Bought a new gun

NC Pilot said:
She does know how to shoot correctly. Unfortunately the photo was taken with her not in the correct position. She is not doing the limbo.
Click to expand...


Is that one of your daughters Mark? They're getting big! Glad to see you have them shooting too.
 
Anthony said:
Is that one of your daughters Mark? They're getting big! Glad to see you have them shooting too.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's my youngest and actually about 3 years ago. She will be 21 early next year. The oldest is married and living in Texas. Her husband shoots and the pink gun is actually hers. She has a kick taking it to the range.
 
NC Pilot said:
Yep, that's my youngest and actually about 3 years ago. She will be 21 early next year. The oldest is married and living in Texas. Her husband shoots and the pink gun is actually hers. She has a kick taking it to the range.
Click to expand...

Oy vey! Tempis Fugit!
 
Ddayle said:
this is also an non-supportable idea. the facts are that many/most of the working poor work much harder than the average person, and remain poor! just how hard is your job? How hard do you sweat each day/ do you work two or three jobs and still cannot afford to own a home or have health care? sorry , I seriously doubt you work as hard as most of the people you marginalize.. Dave
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting physical labor is the only legitimate form of work?
 
Frank Browne said:
Are you suggesting physical labor is the only legitimate form of work?
Click to expand...

Don't know about Ddayle, but I've done my share of physical labor... Digging water wells, laying sewer and water line pipe, ranch hand, military, etc... It was enough of a motivation to make me want to work with my mind and not my back... Eventually, I improved my life enough that I was able to do that... Even from not that great of a starting point, I came out pretty good... Just a matter of wanting to have a better life than you currently have and being willing to work to do it... Personally, I think that the problem that a lot of people have financially these days is that they get married and have kids before they are financially secure. Well, that plus they have more kids than they can financially support. If someone is just barely scraping by, what makes them think that adding a wife and a few kids is going to make it any better? Not likely...
 
CollinLeon said:
I think that the problem that a lot of people have financially these days is that they get married and have kids before they are financially secure. Well, that plus they have more kids than they can financially support. If someone is just barely scraping by, what makes them think that adding a wife and a few kids is going to make it any better? Not likely...
Click to expand...
People been doing that for a long long time.
 
fgcason said:
That's a joke right?

When you're attacked, you're completely on your own, if citizens are around which is doubtful, they won't get involved in anything and law enforcement is at least an hour away IF you can get the call in before you're beat senseless.
Click to expand...

I think you are seeing the difference between rural and urban life.

In the suburbs where I live in California, help is at most 10 minutes away, more likely 3-5 minutes for an urgent situation. If you live in an urban environment where that is true, then the risk/benefit tradeoff of personal firearms is significantly different.

Chris
 
CollinLeon said:
Notice the part about driving? You are not required to have a passport if you are driving. Considering the fact that I had to prove my citizenship when I had previously renewed my driver's license, I suspect that it met the other provisions of the ID requirement. Regardless, Mexico doesn't really care about Anglos coming down there to visit. Like all tourist places, they want our money. The only issue is when you come back across the border. In my case, the border guards apparently figured that a bald headed old Anglo fart like myself who was riding a Harley and had a Texas driver's license was not trying to enter the country illegally.
Click to expand...

FYI -- Since 2001 I've held a PA, MA, and CA driver's license. I am not a US citizen (and only recently became a permanent resident). Nowhere on my driver's licenses does it state my citizenship. There was no indication on any of them that I am not American.

I travel frequently to Canada, by both car and plane. In all cases since 9/11 I've required a passport to return. I'm kind of surprised that you've found differently.

Chris
 
colohan said:
I think you are seeing the difference between rural and urban life.

In the suburbs where I live in California, help is at most 10 minutes away, more likely 3-5 minutes for an urgent situation. If you live in an urban environment where that is true, then the risk/benefit tradeoff of personal firearms is significantly different.
Click to expand...

I think you are seeing the difference between ideal theory and brutal reality.

10 minutes? 3-5 minutes? That is IF you can get the call in which is doubtful. You have at most 2 seconds for help to arrive from the time you notice you're in trouble. It takes 5 seconds to dial 911 if the phone is in your hand at the time. Hooligans aren't nice and they don't play by the rules. They certainly aren't going to let you call anyone then wait around to get into trouble. If they have 3 minutes, they might as well have 3 days. By the time the police arrive, they're just there to write the incident report and call someone to come clean up the mess.

That's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
fgcason said:
I think you are seeing the difference between ideal theory and brutal reality.

10 minutes? 3-5 minutes? That is IF you can get the call in which is doubtful. You have at most 2 seconds for help to arrive from the time you notice you're in trouble. It takes 5 seconds to dial 911 if the phone is in your hand at the time. Hooligans aren't nice and they don't play by the rules. They certainly aren't going to let you call anyone then wait around to get into trouble. If they have 3 minutes, they might as well have 3 days. By the time the police arrive, they're just there to write the incident report and call someone to come clean up the mess.

That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

True -- if you live in an society where you are in constant fear of being stalked by assassins then this is a valid concern.

I don't have that fear. I live in a community with a rather low violent crime rate. The criminals we have, even the violent ones, are somewhat incompetent. I'm kind of happy with that -- even in the unlikely case that someone were to hurt me in commissioning a crime, it is likely that I'd survive long enough for help to arrive.

If I lived somewhere where the stress of violent confrontation hung over my head on a daily basis, I'd do what I can to get the heck out of there before buying a gun. That kind of stress is not good for my health.

Chris
 
colohan said:
In the suburbs where I live in California, help is at most 10 minutes away, more likely 3-5 minutes for an urgent situation.
Click to expand...
If you do have the unfortunate situation (which is statically unlikely) of encountering the wrong person at the wrong time 3-5 minutes is 3-5 minutes too late. Those 3-5 minutes also assume you have the ability to summon help which may not be the case.
 
colohan said:
FYI -- Since 2001 I've held a PA, MA, and CA driver's license. I am not a US citizen (and only recently became a permanent resident). Nowhere on my driver's licenses does it state my citizenship. There was no indication on any of them that I am not American.

I travel frequently to Canada, by both car and plane. In all cases since 9/11 I've required a passport to return. I'm kind of surprised that you've found differently.
Click to expand...

Interesting... I know for a fact that with my renewal of my Texas license a couple of years ago that I had to show proof of citizenship -- either a birth certificate or a passport. I had to go back home and get my passport. Maybe it is just something that Texas started doing... When I went down to Mexico for a week on my Harley, I had noticed that my passport had expired and meant to take it with me, but I was nearly to San Antonio when I realized that I had left it in my gun safe. I figured I would just wing it and see what happened. Of course Mexico didn't care about the passport and as it turned out, the border patrol guy on the way back didn't seem to have a problem with it either. Maybe if I had looked Hispanic it might have made a difference... I guess he didn't figure that an bald headed Anglo old fart on a Harley fit the profile of your typical illegal immigrant or smuggler... In fact, the only thing I brought back was a dozen bottles of a particular habanero sauce that I particularly like that I can't find on this side of the border...
 
colohan said:
If I lived somewhere where the stress of violent confrontation hung over my head on a daily basis, I'd do what I can to get the heck out of there before buying a gun. That kind of stress is not good for my health.
Click to expand...

Many years ago, I was in SoCal and had the misfortune of encountering someone who thought that he deserved the money that I had worked for. I disagreed with his thoughts on this matter and ended up getting shot in the upper thigh when I decided that it just wasn't right for him to be point a gun at me. The cops arrived a bit later to take him off (someone had seen the struggle and called the cops). I lucked out, I guess... Out of the 6 shots in the .38, I only got hit by the first one when he fell backwards when I grabbed the barrel and tried to point it to the side -- the rest ended up going off basically beside my head as we struggled for the gun on the ground. That was back in the days when they would ask for your money first, then shoot you. These days, they shoot you first and then ask for your money. Of course, he was a juvi, so he was released to his parents before the clinic had even finished patching me up.

I am not as naive as I was back then... I have had other incidents since then and by having a weapon, I was able to diffuse the situation such that I could wait for the police to arrive to take the other person into custody or in other cases, they decided to look for an easier target.

Let's just say that I'm not one of those people who walk around with a Scarlet "V" (for "victim") on their forehead these days.
 
jesse said:
If you do have the unfortunate situation (which is statically unlikely) of encountering the wrong person at the wrong time 3-5 minutes is 3-5 minutes too late. Those 3-5 minutes also assume you have the ability to summon help which may not be the case.
Click to expand...

There are people who believe that bad things are just too uncommon that they will not happen to them. They are the same type of people who think that having a spare tire is unnecessary. They think that they can call AAA and all will be well... They fail to realize that it is entirely possible to have a flat in an area of town that you really don't want to be sitting around in or maybe even in an area where there is no cell phone reception. Even if they can get a call into AAA, they're looking at sitting around for an hour or more in some cases when it would only take 15 minutes (or less) to change the flat yourself.

Of course, there's also the people who never even bother to check the air in their spare tire...

I haven't had a motorcycle accident in about 30 years, but it doesn't mean that I don't ride with a helmet and as much protective gear as the weather will allow.

In a life threatening situation, you do not have time to call 911 (and end up being put on hold anyway). You need to be able to protect yourself. As various court cases have shown over the years, cops have no responsibility to keep you safe. They might find the person who killed you... if convenient... or if the person happens to run a few red lights while speeding away from the scene of the crime... But they are not going to protect you. You have to be responsible for your own safety and as far as I'm concerned, that means being constantly aware of your surroundings and carrying a firearm on you all the time, regardless of what leftist unconstitutional "laws" a particular city or state might be trying to inflict upon the populace.
 
CollinLeon said:
There are people who believe that bad things are just too uncommon that they will not happen to them.
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue that this is not the approach I am taking.

Let me draw an analogy: training for spin avoidance vs. recovery in aircraft.

Some folks believe that the best thing to do for student pilots is to train them on how to avoid any situation where they might get into a spin near the ground. Students who come out of this training regimen should (in theory) be very good at avoiding spins. They have lots of practice at getting near to a stall which might result in a spin, and getting out of it. These folks believe that by staying proficient at avoidance, they can never find themselves in a situation where they need to recover from a spin. In addition, if they do find themselves in a spin near the ground, their chances of recovery are so slim that training on recovery is not worth the risk of the training.

Other folks believe that a pilot should be trained for every eventuality, no matter how rare (or avoidable) that circumstance is. Doing otherwise is shirking your responsibilities as a proficient pilot. Even though recovery from a near-the-ground spin is unlikely, your odds are much better with training than without.

This debate has split the aviation community, and the FAA at times has taken one position then the other. Both sides of the debate are correct, depending on the type of flying that you do: a pilot who is going to engage mostly in conservative flying may be better served by spin avoidance training, while a pilot who engages in aggressive flying may be better served by spin recovery training.

In the same way a person who avoids risky situations may be better off not carrying a gun (since, without frequent training on safe gun carry and operation of the weapon such carrying may have more risk than reward for this person), while a person who frequently finds themselves in risky situations may be better off with the gun.

Makes sense to me. Personally, I prefer spin avoidance over recovery proficiency. The "superior pilot uses their superior judgement to avoid needing their superior skills" approach. But I understand why some take the other side of this debate.

Chris
 
colohan said:
I'd actually argue that this is not the approach I am taking.

In the same way a person who avoids risky situations may be better off not carrying a gun (since, without frequent training on safe gun carry and operation of the weapon such carrying may have more risk than reward for this person), while a person who frequently finds themselves in risky situations may be better off with the gun.


Chris
Click to expand...
Recently a man was stabbed & killed walking to his car after a major league baseball game. . Is that a risky situation he should have avoided? You may be willing to let the criminals element dictate to YOU where you will go & when. I refuse to be intimidated by scum, I will not avoid places I want to go & things I want to do out of fear. Let the Criminal;s fear ME . You can cower at home in fear if you want. I am armed. Dave (and I am a democrat)
 
colohan said:
I think you are seeing the difference between rural and urban life.

In the suburbs where I live in California, help is at most 10 minutes away, more likely 3-5 minutes for an urgent situation. If you live in an urban environment where that is true, then the risk/benefit tradeoff of personal firearms is significantly different.

Chris
Click to expand...

I spent 20 years living in Manhattan with a police station a few blocks away and a hospital a few blocks away, and now live in rural Pennsylvania about 10 minutes drive from anything. What you are saying is absolutely wrong. And even if it was correct, 3-5 minutes is not sufficient. For a truly urgent situation, you have seconds, not minutes. I would bet that in my current rural house I would get faster response from the police, EMS, or fire than I ever would in Manhattan. They simply are not in a hurry in the city. That's if you can get through to 911 and they aren't overloaded with other phone calls.

If you believe that the probability is very low of anything bad happening to you, then that is fine and I'd agree that you're probably right. I generally feel that the probability is pretty low of anything bad happening to me, too. However it is definitely not a case of difference between urban and rural environments.

The one thing that I do see as a difference: I've never seen bears in Manhattan, but I'm told there are bears in Pennsylvania.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If you believe that the probability is very low of anything bad happening to you, then that is fine and I'd agree that you're probably right. I generally feel that the probability is pretty low of anything bad happening to me, too.
Click to expand...

I think you've pretty much nailed it. I feel that the odds of encountering me encountering one of these situations is low enough that carrying a gun (which I would find very inconvenient, and has its own risks) is nowhere near worthwhile.

However it is definitely not a case of difference between urban and rural environments.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not claiming that rural environments are more dangerous. In many ways they can be safer. I'm only claiming that when you get in trouble, help is often further away (or nonexistent). That changes the math somewhat.

Chris
 
Ddayle said:
Recently a man was stabbed & killed walking to his car after a major league baseball game. . Is that a risky situation he should have avoided? You may be willing to let the criminals element dictate to YOU where you will go & when. I refuse to be intimidated by scum, I will not avoid places I want to go & things I want to do out of fear. Let the Criminal;s fear ME . You can cower at home in fear if you want. I am armed. Dave (and I am a democrat)
Click to expand...

An interesting question: who is cowering in fear more? The person who is not comfortable unless they are armed, or the person who is perfectly confident they can handle everything life throws at them without resorting to carrying a gun?

Chris
 
colohan said:
An interesting question: who is cowering in fear more? The person who is not comfortable unless they are armed, or the person who is perfectly confident they can handle everything life throws at them without resorting to carrying a gun?

Chris
Click to expand...

If by "handle everything life throws at them without resorting to carrying a gun" you mean dying well when somebody does attempt to kill them with a gun or a knife....

A gun is a tool. A person who thinks a gun is inherently bad or evil is a bigger tool.

I've been in a situation where I was unarmed and ended up killing someone. I'm quite certain that if I'd been armed no killing would have occured.
 
A lot of people read too much into what a gun will do for them; a lot of people exaggerate, in what seems to be an attempt to justify the possession of a gun when no justification is necessary, the threats that exist.

At the same time, a lot people either don't, or won't, see the value in having a gun; a lot of people also do not, or will not, understand the fact that a gun is a lot like a will - if you don't have one when you need it, it's too late to get one.

If you like guns, by all means own/carry one; don't fool yourself as to either its utility or the scariness of the world. If you don't like guns, don't own/carry one; don't fool yourself as to either its utility or the scariness of the world.

Sorry for the pedantic lecture, but these show-me-yours-and-I'll-show-you-mine threads always seem to degenerate into the same thing. It seems to me that the "best" answer is: do what makes you comfortable.
 
TMetzinger said:
If by "handle everything life throws at them without resorting to carrying a gun" you mean dying well when somebody does attempt to kill them with a gun or a knife....
Click to expand...

Nah, doesn't mean that.

It means that one has to deal with the incident without a gun. This may require to give up some cash or to retreat. Not every armed attack ends in death, in fact, very few do.

Banks for example are robbed all the time, if after weighing the options, they decided that it was economically advantageous to arm their tellers, they would surely do so. After looking at the options, most banks have decided that the occasional loss from a robbery is cheaper than dealing with the liability of accidentally shooting a customer. Armored car companies have made the same calculation and for the most part come to a different conclusion.





And sometimes, all you need is a pizza-peel.

Employee knocked gun from suspect's hand with spatula


By HEATHER RAWLYK, Staff Writer
Published 12/01/10
Maryland Gazette

A man left his 9-month-old son alone in a motel room late Monday night while he and a woman went to a Brooklyn Park pizzeria to allegedly rob the business, county police said. After a quick-thinking employee at the pizzeria disarmed the would-be robber with just a spatula, police found the baby at the Brooklyn Park motel. The man and a woman walked into Pizza Boli's, at 5317 Ritchie Highway, around 11:20 p.m. and announced a robbery. Police said the man pointed a handgun at one of the employees and demanded cash. As he shouted his demands, a second employee walked up with a spatula and took a swing. The kitchen utensil flipped the firearm out of the suspect's grasp, giving the cooks the upper hand. The employees pounced on the suspect, hanging onto him until police arrived. The woman fled during the altercation, but police found her running nearby and arrested her.

(surveillance of this incident is on youtube, cant get there from my work computer)
 
colohan said:
Oh, I'm not claiming that rural environments are more dangerous. In many ways they can be safer. I'm only claiming that when you get in trouble, help is often further away (or nonexistent). That changes the math somewhat.

Chris
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that in the city doesn't offer any significant time advantage on help vs. rural areas. I think you missed my point there.

There is a certain point where you get to be 30+ minutes from anything, and at that point I'd agree help is too far away to be useful. But at my house (semi-rural), I have better response time than NYC.
 
Oh, and... I like my new gun. :D

No, haven't gotten to go shoot it yet...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There is a certain point where you get to be 30+ minutes from anything, and at that point I'd agree help is too far away to be useful. But at my house (semi-rural), I have better response time than NYC.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I've only actually timed this once.

I witnessed a car accident in downtown Toronto, and called 911.

After about 2m15s, the first tow truck arrived. After about 2m45s, the second tow truck arrived. Then an ambulance showed up at 3m30s.

I currently live less than 2 blocks from a firehouse. I'm assuming that, since they are our local first responders for both fire and medical issues, they can get here pretty fast. I hope to never have to test this theory.

Chris
 
colohan said:
I have to admit that I've only actually timed this once.

I witnessed a car accident in downtown Toronto, and called 911.

After about 2m15s, the first tow truck arrived. After about 2m45s, the second tow truck arrived. Then an ambulance showed up at 3m30s.

I currently live less than 2 blocks from a firehouse. I'm assuming that, since they are our local first responders for both fire and medical issues, they can get here pretty fast. I hope to never have to test this theory.

Chris
Click to expand...

I have called the police a number of times in New York City for emergencies. 20 minutes was the best response time I've seen. 2 hours is the longest. Average is about in between those.

Fire/medical? Fire will usually get there before the building burns down, but I've seen the fire department get to my neighborhood very quickly, enough to save a house from a serious fire. Medical will arrive eventually. Again, 20 minutes to 2 hours. And then there's traffic to get to the hospital.

We hope to never test the theory, but I believe your evaluation of cities is generous.
 
colohan said:
I have to admit that I've only actually timed this once.

I witnessed a car accident in downtown Toronto, and called 911.

After about 2m15s, the first tow truck arrived. After about 2m45s, the second tow truck arrived. Then an ambulance showed up at 3m30s.

I currently live less than 2 blocks from a firehouse. I'm assuming that, since they are our local first responders for both fire and medical issues, they can get here pretty fast. I hope to never have to test this theory.

Chris
Click to expand...
You'd need to take an average of a lot of events to get a response time. Even then it can swing. Bad weather or a very busy night for the police can seriously hinder the response time.

Live out in a rural area and get a bad blizzard and it might be a day before emergency services can get to you. Of course it's unlikely you're going to encounter a violent criminal while snowed into your house but you better hope you don't need an ambulance for some reason.
 
colohan said:
I have to admit that I've only actually timed this once.

I witnessed a car accident in downtown Toronto, and called 911.

After about 2m15s, the first tow truck arrived. After about 2m45s, the second tow truck arrived. Then an ambulance showed up at 3m30s.

I currently live less than 2 blocks from a firehouse. I'm assuming that, since they are our local first responders for both fire and medical issues, they can get here pretty fast. I hope to never have to test this theory.

Chris
Click to expand...

I was a volunteer fireman for two years (until we moved).

Here's the sequence:


  1. OH NO!!
  2. 911 Call
  3. 911 Dispatch
  4. Buzzer alert
  5. Grab gear, run, drive to firehouse
  6. Jump on truck
  7. Drive to emergency, avoid traffic, honk at idiots that cut you off

Absolute minimum response time was 10 minutes.
 
weilke said:
Nah, doesn't mean that.

It means that one has to deal with the incident without a gun. This may require to give up some cash or to retreat. Not every armed attack ends in death, in fact, very few do.
Click to expand...

You seem to imply here that no incident would ever require a gun. I agree that quite a few would not, but some will, or you or a loved one WILL die. And there are those incidents like the one I experienced where merely having a weapon for self-defense would have resulted in a happier ending, because showing the weapon would have probably made the attacker reconsider.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It seems to me that the "best" answer is: do what makes you comfortable.
Click to expand...
Heck, some people aren't even comfortable being without a cellphone, let alone a gun. But, but, what if something HAPPENS? You won't be able to get in touch with ANYONE! Like you said, it's just a matter of comfort level. What I think is strange is that people are pretty polarized about this while I have an :dunno: attitude. I'm not afraid of guns. My dad taught me to shoot as a kid and I lived with someone who was in love with his guns. When we went shooting I always did pretty well. However I have no emotional attachment to them and I don't feel any need to carry one for self-defense.
 
I'm happiest when I can't get in touch with anyone. :)
 
dmccormack said:
I was a volunteer fireman for two years (until we moved).
...

Absolute minimum response time was 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

I think you are making my point here. Data from the city I live in is here.

See page 6. Average response times for medical calls in 2005/2006 (the data I could find) is 5:13 from receipt of 911 call, 94% of calls arrive within 8 minutes, 99% arrival within 12 minutes.

It sounds to me like if you live in an area served by a volunteer fire department (which I assume is a more rural area), you can expect your emergency response times to be longer.

Chris
 
colohan said:
I currently live less than 2 blocks from a firehouse. I'm assuming that, since they are our local first responders for both fire and medical issues, they can get here pretty fast. I hope to never have to test this theory.
Chris
Click to expand...

And I read an article awhile back about a fire station burning down... This wasn't a case of the firemen being out on another call and their fire station burning down while they were gone, they were there at the time. As it turned out, someone that was passing by called it in, not one of the actual firemen at the station.

That wouldn't give me that great of confidence in my fire protection if that had been my local fire station...
 
TMetzinger said:
You seem to imply here that no incident would ever require a gun. I agree that quite a few would not, but some will, or you or a loved one WILL die. And there are those incidents like the one I experienced where merely having a weapon for self-defense would have resulted in a happier ending, because showing the weapon would have probably made the attacker reconsider.
Click to expand...

Ah, no, didn't say that.

You said:

If by "handle everything life throws at them without resorting to carrying a gun" you mean dying well when somebody does attempt to kill them with a gun or a knife....
You then proceeded to tell us how you managed to survive a potentially deadly encounter without the use of a gun*.

I have been assaulted and subject to an attempted armed robbery while on the job. Both times, a gun would have made no difference to the outcome.

I dont dispute that there are situations when a gun makes a difference, I just see the need to carry one when going about ones regular daily business vastly exaggerated. Realistically, we are mostly at risk of becoming victims of property crime. A gun wont
- keep my car from being stolen
- my house from being broken in while I am away (when most breakins happen)
- my credit card or business account from being compromised.

Crimes of violence are far less common. A gun may allow you to diffuse a situation, in others it may turn something that could have ended with a loss of a bundle of 20s into a shootout with the potential of hurting third parties.




*what happened to the other guy is of no relevance
 
colohan said:
True -- if you live in an society where you are in constant fear of being stalked by assassins then this is a valid concern.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. Fear and paranoia about being stalked has nothing to do with it. You can get clobbered by the pleasant person next door in a secured building that does background checks on everyone once a year..by the guy who is number last on the possible threat list. I know because I've been the receiving end of that before. There was no time for 911 and I certainly wasn't expecting anything. He had no intention whatsoever of waiting for me to call the police or anything else. 3:00 minutes is about 2:59 too long to wait. I moved out that afternoon. Police told me I was crazy and trying to cause problems. A month later mr perfect neighbor murdered someone in the building. You only have two choices: get the stuffing beat out of you or be able to defend yourself immediately - the police is not an option when the poop hits the fan.

I don't have that fear.
Click to expand...

I didn't have that fear either and don't any longer due to a major change in lifestyle that eliminates 99% of the risk. I don't live in the supposed safe civilized society anymore - it exceeds my minimum safety limits.

It's really about being cautious and realistic. Don't fool yourself into believing nonsense like some magical police force will be there to save you when you need them. You're on your own whether you like it or not.

Reality check says that's just the way it is.
 
TMetzinger said:
You seem to imply here that no incident would ever require a gun. I agree that quite a few would not, but some will, or you or a loved one WILL die. And there are those incidents like the one I experienced where merely having a weapon for self-defense would have resulted in a happier ending, because showing the weapon would have probably made the attacker reconsider.
Click to expand...

Back in the early 1990s, I had an incident on I-45, just north of I-610 on the north side of Houston. An individual was driving well below the speed limit in the left lane and as I was coming up, I flashed my lights (as you are supposed to do) to get him to move over. As I got closer, I flashed them again. He reaches down between his seats and pulls out a handgun and waves it around in in his right hand aft of his rear view mirror so that I can see it very clearly. At that time, I carried a pistol grip 12-gauge in my pickup on the seat next to me. I picked it up, put it on the dash so that he could see it and then wagged my index finger in a "no, no" sign. He quickly crossed about 5 lanes of traffic and took the I-610 exit. Sometimes, superior firepower means that you do not have to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top