Do you ever feel vulnerable with the top down?

[JackG]

Originally Posted by mtch

My fear, which is that a jealous, uneducated, lowlife (often of the mountain or backwoods bred lighter majority) will look at me and either have a problem with me being in a Porsche, with me being in their neck of the woods, or both.

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...

[luxury1]

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.

[tqtran]

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

[Brucelee]

Those are some handsome guns!

[MNBoxster]

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

[Dr. Kill]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

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.

[RandallNeighbour]

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

[Brucelee]

"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.

[Brucelee]

"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!

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

"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 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."

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

"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.

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

[mtch]

Originally Posted by JackG

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 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.

[Brucelee]

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.

[Adam]

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!

[PorscheCrazy]

2 words: Para Ordinance

[SD987]

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.

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by SD987

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.

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.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

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.

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

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

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.

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 "

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

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!

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.

[Brucelee]

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.