1. U assume, without proving, that disengagement was possible and safe.
engineer wrote: No.
OK, you were there. Could you have disengaged?
An effort to do so woud have exposed me to gunfire,
at the perp's convenience.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In very little time, you would be far enough apart to either turn and run or arm yourself.
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.
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.
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?
Judging from the fact that the passenger screamed
and the car peeled out
immediately upon the arrival into the scene of my own
(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.
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.
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.
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.
, I 'd have lunged
for the glove compartment,
while trying to keep control of the steering wheel.
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.
If I had been unarmed, then my only viable choice woud have been
tactic of using my car as a weapon,
, which it was NOT
designed to do,
thereby likely disabling the car from further movement.
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.