Well, Floriduh.So he was allowed to get another firearm after his probationary period?
I dunno. They’re awfully quiet when the good guy is not white.To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.
Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.
I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.
Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
Genius! "Your honor, I was not shooting at the person, I was shooting at his HAT! It's just a case of vandalism, not attempted murder.Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.
I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.
Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
Indeed. It's a senseless tragedy when people can't use their car to ram a Prius with someone inside without risking life and limb.Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.
I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.
Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.
I guess I am in wrong in thinking that a death caused by road rage would be viewed as a tragedy by any rational human being.Indeed. It's a senseless tragedy when people can't use their car to ram a Prius with someone inside without risking life and limb.Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.
I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.
In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.
BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.
Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.
We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.
What does it matter when a bad guy with a gun is a good thing for the NRA?I dunno. They’re awfully quiet when the good guy is not white.To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.
Shhhh! That’s the quiet part we’re not meant to notice much less say out loud.What does it matter when a bad guy with a gun is a good thing for the NRA?I dunno. They’re awfully quiet when the good guy is not white.To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.
I guess I am in wrong in thinking that a death caused by road rage would be viewed as a tragedy by any rational human being.
There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.
Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car.
Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.
Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.
There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.
Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car. Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.
Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.
Apparently it did not occur to you that it is possible that people who feel the need to have a gun in their car are more likely to engage in escalating behavior including cutting other driver's off?I guess I am in wrong in thinking that a death caused by road rage would be viewed as a tragedy by any rational human being.
There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.
*Insert obvious joke about whether or not Florida constitutes civilized society here*
Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.
Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".
Neither does yours. What is your point?Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car.
Your ignorance does not constitute an airtight argument.
No, it is an example of a Nazi sympathizer attacking people - not an example of road rage.Also, as a side note, is it your contention that the incident involving a car in Charlottesville plowing into pedestrians was due to the guy just being really bad at driving?
Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.
Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.
Victim-blaming the Prius for being there?
Really?
Please tell me that you aren't planning to make any arguments along the lines of "Look at the bumper-stickers the Prius was wearing, it was asking to be rammed!"
I am not employing your MO, so stop it.There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society. To me that suggests a someone is looking for trouble.
Moreover, I have never heard of a road rage incident where a driver went after a pedestrian with their car. Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.
Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.
Your inability to see a reason doesn't make it so.
There are more details here - Driver killer in road rage incident - the "pedestrian" was a driver of another car who left his vehicle to argue with the person who ended up killing him.As for never hearing of a car vs pedestrian road rage, first page of Google had:
Pedestrian killed in Santa Fe road rage incident
Police continue to investigate, and anyone with information on the crash is urged to call Detective Luke Wakefield at 505-955-5406.www.santafenewmexican.com
While there aren't many details note that they say "road rage" and "murder"--thus it was not an accident.
I'm going to go with Kuczwanski should never have been allowed to possess a firearm again and perhaps to never be allowed a driver's license again after the first incident. At the very least until he had been adequately cleared by a psychiatrist with the added required approval of a panel of mental health professionals. Guns and people with anger issues do not mix well. Neither do cars and people with anger issues. Doubling down by allowing people with proven in a court of law anger issues to possess firearms and to drive automobiles is really an accident looking to happen.
Apparently it did not occur to you that it is possible that people who feel the need to have a gun in their car are more likely to engage in escalating behavior including cutting other driver's off?Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.
Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".
I don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.
Which suggests to me that there the presence of the cars (notice the plural) ratchets up the rage.
Combining those together suggests to me that your and LP's interpretation may be unduly simplistic.
Victim-blaming the Prius for being there?
Really?
Please tell me that you aren't planning to make any arguments along the lines of "Look at the bumper-stickers the Prius was wearing, it was asking to be rammed!"
The point I was making is that it is possible that the firearms in these cars is indicative of people whose personalities are such that they more likely to engage in more aggressive behavior.
Nothing I said could have rationally been interpreted to mean that the Prius driver should not have defended himself.
There is no good reason for a civilian to drive around with a firearm in a car in civilized society.
Yes. This, but unironically.Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearmin a carin civilized society
Straw man notedApparently it did not occur to you that it is possible that people who feel the need to have a gun in their car are more likely to engage in escalating behavior including cutting other driver's off?Whatever one's opinion is on the societal status of Florida, the fact remains that the only reason that the person in the Prius lived in this encounter is that they had a gun in the car with them.
If they didn't have that gun, they would be dead or severely injured, either from the Director's gun or, even humoring the notion that the Director wouldn't have a gun in this alternate scenario, dead or severely injured by car impact. Also, odds are that we wouldn't be hearing about this story because odds of a hit-and-run occurring resulting in the BMW being long gone before police would arrive at the scene is likely.
Apparently wanting to remain alive in the event that one is dealing with a crazy driver who may or may not be armed constitutes "looking for trouble".
Nice victim blaming there. Without even any pretense of evidentiary support.
Like your straw man driven rants? LOLI don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.
Pro-Tip: If you are going to engage in evidence-free conjecture, at least take some time to make it interesting evidence-free conjecture……
There is no reason short of the zombie apocalypse to have a loaded firearm in a car. Even then, unless it's loaded with silver bullets - Oh, wait, that's for vampires. Sorry.Yes. This, but unironically.Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearmin a carin civilized society
Because having a gun to defend yourself in a society makes it less civilized and more (FIGHT TO THE DEATH).
I tend to think in most situations (FIGHT TO THE DEATH) is what civilization is here to cut down on as much as possible.