Sleeping in your car, a warning

I think a revolver should be the firearm of choice for most people.

Simplicity, less to go wrong, you don't have to remember to rack the slide in an emergency. (unless you already have a round in the chamber of your semi-auto)
 
VIProfessor said:
I would like to weigh in on the side of armed self-defense. While no one in their right mind ever wants to have to use a firearm for self-defense, we've got to recognize the nature of the times we live in. All too often, even giving up the money will not save your life, as many of the young thugs will shoot you anyway to avoid leaving a witness or, tragically, just for the thrill of it.

If you travel the roads and you carry significant amounts of cash, you should be prepared to defend your life by any means necessary. As for me, if it comes down to the nitty gritty and flight is no longer an option, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Great answer, my feelings exactly.
 
My story is not pool related, but none the less a little scarey.

Years ago I was on vacation in Canada driving around the countryside enjoying the scenery. It was late at nite on some unknown back road and I was trying to find a marked intersection. I had no clue where I was. I became sleepy and saw a little dirt lane off to the side. I drove out a couple hundred yards, out thru what looked like a field, around a corner, and slept for the nite. The next morning I fired up the engine and drove back around the corner and all I could c was water. :eek: It had not rained, but there sure was a lot of water out there, and for all I knew, it might just keep on raising. I don't know if I was in a tidal plane or if a farmer was flooding his fields. After a little thought I got out of the car and walked bare foot down the lane. Fortunately the water was only 5 or 6 inches deep and not moving. I drove over the little lane being very careful to stay in the tracks, finally reaching the road. Not life or death situation, but none the less a little scarey when u don't know where u are.

Charlie
 
Last edited:
Russ Chewning said:
Yeah Steve,

A lot of people I have met have this pie-in-the-sky mentality when it comes to guns. They think that banning all guns will solve the problem. As the well known saying goes: If we criminalize guns, then only criminals will have guns. Thus making the rest of us automatic targets.

And a note to the person that thinks I am screwed up because I'd have no problem killing a person, look at it from my perspective. I personally don't believe there is some being up there with a "master plan". So, within that world view, I have no problem executing violent persons. The quicker the better. None of this nansy pansy 20 appeals. If we could execute those condemned to the death penalty within a month, that would be the best thing for society as a whole. We get rid if some worthless scum, and don't have to pay for them to sit in a prison cell for 20 years first.

Like I said, absent of a "Great Master Plan".. Some people just need killin'. Our society seems to be getting further and further away from this core concept, and as a result, we have more crime.

Congrats, society.. You earned it..

Russ

Russ,

This type of justice system works well in many Asian countries. Someone sentenced to death has days or weeks before execution, not years. That way it is an effective deterent, because the crime is still fresh in people's minds. Notice, that it is MUCH safer in big cities over there. Far fewer muggings and assaults. Almost all homicides (of which there are few) are committed by gangsters against other gangsters. Rarely is a civilian murdered. Nothing like the carnage that goes on here every day.

I remember being in Japan when two young men were caught after a holdup using a gun (very rare over there). They were tried, sentenced and executed within two weeks! And they never fired a shot! Just for brandishing the gun in the commission of a crime. One strike and your out. Works well for them. Singapore the same and China too. I suspect Korea also.

In the Philipines the police execute criminals on the spot. No hassle with a trial. There is an investigation and all is forgotten soon after. Our justice system is bogged down in red tape. The most ruthless killers languish in penitentiaries for 15 to 20 years in most cases. If they are executed at all.
 
Having a gun

Have no idea who said it first, but it makes since to me. " I'd rather have one and not need it, then not have one and need it."
 
I'm glad to hear you made it out OK Jay, there are alot of sick people out there that will do anything for a few bucks. It sounds like it could have been an even more violent confrontation, fortunately this wasn't the case and your fine.

I know what it's like playing some of those late night poker tournaments and often just get a hotel room for the night instead of driving home when I know I'm half asleep.
 
Back in the days when I was a teenager, I had encountered and mingled along with some of these thugs. by doing so, I have some sort of an idea of what their kind is. I'd say the ones the you must likely to avoid are the ruthless type. the type that shoots ahead and never think of any consequences before and after, or no moral reasoning to consider. these kinds are hardened individuals and won't simply budge, nor do their lives matter to them and knows no fear, even in death. but they do succumb to extreme torture or suffering. it's not that easy but that is the only way you can turn a stone into a milkshake.
 
Glad you are okay

There's no question that you handled this right - you got out alive and in one piece. It was smart not to pull the .22 (or any gun) unless you had to. For both aiming and deterent value, I have lasergrips on my carry pistol. Never fired it except at the range, but the sight of a red laser dot on the chest should stop anyone who isn't completely out of his mind, so that you don't have to fire.
 
200th Prisoner Cleared Through DNA Testing
Posted: April 26, 2007
Jerry Miller, a former army cook who spent nearly 25 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit, became the nation's 200th person freed from prison or death row through DNA testing. The first DNA exoneration in the U.S. took place in 1989. Thirteen years later, the number of freed inmates reached 100, and just five years after that, it doubled. "Five years ago, people said that the number (of exonerations) was going to dry up because there just weren't many wrongful convictions. But clearly, there are plenty of innocent persons still in prison. There's no way you can look at this data without believing that," said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project that assisted Miller and helps other prisoners seeking to prove their innocence through DNA evidence.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

I just finished teaching a class on victimology about 10 minutes ago but thought that some of the people who believe in "shoot them all and let God sort it out," might think on this for a minute -- and these mistakes are after a long jury trial usually with eyewitnesses. I maintain you do not want to be on either end of a weapon !
[
 
Last edited:
JoeW said:
200th Prisoner Cleared Through DNA Testing
Posted: April 26, 2007
Jerry Miller, a former army cook who spent nearly 25 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit, became the nation's 200th person freed from prison or death row through DNA testing. The first DNA exoneration in the U.S. took place in 1989. Thirteen years later, the number of freed inmates reached 100, and just five years after that, it doubled. "Five years ago, people said that the number (of exonerations) was going to dry up because there just weren't many wrongful convictions. But clearly, there are plenty of innocent persons still in prison. There's no way you can look at this data without believing that," said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the New York-based Innocence Project that assisted Miller and helps other prisoners seeking to prove their innocence through DNA evidence.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

I just finished teaching a class on victimology about 10 minutes ago but thought that some of the people who believe in "shoot them all and let God sort it out," might think on this for a minute -- and these mistakes are after a long jury trial usually with eyewitnesses. I maintain you do not want to be on either end of a weapon !
[

It's always struck me as a huge contradiction that Barry Scheck is using DNA testing to free wrongfully convicted men. He was part of the "dream team" that got O.J. off, claiming the DNA testing was flawed. Maybe he had a gulity conscience.

I was in the courtroom the day the forensic examiners were explaining DNA testing procedures, and the chances of the blood sample belonging to anyone else but O.J. was over six billion. More people than there were on the planet at the time.
 
JoeW said:
200th Prisoner Cleared Through DNA Testing


Nope, haven't changed my mind a bit. In Jay's case, I'm QUITE sure they were committing a crime, and QUITE sure they knew they were committing acts that made Jay fear for his life. Kill em all!

Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of persons "wrongfully imprisoned" actually did commit some act that they weren't caught for.. So what if we "wrongfully imprison" a few people? Most of the time, criminal histories come into the picture when people get lengthy prison sentences, so I very much doubt very many of those released under these new findings were very good people.

And again, if a "kill em quick" policy was put into place, and these people are truly innocent of ANY wrong doing, well we just help speed em on their way to "God". Good on yah!

Russ
 
jay helfert said:
It's always struck me as a huge contradiction that Barry Scheck is using DNA testing to free wrongfully convicted men. He was part of the "dream team" that got O.J. off, claiming the DNA testing was flawed. Maybe he had a gulity conscience.

I was in the courtroom the day the forensic examiners were explaining DNA testing procedures, and the chances of the blood sample belonging to anyone else but O.J. was over six billion. More people than there were on the planet at the time.

I'd be interested in the average net worth of the persons found to be "innocent" through this new DNA evidence... And if they in any way compensated the dude..

Russ
 
I disagree with you on alot of things Russ and this is most certainly one of them. I can't believe you or anyone could suggest the death penalty for a crime that dind't cause a death, it's not even an 'eye for an eye' (and I don't follow that principle either).

That said don't get me wrong, I don't hate you or anything and I got nothing but love for those fighting for our country so I have alot of respect for you, but I disagree wholeheartedly with you on this point.
 
One third of the inmates are black, 1/3rd are hispanic and 1/3rd are white. 90% of all inmates are poor. Most have little or nothing to offer society, they lose in school, in work, in love and just about everything else.

I do not kiss and hug trees, wales, or ex-cons. I was a Recon Marine many moons ago. If you learn nothing else, it will be that you hate killing of any sort.

Jay, I think a guilty conscience motivates in many ways.
 
Last edited:
Tinted Windows

Slider said:
That's the way the law used to read about 20 years ago, however I believe that it has changed, and things are more complicated. If you are anywhere around the state capitol, and you are caught with a gun and ammunition within easy reach of one another, you are in deep trouble.

I used to have a problem with driving and drowsiness myself. I was never comfortable dozing in more public areas, lighted or not, since they tend to attract roving bunches similar to the group you encountered. My preferred spots were in nice, quiet residential neighborhoods (preferably with hills) and I would park facing uphill. The grade of the roadway, combined with reclined seat, made for a very comfortable nap, with no stiff neck afterward. A good jacket or blanket is a must - a car can cool off fast on a chilly night. Having the seat reclined also makes you much less conspicuous—to the "good" guys and bad guys.

Food for thought - a sword is defined by the California Penal Code as a non-concealable weapon, as are firearms over a certain length.

Tinted windows also make you less conspicuous & conceal what you are doing with your hands. Surprise! Surprise!
 
thrasher789 said:
I disagree with you on alot of things Russ and this is most certainly one of them. I can't believe you or anyone could suggest the death penalty for a crime that dind't cause a death, it's not even an 'eye for an eye' (and I don't follow that principle either).

That said don't get me wrong, I don't hate you or anything and I got nothing but love for those fighting for our country so I have alot of respect for you, but I disagree wholeheartedly with you on this point.
I'm with Russ on this.i have seen and heard about too much crime and am fed up with the punks.they can meet their maker if they mess with the innocents and have fun with Satan for all eternity...
 
Last edited:
Russ Chewning said:
So what if we "wrongfully imprison" a few people? Most of the time, criminal histories come into the picture when people get lengthy prison sentences, so I very much doubt very many of those released under these new findings were very good people.

And again, if a "kill em quick" policy was put into place, and these people are truly innocent of ANY wrong doing, well we just help speed em on their way to "God". Good on yah!
Russ

I'm trying to understand your "I don't care attitude" towards some wrongfully accused individuals. Nobody is born without sin nor does anyone has been able from committing a bad deed, and that does not exclude you Russ. unless of course you're the embodiment of JESUS. what if the only sin committed by these so-called wrongfully accused is going in a one-way street? surely that such an act should be punishable by death sentence. is that what you're trying to imply?

Not all convicted individuals are guilty of crimes punishable by death and not all not convicted felons outside of the chicken wire are innocent (including O.J.). by your attitude, it seems that you are saying that O.J. is not guilty at all. I saw and read stories of wrongfully accused individuals which never had their life back because of false conviction. If you consider these people as acceptable losses or expendables, then your idea of righteousness is twisted.
 
jay helfert said:
Thanks guys for the kind words. I'm glad it was only a scare. I guess things are getting uglier out there. I've slept in my car dozens of times, and the only other time someone woke me was a highway patrolman checking to see if I was okay.

I used to be a scrapper, but don't feel up to it anymore. Hey, I'm not a kid either. I've owned guns all my life, but NEVER shot anyone yet. In fact this is only the third time I was ready to use one. A policeman friend of mine in Bakersfield told me something years ago I never forgot. He said don't take out a gun unless you are prepared to use it.

Somehow in that spot, the little .22 seemed awfully small. But I definitely would have used it if they got one of my doors open. I will think twice next time, before I park anywhere at night. I actually thought I was in a good spot to sleep undisturbed.


I would never sleep in a car anymore not even in lighted rest areas. I used to have a motor home but that's different you aren't trapped in the seat behind the wheel. I always carry a gun and have for many years but I would never carry a gun that can't do the job, I.E. your little 22. I carry a Charter Arms Bulldog 44 special most of the time a nice close up defense gun. I also shoot several times a month to keep up my skills. I have used a gun three time in self-defense once resulting with me killing the guy. This was years ago. I ended up answering a few questions but nothing came of it. He had tried to rob me when I was getting in my truck and I had an Ithaca 37 riot gun behind the seat that I was able to get to and that was that. Either way, if you are going to carry a gun, be sure you have the skills to use it, be prepared to use it and be sure it will do the job. Glad nothing happened but I think you were lucky, this could have been very bad.
 
Last edited:
Is Russ Chewning a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq

thrasher789 said:
I disagree with you on alot of things Russ and this is most certainly one of them. I can't believe you or anyone could suggest the death penalty for a crime that dind't cause a death, it's not even an 'eye for an eye' (and I don't follow that principle either).

That said don't get me wrong, I don't hate you or anything and I got nothing but love for those fighting for our country so I have alot of respect for you, but I disagree wholeheartedly with you on this point.

There are several crimes that come to mind that SHOULD have the death penalty even though the crime didn't cause a physical death.

One of them is child rape. I think anyone who rapes a child should have an automatic death sentence. Never been raped except maybe for that one gal way back in the last mellenium before my last marriage. Just have strong feelings about ending child abuse, especially sexual child abuse.

DNA and other testing can prove that conclusively pretty easily or so I've read. There are many other crimes that SHOULD command the death penalty but as long as society gives weak sentences to the criminals they will continue to commit the crimes. The penalty needs to fit the crime and in most cases they do not. Everyone has an opinion.........

Oh, by the way, you may be mistaken about Russ fighting for our country's interests. While Russ hasn't made great efforts to detail exactly what he does, his lack of articulating what he does could be interpreted by some, that he is fighting for our country. I don't think that is the case.

I also don't believe Russ has said he is a soldier fighting for our country's interests but since you have assumed that perspective maybe Russ can elaborate on this further and settle it once and for all.

Our soldiers deserve to have the distinction separating them from U.S. civilians working in the Middle East even though it takes a pair of coconuts to do so. :D


JoeyA
 
JoeyA said:
I also don't believe Russ has said he is a soldier fighting for our country's interests but since you have assumed that perspective maybe Russ can elaborate on this further and settle it once and for all.

Our soldiers deserve to have the distinction separating them from U.S. civilians working in the Middle East even though it takes a pair of coconuts to do so. :D


JoeyA

He may not be now, but there are a lot of ex-military personal over seas doing protective services for the civilians. They are armed and as far as I know have the right to use deadly force to protect what ever they happen to be assigned to protect. If it is Personnel or an oil rig either way kudos, I be damned if I want to pay 4$ + for a gallon of gas. I could not afford to live.
 
Back
Top