winsor

Had you been a real man rather than a sheeple, you would have stood your ground (or your wing) drawn your weapon and ended the threat to your life. And you'd have the full support of the NRA. Dude, I AM the NRA, and I know better. So do you.

Like running away from a cop when told to freeze. Yep, that cop now has reason to believe his life is in immediate danger. Or, it's an offense that deserves the death penalty, right then and there, no due process. Neither of these arguments support the outcome of a dead suspect this scenario. Maybe not, but the reality is that when told to freeze, doing otherwise tends to be a bad career move. Hitchhiking to High School, I found myself confronted with a LEO pointing a .357 at me. I followed orders, and demonstrated that I was not the Very Dangerous Perp he was seeking. Had I turned and run, or otherwise made rapid moves, there is a strong chance that I would have been immediately shot in the center of mass. When sleeping on the wing of my plane while waiting for the FBO to open for fuel (it was rattlesnake country), I was awakened by a searchlight and barked instructions. Again, had I stood my ground and done much of anything except follow orders, there is a fair chance I would have been used for target practice (these guys were REAL jumpy). If one is in that position, regardless of the apparent merits of the situation, it is best to follow orders and address the issue later - the old "tried by 12 vs. carried by 6" scenario.

Somehow this sounds like a troll challenge, where bored college students sit around and concoct the most far fetched narrative to see if it will fly when they post it. Its kind of fun to do, playing with the very gullible, but it can backfire nastily in practice. Gullible people are often quite dangerous in practice, and one should set them off with care.

Even though Trump, like Charlie Manson, represents an improvement over Hillary Clinton, he does have a knack for making Tricky Dick Nixon look good by comparison.

Oh, baby this town rips the bones from your back It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap We gotta get out while we're young `Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run Fitting.

If a restaurant inside the Beltway refuses service to liars, it won't be in business long. Anyone who thinks the current administration has exclusive rights to inaccuracy is delusional.

Some of them. Most, however, are more along the lines of 'I want it to be true, so it must be true. So they search out stuff that validates their positions. And ignore the rest. And, of course, they are the victims of vicious slander, persecution and discrimination. Trump gives them all of that, so they flock to him. Just like Hitler. Yeah, I really went there. The similarities are getting a bit scary. Hitler? You give Trump too much credit. Try Mussolini. "Make Italy Great Again"

Lake Shore Drive, as anyone from Chicago knows.

It's been done.

We do. I recommend a common sense prohibition of alcohol. Think of the untold benefits we could reap thereby!

That looks like a bunch of victim blaming by some gun-nut unwilling to consider gun violence objectively. That's a pretty low resolution list but put it this way, it's also saying that there's no need to own a firearm as long as you follow those steps. It's analogous to the common claim of many smokers that if non-smokers want top breathe clean air, they should feel free to stay home. It's also factually inaccurate, but that's nothing new for gun-nut rhetoric. So it does the dual duty of invoking the points that we shouldn't have to restrict our personal freedoms just because others want unrestricted access to firearms and also that firearms are entirely unnecessary for self defense if you're willing to restrict your personal freedoms which means we can have tighter gun control measures and choke the supply chain. While you're at it, pass laws against alcohol. 88,000 people die each year from alcohol related causes. I don't drink, so you should be like me. Unless, of course, you are willing to have tens of thousands of innocents dead so you can have access to your poison. Think of the children.

There are some 'sensible' suggestions for avoiding being shot.

'Mass shootings' turn out to be less of a threat than are nervous cops. Using law enforcement as an instrument of malice is an inexpensive, popular and very effective tactic. It turns out that one is a lot more likely to fall victim to a jittery LEO than a civilian mass shooter. Don't get me wrong, I disapprove of out of control shooters whether or not they are wearing badges. It is somewhat ironic that David Hogg, who is pursuing the most simplistic approach to so complex an issue, was as likely to come to grief at the hands of the good guys as he was by the sick bastard who shot up his school. BSBD, Winsor

We're contemporaries. On the German side of the frontier I had my first close up look at the business end of a Heckler & Koch MP-5, in Belgium the Gendarmes had Uzis. Both are 9x19mm submachine guns/Maschinepistolen. The Baader-Meinhof group was very active at the time, and folks were way skittish. The German did say "Pass, bitte," so he wasn't being mean, but I pulled my passport out without any sudden movement. The windshield was hit North of Baltimore on I-95 and you're right, it did not penetrate, but it impacted enough to leave a clear impression of the projectile. The crater was a round profile that measured 0.355, the very round nose ruled out a 9mm Parabellum of any description, and was too small for a 0.365 9mm Russian/Makarov. The terminal ballistics and bullet shape of much of any .38/.357 was ruled out as well. My suspicion is that it was an inadvertent discharge, since the trajectory appeared to be over the tree line.

"A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth." V. I. Lenin Believe what you want, live long and prosper.

My research indicates your experience with gun laws and police stops is a little deeper than you like to talk about. https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/twelfth-district-court-of-appeals/2005/2005-ohio-6274.html It's been done, Sparky. Ohio had passed legislation recognizing Concealed Carry by a a veto-proof margin. It turns out that the Governor dragged his feet in signing it into law. I was subject to SWATing by someone who took umbrage at having to maintain the speed limit for the time it took me to pass a truck. Two lanes, truck limit 55, auto limit 65 and I stay to the right except when passing - particularly with out-of-state plates in Ohio. The one vague call, which mostly complained about being "cut off," spawned a chorus of versions in the retelling, and the Court of Appeals took as gospel the ad-lib compilation of the Prosecution. The only thing missing is "once upon a time..." I was licensed to carry CONCEALED for a quarter of a century, and I was charged with having a CONCEALED firearm. Ironically enough, my credentials were acceptable in Ohio by the time I went to trial. There is a reason hearsay is largely inadmissible, but this issue was skirted was because charges related to failing to carry concealed were never brought. For what it's worth, should you actually accuse me without prosecutorial immunity, I could sue you for Libel (only $1, don't sweat it) and actually have due process regarding the most lurid of the accusations. This would be the basis for making the whole thing go away, so you'd be doing me a favor. Anytime you're ready.

Wrong. Some of us have VERY extensive professional credentials in various subjects. There is a difference in standing between someone who had their gall bladder removed and the Head of Surgery at Johns Hopkins, or between a Camaro owner and the Chief Design Engineer at Chevrolet. Admittedly, the 'authority' can be wrong and the novice correct on an issue, but the odds generally don't favor such a scenario. I contend that the Chief Design Engineer at Chevrolet is wrong about allowing a 4 cylinder option. That's something that should not exist. When Alfa does it, it works brilliantly. By and large, when you get an abortion on wheels it's more often than not the result of the Marketing Department over the objections of Engineering (the V-8 Monza is a prime example).

You are intimately familiar with firearms, and the laws governing them in the USA. You have no familiarity with having one of your children fall victim to random gun violence. Or with the advantages countries with reasonable gun laws enjoy. Like not having motorists waving firearms at them in road rage incidents. Oddly enough, I do have a marked familiarity with random violence that drops children, have lived in sundry countries that have laws that I suspect you would term 'reasonable.' I have been spared any incidents involving motorists waving firearms in road rage incidents; the only motorists that have ever made firearms known in my experience have been cops, and I have had the odd submachine gun stuck in my face (as I GINGERLY pulled out my passport...). I don't count the .380 slug that hit my windshield, since it was from long enough range to be arbitrary. Your guess regarding my familiarity is entirely wrong. Should I trust your instincts about much of anything else?

Wrong. Some of us have VERY extensive professional credentials in various subjects. There is a difference in standing between someone who had their gall bladder removed and the Head of Surgery at Johns Hopkins, or between a Camaro owner and the Chief Design Engineer at Chevrolet. Admittedly, the 'authority' can be wrong and the novice correct on an issue, but the odds generally don't favor such a scenario.

Much of the discussion on this thread reminds me of grey haired men holding forth on the merits of abortion. My sentiment is that if, say, Newt Gingrich was to get pregnant, I would applaud his decision to keep the baby. Maybe a better analogy is having whuffos write BSRs. Having a whuffo tell me that I have a death wish or whatever does have a lot of impact, and their conclusion that I am all for a free-for-all approach because I do not seek their input may not be based in fact. If someone opines on a subject with which I am intimately familiar, such that it is clear they have no Idea about what they are talking, don't expect me to treat them as credible. Suffice it to say that we are certain to disagree. Given that you can be pretty bright, it concerns me to see you flailing. You can do better.

Your one warning.

Wait a minute, I need a license? I thought it was like a boat - if you own it, you just have to keep it registered. I'll look into it, thanks.

Benjamin Disraeli sounds right. I was simply using a different statistic than the one in which GUNS killed more Americans than did the ENEMY! It's more of a 'so what, Americans killed more of the ENEMY than Americans died at the hands of the ENEMY and GUNS put together.' I am, in fact, a lot more concerned with OUR death toll than I am with THEIRS. I also don't blame gasoline for arson or knives for stabbings. I guess that puts me in the minority here.

Winsor, are you referring to American casualties or to American caused causalities? My research shows about 655,000 total battle deaths suffered by US forces over the years. I can find no reasonably reliable number for deaths inflicted by US forces. I can find claims of 20 to 30 million foreigners killed. But the counting methods look pretty vague. And I'm sure that indirect deaths are being counted here as well. But who's keeping score anyway? I think if you look up the Imperial Japanese forces before and after the battles of Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tarawa et al. you can get some numbers of those killed BY American forces. Add to that the casualties inflicted by Curtis LeMay, whose goal was to reduce the Japanese population "by half," and you have overshot the number of Americans killed in all wars. We can dish it out, but we sure can't take it. Talk to a Russian about casualties in wartime. The overall discussion brings to mind the quote attributed to Sam Clemens, whereby there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." The book "How to Lie With Statistics" also seems like good source material. Of the U.S. deaths where firearms were used as an implement, all are not equal. Suicide is way up there, and is subject to a separate discussion. Police shootings loom large these days, and even the politicians who bitch the loudest rely heavily on Law Enforcement and other armed services for protection. Justifiable Homicide is another column to consider. Criminals shooting criminals? My main concern is that they are such poor shots that they too often fail to kill each other, and bystanders are liable to drop. By no means do I support allowing the kinds of people behind the Parkland and Santa Fe shootings to have access to lethal force, but in each cases the perp clearly stated intent well in advance and nobody did squat. It is my contention that any adult who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm is unfit to populate a free society. Regarding those who support bans, Socrates said that "a man sees in others what he knows of himself." I do not acknowledge the right of the fundamentally mediocre to subject me to their limitations. BSBD, Winsor

Perhaps, although that's wholly irrelevant with respect to your previous claim. Which you misread as being what?