Fella's ,You never know who on this site might be an officer of the law. They could be reading this thread now. I think everyone should have a hand gun or rifle and know how to safely use it. You ever hear of much trouble in Switzerland? I agree that the States are hurting and are trying to come up with clever ideas to increase revenue's ,weather they will admit it or not. I also agree that there are some officers that should not be officers. I think that dipping the tank on a passenger car is just foolish. running red will only save you a couple dollars per fill up, not really worth it. Let's hope this is not a trend the '84 hit's the road Friday night for a maiden voyage!

direct from wikipedia-
Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[34] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[35] Up until September 2007, soldiers also received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[36] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons. However Swiss gun laws are still stricter than in the US. Unlicensed persons are not permitted to carry weapons except under special certain circumstances such as travel to military training. Owners are legally responsible for third party access and usage of their weapons. Licensure is similar to other Germanic countries.[37]

The Swiss model, like the Israeli model is not similar to the situation in this country. In those countries, you have universal military training for a small total population with a sense of national defense, whereas here, after filling out a form, waiting some time, taking a class, I can end up with my own handgun and talk about how its my right.
I didn't grow up on a farm, didn't spend my time using guns and collecting them. I come from an urban area, where handguns are more universally used for violent crimes. With that in mind, I will say that I think that no one should be allowed a hand gun or an automatic weapon, especially be allowed to conceal one on their person.

I would like to hear a forum member describe how they successfully defended themselves with a concealed hand gun. Personally, I have never heard anyone do so, but im sure people have, has anyone here?

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Really?

Are you serious?

How about Bernard Getz?

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

Your link didn't work but I looked it up and came up with this one. (Is it the same one?) Boy he's a fast talker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Damn this is something everyone should watch and i'm only half-way through it.

__________________
1982 300GD Carmine Red (DB3535) Cabriolet Parting Out
1990 300SEL Smoke Silver (Parting out)
1991 350SDL Blackberry Metallic (481)

"The thing is Bob, its not that I'm lazy...its that I just don't care."

oh yeah, thats the guy who acted out "death wish" in NYC right?

EDIT, ok, I just read up on this guy for a bit, fired 5 rounds into 4 men on a crowed subway after they were trying to mug him for 5 bucks apparently. Interesting story, I guess on your point of view, that can be taken either way, a plus or a minus

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

LMAO!

Bernard Getz "acted out" nothing. He probably saved his life by dropping those 4 or 5 punks, by filling them with lead.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

That's the video Fulcrum! In fact this is a full length video. The one I saw is in two parts.

Either way watch it. This among other reasons is why I am really distrustful of police.

__________________
-Typos courtesy of my mobile phone.

This is all I need to read to understand your disconnect with the reality of concealed weapon carry permitting program of handguns, in any state - as well as your inability to connect with the facts, and the sequence of facts, presented by vstech's original posts, before you started your trolling post-rants.....

You really are making foolish posts.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

Thats not what the info I could find on the incident says. Apparently there were more than 20 other people on the car. It actually reads more like opened fire cause he was pissed off in general, and of course he was charged with a lot of stuff that was thrown out as well. pretty interesting wiki article on it

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

which part? Its pretty stiff in NY, looked into it a few months back. Job related or choice related seems like a mild question to me. I don't know what vstech does, for all I know, he could moonlight as a repo man and have a pistol for that job, or he could be a cop himself.

Trolling rant? thats not completely fair is it? I presented an alternate hypothesis as to why he got his tank dipped, which turned out to be wrong as vstech pointed out.

A trolling rant would be someone who is illogical, or decides to dismiss other points of view as "foolish".

I respect your point of view, I just don't agree with you for my own reasons.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Fortunately for the rest of us, we have the 2nd Amendment, so whether or not we are "allowed a hand gun" is not your decision to make.

I have successfully defended myself with a firearm in a potentially violent situation once, and have defended myself AND my wife from potential home intruders once. Never had to fire (as is often the case in such situations), but it was QUITE effective nonetheless.

So have millions of other Americans:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Violent gun crimes are heavily reported and dramatized by the media, because they can milk the stories for DAYS, boosting their ratings.

However, the successful use of firearms by a law-abiding citizen for self-defense is RARELY reported in the media... It's not dramatic, it's not a sob-story, it's boring, happy endings don't make for good news, being able to defend oneself is not politically-correct nowadays, and it doesn't do anything for their ratings.... so it doesn't merit much, if any, screen time.

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Absolutely the case.

Good stuff, mikemover.

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

Thats a very interesting link mikemover. thanks

For the record, when I stated that I would like to hear of a successful defense with a concealed gun, that was a serious request, not sarcastic. Life would be easier if there was a punctuation mark that indicated sarcasm or seriousness.

So basically this site is stating that the NCVS is skewed based on the way the testing is done? I read through the Dr. Klecks answer, and he does make a compelling case as to why. The tables of the thirteen other surveys are a little hard to understand though.

I was doing some reading on the PDF though, and I am not totally convinced the the NCVS is completely inaccurate. The PDF is very interesting.
This is discussed on page 10 of the PDF off that link-

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria). Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias. The reason can best be explained by use of an epidemiological framework. 15 Screening tests are always subject to error, whether the "test" is a medical examination for cancer or an interview question for DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or "false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber the former, the population prevalence will be exaggerated. The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias—regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth. Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:
• They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
• They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.
• They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring in the previous year—a phenomenon known as "telescoping."
Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate. In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?" The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

http://www.cjselfdefense.com/statistics.shtml

This one above is most notable for this stat:

A woman who fights back gains an 86% chance of avoiding the rape and incurs little chance of additional injury. Most injuries occur before the woman starts fighting back. Women using knives or guns in self defense were raped less than 1% of the time. (Kleck and Sayles, 1990)


More:

http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/gunlie.html

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

http://www.streetpro.com/usp/stories.html

http://gunowners.org/

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

interesting, thanks! Some reading to do, and I will have to continue arguing with you tomorrow, if the thread is still civil

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.