It finally happened! (Road Rage shooting)

[mvccd1000]

No reports yet on whether the assailant was a CPL holder, but a road rage altercation ended with one man shot and another man arrested, claiming that the man he shot was going to spit on him.

http://detnews.com/article/20100412/METRO02/4120420

I guess I can finally admit that there is blood in the streets, only - what? 5 years after Michigan became a "Shall Issue" state? The GCAs were clearly right! :woohoo:



(I'm posting this article in the interest of fairness so that some of our members who advocate additional laws making it harder for Americans to carry guns will FINALLY have something tangible to point to when they say gun carriers will be shooting people over parking places or lack of turn signals. It finally happened, so clearly we need to take guns away from the other hundred thousand or so people in Michigan who have a permit to carry their guns with them.)


:sarcasm:

[quiet.american]

1. As long as the gun emerged safely, all's well. That's the important thing.

:sarcasm:

[Callisto32]

3. This kind of stuff is pointless.

There's often someone saying something like this. "Well, at least the gun's alright...SARCASM." Geeze. It adds nothing to the conversation, either way.

If you absolutely hate guns, and think they are the root of all evil, and they should be dropped to the bottom of the sea as soon as possible, say it. That way, at least you will be giving an opinion.

[Katya Mullethov]

8. It begs the question(s)

Were the actors emboldened by the road rage or instant firearms intoxication ?

Will this be enough to violate the guns probation/parole ?

And what about Molly .....back on the ranch ?

Most impotently and to the point .
You couldn't possibly be serious could you ?

[shadowrider]

10. And what about Molly .....back on the ranch ?

I understand she's pretty bored with the one-on-one thing and is now looking to experiment. Or that could just be a rumor.

[cowman]

26. Nope

it's true.

[spin]

21. Firearms intoxication?

that's at least original. I have to give you that.

[Katya Mullethov]

31. Paraphrasing Anslinger

I can't take credit for the concept of "that shit'll make ya crazy" . It is as old as groups of people in need of herding .

[spin]

41. Well Anslinger did appear to be a racist ...

and since the roots of gun control are racist, I guess your paraphrasing is appropriate.

It appeared that Anslinger was also responsible for racial themes in articles against marijuana in the 1930s:

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"<10><11>

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."<11><12>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

[Katya Mullethov]

49. He used whatever he thought worked

His style of hand wringing hyperbole and outright fabrication is still popular among prohibitionists of every bent .

[quiet.american]

12. I see. Sarcasm in favor of guns is okay, but sarcasm in favor of gun control is not okay.

Got it.

[Callisto32]

19. Sarcasm can be used effectively.

Usually by being followed with something serious.

This sarcasm suggests that people on the pro RKBA side are worried about the well-being of a firearm. That is ridiculous, and adds nothing to the conversation. It was the sentiment, not the sarcasm to which I was referring. Be as sarcastic as you want, but at least make a point.

[Katya Mullethov]

32. Properly done , yes

But it has no bearing on the angry or the mad .

[SteveM]

11. Sarcasm may be funny, or it may indicate ones lack of seriousness...

regarding the subject at hand. You really aren't serious about gun-control/Second Amendment rights, are you?

[quiet.american]

13. See my reply #12. nt

[SteveM]

14. See this reply:

I'm perfectly fine with your "sarcasm." I see the benefits of comparing the gun-controller/prohibition sarcasm with that of Second Amendment defenders, usually because the latter rings true while the former is nothing more than hit-and-run.

I am amused by gun-controllers when they say that the NRA/GOP wants to "arm everyone" and "give kids in school guns." Why? Because they don't offer any evidence (none needed for sarcasm, right?) and the flippant remark must stand on its own for all DUers to see. Maybe that explains why most DUers own guns and are strong supporters of the Second Amendment, and not prone to culture war (Dems are really bad at that, you know). Eventually, my hope (and the hope of other progressive 2A people) is to remove "gun-control" as an issue worthy of the Democratic Party, and let it die with the remains of Jim Crow. As it stands now, the tired, failed chant of the "assault weapons ban" (which is STILL called for in the Platform), only DIRECTLY serves the interests of -- voila! -- the NRA/GOP.

But I pose the question to you again: are you really serious about this issue? Why?

[quiet.american]

16. You're having a conversation with me based on a conversation we've never had.

Love the "quotes" that never happened.

And as far as this OP goes, what's to be serious about? What's the point of the OP other than to give the finger to anyone who might be interested in gun control issues?

There's no serious conversation to be had with those who do not acknowledge the human cost in any gun story they post, but do set up a defense of the gun, because that must be defended at all costs. What can be said? There's nothing to be said. There are no minds to be changed. The gun's alright, and that's all that needs to be attended to.

[SteveM]

17. Your response sounds like a government form...

except for the part where you said "What's the point of the OP other than to give the finer to anyone who might be interested in gun control issues?" At least here you have made your feelings be known. (It should be noted that there have been few "road rage" incidents involving concealed-carry weapons, yet gun-controllers are forever bringing this stuff up; for that reason, the post has a definite point.)

What is being defended is the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Guns have no rights, and are neither "alright" nor not-right. The gun is not the thing.

Is your reference to "human cost" an argument against self-defense? I'm not sure of your point.

[quiet.american]

18. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? :)

I suppose I could counter with, you seem to be taking my every response as an opportunity to pack in as many gun-rights talking points in as possible. It's getting to the point where it looks like I could post "heh" and off you'd go on a riff. But I get that you're passionate about your guns.

Human cost: my point is, there is much sympathy expressed for gun rights in the "defend the gun" posts, but never any for the person/people shot, regardless of whether we're talking about someone who "deserved it" (self-defense) or not. The violence perpetuated is glossed over, but the incident is invariably used as a reason why there should be no/less/little gun control.

[SteveM]

36. I like my guns, but I'm not passionate about them...

Concerning sympathy: We see many, many posts of someone getting shot without a comment WHATSOEVER, just a link. The posters? Nearly always strong gun-prohibitionists. It's as if they are saying: The story speaks for itself, or some such. Not much sympathy, there, no? Check out some of these posts.

Frankly, I have little sympathy for some B&E-type who -- even when warned -- continues their HyperPunk home-invasion. Anyone who is killed for no cause (by any means) deserves sympathy. But you know, pounding keys on a computer is not much of a way to express emotion for folks one hasn't met. In our private moments, we can recall a few citizens we never met who were killed by thugs and punks, but with all respect, getting into a compassion contest on the Internet is usually a troll's gambit.

[Callisto32]

20. Quotes can indicate more than a direct quotation.

Like when a word is being used to represent itself. Or when a word is used in a way that is inappropriate and you wish to illustrate that fact. Simply using quotation marks does not mean he was quoting you.

[defendandprotect]

37. Well, the guy obviously balanced the threat of being spit at --

with an insane response --

Then again our elected officials could have been simply shooting T-baggers who

spit at them a week or so ago --

Hey, all's fair in the spitting wars, I guess --!!

[shadowrider]

2. This proves some posters policies should be implemented immediately

Me? I'm gonna wait until it's determined whether or not this shooter was a CCW holder with a legal gun, a non-CCW holder with a legal gun, or someone with an illegal gun using it illegally.

[safeinOhio]

22. Just talked to a friend in Detroit

he said the tv news said shooter was a CCW holder.

[shadowrider]

29. That's too bad if it is

but no one on this board ever said CCW holders were all angels. As far as a news station is concerned, they generally report before facts are in just to get the big story. Once it's confirmed by police/sheriff etc., I'll believe it.

If it's true, this guy deserves everything coming his way and should never be allowed to own a gun again (legally). It doesn't mean he won't acquire one illegally.

[Callisto32]

4. I've said it before.

Posting individual incidents of X doesn't really do much.

This would probably have been more effective if saved until somebody shouted about blood in the streets, and you could have said "it took 5 years in Michigan" if it turns out this guy was licensed.

I understand that there is an "in your FACE!" desire that people have when they feel vindicated, but it's best to keep it under control.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Certainly justifiable.

:crazy:

[safeinOhio]

6. Yep

after all the guy was tapping his break lights.

If one is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, one should be bringing all incidents like this to the attention of everyone and calling for anyone that commits a gun crime goes to jail for a long time. The NRA should be finding the best lawyer in Michigan to make sure the victim gets every dollar possible for this gun crime.

[defendandprotect]

38. So ... let's see "spitting" vs "raping" . . . well, I guess the field will be completely clear now-

Just shoot that guy who's trying to rape you -- no questions asked!

UNTIL, idiots like this one meets another gun carrier and we're back to being equal again --

and, of course, rapists will be arming themselves.

It's the arms race again -- only on our city streets!

And this makes sense to whom but the GOP/NRA?

[sharesunited]

7. Guns as solution to spit. One point awarded.

[Katya Mullethov]

9. He had to

One must not let the hordes of hepatic teabaggers hawk their pestilence into their territorial bubble .

[rrneck]

15. !

:rofl:

[high_and_mighty]

25. That was awesome! n/t

[safeinOhio]

23. Shooter had a permit

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/brads_edge/not-your-typical-case-of-road-rage-in-farmington-h

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/brads_edge/not-your-typical-case-of-road-rage-in-farmington-hills

If link does not work, go to local news on page to find story. Sorry

[safeinOhio]

24. more on shooting

http://freep.com/article/20100413/NEWS03/100413022/1318/Police-expect-charges-in-Farmington-Hills-road-rage-incident

Farmington Hills Police Commander Dave Stasch said today that the man — who has not been identified — will be arraigned in 47th District Court in Farmington at about 3 p.m. on charges of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felony firearm.
But when the pair stopped for the light at 13 Mile Road, the 20-year-old got out of his car. He walked up to the Farmington Hills man’s vehicle and they started arguing in the middle of traffic.
The 27-year-old pulled out a gun, which he is licensed to carry with a concealed weapon permit, and fired, hitting the 20-year-old once in the arm, Koehn said.
“Initially he told the officer he was defending himself,” Koehn said. That claim is indefensible, he added. “Obviously, the victim did not have a weapon. He could have just driven away.”


not everyone that has a gun should have one, not everyone that has a CCW should have one. How can we sort them out better? Better training? I took the CCW class in Michigan and it was an open book test after one day of class. Perhaps requiring additional insurance as is now required for vicious dog ownership? Seems that would fit the 2nd Amendment. Also, if that were the case, insurance companies might require more training. Anger management class requirements along with more in depth legal training for permits? The biggest threat to gun rights are more and more stories like this in the news. Public sentiment is the biggest driver of laws and court decisions.

[shedevil69taz]

27. I will agree with you to a certain extent

I am certain the level of training required in some states isn't exactly what one would call extensive, and I am sure in some places could benefit from being much more indepth.

there are countless numbers of criminal's in our country that are legally prohibited from obtaining a firearm legally. They however do not care about the law so one more gun charge (which are usually served by criminal's concurrently to other charges which isnt really much of a deterant) isnt that big a deal to them.

The incident that this paticular CCW holder was involved in is very rare though. The number of CCW'ers that misuse (and subsequently lose) their right to keep and bear arms is a very small percentage.

I do think that most shall issue states that have mandatory training requirements have a better system than at least one "may issue" state I have the misfortune of residing in right now. New York state is a may issue at the whim of the county sherrif. So that means to get mine all I really needed to do was catch the guy at a bar and buy him a few rounds (wish I was making this up) and get on his good side and make sure he remembered my name. No training required (even though I have had extensive training in self defense with a weapon already myself I am sure many that he has issued to have not).

Anyway it would make sense to me to have a federal shall issue system with clearly spelled out objective criteria to get one. Including mandatory training requirements.

Adding the cost of additional insurance will only serve to keep law-abiding people with low incomes from being able to afford to legally carry concealed weapons. Just because they may not make as much money as me does not automatically mean they would misuse a otherwise legally carried weapon.

I take it upon myself as a responsible gun owner and licensed CCW'er to be familiar with the laws where I happen to be living at the time. You can require additional training on this subject I suppose but just because someone is aware of a law does not mean they are more likely to follow it all the time. Plus just because one is ignorant of the law will not shield one from the consequences of violating it. Smart people educate themselves on it so they can avoid violating it in the first place.

Almost everyone could benefit at one point in their lives or another from having classes in anger management. I actually would argue that it be a requirement to get a driver's license, be a child care provider, nurse, doctor, or school bus driver.

[mvccd1000]

28. Additional Insurance?

And then anyone who can't afford the insurance is denied the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? How would that work for free speech or voting?

And if you decide to subsidize the insurance for those who can't afford it, then YOU are now paying for anyone who wants a gun to get one.

Are either of those solutions acceptable?

Personally, I agree that more training should be required. The only problem comes when you start to deny people their rights because of it. If I remember correctly, I received several semesters of training in school regarding government and voting before I was set free to exercise that right at the age of 18.

Why not treat firearms the same way?

[safeinOhio]

33. Does the requirement to have insurance

deny a hundred million current car drivers their right to drive on public roads? Every right derived from the Constitution also comes with some responsibility. State laws require liability insurance to own a vicious breed of dog. A million dollar policy for a little over a hundred bucks, or the price of a couple of boxes of bullets? This guy, in the story, makes 10 grand a year. If he shoots one of your family members, you are shit out of luck. At least if he runs over your wife with a car you can recover some damage. I can't believe those that have 5 hundred dollar Glocks and have to shoot 40 caliber bullets just to be proficient with it can say a hundred or two bucks denies them a right. A right they can't afford to be responsible for to their fellow citizens?

You were given the right to vote and "set free" when you were 18. You were also required to register with Selective Service to possibly give your life to protect that freedom to vote. Freedoms have cost, they are not free.

This is just one suggestion to make gun owners more responsible. With more guns legally on the street, I'm not saying that is a bad thing, more accidents will happen and more dummies will screw up. It is up to us responsible owner and carriers to solve the problem, or at least reduce the problems, if we wish to take advantage of the Second Amendment. Court rulings and new laws are almost always a reaction to public sentiment, which in turn is driven by current events. Just as the Fourth Amendment has been altered by terrorism, don't think for a second the the 2nd Amendment can't be altered by the actions of irresponsible gun owners. We as owners need to be proactive to keep our rights.

[mvccd1000]

34. Rights vs. Privileges

I don't have a "right" to drive on a public road, and therefore I can be denied the ability to drive on those roads if I do not have a license (permission from the government) or insurance (prerequisite to getting permission from the government).

You'll note that those circumstances are different than those required of us to exercise our rights, such as assembly, speech, or keeping and bearing arms.

Take the example of any task you'd like to impose on firearms owners (training, insurance, registration, etc.) and imagine imposing those same prerequisites on your right to a trial by jury, or freedom from search and seizure, or speech, religion, or assembly.

Sure, you can have a jury trial..... if you bought "criminal intent" insurance before you were accused of a crime. Don't want the government in your house? No problem, as long as you paid the "safety inspection fee" before you demanded that right. Like to worship (or not worship) as you choose? Sure! Just submit a copy of your fingerprints with a check for a couple of hundred dollars and attend this 16-hour class. Want to assemble with a group of like-minded people? Be my guest! (As long as you let us enter your name in this database that the government, the press, and the public can access.)

Most people would (rightfully so) have a cow if the government tried to impose such conditions on the exercise of any other right. Why, then, is it okay - or even expected by some - for them to impose those conditions on the 2A? And which one will you support them infringing upon next?

-----

As far as being "set free" at 18, you're assuming I'm male and had to register for selective service. (I am, although I was already enlisted in the military by that point, so it didn't matter.) The female members of my class were free, however, to exercise their rights without paying the fee you mention.

[safeinOhio]

35. I don't think in the real world it is all that

cut and dry. Permits to hold a demonstration? The SCOTUS says money equals speech. Your speech is limited by how much money you have to say it. Lots of legal restrictions on guns. Try target practice in your back yard in the city. Try buying a full auto without a special license.

Yes the girls don't have to sign up for the draft, but under the "intent" of the original Constitution they couldn't vote either. All kinds of "ifs, ands and buts" to the 4th and 5th.

Like I said, in the real world, restrictions on the 2nd will come from what is going on the real world, not how any individual interprets what the Constitution allows and doesn't. Mass shootings by Christian militias will change everything about the Second, just as 9/11 changed the Fourth.

[mvccd1000]

42. You make good points, safe...

and I appreciate them. I guess it is to my shame that I don't oppose the infringement of some other rights as diligently as I do 2nd Amendment rights. I think the only other two that get me as riled up are religion in government/school/court/etc., and anti-abortion bills.

Perhaps one reason is that gun rights are among the easiest to fight for. There are a lot of bills and positive court rulings coming about these days, and it's easy to write in support of them. Where in the hell do you complain about the Patriot Act and have any meaningful effect? :)

[tburnsten]

47. I haven't heard about even a single mass shooting by any militia

Christian or otherwise.

Let alone plural.

[russ1943]

50. Pause before posting.

At Kent State in 1970, 4 students protesting the invasion of Cambodia were killed and nine others wounded by members of the Ohio Natl Guard during a demonstration.

[tburnsten]

52. Hmm, 1970, Federalized National Guard,

not a militia anymore, since a militia in the U.S. cannot be a federal entity, since the main purpose of the militia is to counter Federal power if necessary.

Even so that was forty years ago. Nothing since. Not exactly a common occurence.

[tburnsten]

46. No one has a right to drive on public roads

It is a privilege, which you earn by getting a license, insuring your vehicle, registering your vehicle, and having your vehicle inspected.


Then you follow the rules of the road in order to avoid losing your insurance.

[defendandprotect]

39. So poor women should have government funded abortions?

[shadowrider]

30. Ignore my previous post

It's early, coffee is half gone, and I didn't read the entire thread before responding.

My bad.

[defendandprotect]

40. Don't know about insurance requirements, but they should have coverage if they have guns....

Anger management class requirements along with more in depth legal training for permits? The biggest threat to gun rights are more and more stories like this in the news. Public sentiment is the biggest driver of laws and court decisions.

Nice to see that "emotions" are acknowledged in this post --

If the guy had a few hours to think about it, would he still have shot someone?

Everyone is subject to emotions - anger -- look at what just a fight with you spouse can do

to your driving!

And, from what we see of the behavior of our elected officials and Supreme Court . . .

NO . . . "public sentiment is not driving these laws/decisions."

Rather right wing/corporate influences are driving our laws and legal decisions.

Based on the power of a dollar bill vs the power of the people.

[mvccd1000]

43. Re: everone is subject to emotions...

Exactly my point in making this post. There are hundreds of thousands of CCW holders. Every one of them is subject to emotions every day. After all of this time one of them foolishly let his emotions get the better of him and wounded another person.

Out of all of those hundreds out thousands, it's newsworthy when ONE PERSON has an incident. Kind of proves the point that the rest of them are not out there shooting people over parking places, doesn't it?

[defendandprotect]

44. Not yet ... but the potential is there ... Could there have been any flimsier an excuse ...

than this incident?

The point is that every day there are altercations in America between citizens

and arming them is no solution to spitting!

But insurance is something which should be required for every one carrying a gun.

It's your property -- if it accidentally or intentionally is used to do harm -- you

have to be responsible for it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. People already *are* responsible for what they do with guns

You are advocating prior restraint, and it is no more Constitutional that requiring a woman to undergo 'counseling'
befor obtaining an abortion.

[PavePusher]

51. Do you own matches?

Then you are a potential arsonist, and should be treated as such until you can prove otherwise... at your own expense, of course.

Come on, don't you want to be "responsible"?

[tburnsten]

48. There are actually millions of permit holders

Just sayin'