The Flip Side of an Armed Public

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

This is the opposite of what most people would do in the car.

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

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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

David

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In checking your links, I encountered this:

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

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.