I think the clear theme is to avoid the situation in the first place. I actually love driving in the city because there is so much more to look at (I live 30 minutes out in the burbs) but driving in the city might not be the best idea if traffic is heavy.

One other tip I thought I would share is my timed approach to lights. If the upcoming light is red I approach it slowly. If I can stay rolling or at least minimize the amount of time I am sitting idle, it reduces the time a situation might develop (as I think we would all agree that it is sitting when you are subject to the biggest risk).

I was not trying to turn this into a racial debate either. In fact, my intent was quite the opposite. I was trying to communicate that crime, especially violent crime and theft are usually functions of income, or lack there of , and income is usually a function of education and social status. Where there are poor people with little hope there will be high crime rates. I've been to several Asia, African, and European countries, which did not have more than one race ( at least not in significant numbers). In those places crime still exists. It boils down down to have's and have not's. The have not's want to forcefully take from the have's.

Regarding me carrying at or to my place or work......there are high security and low security areas. No one could get a weapon into a high security area. However, if someone were to have the proper credentials to get into the complex, one would normally not undergo a vehicle search. Additionally, vehicle searches are for explosives and devices that will cause massive amounts damage. No one would find a handgun in a search nor would they really care about someone having a handgun in the car of the parking lot which is always very far from anything important.

Do you mind if I ask if you've ever really had anything happen? I live in the south, and while I realize that bad things happened years ago, it seems that society has moved on quite a bit. I truly don't know anyone who would give you a second look if you were on a drive around here.

Just curious...

I had something happen in the back woods of Ohio last week (Southern Ohio near West Virginia). I was driving my Mercedes which is very rare around those parts. I was driving about 60 in a 55 and quickly approached this old pick-up truck that was doing about 40. I couldn't pass and kept a safe distance but all of a sudden he slammed on his brakes so I would either crash or hit him (fortunately I had the engineering of Mercedes behind me and swiftly went around). Him and his friend looked at me and extended a back woods greeting (middle finger) and I just kept going. I drive a lot (about 40,000 miles per year) and this happens a good bit when I am rolling in a nicer car.

If you are worried about your safty when driving with the top down then I would suggest getting a firearm. I am trained in several Martial Arts but I still carry a gun because I know the law is better for gun CCWers in self defense than "Fighters" in self defense. The line between self defense and assult is too thin when fighting but a gun shot is always self defense unless you shoot the guy in the back.

My personal choice for a life saver :
FN FiveseveN 5.7X28mm
Glock 19 9mm
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...n/57andg19.jpg

Those are some handsome guns!

Hi,

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression, but if the number of handguns which this group seems to possess is anywhere near representative of a societal cross-section, it is somewhat disturbing.

If this many handguns are in circulation, then IMHO, owning one only deepens the extent of the problem...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

I cannot disagree with you more. It is the MISUSE of handguns that causes the problem. Armed citizens who behave in a moral fashion work to actually decrease the amount of violent crime.

I don’t think anyone on this board is the kind of person that would be causing the car jacking. Therefore, they are arming themselves to defend themselves. If everyone did this, there would be very few carjackings I expect as the perpetrators would know they are facing greater odds and would look for easier prey.

The backwards logic of disarmament is scary to me. The only people who would voluntarily give up their weapons are the people who would be using them in a defensive nature – not the people who are committing crimes with them. This exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.

I do NOT want to shoot anyone, but if I think for a second that someone might come into my home and harm my family, and I would NOT be able to stop them because I voluntarily disarmed myself, how exactly have I contributed to the betterment of things? I have not. I would have only martyred my family when I could have protected them.

I will keep my weapons thank you.

Jim, now you've opened up a can of worms.

"If this many handguns are in circulation, then IMHO, owning one only deepens the extent of the problem..."

What problem are we speaking of here Jim. I see no issue with legally obtained and permitted firearms. Fact is, they provide a mighty deterent to those who would victimize us otherwise.

"I would have only martyred my family when I could have protected them."

Indeed. And since survival is one of our most basic needs, reducing your chances of survival would be, well insane!

I absolutely agree with Brucelee. Lawful use of firearms helps prevent violent crimes. In fact CANADA had already proven this fact:

BELLEVUE, WA – Canada's billion-dollar boondoggle – the national gun registration scheme – has proven itself an abysmal failure, as that country's violent crime rates are double those reported in the United States, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) noted today.

"We looked at violent crime rates per 100,000 population in both countries, using the most recent available data," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "and we were not surprised at what we found. Since Canada started this ridiculous and costly program, violent crime has gone up dramatically, at the same time that crime in the United States has declined. Yet, there are people in the states who think Canada's gun legislation should be the model for America.

"By comparing the data," he detailed, "we found that the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 population, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 population is more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada is also more than twice that of the states, 746 to our 295 for the population rate."

Noted CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron: "What happened in the states to actually contribute to a reduction in our overall crime rate is simple. We've got 38 states with shall-issue, right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. While Canada has clamped down on its citizens' gun rights, our citizens have been empowered against criminals by passage of these laws. The disparity in crime rates between the two countries says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fight back if necessary."

A Jan. 3 story in Canada's National Post by writer David Frum confirmed CCRKBA's independent finding. Frum wrote, "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States." Later, Frum added: "Gun registries and gun bans…do not work."

"Instead of promising to ban legally-owned handguns in Canada," Waldron observed, "Prime Minister Paul Martin should be urging citizens to arm themselves. He should encourage Parliament to scrap gun registration and replace it with a gun ownership and training program."

"Since going on the warpath against guns, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation's history," Gottlieb said. "There are more rapes, more robberies and more murders. If that tells Canadian citizens anything at all, it's that Paul Martin and his Liberals have literally been ‘dead wrong' on guns."

Wow.. just.. wow. I was going to stay out of this.. since this is clearly an American problem. But then this piece of claptrap reared its ugly head. Is it really too much to ask that one actually research things a bit before posting?

I don't even know where to begin. Actually, someone's said it better than me so I'll post a link to a *very* well referenced debunking of this business.

I've been to various large cities in the US (and some even rougher cities around the world) and I can't say how I would react in the situations described (without typing for a couple of hours) but let's at least keep things in the realm of reality, shall we?

I will say that trying to start a gun-fight while you're sitting in your car surrounded by thugs seems like a pretty good way to commit suicide. Get the f*** outta there would probably be the best course of action. You've got ~240hp and -200ft/lbs of torque and tires like glue.. use 'em

Hi,

I'm referring to accidental shootings, children being killed or injured with unloaded handguns, crimes of passion made possible by the ready access to a handgun, etc.

I believe in self-defence and keep a 12 ga. at home for that purpose, but only if my life or my wife's is directly threatened. IMHO, the only justification in taking a life (or even attempting it) is to save a life which is in immanent danger, not for the saving of property (which seems to be the jist of this topic).

There seems to be a lot of Macho inference in this thread, but taking a life, under any circumstances is the most horrific thing you can imagine, in fact, unless you've done it, I doubt you can imagine it. I know I didn't.

And you don't need a Handgun (or any gun for that matter) to kill someone. You can just as easily line them up in the crosswalk.

So far as deterrent, it seems to me that if you are going to pull it as a last resort, you've moved way beyond deterring the bad guy anyway. I suspect that in more cases than not, once you pull it, you're gonna have to use it.

I guess what I'm wondering is if people are so fearful of such immanent personal threat that they see owning a Handgun as a viable cure? Wouldn't moving to Iowa be at least as reasonable an alternative - I mean if you're that threatened?

It's reasonable to assume that I'm not the only one here who believes that any schmoe being able to arm himself/herself with a handgun might not be a such a good thing. You're asking me to place a whole lot of trust in their personal restraint. Trust which I'm not sure I can bestow...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Yes, the US did have more total crimes than Canada but we also have a larger population.
USA 295,734,134 people
Canada 33,098,932 people


So all you can really go by is a statistical representation

Using statcan and US FBI data.
Canada's homicide increaded 12% from 2003 to 2004 per 100,000 people (2005 data is not readily available to me)

USA's homide rate increased 5.5% from 2003 to 2004 per 100,000 people (data from FBI)


Total number of crimes may be more here in the states but the rate of change doesn't lie. If Canada had the same population as USA would you still stand by your position?

Just to keep things on track - the scenario being discusse here is one of last resort. I think everyone agrees that trying to escape is the best option, but if that is not possible, and your life (or the life of a family member) is threatened, well that is what we are talking about.

Also, saying that this is "obviously an American problem" is not true. I am not vouching for the statistics posted, but I can imagine that this same scenario could play out easily on Jane & Finch in your city too. I lived in Toronto for a few years, and while I agree that it is safer than parts of New York and New Jersey where I mostly stay now, it is certainly not crime free. Also, my job takes me around the world, and believe me, there are few things more tense than coming to a stop light in Sao Paulo or God forbid Columbia. It is not an American problem.

I think if I had been victimized in Houston and didn't feel safe to live and work here any longer, I'd pack up my stuff and move to some God-forsaken place like Iowa. Those of you that have actually been forced to drive through that state will wholeheartedly agree with me!

But, my situation is that I must remain in this lousy big city until I retire to Hawaii in 20 years. My organization is located here, I cannot afford to move it and hire new employees; I own my home outright and cannot afford to buy another home of equal value due to the incredible hike in taxes I would pay (my taxes are based on a 1/3 of what my home is worth). Buying a handgun and learning how to use it was far easier than packing up and leaving only to live like a pauper in some corn field.

And that's why I own a 9mm hand gun. I considered a 12 gauge shot gun, but the wife could not lift it and aim it properly... she's just not strong enough.

Downside to the handgun training I gave my wife is that now she can aim it at me when she gets the credit card bill and sees all my boxster-related charges.

One day, I came home from a business trip and she said, "I missed you ... but my aim is getting better."

Be afraid, be very afraid!

I am greatful that most of society has moved on, and that I could drive around where you live with no problems. However, I titled my post perspective because that what it is really all about. How many people on this board have ever been mugged or assaulted in an urban area, yet there is still a feeling of vulnerability in cerain situations. I grew up living in Baltimore and Philadephia, and I feel safe driving top down in many places that many other Porsche owners would not. People can control their actions, but not their feelings. Feelings are based partly on instict and partially on perceptions and beliefs. That's why perspective is a funny thing. Two people will often perceive the same situation much differently.

and to answer the question directly......

Yes it has. At the time, I was stationed in Louisianna, which is the most boring Army base in the states. It was my first weekend there, and there was only one bar in town. I drove to it, and in the parking lot I was met by the (un)welcoming party.

At that time, I did not own a gun, and I doubt I would have had to use one even if I had. It was only 10 pm, and most patrons are not quite drunk enough yet to do something that stupid. Had it been later, say midnight, I may have had a real problem.

As a young Army officer, I was a little miffed because I had recently taken an oath to defend the citizens of this country, yet I was the one in need of defense from some of the very citizens I had sworn to defend.


After that incident, I realized a couple of things. First, was that ignorant and closed minded people exist everywhere and in all groups. No race, ethnicity, or religion is void of it's share of ignorance and lowlife.( as I stated before, crime nd violence are functions of education and income in most cases) Second, was that I was stationed less than 100 miles from Jasper TX. I bought my first handgun a week later, and obtained a carry permit shortly after that.

Actually Jim, to me this has nothing to do with property per se. However, if i were sitting in traffic and I perceived that my life was in danger, I would have NO PROBLEM shooting someone who as threatening me.

Now, this is a judgement call but I certainly prefer having the option to use my judgement than to rely on the judgement of the guy climbing into my Porsche who has not been invited.

The issue with gun control is that it only applies to law abiding citizens. The criminals simply laugh, arm themselves and have their way with us.

Not me. If I think I am in danger, that F....er is going down. We will sort it out later but I will be alive to do the sorting.

If that make me a redneck, hey, I am a redneck.

Yikes..shoot first ask questions later? After reading your guys' posts I'm glad I live around cornfields in a small rura, college town in IL. I've never had a problem or perceived one driving around. ...except for the occasional camaro or stang driver that wants to race. :) I thought driving our cars were supposed to be fun!

2 words: Para Ordinance

Either hit the gas or hit the trigger.

Bruce, I must say, it’s a little odd that you’d post comments promoting gun-toting among automotive enthusiasts but discourage people from posting go-fast/street-racing threads? With all the road-rage out there, I think I’d feel safer cruising the freeways surrounded by STi drivers with nitrous then a group of Camry owners packing heat.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of the second amendment.

Which part of the amendment? The part that is usually taken out of context from the first part?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'

It’s a lot more exciting to think about taking out a gun to gain control of a situation than to contemplate a running gun-battle with someone shooting back at you. The obvious point being that the same permit that entitles you to carry a gun entitles every wackjob in your state of residence to do the same, and if some low-life is approaching your car in a state with little gun-control, it’s naïve to think you’ll be the only one packing. To paraphrase Capt. Willard “Don’t get out of the boat unless you’re willing to go all the way.” Please don’t risk your life in a shoot-out for a 5 year old car with 228 horsepower and RMS problems. Depending on your username, that could be tragic.

In a similar theme I would suggest that all aspiring Cobra Kai members acquire the most important asset in a fight, the ability to take a punch as well as you throw one. If it's been awhile since you've been on the business end of a punch thrown in anger you’ll be likely to turtle like a mutant ninja or lose your ****************, neither of which is going to help you in a fight.

SD, I think you missed the point, correct me if I am wrong. Brucelee point was "The issue with gun control is that it only applies to law abiding citizens. The criminals simply laugh, arm themselves and have their way with us."
No matter how "little gun control" a state has, most criminals are not registered/licensed hand gun carriers. Most criminals by junk guns off the street. Don't believe me? Then talk to your local BATF.

Bruce,

I respect your opinion and certainly the Law (to posses and carry) and many here are on your side.

Not being thoroughly acquainted with all pertinent laws in all states, I don't know what rights a Citizen has in the use of deadly force outside their own home, but I do know that the actions of anyone doing so are held up to the light by a 3rd party (parties) who then judge if the use of deadly force was justified or whether aggravated assualt or manslaughter charges need be pursued. If you have witnesses (and they corroborate your perception of the situation), you may come out all right on the back end. But, not until you've spent at least a couple hours in the Cop Shop or the Hoosgow awaiting arraignment, spent a couple thousand on Bail and Lawyers, and unwittingly increased both your circle of friends and your vocabulary. And, you better hope you don't get a Gun Control advocate as a Prosecutor or a Judge! And what if the Witnesses side with their Home Boy instead of Da Man? That'd make you real popular with the Orange Jumpsuit crowd!

Also, one better be very sure how practiced their aim is in a tense situation (I'm not talking about plinking paper targets on a Range) so you don't bring down a kid skateboarding across the street or an old Lady watering her plants in the Window, or anyone else within 300 yards. Aside from any possible Felony charges, the Wrongful Death Civil Suit, which would surely follow (possibly even from the Perp's family - you drive a Porsche afterall) might make you wish you had chosen another option.

As I said, I respect your views and your rights. But to me, carrying a Gun just complicates many more issues than it solves. Personally, I think I'll stick with Advance to the Rear!...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

MN it depends on your state, a few states like Indiana are more biased toward the gun owner.
"Gov. Mitch Daniels signed House Enrolled Act 1028, which says Hoosiers do not have to retreat before using deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury to themselves or someone else "

That is why after every shooting, LEOs do Forensics and Ballistics test. You can't solely trust witnesses in court.



I also agree with you on the collateral damage. I am a person that believe you MUST have gun training if you want a gun. Kind of like a car, if you want to drive you must have training.

To amplify.

I respect anyone's opinion and decision to not carry a gun. Gun ownership and use is not simple and the decision one makes in its use are serious indeed. Anyone who does use a gun must face the legal and emotional consequences of that use. If you are not prepared to do that, hey, I would not own a gun.

Of course, the need to protect one's life is very real issue in some parts of the world and sadly, that ocurrs more than we would like to admit. Certainly, one CANNOT rely on the police to protect our life and limb, only to TRY to apprehend the bad guys after the deed is over.

I can tell you from experience that the police are fairly ineffectual on an after the fact basis. Moreover, the court system lets us all down on a daily basis even after a criminal is apprehended.

What I DO object to is the folks who seek to disarm those of us who would LEGALLY own a gun and use it appropriately. I have no issue with req. to be trained, investigated and licensed. That is similar to what we need to do to drive and I think that is fine.

I DO have an issue with folks who would simply ban gun ownership entirely, which of course means that the criminals would have guns, and we would not.

Not a good scenario.

On a last note, please note that I alluded to LEGAL ownership and use of a gun. This is akin to my stance against ILLEGAL use of the road for racing.

"Please don’t risk your life in a shoot-out for a 5 year old car with 228 horsepower and RMS problems. Depending on your username, that could be tragic."

When I used to teach martial arts, I said this over and over. If someone attempts to rob you, give them your wallet. If someone pulls a knife or gun, try to run away.

If you have to fight, make it over a threat to your person, not to your property or ego. Especially your EGO!

Then and only then, fight back and do it with full measure. At that point, you MUST assume the person means to take your life and you should do the same.

Using half hearted fancy studio moves on the street is a great way to become dead very very quickly. Taking out an eye or crushing a wind pipe will allow you to walk away from this threat very very quickly. The longer the fight goes on, the worse it becomes.

So too with a gun. Only pull it when it needs to be pulled AND used. Otherwise, leave it under the seat and get the hell out of there.

"Lets be careful out there!"

I think this is exactly the point I was trying to make here too. It sounds to me like those who are making the opposing argument are really objecting to using the weapon when there is a chance that one can get away. No we are not talking about fantasizing about a shootout with 5 carjackers or aspiring to jump out of the car to fight it out ala Cobra Kahn style or however it was presented. I am certainly not advocating that. The scenario is – all other options are exhausted, you feel that there is a good chance that you, or a member of your family, will be more than beaten up – life endangerment here – I personally want the option to end the incident (that I did not start) with my life still in tact. Yes, there will likely be legal issues, but to me, I would rather be alive with legal issues, than without them and dead. Again, we are talking about having options in a last-resort situation.

The other argument I am hearing is that some people might not be talking about abuse by criminals (not stoppable by gun laws), but by people who would not normally carry weapons unless they were allowed to – thinking half drunk ************************************ on Friday night thinking he is The Punisher or something. I agree that this could be a problem. The answer though is not to just allow everyone to pack heat. If I am not mistaken, even the laws in Florida won’t let you carry your concealed weapon into an establishment that serves alcohol. I think this restriction is a good idea. Like Bruce Lee said, licensing, investigation, and training training training.

I do not currently carry a weapon when I leave the house because it is not legal in my state, but there have been times when I would have felt more comfortable with one. I am a former Paratrooper and Guardsman who has been properly trained to safely use and carry machine guns, grenades and rocket launchers in environments with both hostile civilian and enemy personnel and not to use excessive force. I would not be endangering my fellow man if I was allowed to travel with a .357 in the glove compartment.

It can be done safely if the program is implemented properly.

I just want the option to be ABLE to defend myself if the need arises.

Hi,

I am not saying people should disarm. From my 1st post, I confirmed my belief in the 2nd Ammendment.

What I am saying is that a Gun is really no practical deterrent. It's only value is to be used. If you simply pull it, this will more likely have an escalating effect than a deterrent one. This is especially true if you frequent that scene, next time the other guy will be forewarned.

The consensus among those advocating carrying a Handgun seems to be that only in an absolutely iron-clad, last-resort danger should it be used. But, what does that mean?

A Bad Guy may wield a Gun simply to scare you with no intention of using it. It may even be inoperable or unloaded. Often we hear of Police Officers shooting people who only possess fake guns, or hold-ups with replicas (just as an example). So, the only way you can be certain that the situation is truly life threatening is to have the Bad Guy actually fire a shot at you, anything else and you're making an assumption to one degree or another, maybe reasonable, maybe not. If the first shot misses or isn't fatal, you can now proceed with your planned response. If he didn't miss, your Gun has really done you no good.

At this point, do you scramble for cover (The Flight syndrome)? Or stand there, unholster the weapon, click off the safety, possibly chamber a round, take a bead on your target (the Bad Guy) and finally squeeze off a round into him/her? By the time all this has been accomplished, you're likely already wounded, or dead, and what if you have an unarmed friend, wife or girlfriend with you. While you're trying to combat the Bad Guy, what are they doing - how do they interfere with your intended response? In many cases then, a Handgun will be ineffective at least, and maybe even counterproductive, for what you're trying to accomplish.

Or, is carrying a Handgun the Adult equivalent of Linus's Blanket? Well now we're no longer talking about countering an immanent threat. It's purpose is now to make you feel good anytime, anywhere. But, at the risk of all those things I have mentioned above, in addition to possibly giving many a false confidence which may lead them into situations where they would otherwise not be.

If all the time and expense of acquiring, licensing and training with a Handgun were spent on learning some Anger Management and Conflict Avoidance techniques, one may achieve better results. Something is not always better than Nothing. I truly don't know the answer, nor am I sure that there is any one answer to all possible situations...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

C'mon, Jim. You're really grasping at straws here. You're bending over backwards to describe the situation in the most biased way against the law-abiding individual who's just trying to escape with his life. What do you have against the good guy?

Bottom line in your scenario above... the same rule applies to the bad guy as the good guy. If you pull it, it's to use it, not to just scare someone. Therefore, in your scenario, you don't wait until the person fires at you, just to make sure they aren't just "foolin' ya". If they are brandishing a weapon, they have made the choice for you... it's you or them.

Here's a question for you: Bad guy crack-addict car-jacker points a gun, says "get out or die", and then good guy gets a shot off, and kills bad guy. It is then discovered that bad guy's gun was not loaded. Should good guy stand trial for murder? You're on the jury... do you acquit the good guy, or send him to jail?

Extra credit: Do you award bad guy's crackhead wife damages in a civil suit?

Jack

My views on gun control are that local governments are in the best position to determine when, if, and how to administer. I've lived in NYC, Baltimore and Philadelphia, and I'm glad that people are not allowed to legally carry and purchasing a handgun there is so difficult. I've also lived in the south and mid-west, where I was glad that it was relatively easy to legally purchase, own, and carry handguns. ( the rational being that LEOs cover much greater areas, and response time is much slower) Every locale is different, and until you live somewhere, you are not really in a position to judge is what is best for that area.



I will share another story, then I done with this thread. I didn't think it was worth mentioning initially because this was about convertables, and he drove a Malibu. However, given how this thread topic has changed, I will share.

While in the Army, I had a soldier who was with his wife when they were assaulted. He had a flat and was in the middle of changing his tire when a couple guys stopped pretending to offer help. Once they got out of their truck, he knew he was in trouble, but he also knew that his wife would not be able to outrun those guys. He told his wife to run, and he stayed to hold them off. She called 911 while running, but the response time was too late. He was beaten severely, and they caught and raped his wife. They did not know that she'd called for help, so when the law arrived, they were caught in the act. All of this happened 30 yds from an interstate, and I think the response time was 6 minutes, but that's an eternity under those circumstance.

This is no anecdote. I personally knew this guy, as I was his commander at the time. I helped him get out of the Army early, thinking it might save is marriage, but it didn't. He eventually got a divorce and came back in the Army. He said that deep down his wife resented him for not being able to protect her, and that they never touched each other after that day. They got a lot of counselling and help, but it didn't work.

If he'd owned a gun, the events of that day may have been the same, and they may have been very different. HOWEVER, YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT IF I EVER NEED TO GET OUT OF OR SERVICE THE CAR ON THE ROADSIDE, THAT MY WIFE, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN TRAINED TO HANDLE AND FIRE A HANDGUN WILL BE "STANDING GUARD"

Coming from a EU country (Greece) and now living in USA (education purposes) I can honestly say that the second amendment is completely worthless and it simply has served no purpose in a great country like USA except increasing the death toll.

Everyone has a gun out of insecurity and people here kill because on insecurity. I have been reading this thread and I see a lot of people carrying guns and have had some experiences with drawing them etc etc.

If it wasnt so easy to have a gun in this country you would not be so scared. Yes, certain other things could have happened but losing your life on the street because you drive a Porsche and some 17year old gangsta decided to f*ck with you and draw a gun at you would not have been possible. Neither, the "good guy" (read: you) would draw a gun as well and try to shoot a 17 year old.

Reminds me, I just saw the news about a guy who shot and killed a 15 year old with a shotgun because the kid was messin' with him and walked over to his loan.

These kind of events are completely unacceptable in a world-leading country. How is it possible you guys are not allowed to drink until you are 21 but you have the ability to take someones life so easily with a gun? It really does not make sense.

I do not have a gun, nor will I get one, in a case of a gun-point by a little gangsta I will give him anything he needs, because my life for sure does not worth $50.000 dollars.

Please note: I am american as well, my father grew up here in SC and lived for 11 years, I really like USA and the above is not a direct attack to any kind of party or president or history. It's just something I do not agree with because of my background.

"What I am saying is that a Gun is really no practical deterrent."

Sorry, Jim but you are DEAD wrong on this score. Ask anyone who has used one how this works. Moreover, ask any LEO about this. For many situations, the pulling of the gun is the end of the problem. In others, it is the ONLY way out! That depends on the asshat who is causing the issue.

As for Martial Arts vs. a gun. Forget it. It is not gonna happen in more than 1 out of 100 cases, even for guys like my namesake, who knew this all too well.

As for the other comments on the inappropriate use of guns, who can deny that with ANYTHING that has potential for harm. However, the plain fact is that when the law seeks to take guns away from the average citizen who fears for his safety, it allows the only guns to remain with the vermin in this culture who will ignore and if possible, harm the LEO and average citizens.

Hey, I went to an Ivy League college and graduate school, and I can spout all this reasonably sounding logic. We should be above violence, in a civilized society there is no plan for guns, etc etc.

Fact is, I also grew up in a ghetto. In the ghetto, the criminals laugh at the Ivy liberals. They call them "victims."

So again, I have no issue with folks who don't own or use a gun. I simply want them to allow me to protect myself my way and I will do the same for them. Legally of course!

"I do not have a gun, nor will I get one, in a case of a gun-point by a little gangsta I will give him anything he needs, because my life for sure does not worth $50.000 dollars."

You have missed the point. The little **************** may want your car AND your life and you won't know that until he smiles and pulls the trigger.

Then you will be both RIGHT and DEAD, ie dead right.

That is your choice, just don't make it have to be mine.

Very True, most of us would have already been killed for being easy prey. Many women would have been raped, or recovering from an assult. Being "Scared" would be the last thing we would have to worry about.

Every lawful handgun owner knows that if you draw it, you WILL use it.
Also, lawful handgun owners know that it is illegal to brandish a gun in plubic.

Sorry Jim, but all your examples are of "unlawful" handgun owners. All of us lawful hand gun don't want to risk having our CCW suspended or taken away for stupid antics like that.

I take it as a sarcastic comment but tell me why in the EU there are not so many incidents or death as they are here in the USA? Neither so many rapes or gangsta gun-fights.

You sound like that if they were no guns to protect you would like live in a world full of criminals and they would also have the advantage.

It all comes down to an 'ego' perspective. I believe that my life worths more than the low-life gangsta that's about to kill me and that's what pisses me off. He has a great chance of killing me because guns are everywhere. No guns, no chance.


That's exactly my point. If guns were not allowed anywhere in this country chances are the little **************** would not have one, which either means the little **************** would not approach me to begin with or will just steal my car. It can stab me or beat me to death but that is much harder and they never know who they mess with but it can never smile and pull a trigger. If it had a gun? Simply, pull the trigger, bye bye, as you correctly said.

Guns promote the incident to become fatal. They are easy to use and a 15 year old can do it. Try fighting with a 15 year old and see who wins.

Your perspective comes from someone that has forgotten the post Katrina events.
Many people that have seen first hand and eye witnessed, like myself, the post katrina events know that when criminals are left to prey on people, THEY WILL.
Sorry but one thing learned from post Katrina was that you can only rely on yourself to protect yourself. When you have seen babies killed, little girls raped and killed, women raped and they're bf/husbands killed, old people killed for supplies, rescue boats seized etc... All of this because the only people with guns are the bad guys. Do you know how many undocumented murders, rapes, and assults occured in post Katrina area? Ask any LEO that was down there and they will be happy to inform you.

You are oh so deluted in your thinking. If guns where not allowed, then the criminals would just get from from the black market.

EXAMPLE : Drugs are "not allowed", are you telling me that people are not illegally using drugs? Boy...remind me to tell my DEA friends that they are out of a job because drugs are "not allowed".