Cellphone opponents, take note!

In article <[email hidden]>,

merryb said:

A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some [censored] in a small
penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
just never know what folks will do.

Very true. ;-)

I would have just given the finger back.

I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
deliberately tried to run me off the road.

The Keltec is in easy reach.

I would have to feel a real direct threat.
Getting [censored] at another driver is never an excuse to pull a gun. You
should have gotten the license number and reported it. What he did was
not legal.

Not at all.

That is what cellphones are for.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

merryb said:

A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some [censored] in a small
penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
just never know what folks will do.

I agree about the being careful part.

I hope this incident of brandishing a weapon was reported to
the police.

Steve

Om replied:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just want a compact yet effective EMP generator. I'd prefer to just
cripple the cell phone.

Ooh cool idea!

Just make sure it's directional and has a tight broadcasting beam.

Wonder if that is possible?

It's certainly possible to jam cell phones; I remember a news article about
churches using cell phone jammers not all that long ago. Here's one such:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002041566_celljam21.html

It's also possible to buy a cell phone jammer:

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm

Bob

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

merryb said:

A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some [censored] in a small
penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
just never know what folks will do.

I agree about the being careful part.

I hope this incident of brandishing a weapon was reported to
the police.

Steve

Ditto.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
deliberately tried to run me off the road.

I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and then
pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
dangerous situation because they are armed.
..

Quoted message said:

That is what cellphones are for.

There is also disengagement.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Omelet said:

I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
deliberately tried to run me off the road.

I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and then
pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
dangerous situation because they are armed.

Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
f-head. That would not be legal according to CHL laws. It would make ME
the aggressor. Instead, I'd pull my cellphone and lodge a police
complaint.

You see, I have studied the laws.
It's kinda required before you get a permit.
That's the idea of having to take classes to GET the thing.

Quoted message said:

.

Quoted message said:

That is what cellphones are for.

There is also disengagement.

Duh.

Are you REALLY this ignorant?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
deliberately tried to run me off the road.

I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and then
pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
dangerous situation because they are armed.

Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
f-head.

Then why would you pull your gun?

Quoted message said:

That would not be legal according to CHL laws. It would make ME
the aggressor. Instead, I'd pull my cellphone and lodge a police
complaint.

You see, I have studied the laws.
It's kinda required before you get a permit.
That's the idea of having to take classes to GET the thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is what cellphones are for.

There is also disengagement.

Duh.

Are you REALLY this ignorant?

You seem to be saying that as if you think it is a valid comment. I worked
in law enforcement and was trained in the use of force and self defence.
Disengagement is always an option.

Quoted message said:

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Omelet said:

Quoted message said:

> I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> deliberately tried to run me off the road.

I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and
then
pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
dangerous situation because they are armed.

Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
f-head.

Then why would you pull your gun?

To stop the A-hole from RUNNING me off the road in the first place!
I could get killed in a fatal car wreck.

Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so I'd be
justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to prevent it in
the first place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you REALLY this ignorant?

You seem to be saying that as if you think it is a valid comment. I worked
in law enforcement and was trained in the use of force and self defence.
Disengagement is always an option.

So I should let myself be run off a cliff or into a lake?

Oh that makes so much sense!

Thank you for your profound wisdom.

For the record, I've spent the last year training myself in the proper
use of self defense and deadly force.

Bring it on.

There are books, classes and field courses galore available to civilians
nowadays. I've made good use of resources.

Frankly, I'm shocked that if you worked in law enforcement like you
claim, you are defending criminal actions and so against civilian self
defense!

That's just weird.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> > deliberately tried to run me off the road.
>
> I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
> gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and
> then
> pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
> people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
> dangerous situation because they are armed.

Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
f-head.

Then why would you pull your gun?

To stop the A-hole from RUNNING me off the road in the first place!
I could get killed in a fatal car wreck.

Ahhhh I see.... I was confused by the use of the past tense, "highway
unless someone deliberately tried to run me off the road". You are going
to be driving alongside each other and he is going to signal his intention
to run you off the road. Should this ever happen, you are going to have
time to get your gun out of the glove compartment or wherever it is safely
stored for use in such a situation, and you are going to be able to drive
while dealing with this threat and getting your gun, and then brandish it
in a threatening manner to make him/her back off, or shoot the [censored], in
which case the speeding car will careen into something else. Quite the
scenario.

Quoted message said:

Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so I'd be
justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to prevent it in
the first place.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you REALLY this ignorant?

You seem to be saying that as if you think it is a valid comment. I worked
in law enforcement and was trained in the use of force and self defence.
Disengagement is always an option.

So I should let myself be run off a cliff or into a lake?

Do you often find yourself in a situation where you are driving along the
edge of a cliff or beside a lake and someone tries to force you over the
edge? They can only force you over if you are moving. You can stop.

Quoted message said:

Oh that makes so much sense!

Thank you for your profound wisdom.

For the record, I've spent the last year training myself in the proper
use of self defense and deadly force.

Bring it on.

Yep "Bring it on".... the words of defiance and challenge used by those who
claim only to be defending themselves.

Quoted message said:

There are books, classes and field courses galore available to civilians
nowadays. I've made good use of resources.

Frankly, I'm shocked that if you worked in law enforcement like you
claim, you are defending criminal actions and so against civilian self
defense!

I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a small
fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

merryb <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some [censored] in a small
penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
just never know what folks will do.

Quoted message said:

I agree about the being careful part.

Quoted message said:

I hope this incident of brandishing a weapon was reported to
the police.

Quoted message said:

Steve

Ditto.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

You bet it was! Hopefully something will be done about it, but I have
my doubts.

Omelet said:

Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so
I'd be justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to
prevent it in the first place.

Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
was escalation.

Steve

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a small
fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.

End of thread.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Omelet said:

Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so
I'd be justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to
prevent it in the first place.

Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
was escalation.

Steve

So I guess I have to die to prove murderous intent?

Sweet.

Fortunately, I'm not afraid of death.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a small
fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.

End of thread.

You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
people getting killed by all those guns.
But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
every Tom [censored] and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a
small
fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.

End of thread.

You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
people getting killed by all those guns.
But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
every Tom [censored] and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.

You have not done your research.

There are far more threats than people with guns.

Guns are not the threat.
They never have been.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

[email hidden] (Steve Pope) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
was escalation.

Quoted message said:

So I guess I have to die to prove murderous intent?

In many situations, yes. It is not always possible to justifiably
use lethal force to prevent a lethal attack. It is only sometimes
possible.

Steve

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

Omelet said:

[email hidden] (Steve Pope) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
was escalation.

Quoted message said:

So I guess I have to die to prove murderous intent?

In many situations, yes. It is not always possible to justifiably
use lethal force to prevent a lethal attack. It is only sometimes
possible.

Steve

So what is the solution???

Om-> Ever the student...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

Quoted message said:

You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
people getting killed by all those guns.
But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
every Tom [censored] and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.

You have not done your research.

There are far more threats than people with guns.

Guns are not the threat.
They never have been.

I have done my homework, and the comparative number of gun deaths speak
volume. They obviously don't make anyone safer.

Quoted message said:

--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Omelet wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> A gun in the glove box is an invitation to violent road rage incidents.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ROFL!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is wrong on so many counts, I won't even start!
The incidents of using a gun in a road range incidents are in the small
decimals. Especially for license holders.

Quoted message said:

But it happens.

Rarely.
Why let the minority of the idiots dictate to the rest of us?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do get ticked off at stupid drivers sometimes, especially on the
freeway and I keep my little Keltec on the visor over my head. Not ONCE
have I ever been seriously tempted to pull it!

Quoted message said:

But others have.

Statistics count.

The number of lives SAVED by having a legal weapon available far
outweigh the morons.

Well no. There is a lot of question about this assertion. In fact
there are severe methodological problems with the studies that suggest
this (and some rather severe data problems which affect the conclusion
but are not the fault of the researchers). The data quality problems
were only identifed 5- 6 year after the research was done. I don't
know if the data problems favoured or detracted from the pro - gun
researchers arguments. It looked like it could go either way.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone that routinely leaves a weapon in an unattended vehicle is an
idiot.

Quoted message said:

And there are lots of those around.

No comment. <smirk>

(The irony is thick...)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Omelet wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Dave Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a
> small
> fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

End of thread.

Quoted message said:

You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
people getting killed by all those guns.
But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
every Tom [censored] and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.

You have not done your research.

I have and Dave is right 🙂

Quoted message said:

There are far more threats than people with guns.

Guns are not the threat.
They never have been.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson