do so woud have exposed me to gunfire,
at the perp's convenience.



engineer wrote:
I would think that if you were both moving, stepping on the brakes
would have quickly opened up a several hundred foot gap.
As I 've posted (u said u read my post)
my attention was forward and to my right;
I was looking for something, therefore driving slowly.
The perp hung on my tail for a while.
If I had slammed on the brakes, the car woud have stopped
and the perp coud have diagonally blocked the road ahead.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
2. U assume that it is POSSIBLE to call police.
This occurred long before I considered getting a cellfone.
engineer wrote:
My assumption is that you would call police after disengaging
like one driver did in one of the articles I linked to.
I'm not suggesting you call while under fire.
Thank u.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
3. U assume, in conflict with the known evidence,
that a gunfight had NOT already started.
I 'm here to tell u that it HAD, indeed.
engineer wrote:
You've never stated that you got a shot off.
Yes; I did not. Before I was able to line up a shot,
I heard a scream accompanying a swift departure.
I deem it a gun fight when that perp shot at me.



engineer wrote:
It seems to me that from the time your gun was high enough to be seen (chest level) to the time that you would have returned fire would have been much faster than the ability of the other driver to realize you were armed and to speed away unless they were already driving off or unless you took evasive action. Just sitting in my car picturing the scenario is seems like less than a half second from gun coming up to bullet leaving the car. No way the other car sees and reacts in that time.
That is false. Response was instantaneous.
As I 've said: my gun is highly reflective silver color.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
4. U encourage me to ASSUME, with no predicate evidence,
that the NEXT gunshots (however many thay may be)
from said criminals will not inflict grievous,
permanent personal injury or fatal wounds upon myself.
(I don't think that 's good advice.)

I cannot begin to guess HOW u 'd "disengage", Engineer,
with the predatory car driving abreast.
engineer wrote:
I would advise someone in the same situation to step on the brakes.
With a 20 mph delta velocity between two cars, the distance between them opens up at 30 ft/sec.
I don 't know, but I suspect, that the other car probably had brakes, too
and was capable of going anywhere that my car coud go.



engineer wrote:
In very little time, you would be far enough apart to either turn and run or arm yourself.
Run WHERE?
Drive off the road, in the black of night?
Maybe u suggest that I abandon my car and flee on foot in the dark? I don't think so.




engineer wrote:
Attempting to return fire on the run would be the last thing I would advise,
especially if the criminals involved already have their weapon out
and aimed at you although if there are policemen out there in the A2K community,
I would defer to their advice.
It did not take long to draw my gun. I am satisfied with the result.
I woud not accept your advice.





OmSigDAVID wrote:
Be advised that rather than waiting to find out how accurate the next gunshots were going to be,
I was preparing to DEFEND myself, when I heard a scream and noticed an abrupt departure of the car
that had been theretofore driving abreast of me.
That I "displayed" my gun was INCIDENTAL to my defense.
I was not about to just let them blast me whenever thay felt like it, and HOPE for the best.

engineer wrote:
Are you saying your gun did not play a role in them driving off?
Judging from the fact that the passenger screamed and the car peeled out
immediately upon the arrival into the scene of my own gun
(demonstrating that thay did NOT have control of the situation [nor did I] and that I was fighting BACK)
I believe that my gun played a role in them driving off.





engineer wrote:
Was the shot fired into your car an accident?
I doubt that, but I have no way to know whether the perp intentionally squeezed his trigger.
To me, it looked like an attempted robbery.





engineer wrote:
I guess it is not germane. My point is that because you had a gun,
your first thought was to draw it instead of trying to pull away
which would have afforded you more options.
Yeah, the option of getting shot in the back, or in the gas tank,
if I pulled forward, or getting shot in the front, if I tried to back up,
all in the discretion of the fine fellow who shot at me before.




engineer wrote:
One of those options would be to use your weapon in self defense,
but drawing it immediately seems like the worst possible choice
and one you would not have considered if you didn't have a gun directly at hand.
If your gun was in the glove compartment,
I think you'd have made a more safe decision.
OBVIOUSLY, I 'd have lunged for the glove compartment,
while trying to keep control of the steering wheel.







OmSigDAVID wrote:
Lemme get this straight: according to your vu of things,
my life was not in danger when the criminals' slug hit 3 inches in front of my face,
nor thereafter, UNLESS I began to defend myself ??
Is that your position ??

engineer wrote:
No, my position is that your life was in danger when that shot hit your window,
but instead of taking the best course of action to preserve your life,
you took the worst one and that you did that directly because
you had a gun near at hand.
If I had been unarmed, then my only viable choice woud have been
the HORRIBLE tactic of using my car as a weapon,
ramming, which it was NOT designed to do,
thereby likely disabling the car from further movement.



engineer wrote:
I've presented plenty of links above showing that people who have no criminal intent
will spontaneously resort to using guns offensively at a much higher rate
than they will use them defensively. That is the point I am trying to make.
I checked your links. In the first case, a weapon came into use during a fight; that 's not news.
As to some of the others, bearing in mind that cars
can be used as weapons, no decision shoud be made
until after a trial, during which BOTH sides of each dispute
have been granted an opportunity to be heard.
I have posted many, many times that intolerably dangerous people shud be isolated
from the decent people, preferrably OFF of the North American Continent, be thay armed or not.

In checking your links, I encountered this:





76-year-old man with Parkinson's opens fire on home invader
Posted: Apr 08, 2010 8:10 PM EDT Updated: Apr 08, 2010 8:10 PM EDT

An elderly homeowner shot an intruder who attacked him inside his home Wednesday morning.
It happened at Vern Grant's home in Carnation, Washington. It started when the suspect smashed
the windows of Vern's handicap van and rifled through his medicines.
"The guy was screaming crazy things and he was berzerk.
He threatened to kill him," said Ernie Grant, Vern's brother.
Next, the intruder went for the back door of Vern's home, shattering the glass and entering.
"He threw his pills all over. He was ripping cabinets open.
He was just … the house is trashed. The kitchen is trashed," said Ernie.
Vern, who turns 76 on Thursday, has Parkinson's Disease and diabetes, but he was able to fight back.
Vern says the intruder was screaming and incoherent.
"He reminded me of Manson," said Vern.
The intruder hit Vern in the head and nearly killed him until Vern shot the suspect in self-defense.
"You just have to do it. If you don't, he'll kill you," said Vern.
After Vern shot the intruder, he made it to a neighbor's house for help.
"I was amazed he could do that because he has a difficult time walking," said Hall.
Vern suffered a head injury. He was treated and released from Snoqualmie Valley Hospital.
The suspect was airlifted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle with non-life threatening injuries.


OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:41 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
One more thought... my intent in this post was not to question your driving story,
but to suggest that in a heavily armed population,
there would be significantly more cases of rage type gun violence
.
Your theory is disproven, Engineer,
by reference to very long experience of the citizens of Vermont,
who have never had any gun laws (except some fairly recent federal interferences)
and who have enjoyed centuries of peace and domestic tranquility.
Dispute that, Engineer?
How ofen in your life have u heard your fellow citizens say:
"O, I 'd never go to Vermont, because its too dangerous,
with gunfire everywhere and red blood always flowing thru the streets."

Vermont has always had an extremely low crime rate, near the bottom, or at the bottom.




Since 1986, a little less than 40 of the 50 States have repealed gun control
(meaning discriminatory licensure of the right to defend your life, at the whim of local government)
in favor of CCW, i.e., that upon application for a concealed guns license,
police MUST grant it, unless the applicant has a nasty criminal history,
or has been adjudicated to be mentally sick, after a hearing.
Of those States who adopted CCW, not ONE, not even ONE of them
has ever changed its mind and returned to gun control.

Add to that:
armed populations of army and police
have not turned on each other in road rage.
Can u point to any war in which our soldiers have ever been guilty of this?
Admit that thay are large armed populations of human beings ?





David

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

In checking your links, I encountered this:

76-year-old man with Parkinson's opens fire on home invader

This is my point. I easily found eight links showing misuse of guns. If I wanted to take the time to link to them, I had 20 more. You can say wait for the court appearance, but when a 70 year old pulls a gun on someone who passes him or someone draws on a cyclist who he has a road dispute with, it's going to be hard to show that the gun use was appropriate. You present one counter article. That doesn't balance the scales.

My point is not that guns won't on occasion prevent a crime from occurring, I believe it will. My point is that human nature being what it is, there will be more cases of people who would otherwise just get mad and frustrated deciding on the spur of the moment that they can resolve the issue by pulling that gun. Mad that someone flipped you off - show them your gun! I'm not saying you would do such things or that you condone them, but I don't think you can determine who will freak out in an emotional situation and ship them out of the country. The end result is that people in aggregate are less safe in a well armed population. That 76 year old with Parkinsons was more safe, but that cyclist was not. Rather than just throw that idea out there, I went looking for data and I think I found it. I found far more articles than I expected to find even when restricting my search to stuff published last week.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 01:58 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

engineer wrote:
Having a gun seems to encourage people to put themselves in harm's way by distorting our sense of personal safety.

There's actually a name for this phenomenon, although I can't seem to dredge it out of my brain.
[/quote]

Were you thinking of the Peltzman effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 02:04 pm
@sozobe,
That looks right. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 01:10:37