Road Rage and easy access to firearms

[MichaelHarris]

"Two drivers are dead after a "road rage" incident in the Ionia, Mich., area escalated into a shootout....Both men had licenses to carry concealed weapons, according to authorities."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/19/road-rage-michigan/2841069/

[JI7]

1. glad nobody who wasn't involved in this got hurt

[longship]

2. Do you mean other than their families? nt

[JI7]

3. i meant mostly that nobody else was shot

[MichaelHarris]

4. I wonder

which one was "the good guy with a gun"?

[snooper2]

14. may be a blessing in disguise

[malaise]

17. Their families clearly supported their second amendment rights n/t

[Javaman]

5. Guns: when screaming and yellling aren't enough to solve your problems.

children.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Which one instigated? Was one of them simply defending himself?

Or do facts such as guilt or innocence not matter?

[kcr]

7. "Road Rage and easy access to guns"

You know, the topic of the thread? Oh, wait. Why would anyone want to pay attention to the fact that had they not had guns in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. That there would be gun grabber logic. Those dumb dumbs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "You know, the topic of the thread?"

Yeah, it's a absurd, fact-free topic that makes blanket adjudications of guilt. Please tell us how Prohibition eliminated drinking and the War on Drugs eliminated cartels. Explain how 1 man can rampage through a US military facility filled with hundreds of people unopposed for 40 minutes as he slaughters a dozen people. 40 minutes. You succeeded in disarming everyone of the people in that facility. You must be proud.

Grabber logic, indeed.

[kcr]

11. Where, exactly, did it "adjudicate guilt"?

And okay, we I guess can change the topic to Prohibition if you want to. I don't see how it's relevant since we were talking about the unfortunate road range incident and how easy access to guns was a factor, but okay It will have to be later though. That's a rather in depth discussion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. It assumes both shooters were guilty.

It is entirely possible one was legitimately defending himself and was entitled to do so.

[kcr]

15. Okay. You're not going to explain how stating the shooting wouldn't have happened whithout guns

assumes they were guilty. It will just have to be a mystery I guess.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. There is nothing you can do to create the gun free situation you fictionalize

The point is moot. You might as well be claiming everyone should have a personal anger management counselor follow them during their every waking moment. It's just as realistic and viable as your proposed ban.

The real facts are: Bans do not work (Chicago, DC, etc.), people are entitled to self-defense and bans are unconstitutional. So you have failed to prove your point pragmatically, ethically and legally.

[kcr]

18. No, but you can counter the gun in every hand movement

the push for concealed and open cary. The notion that it's a good idea to pack heat everywhere you go. To mention the fact that had these gentlemen not had guns this wouldn't have happened and defend that position when its countered. Who said I was pushing for a ban?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. So as soon as someone steps outside they're home criminals get a free shot?

People have a basic human right to self-defense. No one is obligated to allow criminals to harm them unopposed.

[kcr]

21. The idea that the only way to defend ourselves is arming everyone with guns

is pushed by those who want to sell guns. Then they tell you that those who disagree want to take away your guns ramping up even more paranoia. They also push the idea that the world is a much more dangerous place than it really is to ramp up the fear to sell more guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Women, the elderly and the not physcially dominating choose to own guns.

No one can hypnotize you into buying a gun.

Then they tell you that those who disagree want to take away your guns ramping up even more paranoia.

Ummm. You're every argument thus far has been based on the absence of all guns.

[kcr]

25. My argument is based on no such thing

That's what I'm talking about "They want to take away your guns" paranoia colors how you read things. Is arming yourself with a gun and taking it wherever you go the only reason to have a gun?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Well, I don't carry a gun and neither does my husband.

He has, at times, been armed while in public but it's not a habit with him. We have a loaded rifle openly displayed on our mantle because we live in the country where natural predators abound and law enforcement is over 30 minutes away. Such is the practice out here and surprisingly, crime is pretty much non-existent. The only known crime in 3 years was 1 incident of someone trying to steal a neighbor's t-posts.

However, some people choose to be armed. When a woman declares "My body, my choice" I support her decision BEFORE she is assaulted, not just after. It is her right.

I'm curious about 2 things.

First, you groused that I missed the point of the thread (started by a pro-total ban member, BTW; so he's duped you, at least). But assuming it is only "easy access" to guns (as opposed to access, period) both men could have waited 30 days and undergone 3 BCGs and we still would have read the same story.

How would more stringent waiting periods or background checks have prevented the underlying episode which is the basis of this thread?

Second, since you claim it is only "easy access" you oppose what laws would you consider to be too burdensome? Where would you draw the line and say the government has gone too far? A total ban? Excessive fees? Where do you defend access? Or are you simply singing a siren's song as is the OP?

[kcr]

28. I "groused" that you missed the point of the thread because you did.

You're also missing my main point entirely. I'm not saying that they should be banned from having the gun because I'm not pushing for a blanket ban of all guns. I'm against those who are pushing to get people to make that choice in the first place. Hence my point that had they not had the guns with them there in the first place, they wouldn't be dead because of a road rage incident. A road rage incident should not end up with two people shot dead. I think the easy access refers to the fact they had guns with them right there where they could pull them right out and shoot each other dead. At least that's how I'm interpreting it. I realize easy access sometimes refers to how easy it is to purchase, and maybe that's how others are so that's what's leading to the confusion here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. "I'm against those who are pushing to get people to make that choice in the first place."

The people who have the real choice are the criminals and predators that seek to do harm. The rest of us are choosing to live our lives.

[kcr]

30. It's burning down the house to get rid of the bugs.

If everyone did what the NRA proposed, if even a far larger percentage of the population did what the NRA proposed, day to day living would become far more dangerous. Of course that won't happen because thankfully most people have enough sense. You yourself say you and your husband don't carry. Most people don't feel the need to do so, and for good reason. The chances the gun will end up only hurting the carrier or an innocent bystander are greater than it actually ending up being used in self defense and at least on some level most people know that. It's good to point it out as a reminder sometimes, though. I mean, hey, points to you for being right that they have the choice to make the wrong decision though. I don't think anyone was disputing that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Our decision to own/carry guns was bon with ZERO impact from the NRA.

The NRA is nothing more than a bogeyman as if curbing political speech cures criminality.

The chances the gun will end up only hurting the carrier or an innocent bystander are greater than it actually ending up being used in self defense and at least on some level most people know that.

1. Abject piffle.

2. Even if we grant the premise self-defense is still a basic human right. Using statistics to abrogate rights is a non-starter.

[kcr]

32. I don't think all gun owners are NRA loving brain dead zombies.

But neither do I believe the NRA are nothing more than a bogeyman. Far from it.

Piffle because you say so?

Self defense is a basic human right. It doesn't require guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Piffle because it's a bogus, unproven (debunked?) claim.

Self defense is a basic human right. It doesn't require guns.

You -- like the NRA -- have zero power over how I choose to exercise my rights, because they're my rights, not yours. Get used to it.

[kcr]

36. Debunked by whom?

You're right, no one has any power over that. Where did I make the claim I did? There you go again with the "They're trying to take away my guns!" filter. I don't want to take away your guns. I'm just saying it's a bad idea to carry them around with you wherever you go, just like the men in the OP. I know you say the NRA had nothing to do with your choices, but man are you thick with exactly the same tactics. It's uncanny, really. It's exactly like talking with someone who is. I mean, I believe you when you say you aren't, I'm just saying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. My unnamed source debunked your unnamed source.

I'm just saying it's a bad idea to carry them around with you wherever you go.

Your touching concern for my well-being is duly noted. If you feel you require any further assistance in this matter please leave a message with Sheila at the front desk.

[maxsolomon]

45. They've had a free shot at me, every day for nigh on 50 years.

Somehow I'm still alive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. You are free to exercise your choices for your life.

Others are too.

[kcr]

50. Well, when the instrument of that choice is a deadly one

and society is affected by its existence, it should very well be regulated at the least.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. "Must issue" concealed carry has been around for several decades.

The number of states in which CCW permits are readily available has steadily grown over that time. During the same period, we've also seen a steady drop in the rate of homicide. Eliminating CCW is a solution in search of a problem.

[kcr]

26. Oh, so if a problem is in decline, it means we no longer have to worry about it?

No, I'll still say it's a bad idea to push people to arm themselves constantly precisely because of the incident in the OP. I still maintain if they hadn't had their guns, it wouldn't have happened.

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. Nope. If that was what I'd meant, I'd have written that.

My point is that the proliferation of CCW permitting hasn't resulted in an increase in gun-related violence. That would tend to indicate that CCW permit holders (morons like the ones in that incident notwithstanding) are not a "problem" that needs solving. It seldom makes sense to base policy on outliers.

[kcr]

38. Oh, I'm sorry.

I see where I misunderstood you. Confusing not doing anything about it with not worrying about it. My mistake. Anyway, if the murder rate goes down should we do away with murder laws? OR any laws for that matter? Just do it piecemeal like that? Rates go down, get rid of the laws, and then of course when the rates go back up, maybe rethink reinstating them? It's not a problem as long as it's an outlier? Interesting concept.

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. You're being absurd.

Are you deliberately missing the point? Sure seems that way.

"Anyway, if the murder rate goes down should we do away with murder laws?"

Like I said: absurd.

I'm fairly convinced at this point that I'm wasting my time here, but let me try again. The rationale for getting rid of CCW permitting would be, one assumes, that allowing people to legally carry concealed weapons increases firearms-related violence. The fact that these programs have existed for years, have been increasing in terms of the number of states allowing them and the number of permits issued while at the same time firearms violence rates are dropping likely indicates that CCW permitting is not a significant contributing factor to gun violence.

Got it?

[kcr]

41. Why would one assume that?

Why would one assume that the rationale is an increase in firearm related violence? I think the mere existence of violence is enough. Which is why I bring up the other examples. Clearly, the only reason for writing laws isn't increases, nor is eliminating the laws the decreases in the incidences of whatever created the need for a law. Got it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. If the rationale for eliminating CCW permitting isn't that it increases violence...

...but is instead that some violence exists because of CCWs, then such an advocate would have to demonstrate that CCW permitting is associated with enabling more violence than it prevents. Good luck with that.

[kcr]

43. Well thanks for the well wishes.

Of course, anyone who realizes how hard it is to argue with the ARM YOURSELVES crowd knows that's it needed. Just like with arguing with creationists and with global warming deniers. It's entertaining but you get tired of it after awhile.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Same back at'cha!

Arguing with the control advocates is exactly like arguing with creationists to me. You can't generally make a dent in emotionally-held beliefs, regardless of how factually supported your argument may be.

But I do appreciate the relative civility...truly. Best to ya...

[kcr]

47. There's nothing wrong with emotions.

That old canard that gun control advocates just use emotions is just a dismissive tactic used when the facts can't be dismissed. Of course emotions are involved. Because dead people are involved. It's an inconvenient fact that the non gun control side can't wish away. So just dismiss it as emotion. It's ridiculous.

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. There is when they inhibit the acceptance of demonstrable fact.

Emotion has its place, and that place is a very important one. The human psyche requires them. But in matters of formulation of public policy, emotions should be secondary to demonstrable, objective fact. Not ignored completely, as public policy must consider the emotional well-being of the public. Just not allowed to dominate the equation, or to contradict fact.

[kcr]

49. Bull.

Facts shouldn't be ignored. But to claim that this is an issue where the gun control side is allowing emotions to overtake their ability to objectify the facts in this debate is utterly laughable. How are dead people not an objective fact, for one thing. For some reason, guns are supposed to be an issue handled differently than just about every other public safety issue when it comes up. Anything else that proves to be a danger to public safety or health gets dealt with with law and regulation and that's fine, but oh no, not guns! That can't happen because freedom, and those who are trying to deal with it the way we have with other safety issues are just being emotional. That is ludicrous.

Not to mention the whole cold hard logic argument is just so often used to justify argument some heinous public policy. Read your history. Emotion is the impetus for change. It's what usually drives people to do the right thing. It's' what leads them to realize something is wrong. Something needs to be done. Whenever you claim emotion needs to be taken out of the equation? You really need to step back and ask yourself why that is.

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. Please don't (grossly) misrepresent my statements.

"Whenever you claim emotion needs to be taken out of the equation..."

I not only never made such a claim, I specifically stated that emotion has an important place in the process. Please stop misrepresenting my statements...or this conversation is over.

Now, as for your assertion that my claim that the pro-control side is allowing emotion to color their view of objective fact is "laughable," we're never going to come to an agreement on that, I suspect. I've seen far, far too many examples of precisely that. Not that the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have its share of over-emotionalism. It undeniably does. I've encountered it in my own advocacy of such measures as universal background checks and gun security mandates.

I don't disagree with your assertion that emotion can be a strong impetus for change, but I'd point out that it can drive people to do the wrong thing just as often as the right thing. History abounds with examples. That's precisely why it should be subordinate to verifiable fact (not eliminated, I reiterate) when determining the best course of action for a society.

[kcr]

54. But I'm not misrepresenting your statements.

I guess this does have to be over if you're going to play that game. Bring up emotion and then oh so coyly say you don't mean that. You tried that up thread, too. Claim I'm misrepresenting things you're saying just because I'm not exactly quoting what you're saying.. know exactly how the emotion game is played in this debate. Oh, but you mean we only have to take it out of the equation a little bit? So, exactly how much?

So what if emotion is sometimes used to do the wrong thing? It isn't when it comes to guns. People are dead and something needs to be done. I'm sorry that means it infringes on gun ownership. Too bad. You know what? I really hate the fact that I can't drive 200 miles per hour any old time and place I want to. That would really be fun. But I can't because it would endanger other people. So I get over it. Cars weren't around when the founding fathers were writing the constitution.

[seveneyes]

10. At first I thought one party must have been innocent

It's looking like they both likely pulled into the car wash to settle the road rage issue. If so, that would not be a good sign the "defender" made a wise choice. Much better to drive away from road rage incidents.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Without dispute.

[Kaleva]

34. My guess is that being armed gave both a false sense of security

[ileus]

8. emotion based outcomes are never good.

It's always best to keep calm and carry on when it come to traffic conflicts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Any conflict, I'm sure you'll agree.

[sarisataka]

24. Six...

[bigwillq]

33. Folks need to be happy I don't own a gun!

My road rage is AWFUL! I would shoot first and ask questions later. lol

[gopiscrap]

51. Once again: BAN GUNS!!!!

[mwrguy]

52. those law abiding gun owners are at it again