Do you ever feel vulnerable with the top down?

[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."

[berj]

Originally Posted by tqtran

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

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

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by berj

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?

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?

[Dr. Kill]

Originally Posted by berj

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

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.

[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

[RandallNeighbour]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

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?

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!