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

[Angra Mainyu]

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]

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]

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 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]

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 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]

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 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]

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 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]

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 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.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

I did not know road rage was still popular in US.
Could be Covid related, at least indirectly.