Return to “Carbine in the car”
There may be times when a bazooka isn't enough.bayouhazard wrote:Some people think a micro 32 is enough.
Some people think a six shot 38 is enough.
Some people think a ten shot pocket auto in 9/40 is enough.
Some people think an 8 shot 45 is enough.
Some people want a 12+ shot 45 or 15+ shot 9.
Some people want a carbine or a shotgun in their vehicle.
Some people think those earlier on the list are unprepared and those later on the list are paranoid.
For real??? So asking why a person would feel the need to carry a weapon in the trunk is somehow inflammatory? Really??? Wow... I disagree. One should never feel threatened by questions that may challenge a belief. One should see it as an opportunity to sell their position.bronco78 wrote:Page 1, post 7 of this thread.F4injected wrote: Thanks!Do you know anyone who actually has one installed?
The bickering and derogatory, inflammatory remarks from one supposed 2nd amendment supporter to others that clearly are . simply amazes me here in this forum.
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?p ... &TabID=548" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;F4injected wrote:
Where would you buy something like this?
You are correct in that the police had to invade a sporting goods store, but after they did, the bad guys still had to be brought down with shots in areas that were not protected by armor. No doubt about it... the police should have had better firepower from the get go. Who can tell what would have happened if a citizen had a rifle in the trunk of a car? That is the part that is pure speculation. The action was moving pretty quick and the bad guys would have been firing back. Everyone was hitting the deck. Joe Citizen could just as easily been blasted as he/she went for the trunk of the car.Scott in Houston wrote:FYI, I'm very familiar with the N. Hollywood story. Those guys were not engaged by long guns (or 'high powered rifles') until the police raided a local gun store, and their SWAT showed up. All the police had initially were shotguns and handguns.03Lightningrocks wrote: Bad example. Pure speculation to say what "could have happened". Besides, those guys were shot with everything from high powered rifles to handguns and kept right on going. An armed citizen trying to play batman would have simply increased the innocent killed count to 19.
The police had to break local gun laws to get the long guns they needed in order to take those guys down. Ever since, California has now armed their police with ranch rifles, etc. so this wouldn't happen again.
I'm not advocating a citizen go all 'batman' and engage, but this statement is not exactly accurate. Had the police had access to a true 'high powered' rifle initially, the death count would have likely been much lower than 19, and hopefully closer to 2... the 2 bad guys only.
True... and NOBODY attacked anybody for carrying a rifle in their trunk. Discussing the need for it is not ATTACKING.MadMonkey wrote:This is getting ridiculous. Some people choose to carry a long gun in their car; I'm one of them. I'm not going to attack someone for NOT doing so. That's their choice and their legal right, same as me. There are multiple situations in which a long gun would be highly useful. Likely? Doubtful. But I carry a pistol for unlikely situations as well.
It blows my mind that we have arguments like this on a GUN forum.
Yep... they say in stories that it forced him to shoot from the water spout holes which severely limited his range. It seems to me the citizens firing at him helped. I wonder if in todays world the stray bullets flying all over from all the citizens firing back might be as dangerous as the sniper himself? The area around there is much higher in population today than back in the day. The world is now a much different place. I am not so sure the police would welcome such help if the same situation were to occur in the same place. Austin has become much more "liberal" than it once was.eureka40 wrote:I'm old enough to remember when Charles Whitman was killing innocent people from the UT tower. It was private citizens with deer rifles that slowed that rampage down until police could get up there and kill him.
Many lives were saved that day because of armed citizens shooting back at the bad guy.
Get off your soap box! You are reading far more into this thing than there is and as usual, not making any sense what so ever!speedsix wrote:03Lightningrocks wrote:Really??? It has nothing to do with how "informed" a person is. So you think the cops are not going to flip out seeing a cowboy running around the scene of a shooting in progress with a semi automatic rifle??? You betcha!speedsix wrote:...you're ill-informed......
Nobody ridiculed anyone. If you are feeling silly because of what I posted, I can't help that one bit!
...you don't give our LEOs much credit for having good sense...the worst response I've experienced or heard of another responsible citizen experiencing when helping stop a serious problem has been "Thanks, Buddy!!!" I guess you travel in different circles..."Zombie" and "batman" comments are regarded as insulting and ridiculing amongst the men I associate with...many of which are highly trained ex-cops and military...who've stepped up and put their butts on the line more than a few times...guess you don't understand that, either...this country wasn't started, preserved, or settled by folks who wouldn't take a hand to stop evil...thank God!!!
Really??? It has nothing to do with how "informed" a person is. So you think the cops are not going to flip out seeing a cowboy running around the scene of a shooting in progress with a semi automatic rifle??? You betcha!speedsix wrote:...you're ill-informed......
03Lightningrocks wrote:I was wondering about the same thing. Maybe the "zombie apocalypse" ?Salty1 wrote:Noticing that you have Arlington as your place of residence makes me wonder why you feel that having a carbine in your car would be of value. Personally unless your an LEO, if I was in my car my handgun and the gas pedal would get me out of virtually any situation that I would encounter. care to explain a bit more?
You are correct... I shouldn't have said for nothing. He did save the kids life.Dave2 wrote:03Lightningrocks wrote:Mark Allen Wilson tried to intervene and succeeded in doing nothing more than losing his life.Seems like he succeeded in saving a boy's life, which to me ranks a bit higher than "nothing". For a number of reasons (most or all of which have been debated here in the various "should I get involved" threads) I wouldn't necessarily advocate Mark Allen's course of action (and the article went on to say, "The incident also raised concerns about the implications of well-meaning citizens becoming involved in police activities."), but you can't seriously be saying that he didn't succeed in anything.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting]Tyler courthouse shooting — Wikipedia[/url] [emphasis added] wrote:Mark Wilson has been widely credited as heroic for his selfless actions, which are widely believed to have caused Arroyo to cease his attack and flee the area without murdering his son. On March 31, 2005, the Texas House unanimously adopted resolution (HR. 740) to honor Wilson and the Texas State Rifle Association honored Wilson by publishing an account of his actions.
The same one as the ghost in your example. The point is... a citizen trying to play batman may just end up dead.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:And he used what type of carbine to intervene?03Lightningrocks wrote:Bad example. Pure speculation to say what "could have happened". Besides, those guys were shot with everything from high powered rifles to handguns and kept right on going. An armed citizen trying to play batman would have simply increased the innocent killed count to 19.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:Pretty good reason. If someone would have been armed with a medium to high powered carbine perhaps 18 innocent people would not have been shot.
Something like this example might be a more appropriate link for what actually happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Mark Allen Wilson tried to intervene and succeeded in doing nothing more than losing his life.
Bad example. Pure speculation to say what "could have happened". Besides, those guys were shot with everything from high powered rifles to handguns and kept right on going. An armed citizen trying to play batman would have simply increased the innocent killed count to 19.Carry-a-Kimber wrote:Pretty good reason. If someone would have been armed with a medium to high powered carbine perhaps 18 innocent people would not have been shot.
Terrorist attacks are typically geared toward high profile targets. Blowing up my local Target store is not likely to get the same response as knocking down the high rise towers or blowing up embassies. So no, there is no chance in heck that a terrorist attack requiring response by an armed citizen with a rifle is going to happen on American soil. The Chinese Red Army is not going to come over the hill in Arlington Texas. That is just paranoid!bayouhazard wrote:I thought one of the main reasons we have CHLs and carry is that violent crime can happen anywhere.
Thats also true when it comes to terrorism. You could even make a good argument that a terrorist attack is more likely to happen in a nice neighborhood. Think about it. Terrorists are evil but they're not stupid. Are they going to get more press attacking Rodeo Drive or South Central? Did the terrorists attack the slums in Mumbai or the upscale areas?
I was wondering about the same thing. Maybe the "zombie apocalypse" ?Salty1 wrote:Noticing that you have Arlington as your place of residence makes me wonder why you feel that having a carbine in your car would be of value. Personally unless your an LEO, if I was in my car my handgun and the gas pedal would get me out of virtually any situation that I would encounter. care to explain a bit more?
