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.
That may be the opposite of what most people would do. But it is also something that I do. I don't like the sound of wind passing by my ears while driving. I'll frequently drive around with the back and passenger windows open and the drivers window's closed. Or with just the back windows open. Or with just the passenger window open. The drivers window is the last window I open in my car, and usually I'll turn on the AC rather than open that window.
I specifically traded in my last car for one with automatic windows, specifically for this reason.
Sorry for taking this off topic; I just found it interesting that you posted this and it was something I thought about very recently.
I once found the statistic for how much more danger you're in from just having a gun around the house, let alone carrying one around with you.
A member of your household is many times more likely to get shot by the gun (by accident or by it being used in a domestic dispute), than for it to be successfully used in stopping a crime.
Maybe, but the anti-self defense crowd is well known for fraudulently misleading statistics.
There was even a scandal in a prominent MEDICAL journal, that published a junk science article.
(I 'm not going to track it down; too much trouble.)
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.
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.
You miss the point (perhaps intentionally). While you can easily posit cases of people being injured or dying because of the lack of an overpowering means of self defense, I can point to plenty of real cases where people were injured or died because a gun was present. Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire? You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred. Without a gun near to hand, that engineer would not have shot that cell phone using lady. You can correctly blame the engineer and hold him accountable for his actions, but you also have to recognize that if his gun had not been right at hand, he'd have likely just driven by, maybe flipping her off. My statement is that the overall health of the entire population is improved by less guns, not more.
You have a chance of struggling if your attacker has a knife. You have a chance of running. None of these are options if your opponent has a gun.
OmSigDAVID wrote:engineer wrote:Do you take great satisfaction that a young woman was killed because her cousin did not like her choice of Easter attire?
Your link said it was because of the misdirected attentions of a husband. It was a fight.
It was a fight when the victim was leaving the house and had already got in her car? Do you not believe that no gun -> no death?
OmSigDAVID wrote:engineer wrote:You wave this off saying that the perpetrator was a nut case and should be shipped out of the country, but the reality is that without the casual presence of a gun this death would not have occurred.
As an engineer, u must understand the error of making overbroad assumptions; u mean to tell us that before guns were invented, fighting people did not kill one another??
No, I'm saying that the ability to resort to very cheap, lethal force very easily means that fighting people have a much greater chance of killing people.
One more comment: From the tone of my posts, someone might think I advocate complete gun control. That's not the case. I respect the Constitutional right to bear arms, but I also support common sense restrictions. I think licenses with mandatory training in firearms use should be required. I think concealed carry should be very restricted; if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly, I should be able to see the threat. I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes can be tracked back to their points of origin and so conduits of weapons going to criminals can be identified.
Guns are safe. Yep.
Police academy instructor shoots self during gun demonstration
Quote:LIBERTY TWP. " A police academy instructor accidentally shot himself Friday night, April 9, during a gun demonstration in front of police recruits.
Robert J. Stewart, 55, was demonstrating the use of a 9mm Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol at about 7:51 p.m. at the firing range when he shot himself in the upper right thigh in front of 24 recruits and several instructors at Butler Tech’s Public Safety Education Center, said Butler County Sheriff’s Sgt. Chuck Laymon.
Stewart, of Bethel, was transported by a Liberty Twp. life squad to Atrium Medical Center in Middletown, where he was treated and released late Friday night.
“He seems to be in good spirits, but he’s just a little embarrassed,” Laymon said. “People ask how these things happen, but this goes to show you that if you get complacent or get in a hurry accidents can happen.”
OmSigDavid wrote:I cannot see licensing people's right to self defense from predatory violence, an inalienable right.
Do you approve of banning gun sales to violent criminals and psychotics? If so, how would you implement the ban without licenses?
DrewDad wrote:Most people aren't accurate beyond a few feet with a handgun.
That statement has bullshit for logic. Most people killed by handguns are within that range. You cant outrun a bullet though I would like to see you try.
I am responding to your month old post, the second on this thread, in which you refer to the fact that a gun may create more danger.
I heartily agree.
My daughter-in-law is tiny: five feet tall and weighing in at 90 pounds. She says what happens if someone breaks into your house when you are sleeping or in the basement doing the laundry? Do you say, "Excuse me. I need to go get my gun."
Guns are pointless.
Sane, well-balanced individuals do not fear the bogeyman.
I think orally is a sock puppet.
I think orally is a sock puppet.
Freedom lovers detest guns