• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Florida Man, Legislative Affairs Director for the State Board of Administration Shot Dead

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
John Kuczwanski, the Legislative Affairs Director for the State Board of Administration, was killed last week in what appeared to be a shootout during a road rage incident north of Tallahassee.

He got mad and started shooting at a guy in a Prius, knowing for a fact that people who drive a Prius are lib'rul tree hugging pacifist morons.
SURPRISE! The guy he was shooting at "stood his ground", pulled out a piece and blew his road raging ass away.

He was probably a little over-confident, having survived another road rage incident where he was arrested AT THE EXACT SAME INTERSECTION in 2014. Karma is a bitch.

Of course Kuczwanski’s wife, Rebekah Kuczwanski, said that her husband was a victim and confirmed he lost his life. She claimed that he was trapped and assassinated and was trying to escape the person shooting at him. But that's not the story that came from the investigation. The guy who shot him was released.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,933
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
He had previously been arrested for a road rage incident in 2014: https://tallahasseereports.com/2022...rrested-for-altercation-at-same-intersection/

Since the incident, TR has obtained an Arrest/Probable Cause Affidavit that indicates John Kuczwanski was arrested for “Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon without intent to Kill” on December 14, 2014. The affidavit indicates that the arrest was related to an incident that took place around 5 p.m. at the intersection of Thomasville Road and Bannerman Road.
According to the affidavit, a motorist called the Leon County Sheriff’s Office and reported that a “white heavy set male had pointed a small, black in color handgun with a mounted laser at him while stopped next to him at the intersection of Thomasville Road and Bannerman Road.”

Based on the information provided in the complaint, an officer was dispatched to a residence and found Mr. Kuczwanski in the driveway still in the drivers seat of his vehicle.
After questioning Kuczwanski, the officer verified that a weapon fitting the description provided in the complaint was in the vehicle. The officer indicated that probable cause existed to warrant an arrest.

Records indicate that Kuczwanski was sentenced to probation under the conditions that he remain arrest free, no contact with victims, and possess no firearms. He completed the terms of the probation on February 16, 2018.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
27,957
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
So he was allowed to get another firearm after his probationary period?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,186
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Clearly the BMW driver is an example of a bad guy with a gun while the Prius driver is an example of a good guy with a gun.

Of course, if neither had a gun, it is probable we'd have both sides of this incident.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,933
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".
No, it's dependent on the character of the person with a gun. But my point is that this incident does not prove that “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” is false. To prove that, you would need not only Kuczwanski to be a bad guy, but also the other guy to fail to be a good guy. But there is no good reason to think the other guy was not a good guy on the basis of the available info.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,186
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".
No, it's dependent on the character of the person with a gun. But my point is that this incident does not prove that “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” is false. To prove that, you would need not only Kuczwanski to be a bad guy, but also the other guy to fail to be a good guy. But there is no good reason to think the other guy was not a good guy on the basis of the available info.
Of course there is if one takes the position that good guys do not carry around guns unless it is their job.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,933
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".
No, it's dependent on the character of the person with a gun....
...when he is firing it. That threshold is very narrow.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,644
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
This wasn't a case of a good guy with a gun versus a bad guy with a gun as much as it was a case of defending oneself from a bad guy with a gun by having a gun yourself.
And while it is not false that if there were no guns then there would have been no shooting... it is more relevant to this situation that if there were no cars then there would have been no dispute in the first place. Isn't that a far better solution? No dispute, versus having a dispute and killing someone with some other means? I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".

The good news is that it has been a whole week and Mr Kuczwanski hasn't been involved in another road rage incident.

Gun Nut said:
I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.

But we already know what happens with bad guys with guns and horses...
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,933
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
This wasn't a case of a good guy with a gun versus a bad guy with a gun as much as it was a case of defending oneself from a bad guy with a gun by having a gun yourself.
And while it is not false that if there were no guns then there would have been no shooting... it is more relevant to this situation that if there were no cars then there would have been no dispute in the first place. Isn't that a far better solution? No dispute, versus having a dispute and killing someone with some other means? I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.
Dude, after Sandy Hook, the idea of ever getting gun reform was given up by us. You don't need to tell us this or that. Gun violence will remain an endemic problem in the US for a long time because the NRA won.

And no, cars being used as weapons is extraordinarily rare, typically just in Florida Man situations.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,186
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This wasn't a case of a good guy with a gun versus a bad guy with a gun as much as it was a case of defending oneself from a bad guy with a gun by having a gun yourself.
And while it is not false that if there were no guns then there would have been no shooting... it is more relevant to this situation that if there were no cars then there would have been no dispute in the first place. Isn't that a far better solution? No dispute, versus having a dispute and killing someone with some other means? I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.
Why stop there? If there had been no people, there would have been no dispute either. And, there would be disputes about gun control either. Solves even more problems.

The notion that people have to have a firearm while they are driving around is antithetical to a civilized society.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".
I thought it was dependent on which guy was white(r).
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,644
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
This wasn't a case of a good guy with a gun versus a bad guy with a gun as much as it was a case of defending oneself from a bad guy with a gun by having a gun yourself.
And while it is not false that if there were no guns then there would have been no shooting... it is more relevant to this situation that if there were no cars then there would have been no dispute in the first place. Isn't that a far better solution? No dispute, versus having a dispute and killing someone with some other means? I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.
Why stop there? If there had been no people, there would have been no dispute either. And, there would be disputes about gun control either. Solves even more problems.

The notion that people have to have a firearm while they are driving around is antithetical to a civilized society.
I don't disagree.. with either the slippery slope aspect of your first paragraph (the issue was they had a dispute that one of them felt should be resolved by the death of the other - not that there exists people, or cars, or tools for killing people)... nor with your second, that the idea that one must carry a gun to protect themselves from people whose solution to challenges is to kill the person posing the challenge, is more barbaric than civilized.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,644
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".

The good news is that it has been a whole week and Mr Kuczwanski hasn't been involved in another road rage incident.

Gun Nut said:
I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.

But we already know what happens with bad guys with guns and horses...
Great movies?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
article said:
The sources said the incident began after Kuczwanski’s BMW drifted out of its lane while heading north on Thomasville Road. That’s when the BMW hit a white Prius.

Both cars pulled into a parking lot. The driver of the Prius confronted Kuczwanski about hitting him, the sources said. The Prius’ driver then returned to his car to wait for law enforcement’s arrival after confronting Kuczwanski. That is when, according to Florida Politics’ sources, Kuczwanski rammed his BMW into the Prius on the driver’s door, and began pushing the car sideways in the parking lot.

Kuczwanski then shot a gun at the white Prius, according to the sources. The Prius driver drew a gun and fired back into the windshield of Kuczwanski’s BMW. Kuczwanski was hit and killed, according to the sources.
If that is accurate, I'm not certain how that could have ended any better for the dead person. He seemed to make several very poor decisions. And if true, proving that a "good guy with a gun" is a fallacy.
How is that a fallacy? You mean it's false? If so, how so? ETA: It is false, because sometimes a bad guy with a gun is stopped, say, by another bad guy with a gun. But I don't see how this incident proves it is false.
A "good guy" with a gun and a "bad guy" with a gun is dependent on who is shooting at who. Presumably, no one thought the guy who died was ever going to be a "bad guy with a gun".
No, it's dependent on the character of the person with a gun....
...when he is firing it. That threshold is very narrow.
No, not when he's firing it...though the character would not change like that. Regardless, assume for the sake of the argument that you are correct. It remains the case that this incident does not prove that “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” is false. To prove that, you would need not only Kuczwanski to be a bad guy, but also the other guy to fail to be a good guy. But there is no good reason to think the other guy was not a good guy on the basis of the available info.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.

This incident surely illustrates the insanity of such open and unfettered access to firearms.

I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

Toni said:
I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
Men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and has been so since before the US exists.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,307
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

Toni said:
I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
Men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and has been so since before the US exists.
well, before 1776, the available weapons were rather more limited in range/ accuracy/ guaranteed deadliness--and in the Renaissance, the big street weapon was swords.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

Toni said:
I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
Men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and has been so since before the US exists.
well, before 1776, the available weapons were rather more limited in range/ accuracy/ guaranteed deadliness--and in the Renaissance, the big street weapon was swords.

Sure you’re not biased by your username? 😜
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

Toni said:
I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
Men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and has been so since before the US exists.
well, before 1776, the available weapons were rather more limited in range/ accuracy/ guaranteed deadliness--and in the Renaissance, the big street weapon was swords.
Is it 1776 or 1787/89? In any case, inaccurate weapons are also a menace!

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

Toni said:
I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
Men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and has been so since before the US exists.
Do you or have you ever used firearms? I don’t think you have any idea just how dangerous that incident was. There should never have been a circumstance where two men had the opportunity to fire guns at each other in traffic. It is insane to think this is ok just because the ‘right’ guy got hit. Clearly one was the first aggressor. It’s hard to argue that he didn’t deserve what happened—except that expert marksmen sometimes miss their marks. There were other people around. It is entirely possible that others experienced serious trauma during this incident.

Also: I don’t think you understand sarcasm or irony.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.
Why?
Why is it out of place? Because it was not an emergency but something that has happened always in the US.

(additionally, it's not even related to the thread).
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,186
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.
Why?
Why is it out of place? Because it was not an emergency but something that has happened always in the US.
I see, you missed Toni’s point.
(additionally, it's not even related to the thread).
You are mistaken.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.
Why?
Why is it out of place? Because it was not an emergency but something that has happened always in the US.

(additionally, it's not even related to the thread).
You keep missing the point of the comment I wrote in the first place.

Of course men, women and children of every color and complexion and ethnicity are killed on the streets of America every day.

It didn’t matter that an elementary school was shot up, and six year olds were killed in their school. No reason to reconsider gun access.

It didn’t matter when a concert or a movie theater were shot up.

Lord knows nobody gives a fuck about murdered women.

People right here on this forum have suggested that black drug dealers shooting each other is no big deal.

Maybe middle class white guys shooting out over some road rage will wake people up.

But I’m not holding my breath.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This wasn't a case of a good guy with a gun versus a bad guy with a gun as much as it was a case of defending oneself from a bad guy with a gun by having a gun yourself.
And while it is not false that if there were no guns then there would have been no shooting... it is more relevant to this situation that if there were no cars then there would have been no dispute in the first place. Isn't that a far better solution? No dispute, versus having a dispute and killing someone with some other means? I vote no cars... solves far more problems and saves far more lives.

And note that without guns being involved the lethal force threshold was already crossed.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Do you or have you ever used firearms? I don’t think you have any idea just how dangerous that incident was. There should never have been a circumstance where two men had the opportunity to fire guns at each other in traffic. It is insane to think this is ok just because the ‘right’ guy got hit. Clearly one was the first aggressor. It’s hard to argue that he didn’t deserve what happened—except that expert marksmen sometimes miss their marks. There were other people around. It is entirely possible that others experienced serious trauma during this incident.

Also: I don’t think you understand sarcasm or irony.

So you prefer the outcome with no guns but the good guy dead and the bad guy in jail for murder?

Because he was already using his car as a weapon. Big car vs little car, the big car is going to win.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Do you or have you ever used firearms? I don’t think you have any idea just how dangerous that incident was. There should never have been a circumstance where two men had the opportunity to fire guns at each other in traffic. It is insane to think this is ok just because the ‘right’ guy got hit. Clearly one was the first aggressor. It’s hard to argue that he didn’t deserve what happened—except that expert marksmen sometimes miss their marks. There were other people around. It is entirely possible that others experienced serious trauma during this incident.

Also: I don’t think you understand sarcasm or irony.

So you prefer the outcome with no guns but the good guy dead and the bad guy in jail for murder?

Because he was already using his car as a weapon. Big car vs little car, the big car is going to win.
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.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It’s fun to root for the guy in the Prius just because he was driving a Prius. It’s not much fun to think of the convergence of societal trends that collided in this incident.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.
Why?
Why is it out of place? Because it was not an emergency but something that has happened always in the US.
I see, you missed Toni’s point.
(additionally, it's not even related to the thread).
You are mistaken.
No, I did not miss it. She brought up racism when the incident was not at all related.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Toni said:
It didn’t matter that an elementary school was shot up, and six year olds were killed in their school. No reason to reconsider gun access.
It did matter to some people. It did not matter to others. And among those to whom it did matter, there was disagreement about whether reducing gun access would be overall better or worse. Demonizing one's opponents is easy, but it usually leads to false assessments.

Toni said:
It didn’t matter when a concert or a movie theater were shot up.
It did matter to some people. It did not matter to others. And among those to whom it did matter, there was disagreement about whether reducing gun access would be overall better or worse. Demonizing one's opponents is easy, but it usually leads to false assessments.

Toni said:
Lord knows nobody gives a fuck about murdered women.
Lord does not exist. However, of course many people care about murdered women. Demonizing one's opponents is easy, but it usually leads to false assessments.

Toni said:
People right here on this forum have suggested that black drug dealers shooting each other is no big deal.
Did they suggest that? Or did they suggest that drug dealers shooting each other is not a big deal? I do not know, so do you have a link please?

While it is true ' black drug dealers shooting each other is not a big deal' logically follows from ' drug dealers shooting each other is not a big deal', but in context, the addition of 'black' amounts to an accusation of racism that is...a way of demonizing one's opponent, regardless of what they say.

Toni said:
Maybe middle class white guys shooting out over some road rage will wake people up.
First, again the addition of 'white'. Maybe these two were not both white. But it doesn't matter; the point is that you bring race up.

Second, you say

Toni said:
This incident surely illustrates the insanity of such open and unfettered access to firearms.

I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
But if you read what your usual opponents on the matter or generally gun rights advocates generally say, you would not think they generally will be persuaded by that at all.


Third, again, this has happened since America exists (and before), and that surely did not convince any of the above, there is no good reason to even suspect this might.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Toni said:
It didn’t matter that an elementary school was shot up, and six year olds were killed in their school. No reason to reconsider gun access.
It did matter to some people. It did not matter to others. And among those to whom it did matter, there was disagreement about whether reducing gun access would be overall better or worse. Demonizing one's opponents is easy, but it usually leads to false assessments.

Toni said:
It didn’t matter when a concert or a movie theater were shot up.
It did matter to some people. It did not matter to others. And among those to whom it did matter, there was disagreement about whether reducing gun access would be overall better or worse. Demonizing one's opponents is easy, but it usually leads to false assessments.

Toni said:
Lord knows nobody gives a fuck about murdered women.
Lord does not exist. However, of course many people care about murdered women. Demonizing one's opponents is easy, but it usually leads to false assessments.

Toni said:
People right here on this forum have suggested that black drug dealers shooting each other is no big deal.
Did they suggest that? Or did they suggest that drug dealers shooting each other is not a big deal? I do not know, so do you have a link please?

While it is true ' black drug dealers shooting each other is not a big deal' logically follows from ' drug dealers shooting each other is not a big deal', but in context, the addition of 'black' amounts to an accusation of racism that is...a way of demonizing one's opponent, regardless of what they say.

Toni said:
Maybe middle class white guys shooting out over some road rage will wake people up.
First, again the addition of 'white'. Maybe these two were not both white. But it doesn't matter; the point is that you bring race up.

Second, you say

Toni said:
This incident surely illustrates the insanity of such open and unfettered access to firearms.

I mean, white men are getting shot at in public streets! This is an emergency!
But if you read what your usual opponents on the matter or generally gun rights advocates generally say, you would not think they generally will be persuaded by that at all.


Third, again, this has happened since America exists (and before), and that surely did not convince any of the above, there is no good reason to even suspect this might.
I don't know. A lot of people change their minds when they think an issue might negatively impact them or their lives. Which is why I wrote what I did.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
13,041
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I did not know road rage was still popular in US.
Could be Covid related, at least indirectly.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,394
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I did not know road rage was still popular in US.
Could be Covid related, at least indirectly.
It's quite common and has been for a long time; if you're curious there are some grim statistics here:
https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/road-rage-statistics/
https://everytownresearch.org/reports-of-road-rage-shootings-are-on-the-rise/

Not only are road rage incidents becoming more common, the guns are coming out more often, too. Apparently Florida saw 147 road rage cases involving a firearm between 2014 and 2016. I'd rag on them some more, but my own state isn't doing that much better.

I was stopped on the Altamont Pass in heavy traffic once, and witnessed an enraged fellow punch in the window of a car two lanes over after a fender bender had dented his. Apparently with his bare hands, which I didn't think was possible? Certainly not recommended. I hate commuting.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It will take some time, but eventually self-driving cars will mitigate this problem.

Or at least allow the initiator of violence to use both hands on his Glock. If he had hit his target the first time we wouldn’t have this controversy over who started it.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,186
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.
Why?
Why is it out of place? Because it was not an emergency but something that has happened always in the US.
I see, you missed Toni’s point.
(additionally, it's not even related to the thread).
You are mistaken.
No, I did not miss it. She brought up racism when the incident was not at all related.
You are mistaken.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,644
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.


I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.
Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.
Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc. Even if unprosecuted, there would at the least be a civil liability.

I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,384
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'm still taken aback by the fact that they let that moron posess a gun after the first incident.
And appointed director of legislative affairs, for that matter. Was he really the best candidate they could find?
He's a Republican in Florida. This probably sealed the deal for him, actually. I'd be surprised if shooting someone over a traffic incident while white were not practically a prerequisite.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Gun Nut said:
Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.
I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.


Gun Nut said:
I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips
It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others :( I really dislike the new forum software. :mad:
 
Top Bottom