I guess there are other countries like this, but the United States has definitely become one in which you dare not confront someone lest you get shot for your trouble.TACOMA, Wash. -- Tacoma police hope the parents of a 2-year-old girl wounded in a road rage shooting can remember details to help them catch the shooter.
Police spokesman Mark Fulghum says investigators Monday only know that the suspect fled in an SUV, believed to be a black Ford Explorer.
The wounded girl was treated at Mary Bridge children's hospital for a wound in the thigh and is expected to recover.
Fulghum says she had been riding in a back seat car seat in a car driven by her father with her mother in the front passenger seat.
Fulghum says one car cut off another in traffic, hand gestures were exchanged and the driver of the SUV fired into the family's car.
What's your opinion? Are road rage incidents that turn violent with guns so rare that we need not worry about them? Or do you feel we're heading in the wrong direction as far as gun proliferation?
Please leave a comment.
I wonder; why is it that posts like this one do not get a lot of comments from folks who believe in totally unrestricted Type 2A rights?
ReplyDeletedemocommie: I wonder; why is it that posts like this one do not get a lot of comments from folks who believe in totally unrestricted Type 2A rights?
ReplyDeleteNothing has been proposed here to deal with the incident described. Make a specific proposal and I may respond.
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're referring to my comment or Mikeb's original post.
I think that this:
"What's your opinion? Are road rage incidents that turn violent with guns so rare that we need not worry about them? Or do you feel we're heading in the wrong direction as far as gun proliferation?"
Asks a question about looking at ways to limit the carnage.
My comment was actually about the seeming lack of interest in the post. Until I left my comment, there were none. Is that because a defense of the idiot who shot the little girl is a tough construct? Is it (the lack of comments) indicative that the 2A Types, the hard core, "...cold dead fingers" folks don't care, or that they actually know that there is NO defense for such actions and that the actor brings dishonor to their cause?
democommie: "Asks a question about looking at ways to limit the carnage."
ReplyDeleteI am all for looking at ways to limit the carnage, providing that they actually work and providing that they do not over-restrict the right of the law abiding to own guns. I welcome specifific proposals to deal with this particular case so that I may evaluate them with regard to my two criteria above.
democommie: "Is that because a defense of the idiot who shot the little girl is a tough construct?"
I don't defend him. Does anyone?
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDeleteI'm not falling into that trap. Any mention of any plan that in any way limits the way that weapons may be procured, stored or used is a magnet for some of the true knuckleheads who congregate here. Plus, I don't know what might work without being much better informed about the extant firearms laws in jurisdiction.
For a start I might posit that anyone who deliberately fires a handgun from one moving vehicle into another or at a pedestrian should lose their right to own weapons, their right to drive and their freedom for some number of years. Anyone who would shoot at a car with passengers in it, because they lost their temper is definitely not somebody I want to see armed. I think the "dangerous" part is pretty well established by the piece Mikeb30200 posted.
Do I see anyone defending the guy? No, I don't. I'm willing to bet that if the same incident had occurred and the victim was a male who was a "confirmed" mugger then, yes, a number of people would be defending the cowardly piece of shit who shot the girl--because they would say, then, that it was a DGU.
democommie:
ReplyDelete"For a start I might posit that anyone who deliberately fires a handgun from one moving vehicle into another or at a pedestrian should lose their right to own weapons, their right to drive and their freedom for some number of years. Anyone who would shoot at a car with passengers in it, because they lost their temper is definitely not somebody I want to see armed."
My initial take: No problem!
Was that so hard?
Right; now when I say that there are many well-respected psychiatric testing methodologies that would reveal if someone might have some sort of problem with anger (rage, actually) management and might prevent such a scenario from happening in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI agreed with your proposal #1 -- so you wish to proceed to a completely different proposal #2?
ReplyDeleteOK, but I am not sure what exactly you are proposing.
"psychiatric testing methodologies that...might prevent such a scenario from happening"
How, exactly?
It's too bad the pro-gun folks are so paranoid about governmental abuse because otherwise we could probably screen some of these people out. Incidents of road rage or domestic abuse which are not serious enough to result in arrest could be used to identify people who might be too risky to own guns. Someone, perhaps the local police, could review the cases reported to determine if disqualification for gun ownership is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "It's too bad the pro-gun folks are so paranoid about governmental abuse because otherwise we could probably screen some of these people out."
ReplyDeleteIt's not just "pro-gun folks." A national ID card has been proposed to deal with illegal immigration, but goes nowhere because many fear
"governmental abuse."
Mikeb; "Incidents of road rage or domestic abuse which are not serious enough to result in arrest could be used to identify people who might be too risky to own guns. Someone, perhaps the local police, could review the cases reported to determine if disqualification for gun ownership is appropriate."
It's not impossible to persuade me. I would like to know how many road rage shooters exhibited in advance specifically defined "warning" behavior (and perhaps if the specific shooter in this post did as well).
I would also like to know how many people exhibited in advance specifically defined "warning" behavior but never illegally shot at anyone.
FishyJay:
ReplyDeleteGlad you asked! Well, we could make it part of the process of buying a gun. I know how much a lot of pro gun rights folks are gonna say this is unnecessary, ineffective or unconstitutional but if that's the response to what, to many of us, think is responsible behavior then there's not much point in having a discussion.
Many pro-gun folks are big on law and order. They are happy to incarcerate people and build more prisons for violators--despite the fact that with many more people in prison than most countries (as a %age of population) this country is still demonstrably unsafe.
Making it more difficult (never can it be made impossible) for those folks who are unable to control their rage or psychologically unstable to procure firearms could be one way to limit the carnage.
democommie
Mikeb30200:
Has anyone else complained of a problem with commenting. For some reason, the verification process is out of whack and won't let me use my google account.
democommie:
ReplyDelete"Well, we could make it part of the process of buying a gun."
"Making it more difficult (never can it be made impossible) for those folks who are unable to control their rage or psychologically unstable to procure firearms could be one way to limit the carnage."
As I posted before, It's not impossible to persuade me. I would like to know how many road rage shooters exhibited in advance specifically defined "warning" behavior (and perhaps if the specific shooter in this post did as well).
I would also like to know how many people exhibited in advance specifically defined "warning" behavior but then never illegally shot at anyone.
FishyJay said, "I would also like to know how many people exhibited in advance specifically defined "warning" behavior but then never illegally shot at anyone."
ReplyDeleteGood one, my friend. You really gave me pause with that one. I suddenly realized I was looking at only one side of the argument, as I tend to do. Now I see you're absolutely right, because more people probably demonstrate those warning signs and never go over the line than those who do, it's not as simple as I thought.
Where does that leave us? If we disqualify people for certain things, some innocents will be unfairly included. Isn't the same true now of felons and wife-beaters? Some of them may have learned their lesson, which in fact is pointed out by pro-gun guys all the time. "If they're able to be set free, they should be able to own guns," they say.
I guess what I'm saying is we have to move the line in the other direction. More people have to be prohibited, even if it means some lose their rights unfairly. For the Common Good, we should try to identify those individuals most likely to repeat their bad behavior and ensure that they can't do it with guns.
Fishy Jay:
ReplyDeleteGood question.
I'll answer in two parts.
Part 1:
I don't know that there is any way to determine what the percentage of chance is that anyone involved in a road rage, or any other shooting incident has been identified as having rage control or other psych issues. I don't think there are any states that require any test in that regard prior to issuance of a ccw. That issue could be addressed in a number of ways.
Part 2:
Every state in the U.S., afaia, has established criteria for dui of alcohol. Those criteria vary from one state to another. Not all drunk drivers are involved in accidents or kill other drivers or pedestrians--yet we penalize those who are apprehended, to varying degrees. Ultimately, a drunk driver may lose his right to drive and his freedom--without having to kill someone by accident. We, as a society, accept that drunk drivers need to be dealt with, in order to ensure the safety of society at large.
The argument that usually ensues when one compares driving with gun ownership is that gun owners assert that driving is a privilege while gun ownership is a right. I don't see that distinction as being meaningful in this context. We place all sorts of limits on all sorts of activities that are deemed dangerous, in actuality or potentiality.
There are always folks who can figure out a legal dodge. In the case of arming people who have a propensity for violence and the inability to mediate their behavior the question may not be one of legality, but rather morality.
democommie: "That issue could be addressed in a number of ways."
ReplyDeleteI would withhold judgement until I examined the details of the "number of ways," but I would examine them carefully indeed.
democommie: "Not all drunk drivers are involved in accidents or kill other drivers or pedestrians--yet we penalize those who are apprehended, to varying degrees."
Likewise, I believe that there are non-felonious incidents of violence that should result in CCW revocation, and I believe that many states already do so.
Those who exhibit a propensity for rode rage through psychiatric testing would also have their driver’s licenses revoked/denied, correct? This isn’t just about gun owners, right?
ReplyDelete-TS
TS:
ReplyDeleteThose who exhibit road rage having their privilege to drive suspended or banned outright, depending on severity? no problem for me.
I would like to see how many road rage incidents involve folks with/without guns who do not attempt to use their vehicle as a weapon.
democommie: "Those who exhibit road rage having their privilege to drive suspended or banned outright, depending on severity? no problem for me."
ReplyDeleteAnd I would be amenable to a certain severity of road rage also being grounds for CCW permit revocation. Common ground?