Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Awesome. All you feren devils feel better now? I too feel healed and fully converted to the anti gun agenda. PRAISE SWEET BABY JEBUS I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

Oh wait, what if that had been a woman being attacked in the car?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.

And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.

And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.

If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.

The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.

Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.

So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.

Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?

 azazel the cat wrote:

So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.

Still, the man's property was damaged was clearly in terror. The truck in this case was being used as a vehicle of destruction. (snicker)

I think we can all agree that if there were no vehicles in this situation, the victim could have been safer still.

Ban vehicles. If it saves just...one...life...then its worth it.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.

And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.

And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.

If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.

The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.

Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.

So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.

My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.

And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.

And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.

If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.

The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.

Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.

So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.

Lets say this guy was a career criminal, known to flip out for little to no reason, and guns are illegal. A career criminal...illegal guns? Tracking so far? Okay, good. Now lets say this criminal shot him, or at him, and the man had no chance to defend himself, and he dies. How is he "safer"? The only person who was safer was the criminal(you know, the guy who didn't care about laws enough and illegally has possession of the said firearm) because he didn't have to worry about return fire.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ban vehicles. If it saves just...one...life...then its worth it.

Ban people. Seriously. The only way to save humanity is to eradicate it.

Afterwards, not a single human will ever murder another human again.

It's worth it.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Ban vehicles. If it saves just...one...life...then its worth it.

Ban people. Seriously. The only way to save humanity is to eradicate it.

Afterwards, not a single human will ever murder another human again.

It's worth it.

agreed. sometimes you have to destroy a village to save it.

Too be fair, at the beggining he was driving on the wrong side of the road.

whembly wrote:Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?

Again, if you're going to hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the victim, then you must hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the attacker.
1. The attacker is the aggressor.
2. The attacker was the first out of his vehicle and 'got the drop' on the victim.
3. The attacker had time to punch the victim's truck, and thus clearly would have time to fire into the windshield at the stationary victim.
= The victim would be in far more danger if firearms were present.

Hordini wrote:My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.

And why would it not be equally likely? The US has 0.88 firearms for every person. It most definitely is equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm as the victim.

You are making these assumptions:
A1. The attacker, seen in the video, would not draw a firearm when making a crazed attack against the victim.
A2. The attacker, seen in the video, would have the advantage of initiative and yet fail to hit the static victim with a firearm.
B. The victim would have the situational awareness to step out of the vehicle and draw their own firearm, having not been shot despite being seated in a fixed location.
C. The victim would be more skilled with their firearm to win in a gunfight despite having been essentially 'ambushed' by the attacker.

Every bit of that is an action hero fantasy.

If you want to realistically assume the outcome of that video, had firearms been present, then the video would end shortly after the attacker got out of the truck, and began to fire into the driver-side of the from windshield, behind which would be a static, seated victim.

I'm all in favour of firearm ownership, as I've said before. But there is no reasonable way to say that this particular instance would have been safer for the victim, if firearms were as prevalent as they are in the US.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:
He got away with no injury. If he had a gun you might have had one dead person. If guns were more prevalent then the guy in the other car might have just shot him, so yes, not having guns available made it safer.

And people say the "anti gun" lobby (as if they are all saying all guns should be banned...) bring up silly arguments.

And, no, the windscreen should be stronger than side windows.

If the victim had had a gun, then you might have one dead maniac road rager. Not a huge loss, all things considered.

The victim was a former police officer. Anyone who tries a stunt like that with a former police officer in the US is likely to get plugged.

Here's the problem with this argument: it assumes that only the victim will have a firearm, when the likelihood of the victim having a firearm is equally as likely as it is for the attacker to have a firearm. Given the video, it's reasonable to assume that the attacker would have drawn and fired several shots before the victim even understood what was going on.

So yes, not having guns in this situation made the victim safer. Any belief to the contrary is just an action hero fantasy.

Which is precisely why its best to have a gun. The other guy might have one.

Given his disregard for the law(confirmed by his actions) he may have a gun.


A law abiding citizen can have a gun for protection from just this sort of thing.

If everyone has a gun, the playing field is level.

Its on the victim to defend themselves. To deliberatly put yourself in a position of disadvantage is the height of stupidity. I'm going to stack the odds as far in my favor as I can.


If someone who does legally own a gun snaps and attacks someone who isn't armed, then it is the fault of the victim that he wasn't prepared to defend himself.

You have the choice on how to defend yourself, make the best decision for you. The one that lets you go home at the end of the day.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Hordini wrote:My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.

And why would it not be equally likely? The US has 0.88 firearms for every person. It most definitely is equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm as the victim.

You are making these assumptions:
A1. The attacker, seen in the video, would not draw a firearm when making a crazed attack against the victim.
A2. The attacker, seen in the video, would have the advantage of initiative and yet fail to hit the static victim with a firearm.
B. The victim would have the situational awareness to step out of the vehicle and draw their own firearm, having not been shot despite being seated in a fixed location.
C. The victim would be more skilled with their firearm to win in a gunfight despite having been essentially 'ambushed' by the attacker.

Every bit of that is an action hero fantasy.

If you want to realistically assume the outcome of that video, had firearms been present, then the video would end shortly after the attacker got out of the truck, and began to fire into the driver-side of the from windshield, behind which would be a static, seated victim.

I'm all in favour of firearm ownership, as I've said before. But there is no reasonable way to say that this particular instance would have been safer for the victim, if firearms were as prevalent as they are in the US.

It would not be equally likely because police and former police are more likely to be carrying a firearm than the general public (I'm saying if this had happened in the US). The attacker didn't have a weapon. If someone is saying, "If the victim had had a firearm, he would have been safer," that doesn't mean you have to assume the attacker would have a firearm too. Also, there is no reason whatsoever that the victim would have had to step out of his vehicle to draw or fire his weapon, had he had one. The victim, being a former police officer is also more likely to more skilled with a firearm than the general populace.

How many road rage incidents are there in the USA in which a gun gets used?

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?

Again, if you're going to hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the victim, then you must hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the attacker.
1. The attacker is the aggressor.
2. The attacker was the first out of his vehicle and 'got the drop' on the victim.
3. The attacker had time to punch the victim's truck, and thus clearly would have time to fire into the windshield at the stationary victim.
= The victim would be in far more danger if firearms were present.

Hordini wrote:My point is, with the victim being a former police officer, if a similar situation had happened in the US it would not have been equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm. It's also not necessarily the case that the attacker would have pulled his gun immediately anyway. It has nothing to do with an action hero fantasy.

And why would it not be equally likely? The US has 0.88 firearms for every person. It most definitely is equally likely that the attacker would have a firearm as the victim.

You are making these assumptions:
A1. The attacker, seen in the video, would not draw a firearm when making a crazed attack against the victim.
A2. The attacker, seen in the video, would have the advantage of initiative and yet fail to hit the static victim with a firearm.
B. The victim would have the situational awareness to step out of the vehicle and draw their own firearm, having not been shot despite being seated in a fixed location.
C. The victim would be more skilled with their firearm to win in a gunfight despite having been essentially 'ambushed' by the attacker.

Every bit of that is an action hero fantasy.

If you want to realistically assume the outcome of that video, had firearms been present, then the video would end shortly after the attacker got out of the truck, and began to fire into the driver-side of the from windshield, behind which would be a static, seated victim.

I'm all in favour of firearm ownership, as I've said before. But there is no reasonable way to say that this particular instance would have been safer for the victim, if firearms were as prevalent as they are in the US.

They you clearly haven't been in a similar altercation. I have... and what you do is if you cannot drive away, and someone ahead of you gets out of the car, you immediately get out too (but, stand behind your door).

When I got out, that signalled the aggressor that I wasn't going to take any gak from him and he got back in his car.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How many road rage incidents are there in the USA in which a gun gets used?

Not nearly as many as incidents where a gun is not used. But most road rage incidents don't involve someone jumping onto the hood and breaking the windshield with their fist.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How many road rage incidents are there in the USA in which a gun gets used?

I can't recall of any honestly...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How many road rage incidents are there in the USA in which a gun gets used?

Not nearly as many as incidents where a gun is not used. But most road rage incidents don't involve someone jumping onto the hood and breaking the windshield with their fist.

Yeah.... this too.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Azazel... you're missing the point. If the driver couldn't get away, then what?

Again, if you're going to hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the victim, then you must hypothetically place a gun in the hands of the attacker.
1. The attacker is the aggressor.
2. The attacker was the first out of his vehicle and 'got the drop' on the victim.
3. The attacker had time to punch the victim's truck, and thus clearly would have time to fire into the windshield at the stationary victim.
= The victim would be in far more danger if firearms were present.
.

And what was he to do? He didn't have a firearm to defend himself. If you don't want to get out and fight the guy, what do you do without any other means to defend yourself? Sit in the car and call the police, and that's what he did. I'm sure if he had a battle axe in the car he might have stepped out to go toe to toe with the guy. So does not carrying a battleaxe make him safer? Your point really sucks. If you have zero means to defend yourself, of course you'll sit on your pud and do nothing(ETA: Unless you're confident in your ability to beat the bejeezuz out of someone)

(Yes, I know, I'm reaching very far to make a point)

Having a gun wouldn't have made a difference in safety, as the incident would have still happened, but with a different outcome.

Really?

Lets examine the possabilities.

1) Victim is armed, and because of this pulls over to confront the guy. Who is not armed.

a) guy approaches in a hostile manner, victim pulls gun and tells him to cool it, and the guy backs off. Nobody gets hurt.

b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.


2) scenerio in video. neither are armed.

a) victim manages to avoid attacker as in video.

b) victim does not manage to avoid attacker. Is severely beaten and/or possably killed.


3) both are armed with a gun. Victim pulls over.

a) Victim is wounded/killed by attacker.

b) Victim kills/wounds his attacker.


4) Only attacker is armed.

a) victim manages to escape anyway.

b) victim is killed/wounded.


So we have 8 potential outcomes.



With the victim being unarmed, we have 4 possable outcomes. 2 result in the victim surviving, 2 result in bodily injury and/or death for the victim.

With the victim being armed, we have 4 possable outcomes as well. Instead, 3 result in the victim surviving with only 1 resulting in him being harmed.


Its better to be armed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.

Not in some people's opinion. Some folks like to think that person's life is just as precious as the victim's.

People that say that probably have never been in a situation like this.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People that say that probably have never been in a situation like this.

Well of course

Mattman154 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
b) guy approaches in hostile manner, victim pulls gun, guy doesn't back down, guy gets shot. Guy gets what he deserves.

Not in some people's opinion. Some folks like to think that person's life is just as precious as the victim's.

Those people have probably never been in a life or death situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People that say that probably have never been in a situation like this.

Shazzam! Beat me to it!

I got this bro

but, but, but, but the attacker doesn't have a gun so he can't hurt the victim right?



<Dangit, I got ninja'd!>

Mankind has been killin' the crap out of each other long before guns have shown up, all they did was level the playing fields for the little guy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Really?

Yeah. Even in all your scenarios the guy still got out of the car and behaving erratically; having a gun wouldn't keep that from happening. All you did was elaborate on my premise that the outcome would have been different if a gun was there. In other words, with an almost 1:1 people to guns ration in the US, people still have road rage fairly frequently. Guns don't prevent road rage.

"So... not having guns makes you safer?"

Given that the lunatic made the first aggressive move and only had access to a truck instead of a gun.... that would be a resounding yes!

Without guns: Drives into the victim's car, chases him for a considerable time.

With guns: Drives up alongside victim's car, blows victim's brains out via side window.

Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...

And if the good guys don't, neither do the bad guys!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
"So... not having guns makes you safer?"

Given that the lunatic made the first aggressive move and only had access to a truck instead of a gun.... that would be a resounding yes!

Without guns: Drives into the victim's car, chases him for a considerable time.

With guns: Drives up alongside victim's car, blows victim's brains out via side window.

Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...

You, and thousands of people before you, have missed the point. The point isn't "can the criminal hurt the victim" its can the victim defend himself, or defend other people around him from someone intent on harming another person.

Lets look at this way. How about a bystander seeing that perpetrator has pulled the guy out of his car and is beating him to death. Bystander shoots the perpetrator, and saves the life of the victim. Bystander is a little scrawny dude who is most likely incapable(just hypothetical) of kicking the perps 4th point of contact. One could then argue what if he might be able to? My answer would be what if he doesn't. All he does is get a beatdown for trying to help a fellow human being in a life threatening situation. If you would stand idly by and watch this take place with no intervention you are what is wrong with the world. Most people would rather take out their cell phone and video tape it. Yes, it may help catch the guy later down the road who did it, but people don't think like that. Its "oh cool, this is gunna be cool to rewatch".

Mattman154 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Because folks, if the good guys have guns... so do the bad guys...

And if the good guys don't, neither do the bad guys!

Yeah, that's not always true. Sometimes the bad guys have guns, sometimes the good guys have guns, sometimes they both have guns, and sometimes neither of them have guns.

One person being armed doesn't automatically mean the other person will be too.