Well, at least it gives them something else to think about.

Let me clarify, after avoiding the rear-end collision, the next thing I would've done, had I had it with me, would be to grab my pistol. I agree that grabbing a pistol during the actual maneuver would be impractical, if not impossible. It is the follow up I am focusing on. Sorry for the confusion there.

Also, if a car is bearing down on me, I would agree that standing defiantly and pointing my pistol is probably not going to do anything to stop the vehicle, so moving out of the way does make better sense, though at least I have a chance of taking the driver with me. However, once out of the immediate path of harm, I can then deploy the firearm to reasonable effect to deter further attempts, should the driver appear willing to persist and is starting to come around for another pass. I am not suggesting a bullet is going to stop a car dead in it's tracks, bullets don't always stop humans dead in their tracks, which is why drawing on an assailant that's already engaged you isn't going to work very often, unless you are shooting major caliber, have been very well trained, and are very lucky. However, up to the point of engagement, a drawn firearm and a willingness and ability to use it for deadly effect can do wonders.

Let me put it this way, one possible outcome of this event would've been that I did rear-end this clown. So let's say now we are both stopped in the road, and Mr. Clown decides to step out of his vehicle and try to rush my door, maybe himself armed as well. Having a firearm in hand and ready to use might give me a chance of surviving his assault, or avoiding one altogether.

The point is, without a weapon my options on how to respond to Mr. Clown are limited. Should he decide to escalate the issue, I am better prepared to respond. If Mr. Clown is going to maliciously cause an accident, then I would appreciate any opportunity to neutralize the threat if possible. I may not avoid an imminent initial impact if he wants to turn it into demolition derby, but I can choose how to respond to any subsequent action on his part a lot better if I am armed. Unarmed, all I can do is try and evade, which may not be possible.

Besides, even if all I had was a knife, it'd be better than nothing I reckon. Sometimes a knife is a better weapon to have in a fight than a gun.

Otherwise, you leave me at the mercy of my enemies? What else can you do to stop an attack? Would you say the best way to win a fight is to avoid it in the first place? Some confrontations are unexpected and unavoidable. There was no way I could've predicted this guy was going to cut me off, nor do I have any idea what his intentions are at the time, so my philosophy is to prepare for the worst. That's just me, though. I fully acknowledge that YMMV.

I'm a huge pro-2A supporter, but even I'm having a hard time agreeing with you on this one. If someone is in FRONT of you, and you've avoided a rear end collision with them, the very next thing you should do is slow down and let them go, not grab a pistol and keep following. I can't even imagine a situation where a gun would even come into play unless you actively go after him, or both of you decide to stop.

A firearm should be your last choice after you've exhausted all other options, not the first thing you grab when someone pisses you off.

on a totally unrelated topic, I fired my new S&W .500 a few days ago. Je*** tapdancing Ch***t!!!. What a kick. I am willing to bet I can stop anything on planet earth with this baby. Cars, forign satellites in orbit, Blitz's zombies and everything in between.

Of course I don't see any PRACTICAL use for this gun....

Poor driving and rude driving are just that unless you have significant evidence of aggression directed at you as an individual.

With respect, introducing a weapon as the next factor seems premature, at a minimum.

When someone cuts me off, I just slow way down. And I hope that idiot / jerk / incompetent just proceeds away from me. This strategy has not failed yet.

I particularly hope the person is not injured in an accident in front of me because I really do not want to feel obligated to render them aid - but I hope that I would.

If the person does evidence directed aggression, then evasion by driving, a 911 call, and driving toward known law enforcement or manned security locations, would be priorities far ahead of reaching for a weapon. I would consider foot evasion if I had confidence of its success.

After exhausting those possibilities it may become a survival situation where the choices are few. If the person was pursuing in a vehicle, then my vehicle would be my first weapon of choice. If the pursuer was on foot and apparently unarmed, then improvised non-lethal weapons would be my choice. And if the pursuer was armed, close confrontation was unavoidable, and I felt my life or that of others was at risk - I would strike with the most powerful weapon at my disposal.

Without evidence of deliberate aggression the firearm is unnecessary (but comforting to know it's an option if you have it).

Don't forget that many LEOs have drawn pistols and killed people who were arguably driving toward them. They were vindicated as defending against assault with a deadly weapon. The car driven in their general direction was the deadly weapon.

I count myself lucky to have successfully visited, and driven, in Boston. Never again. I think they drive that way because of the belief that gun control will make them safe :-)

How many times in your life have you been cut off while driving? In how many of those situations did the person who cut you off then stop, get out of their car, and charge you?

I think that waving a gun around is much more likely to get you arrested for road rage than anything else. The other guy might get charged with reckless driving, but certainly not "assault with a deadly weapon."

There are people who do this on purpose -- they load their entire family into the car, swerve in front of you and slam on the breaks, you rear end them. Minor damage, and then they sue you for medical bills plus pain and suffering and lost income. Illegal? Yes. Immoral? Yes. Insurance fraud? Most definitely. Assault with a deadly weapon? No.

No one said anything about waving a gun around.

I would agree that waving a gun around without provocation would be unwarranted, in fact, waving a gun around at any time is probably uncalled for.

Nonetheless, I would still bring it to bear if I had it and felt I was being threatened.

As far as being stopped and being charged by another driver or their passenger, it's happened more than once, and as they were far better armed than I at the time, it was a most humbling experience, and not one I will ever repeat again if I can help it. (in reference to my "third" Blackwater encounter)

Have I drawn down on anyone before? Yes. I've also had fully automatic firearms pointed at me while driving without provocation and been directed to stop. It does have a very real and desired effect, especially when you believe the person pointing that firearm has every intention of using it should they feel the least bit threatened. I do not make a habit of pointing a loaded firearm at people, at least not where I can be observed doing so.

I agree that the act of someone deliberately causing an accident of the sort described does not necessarily consitute an ongoing threat, but at the time of the incident, you will not know if the threat is persistent until after the impact and the reaction of the occupants in the other vehicle. In hindsight or conjecture, certainly you can make that argument, but how are you going to know at the time, and that uncertainty is what warrants arming myself until I am sure the threat is over.

Let me differentiate something here. I don't just grab a gun and point it at people unless I feel an imminent threat. This does not preclude me from drawing my firearm and keeping it inconspicuously at the ready in situations where the perceived threat is at level 1. This is akin to investigating a possible home invasion at night, or an unavoidable excursion through a dangerous area concealed from public view, or stalking wild game in the field where I am positioning for a shot. It is one step preceding full engagement of the target.

Those 50 cal pistols all hurt my hand too much. In fact, since I broke it some years ago, I am finding even my 44 mag uncomfortable with the hot loads. I am going to have to find some better grips for my Super Redhawk.

Based on the continuing replies from other members, I think people are missing benjammin's clarification that he is talking about what happens when you're standing on the side of the road, no longer driving.

I think we all agree that driving at freeway speeds with an aggressive road rager with one hand and also trying to do something effective with a handgun with the other hand at the same time is not practical except in action movies. Well, unless you call waving it around an "effective" strategy. But once we're all stopped and maybe out of our vehicles, then the dynamic is very different. Trying to drive is no longer an immediate concern.

Actually, speaking of "waving it around," I had to chuckle when I read this thread and then a news article yesterday about some idiot that shot himself in the stomach while driving after he waved his pistol at someone during some road rage incident. The article didn't give details, but I assume that it probably went off as he was shoving it back into his waistband. He's probably glad that it wasn't pointed more downward at the time it went off.

Yeah, trying to bring a gun to bear during a moving confrontation would be akin to something from the Keystone Cops I suspect, or maybe a scene from "Raising Arizona". That's similar to a comparison made by a seargent observing the Blackwater morons being run out of a neighborhood in Baghdad one time. Everyone in the vehicle, including the driver, was in full auto mode, hosing down everything in their path, including at one point the floorboards of their own vehicle.

I'd laugh, except for my bad experiences with those nits.